DSLR Video: Canon 24mm 1.4L II vs 24mm 2.8 IS

[preppyak]

I would either go much wider (I love the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ) or go for a more standard lens, like a canon 28mm f2.8 or Canon 35mm f2.0.

He already has the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, so getting the 35 f/2 won't do him any good.

On the other end, for shooting casual stuff of friends and family, the Tokina is way too wide. It's a great lens if you know how to use it. But, of the lenses I own, it'd be the last one I would pick to shoot people, because of the distortion. Even at 16mm you'll find it annoying.

Personally I wouldn't spend that much on the 24mm f/1.4 just to shoot friends, but, if I had the money it'd be a nice lens to own. I think the IS primes are way overpriced, and you'd get more bang for your buck going another way. I'd either get one of the older non-IS primes and a decent stabilizer, or look for one of the IS enabled zooms (Canon 17-55, Sigma 17-50, Tamron 24-70, etc). You'd also gain a constant aperture, which is important for video work, and you'll gain a stop or two from the 15-85 you currently own.

[paul13walnut5]

@preppyak

Quote from: paul13walnut5 on May 19, 2012, 09:35:17 AM

    I would either go much wider (I love the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ) or go for a more standard lens, like a canon 28mm f2.8 or Canon 35mm f2.0.

He already has the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, so getting the 35 f/2 won't do him any good.

On the other end, for shooting casual stuff of friends and family, the Tokina is way too wide. It's a great lens if you know how to use it. But, of the lenses I own, it'd be the last one I would pick to shoot people, because of the distortion. Even at 16mm you'll find it annoying.

I missed the 40mm f2 in there, or as you rightly point out, I wouldn't have suggested Canons 35mm f2.0.
This is a choice I'm facing, the 35mm f2, the Samyang 35mm f1.4, or the Voigtlander f2, or wait to see the rumoured canon pancake...

Anyway, I stand by my inclusion of the 11-16.  Not for portraiture particularly (although the rules for video are very different, you wouldn't have a classic portraiture perspective in video unless for dramatic purposes or in an interview scenario, but useful for group shots etc) but to plug a gap in the OP's range, rather than duplicate with a focal length thats already covered.

Unless you are very serious about video and practised at on the fly shallow Dof adjustments then you don't want ultra bright lenses and MF.

I don't get folk buying these mediocre mid aperture zooms as their core lenses then buying lots of fast primes.

Start with fast aperture zooms (I have f2.8 from 11-200mm) and pick specific fast aperture lenses for certain purposes, i.e. a 30-40mm makes a good 'standard' lens on a 60D, a 50mm makes a good interview lens on a 60D.

A prime 24mm just would not be on my list for video on APS-C.

[bp]

A prime 24mm just would not be on my list for video on APS-C.

I don't quite get this.  You mentioned earlier about it being a no-man's land, not wide enough, not tight enough... For still photography, I would actually tend to agree.  When I'm shooting stills, I like things to be more extreme (50mm bores the crap outta me) - but for video, I couldn't disagree more. 

35mm for film/cinema is like the 50mm for a still photographer.  The perfect "standard" length, and one that a LOT of DP's will tell you is by far their most frequently used FL.  24mm on an APS-C is 38.4mm, or basically as close as you can get to 35mm.  If I were completely starting over, with an APS-C body, aiming for building a video gear bag, 24mm would be my first choice.

[paul13walnut5]

I don't speak to a lot of DP's, I choose what suits what I'm doing.  If it works for them, then great.    A 'normal' lens for aps-c (as opposed to s35) is equiv to approx 45mm, so 28mm lens, but even thats a bit wrong because the diagonal is assumed on 3:2, not 16:9 or the cinematic aspects - if one was being exceptionally pedantic.

24mm just isn't one I'd seek out.  But then I'm not the OP and it's only an opinion.