Best lens for video

[JR]

Hey guys, I have a 5D mk II and while I love it for pictures, I am struggling to get good video out of it.  I currently only have a 50 1.2 L and a 85 1.2 mk II L lens.  All my video show too much movement.  Without getting into a full blown prof. setup, should I buy the 24-105 L IS lens instead for video?  Does the IS really help to get more stable video?  I was also considering getting the 24 II 1.4 L ...

Option 1:
-Get a monopod - done
-Buy the 24-105 L IS lens

Option 2:
- Buy a tripod with a video head - this is less flexible in terms of taking video on the spot...

Option 3:
- Invest in a redrock type rig (though I still think I would need a new IS lens for this one)...

The more practical option I see is option 1, but would it yeild better video?  Should I just use the monopod with my existing lens?

Thanks in advance for all the response.

JR

[thejoyofsobe]

Yes, IS does make a world of difference for handheld video, especially at longer focal lengths.

3 minute mark starts the real test
http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom#p/search/2/S-ARFgNCeAo

As a 24-105mm owner, albeit on a crop body, it's great for video though you're not going to get that great shallow depth of field at f/4 but with the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 you've probably got that covered. on a full-frame IS would probably have an even greater benefit as the perceived effectiveness of IS depends on focal length.

don't know enough to say the 24-105mm is the best IS lens for video but I like it a lot. I would imagine a 70-200mm IS would also be just as good, if not better with newer IS systems, but it's obviously a different range of focal lengths.

[JR]

Thanks for the input.  The video in your link was actually VERY convincing!  I think my first step is simple:  I will buy the 24-105L IS which I can even use with or without my monopod and that should be sufficient for my use for now.  Thanks again!

[NormanBates]

@5tu on twit live: "Tripods are like pants — you use them because you have respect for yourself."

so yes, IS will help a lot, but sticks are much better

on my APS-C camera and without IS, I can get reasonably stable footage handheld with a 35mm, on ultra-cheap shoulder support with a 90mm, on cheap sticks and cheap fluid head with a 180mm; on a good tripod, 300mm should be a breeze

but every one of those requires practice too

if you don't want to shell out for a zacuto or redrockmicro rig for a start, you can try one of the cheaper rigs
http://cheesycam.com/latest-mini-shooter-rigs/
http://cheesycam.com/fancier-new-small-camera-shoulder-rig-counterweight/
http://cheesycam.com/mini-video-camera-rig/
http://cheesycam.com/unusual-video-rig-stabilizer/

also, if you want some starter tips on shooting video, read nofimlschool's DSLR guide:
http://nofilmschool.com/dslr/

edit: and if you like it, consider helping the guy get his freature film crowdfunded (the kickstarter campaing ends tomorrow night, and has raised $102.000 out of a $115.000 goal)
http://nofilmschool.com/manchild

[jvirta]

IS can help on shooting video, but if you are going to use the recorded audio too, you really have buy a external microphone as the 5D mkII's mic is recording the IS noises... External mic is not that huge of an investment thou.

[JR]

Yeah makes sense on the audio microphone jvirta.  Norman you are right that stick do make a huge difference as well.  I just tried my monopod (not even a tripod) with my 50mm 1.2 L and it made a huge improvements!  I can only imagine a tripod with a video head doing even better.  And then IS would be the cherry on the cake!

[leGreve]

What are you filming? Really depends on that as well... Stablization will help a great deal, but I would never exchange those two lenses you have with a 24-105.

Look up shoulder mount options if you're doing run and gun videoing, and tripod if you're doing landscape / scenery shots. The only time I would even consider changing to an IS lens like the 24-105, is if I was doing handheld, and then my question would be why you didn't just get a consumer camcorder instead.

Sound... it's bad, but I don't take it you're doing paid jobs, so get a Rode Videomic Pro, great mic for the money. Just don't get the stereo unless you want to record everything incl. your own breathing. Stereo mics NEVER go on camera....

[JR]

I have two main use for video. The first is family video - I have a 18 month old baby girl and she moves a lot!  Even if I take them inside, she moves so much that using only a tripod solution might be challenging. Hence why I was considering the IS lens.  My second use will be for travelling.  When I travel I also bring a monopod (lighter than a tripod). 

[thejoyofsobe]

something to keep in mind if you do get the 24-105mm. while it's not parfocal, if you zoom to 105mm and focus then your subject will be pretty close to be in focus at all smaller focal lengths. while i'm sure there are more demanding eyes i find it sufficient enough to focus on my subject at 105mm and then zoom out and in as much as I like without refocusing.

[Jedifarce]

Hey guys, I have a 5D mk II and while I love it for pictures, I am struggling to get good video out of it.  I currently only have a 50 1.2 L and a 85 1.2 mk II L lens.  All my video show too much movement.  Without getting into a full blown prof. setup, should I buy the 24-105 L IS lens instead for video?  Does the IS really help to get more stable video?  I was also considering getting the 24 II 1.4 L ...

Option 1:
-Get a monopod - done
-Buy the 24-105 L IS lens

Option 2:
- Buy a tripod with a video head - this is less flexible in terms of taking video on the spot...

Option 3:
- Invest in a redrock type rig (though I still think I would need a new IS lens for this one)...

The more practical option I see is option 1, but would it yeild better video?  Should I just use the monopod with my existing lens?

