Your Choices for 3 Lenses

J

jrod81

Veteran
Going with the 60D and wanting to see if you guys agree with these 3 lens choices:
1. Tamron 17-50mm VC w/ 2.8 constant
2. Tokina 11-16mm w/ 2.8 constant
3. Well, I don't have a third... don't I need a 35mm in order for it to shoot like a 50mm? Is there any need for that if I get that Tamron that has that range? Perhaps for a faster lens like a 2.0?
Make suggestions
 
many things... sometimes documentaries, sometimes commercials, sometimes weddings, sometimes narrative
 
jrod81 said:
Going with the 60D and wanting to see if you guys agree with these 3 lens choices:
1. Tamron 17-50mm VC w/ 2.8 constant
2. Tokina 11-16mm w/ 2.8 constant
3. Well, I don't have a third... don't I need a 35mm in order for it to shoot like a 50mm? Is there any need for that if I get that Tamron that has that range? Perhaps for a faster lens like a 2.0?
Make suggestions
Click to expand...

Have been researching the very same question as you...(Given I already have the 70-200mm f/4)

The ones you've mentioned are thought of highly in most threads/forums/reviews you read (particularly the Tokina)

I think the issue many of us have is a realisation that it is likely within 3 years Canon will bring out a whole new generation of DSLR's....and maybe full frame will be something we'll convert to.

Really the only other combinations I'm thinking of are:

Option 2:

1.) Canon EFS 17-55 2.8 IS (Highly regarded apart from possibly build quality, dust sucking and lack of red ring..also more expensive)
2.) Tokina 11-16 or canon 10-22 (Canon has a more useful range....but doesn't have the constant aperture.)

Option 3:
1.) Canon 24-70 L 2.8
2.) Canon EFS 10-22

Option 3 has the advantage of an L lens that will work on anything you are likely to buy for a long time..(there are whispers of an upgrade to this LENS coming though...so maybe the Tamron is really fine for now.)


The other 2 kinds of lenses that I think would be usefull: (in terms of building an all purpose/cover most bases kit)

1.) Extreme depth of field 50mm lens such as the cheap 1.8 (or the other more expensive alternatives.) I currently have the 1.8...it is an absolute bargain for what it is.
2.) A macro lens at about 100mm....Blooms "Clock" video was fairly inspiring in this regard.. http://philipbloom.net/films/timelapse-films/clock/

Macro lens options are the 100mm L lens (expensive but loved by all)..or the cheaper Canon 100mm macro or maybe even the 100mm Tokina macro.

You also haven't mentioned a larger zoom lens...my Canon f/4 L 70-200 has served me very well...obviously the bigger brother 70-200mm Canons are better again....but you start looking at some serious coin for those...

Thanks for the post....will be very interested in the responses....
 
I'd throw in a vote for the Canon 24-105 f/4. Yes it's an f/4, but we absolutely LOVED that lens on The Jones' set. We ended up trying out a few lenses for that shoot, and that was my favorite. Granted, this is comparing it to the kit lens, and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 is a great lens, but we were finding it soft more than we liked. If I had the money, I'd buy the 24-105 tomorrow. But that's me.

Check out a few of the lenses mentioned (or those about to be mentioned by others) at a local camera shop. See how much it would cost to rent them for a day. I'd rather pay $70 to rent a lens for a weekend and KNOW if I loved it or not.
 
the tokina 11-16 and the tamron 17-50 are great... if you choose the non-VC version for the tamron, that is

the tamron 17-50 VC is much worse than the non-VC version:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

in fact, if you can live with a slower lens with very poor build quality and an awful focusing ring, even the kit lens can be better than the tamron 17-50 VC, depending on the settings:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=455&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=3&API=3
(ok, those are some serious drawbacks, but the kit lens is almost free...)

on the other hand, the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC is, for example, way better than the canon 17-40 L F/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
(and yes, even though this lens is kind of cheap for an L, that's an L there)
(the tamron won't work on full-frame, though)
 
Last edited:
For wedding work, the two lenses you listed will be great, but you will need at least two more and not just one more lens, at least for wedding work. With your first two choices you are missing a fast lens and a long lens, but you can get one of each without breaking the bank.

For a long lens I really like the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/ 3.5. You can find it with a Nikon mount for around $100 on Ebay. This lens is great for getting tighter shots during the ceremony, but at f/3.5, it fall short for darker receptions.

