Nikon Convert Seeking Some Advice.

[srcinematic]

So I am a 7 year user of Nikon, I had invested into a lot of nice glass, and truth be told, I loved a lot of aspects of my Nikon gear, but over the years I have started to do a more video, and less photography. I finally cracked and decided to get the 5D Mark III because of its insane low light capabilities, and because of the clear dedication canon has to making DSLR's that can produce brilliant looking video.

So I am selling all my nikon glass since I need AF still for weddings.

Now... The dilema....

I am planning on getting a 85mm 1.8, a 50mm 1.4, but I cant decide which wide lens to get for when I am using a Glidecam or for landscapes. I am interested in the 20mm 2.8 because of the aperture, and the 17-40mm f/4 because of the extra wide end of the lens and a little more versatility. I know a lot will say that I should do the 16-35mm f/2.8 since it has both a wide aperture, and the wide end of the lens, but unless I some one can give me compelling reasons why I should spend an additional $800 for the lens I don't know if its an option.

[wickidwombat]

if you are doing mostly video you would be better looking at the samyang 35 f1.4 and the 85 f1.4 they are MF only but have a cult following and produce outstanding results, also very cheap compared to canon glass however they are only MF

[Jim Saunders]

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 seems to perform a lot better than the Canon one for not a lot more money.

Jim

[sanj]

Yes, as pointed out earlier, manual focus lenses the best way to go for video.

[weekendshooter]

if you're really serious about video then you'd be much better served with a micro 4/3 GH2 or GH3, as they offer far superior codecs to anything that canon offers, short of the C300. The 5D3 is a good choice if you're evenly split between stills and video, but if you're getting paid mostly through video then you should have a look at what the smaller sensors are doing - it's quite incredible.

[sammydavisjrjr]

I would say the 17-40 is a great choice if you are doing landscapes and glidecam with it. Its a really light lens which is nice for smaller glidecams and help counteract the odd weight distrubution of the dlsr. I also would assume with landscapes you would be shooting f8-f11 anyways. Also, for the difference you would be spending you could easily buy a rokinon 24 1.4 or 14 2.8.

The sigma 85mm is awesome and I think its the best compromise for those that shoot both photo and video.
If you compare both canons(1.2 and 1., the sigma and the rokinon each has its strengths.

Rokinon is also nice and has the best focusing ring for video but no af for photo. however, That doesn't bother me too much as the af sucked so much on the mark 2 that I just shot everything mf even when i got the mark 3.

The 85 1.2 is amazing but the focusing ring is not. It just feels too loose to use for video imo.

The canon 85 1.8 is a good lens, great for the money but I love the look of the Sigma. Really nice creamy backgrounds, great colors, and pretty sharp at 1.4. I know its not a full stop gain over the 1.8 but sometimes can make the difference between an iso bump. In low light high iso, shadow noise can still be pretty apparent, especial when the camera is moving.

Th sigma 50 is also really great but I also prefer a 35/85 prime combo than 50/85. Im pretty excited for the simga 35, but the rokinon had served me very well for the money.

[bvukich]

The 85 1.2 is amazing but the focusing ring is not. It just feels too loose to use for video imo.

The 85/1.2 is focus by wire, that should immediately exclude it from video usage where you may need to do reliable focus pulls.

[symmar22]

I would pass on the 20mm f2.8, it's a very old lens, with very average IQ; it's one of the lenses Canon should upgrade soon. IQ difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 is not so big, it's mainly about the extra F stop. By choosing the 17-40mm over the 20mm f2.8, you get a better built quality, better IQ at 20mmm and the extended zooming range. The only thing you loose is the extra stop. The 20mm 2.8 is not at all a small lens, it weights only 95g (about 3 ounces) less than the 17-40mm. You can have an idea here :

20mm vs 17-40mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=244&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

16-35mm vs 17-40mm :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=4&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

The 17-40, is one of Canon's best bargains (with the 200 f2.8 II), but if you need 2.8, then I would spend the extra money on the 16-35mm instead of the 20mm f.2.8.

The 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2 are excellent as well, you cannot go wrong with them.

The 85mm f1.2 is a no go for me, despite the stellar optics, the size, weight, slow AF and manual focus by wire make it a too specialized lens (not even talking about the price difference).

[NormanBates]

check this out:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html#prime

[mrsfotografie]

FWIW I absolutely love my Sigma 20 mm f/1.8. It is a vastly underrated lens, IMHO. It has solid build, and works marvellously as a MF lens with *optional* AF built in This is one of my 'fun' lenses and I find I'm using it more and more.

[srcinematic]

I would pass on the 20mm f2.8, it's a very old lens.

Good to know. I have heard some mixed reviews on the 20mm. I am thinking I would probably go with the 17-40mm since its such good bang for your buck.

Although a couple comments have gotten me curious about the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 since its so inexpensive and has such good optics. To be honest if i am shooting video I am always using MF and if I am shooting landscapes, I have a tripod and could manual focus just as easily.

Thanks for your replies.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I would pass on the 20mm f2.8, it's a very old lens.

Good to know. I have heard some mixed reviews on the 20mm. I am thinking I would probably go with the 17-40mm since its such good bang for your buck.

Although a couple comments have gotten me curious about the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 since its so inexpensive and has such good optics. To be honest if i am shooting video I am always using MF and if I am shooting landscapes, I have a tripod and could manual focus just as easily.

Thanks for your replies.

Since you are looking for wide and low cost with both AF and Video, the 17-40L is very good and excellent when stopped down.  Most video users prefer the shallow depth of field that FF gives, in which case, the 24mm f/1.4 would be wonderful, but its pricey.
 

[mrsfotografie]

I would pass on the 20mm f2.8, it's a very old lens.

Although a couple comments have gotten me curious about the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 since its so inexpensive and has such good optics. To be honest if i am shooting video I am always using MF and if I am shooting landscapes, I have a tripod and could manual focus just as easily.

Thanks for your replies.

Be careful, 14 mm is *really wide*. A 20 or 24 mm might be more versatile. By the way, the Rokinon is actually nothing more than a rebranded Samyang lens

[ud4steve]

I have a 17-40 and it is a great lens.  It is light and has a great focal range with very reasonable distortion.  It's the lens I leave on my camera most of the time.  When you add in the ISO capabilities of the 5D3 I would say the extra money isn't worth it for the 16-35.  As an added benefit if you add a UV filter it's also weather sealed.

[bycostello]

if you are doing mostly video you would be better looking at the samyang 35 f1.4 and the 85 f1.4 they are MF only but have a cult following and produce outstanding results, also very cheap compared to canon glass however they are only MF

+1