Thanks in advance for all the response.

JR

There's no substitute for IS, it's pretty much a must have for doing video. I have both the 24-105mm L IS USM F/4 and 70-200mm L IS USM F/4, I prefer the latter because it gives longer range and blows out the background really nice.

Monopod, quick set up, but not great for extended recording. If you're not paying attention, you won't notice your camera isn't level. Even when you're paying attention it's difficult to keep the camera level.

Tripods are the best if the environment allows for them, the heavier tripods are the better ones to get, but more expensive. As for fluid video heads, they can range anywhere from hundreds to thousands. If you decide to get a camera rig, external monitor, follow focus, matte box, you won't be doing that on a monopod. 

Should you invest in a redrock bundle, depends on what sort of filming your planning to do. If it's going to be mostly handheld, those bundles are cheaper. If it's going to be a shoulder mounted or tripod necessary set up your're going to pay a lot more. You might want to check out the Edelkrone website - formally known as Handyfilmtools - and check their prices out and compare it Redrock. I can't tell you what they are because they require a login to see them.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Personally, I like to do hand held video, but even with IS, holding the camera out in front of you reasonably motionless or panning smoothly can only be done for less than a minute, sometimes way less.

A tripod and video head are the solution, but to get smooth professional pans, $$$ is not enough, try $$$$ or $$$$$.  The camera cost is nothing compared to the money you can sink into accessories.

Many who are on a tight budget are inventive and some turn out amazing video with homemade accessories.

Trying to handhold a DSLR out in front of you while manually focusing is rather masochistic.

I'm waiting for a model that will autofocus while taking video.

[NormanBates]

for travel, the 24-105 can be great; but for babies, I think I'd never use that lens if I had the 50mm f/1.2 at hand; ever

so, I'd say:

* first of all, get an LCD loupe; you can go for the expensive but great zacuto (won't ever fog, for example), or for a cheaper alternative such as this one:
http://cheesycam.com/evil-little-lcdvf-twin-vs-lcdvf/

* install magic lantern; if you don't know what it is, it is your best friend for shooting video (live histogram while recording, zebras, peaking, zoom-in while recording, etc)

* get a very small rig, and shoot with your 50mm; this one will do:
http://cheesycam.com/latest-mini-shooter-rigs/
it looks like a low-cost clone of this one
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682696-REG/Zacuto_Z_DSR.html


edit:
I just thought... on a full frame f/4 delivers the same DoF of f/2.5 on APS-C, and I'm pretty happy with that, so yes, I would also consider the 24-105 f/4L IS for a 5D2
but you still need the viewfinder, and ML, and you'll want a lot more accessories as soon as you get playing with this...

[Jedifarce]

for travel, the 24-105 can be great; but for babies, I think I'd never use that lens if I had the 50mm f/1.2 at hand; ever

Philip Bloom stated in a podcast he would never use any F/stop below a 2.8 unless he were desperate for light. He only shoots video at 2.8 or F/4 only because he feels its near in impossible to maintain focus. Any tiny movement just throws the focus out of wack. Makes sense, shooting at F/4 is difficult enough.

[philHolland]

Philip Bloom stated in a podcast he would never use any F/stop below a 2.8 unless he were desperate for light. He only shoots video at 2.8 or F/4 only because he feels its near in impossible to maintain focus. Any tiny movement just throws the focus out of wack. Makes sense, shooting at F/4 is difficult enough.

I'm not going to say this is bad advice as it's a decent rule of thumb.  However, if you practice you can certainly pull at f/1.4-f/2 pretty nicely.  It's really hard, I'm not going to sugar coat that, but totally in bounds with a enough time behind the follow focus wheel.

I just shot a short with the 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, and 85mm f/1.2L all sitting at f/2.  Definitely put hair on my chest, especially the shoulder mounted tracking shots with the 85mm.  I did a couple of rehearsal takes to get the move down, got confident with the actor's performance and their movement, and rolled 3 to 5 takes throughout the day.

I will add that the Technicolor CineStyle (and all flat styles), add to the difficulty of pulling focus accurately. 

[Jedifarce]

Philip Bloom stated in a podcast he would never use any F/stop below a 2.8 unless he were desperate for light. He only shoots video at 2.8 or F/4 only because he feels its near in impossible to maintain focus. Any tiny movement just throws the focus out of wack. Makes sense, shooting at F/4 is difficult enough.

I'm not going to say this is bad advice as it's a decent rule of thumb.  However, if you practice you can certainly pull at f/1.4-f/2 pretty nicely.  It's really hard, I'm not going to sugar coat that, but totally in bounds with a enough time behind the follow focus wheel.

I just shot a short with the 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, and 85mm f/1.2L all sitting at f/2.  Definitely put hair on my chest, especially the shoulder mounted tracking shots with the 85mm.  I did a couple of rehearsal takes to get the move down, got confident with the actor's performance and their movement, and rolled 3 to 5 takes throughout the day.

I will add that the Technicolor CineStyle (and all flat styles), add to the difficulty of pulling focus accurately.

Somehow I don't believe JR is going to be able to pull focus without a follow focus, much less have the corperation of his kids. It's going to be a run-and-gun affair. Maybe he can make it work, who knows.

You like the 24mm? I prefer the 28mm especially for photography. I have a 20mm, but didn't really like it.