For a fast lens, you have several choices, all without breaking the bank. I would look at vintage lenses again, because they were designed to manually focus, are built like a tank, give an incredible look and are affordable. Nikon 50mm 1.4 runs around $100-150. This is a great speed for low light, but the focal length is sometimes not wide enough of not telephoto enough, but at $100-150, it's a great lens and I like it much better than the Canon nifty-fifty. If you really need to watch your budget, you could look at the Helios 44, a 58mm 2.0 and you can find those for $25-50.

Another great fast lens is in the 85mm 1.4 range. 85mm is a great range for getting close shots during the special dances, or candids from a distance in low light. You could even use it for tighter shots during a low light ceremony. Three lenses to look at are the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 (about $250) Nikon 85mm 1.4, 1.8 or 2.0 (Ebay $250-500) Zeiss Planar T 85mm 1.5 (Ebay $500-700)

Since you already have the wide end covered with your first two choices, the only wide lens you may want to look at is something faster. I have heard good things about the Sigma 20mm or 30mm 1.4, but I do not have personal experience with wither one of those lenses.

So you could add a tele zoom and a fast lens for as little as $200 on Ebay, which sounds much better to me than spending $1200-2400 on a Canon 70-200 L Series, at least for wedding work.

We use vintage lenses almost exclusively on our wedding shoots. The exception being the Tokina 11-16. You can see examples on our Vimeo page within my signiture.
 
Hawk Teflon said:
Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 is a great lens, but we were finding it soft more than we liked.
Click to expand...

Yeah? You know the few times I have rented it for shoots I find it noticeably soft (especially wide open) and the need to stop down to 5.6 or so for it to sharpen up nicely. I'm aware that all lenses tend to work better in the middle f-stops but for a highly regarded Canon L lens it just seems too soft. Duno, maybe it's just me...
 
Depending on budget.

Go for tokina 11-16mm ( I wouldn't buy any other crop lens except this one)
Go for the best lenses you can get your hands on. If you don't have a lot of money you can get you feet wet with the 50mm 1.8 for $99.00 Canon


I own
11-16mm Tokina - love it
28 1.8 EF Canon - not sharp enough but a fast lens. Close to a stadard lens in terms of focal length
50mm 1.8 EF - Sharp sharp , but cheaply built. Quite honestly you won't be able to use this much with a follow focus. But if you're broke this looks great. Kind of telephoto so watch out.
85mm 1.8 Canon EF - Sharp, fast, focus ring is look with no hard stop. Happy for now but will sell in the future.
18-55mm EF-S Kit lens (piece of crap but has got me by) This came with a Rebel I bought years ago. Don't recommend this at all. Only reason I have it is to have a zoom.

What I plan to buy
24mm 1.4L Canon - one of the best lenses I've seen period. Beautiful images
16-35mm 2.8L - other range of the zoom
24-70mm 2.8L - this will replace my cheap zoom
35mm 1.4L Canon - another great lens, softer than 24mm though
70-200mm 2.8 IS L Canon - expensive expensive
28mm 1.8 Zeiss Nikon Mount

I might also change my mind and just go fully Nikon mount (since this will have full manual control of aperture and will be able to mount.. obviously Nikkons. ) Nikkors are also a great option to think about.
 
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 - own it, love it
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non vc) - as above
You'll need a long lens - the older canon L series 100-300 f4-5.6 is a great lens if you're short of cash (and can track one down). If you have the money though, the 70-200 f2.8L IS mkII is just amazing. One last vote - if you're looking for a fast prime and razor thin dof, then the canon 50mm f1.4 is great value for money.

my 02
 
I have pretty much the entire range of lenses. Here's the 3 I use the most

1) 17-55 Canon 2.8. It's better than the Tamron VC 17-50. The Tamron lens is very weak mechanically, though the image is good for video. The Canon is better, but much more expensive
2) 70-200 L Canon f2.8 with IS. This is a great lens for distance and portraits.
3) the 100mm L Macro f28. I use this lens A LOT. Its a great portrait lens, and plus the ability to get close is invaluable.

The Tamron 11-16 is good, but I don't use it that much. Those are the 3 I use the most. I do love the 50mm f1.4 because you can get super shallow DOF with it. It's a great lens.
 
