October 24, 2014, 08:41:47 PM

Author Topic: Inexpensive lens for Video  (Read 4952 times)

ahab1372

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2012, 04:02:00 PM »

It doesn't matter that the 18-55 isnt full time manual focus I take it? I should know this, but I imagine the camera automatically turns to "manual" focusing when in video mode...?
It does not. Manual vs Auto Focus needs to be set on the lens.
The camera won't try to autofocus continuously (unless it's a T4i), only when you press the shutter button. But that doesn't mean you can manual focus the lens if it is still in AF

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2012, 04:02:00 PM »

syder

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2012, 06:29:31 PM »

If you can't hand-hold a DSLR and manual focus the 50 1.8 with one finger, your skill level doesn't warrant handling anything more expensive if you ask me.  Moving up to the 1.4 is a marginal improvement for a 3x price difference... and getting into that price range, you might as well invest in a slightly more expensive Tokina 11-16

If you're spending as much as $500, I would DEFINITELY recommend the tokina 11-16 2.8.  At infinity focus, everythign a meter out or farther will stay in focus.   For filming kids, wide and already in focus should be a big plus for convenience factor.  Not missing a memory is more important than bokeh quality

?! The tiny amount of travel on the 50 f1.8 makes manually focussing ACCURATELY very hard. The lens is blatantly not designed to be manually focussed, and doing so is a pain in the ass. By contrast the 50 1.4 has over 360 degrees of travel meaning that you have far more fine grained control over focussing. That isn't a marginal improvement, its the difference between useable and not.

And suggesting a UWA as an alternative to a 50mm prime is just bizarre. Unless you want the extreme perspective distortion that comes with a UWA lens (great for landscapes/cityscapes/particular look how enormous my nose is portraits - crap for any kind of close up) this is awful advice.

For the use that the op suggested the tamron 17-50 2.8 (with or without VC) is a far better choice for less money.

eyeland

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
  • Daybreak broke me loose and brought me back...
    • View Profile
    • Creative Consulting & Multimedia artistry ;)
Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2013, 05:52:12 AM »
+1 for 50 1.8 using manual focus

Id use a cheaper prime with manual focus. For something wider but a lil more expensive, the samyang 14mm 2.8 is great for video.  There is also a slightly more expensive "cine" version of the samyang with a manual aperature adjustment ring.  You can de-click the aperture ring to smoothly adjust aperture without abrupt exposure change while filming

for zoom, the 24-105 is a great choice with IS... although I'm not sure Id trust that one in the hands of a clumsy holder LOL.  Lok from digitalrevTV on youtube uses a 24-105 on a 5DII hand-holding and it always looks very pro.

-1 for 50 1.8

Utterly horrible to manually focus with its tiny mf ring with minimal travel. Makes accurately focussing damn hard, especially with fast moving subjects (like kids unless they're asleep)

If you go down the prime route you would be way way better off using an old prime which was designed to be manually focussed with an adapter. Or if you can find a cheap copy the tokina 35mm f2.8 macro is a very nice lens to mf with which is reasonably cheap and gives you a standardish focal length (50mm on crop is great for close ups, but particularly indoors where distances tend to be limited it is nowhere near wide enough for gv's)

Cheap but good zoom for video look for the tamron 17-50 f2.8. Without VC is sharper, with VC will probably give you better results handheld though.

+1
5DIII+ML // 24-105L - 70-200 2.8L/2.8 IS II - 35/2 IS //\  AF/non-AF film bodies and lenses. (and half a darkroom in boxes:))

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2013, 07:15:20 AM »
They aren't going to replace a consumer handycam.

The fast aperture primes really require you to be on the ball, or you'll end up with a lot of soft footage, and as discussed, the 50 f1.8 isn't mechanically all that friendly for MF in video.

I have a sigma 18-50 f28 DC Macro, which was reasonably cheap, bright in low light, and nice enough to use, nice wide zoom and focus rings, nice amount of throw.

I would think zone focusing...  Keep the lens wide, aperture small, hyperfocus and you shouldn't need to refocus that much for most run and gun type stuff.

DSLRs are great for video if you are prepared to do the work, they are not really replacements for automated family camcorders.


Scarpz13

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2013, 08:30:16 AM »
They aren't going to replace a consumer handycam.

The fast aperture primes really require you to be on the ball, or you'll end up with a lot of soft footage, and as discussed, the 50 f1.8 isn't mechanically all that friendly for MF in video.

I have a sigma 18-50 f28 DC Macro, which was reasonably cheap, bright in low light, and nice enough to use, nice wide zoom and focus rings, nice amount of throw.

I would think zone focusing...  Keep the lens wide, aperture small, hyperfocus and you shouldn't need to refocus that much for most run and gun type stuff.

DSLRs are great for video if you are prepared to do the work, they are not really replacements for automated family camcorders.

+1
Yes I have learned this in the few weeks since my post... bit the bullet and got my wife a new "handycam" after playing around with my DSLR and realizing it wasnt going to be her bag. That being said, I am having fun taking more videos with it now, as it was something I had never bothered to learn or experiment with before!
5D MkIII  |  60D  |  EF 17-40 F4L |  EF 24-105 F4L IS  | EF 70-200 F4L IS  | EF 40 f/2.8  |  EF 50 f/1.4 |  EF 85 f/1.8  | 580EX II

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2013, 08:56:13 AM »
Health to use both.  The DSLR is a powerful video tool, you might find you like it better, especially where you have time to think things out a little in advance.

emag

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2013, 09:27:21 AM »
Yes I have learned this in the few weeks since my post... bit the bullet and got my wife a new "handycam" after playing around with my DSLR and realizing it wasnt going to be her bag. That being said, I am having fun taking more videos with it now, as it was something I had never bothered to learn or experiment with before!

Good choice.  Here in the Canon DSLR fora, it's easy to forget that such is not ALWAYS the most practical tool.  There's a hammer head on my fence pliers, works fine when I don't want to carry a lot of tools for oddball jobs.....but I wouldn't use it for carpentry.  Back up those videos, you'll have lots of laughs over the years.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Inexpensive lens for Video
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2013, 09:27:21 AM »