William_Robinette said:
Yeah? You know the few times I have rented it for shoots I find it noticeably soft (especially wide open) and the need to stop down to 5.6 or so for it to sharpen up nicely. I'm aware that all lenses tend to work better in the middle f-stops but for a highly regarded Canon L lens it just seems too soft. Duno, maybe it's just me...
Click to expand...

It's the luck of the draw. You have to keep exchanging Canon lenses until you get a sharp copy.
 
I had a 16-50 and sold it. I found that 24-70 was a more useful range. I got the sigma 24-70 f2.8 (not the macro one). You will also need a fast prime. Like 50mm f1.4

I have found I can cover 80% of my need with those lenses.
 
Its puzzling when talking DSLR lenses not being sharp enough is often mentioned but when talk of camera settings sharpness right down is often quoted,anyway if a lens cant equal 2k video in daylight it must be made with pretty poor glass.
 
Best lens I ever purchased for my narrative work in the Sigma 30mm F1.4. EVERY person who I know personally and work with that has used this lens love it. We use this lens 85% of the time on every shot because it just looks that damn good, and the focal length is very pleasing. I cannot recommend it enough.

I also use the 11-16mm Tokina and it is great as well, but more of a special purpose lens since it is so wide. We do use it, but not has much as the 30mm.

We also use the 7D kit lens somewhat, and 85mm Bower lens, and a handful of other lens. But, they get one off uses (like our 300mm lens) and are not always brought with us.
 
after having the tamron 17-50 the tokina 11-16.. which are great.. I say save yout money and get the 70-200 is. and fast Primes.. all at least 1.4 but 1.2 is great....stick with canon lenses if you can afford it
they are sharp. Nikon lenses are very sharp as well
 
Really, in all honesty, because of the technical additions like a constant and low aperture of 2.8, a range like 70-200mm, and the miracle of a feature called IS, there's really no backing out of getting a lens like the Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS L II (or the same-priced Nikon version), if you do work like weddings, sports, and purposes like that. There's just no alternative IMO, any lens cheaper than that either doesn't have IS, doesn't have a low or constant aperture, or doesn't have a good range, and you'll find yourself needing all of that in exact form. I think the II version costs $2,000 and the I version costs $1,500. The reality is that while this is expensive, your camera was probably just as much and you'll find out very quickly that the lens is just as important in it's features as the camera itself, and the one I just mentioned is one of the few that truly all around works like a lens is supposed to for video work. Too many people buy it because the store clerks tell them to, but beyond being a big as hell, there's really nothing a lens like that doesn't do.

Then, the only other lens you need is a 18-55 2.8 IS, which Canon or Sigma (who's version of this lens is slightly sharper at 2.8) sells for not a easy price, but again, to get this entire type of package, you'll be spending just as much on multiple lenses. It's really the truth!

Thing to do is go to your local lens rental shop, rent the two lenses I just mentioned (and any others you may like), and just see how they work for you. Out on the market, there's literally thousands of combinations, but those combinations are both worrisome, cause you to buy 10 lenses instead of 2, and would probably end up costing you more than the lenses above. If you're serious about zoom photography and videography, like weddings, I'd say that there's literally no other route to effectively choose. Especially concerning the IS and aperture route, which is truly required in DSLR filmmaking IMO, stabalization rigs or not. If you buy smart, and possibly buy used, you should probably be able to get these two lenses above for a grand total of $2,500. 60D is $1,000. So respectively, you pretty much gotta throw in $3,500 before these cameras turn into professional cameras that are filled with ease and ability for every purpose you'll face.

Or, if you want me to be honest, use a $500 1080P camcorder to film certain scenes of sports and weddings, it's the same exact thing as having all the equipment I just mentioned and it actually works better for the purpose. You won't need depth of field for work like that, what you need is sharpness, and that's exactly what camcorders have. Blend that with 50mm 1.8 footage from the DSLR for the narrative and artistic aspects or simply use the camcorder's natural 1.8 lens combined with a small ND filter for your interviews too, and you'll both have a ball and the viewer really wouldn't tell the difference.

A great example is this video, where, although whoever did the camcorder video sucked at videography (the main difference), thus making the DSLR footage look "better", the camcorder oftentimes looks better for the purpose and shows the possibilities of one as well. Using a camcorder actually seems to look much better for large cathedral work for instance, where you can really pick up the architecture designs along with the subject of the shot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7EytbTXuSY
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top