Gear Talk > EOS Bodies - For Video
Lens Help: 16-35mm or 17-40mm for video?
iseowl:
So long story short I'm getting money to buy a 5D3. My kit at the moment comprises of a 600D with battery grip, 24-105L & the plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8.
I'm still new to photography/videography & I mainly do video work which involve filming events like the occasionally gig if I'm lucky but I film monthly fashion shows which take place at different night clubs, where I also film interviews of the designers.
As I would use the 24-105 with the 5D3 when I get it, ideally I would like another lens to use on my 600D and I am leaning towards getting a wide angle (zoom) lens which I could use on both bodies.
So my choices are narrowed down to the 16-35mm L F2.8 or 17-40mm L F4. And I'm just wondering which is the better lens? or if there are any better prime alternatives.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Policar:
I'm not wild about the 17-40mm, which has a lot of distortion and corner sharpness/backfocus issues, but it's a nice lens ergonomically and the focal length is useful if you have to get super wide.
The 11-16mm Tokina is rather wonderful for APS-C and you can use it (but with soft corners) at 16mm on the 5D. Contrary to popular opinion, the corners are really very soft with it on the 5D unless you stop down to f8--worse than with the 17-40mm L, but it's a great lens on APS-C and useable as an UWA for FF.
I am extremely fond of the 14mm f2.8 II L, but the cost is high and it's so wide it plays like an effect. Super wide, great contrast and sharpness, and minimal distortion, what's not to like (well, the focal length if you don't want it).
There are lots of affordable third party options, too. The 17-40mm can take filters and is weather sealed, so while that doesn't seem important, it can make it an easier choice.
syder:
--- Quote from: Policar on July 27, 2012, 11:27:05 PM ---
I am extremely fond of the 14mm f2.8 II L, but the cost is high and it's so wide it plays like an effect. Super wide, great contrast and sharpness, and minimal distortion, what's not to like (well, the focal length if you don't want it).
--- End quote ---
For video its hard to see why you'd spend all that cash on the canon 14mm when you can pick up a manual samyang 14mm f2.8 for a fraction of the price. The difference would let you also pick up the 17-40L and upgrade your 50mm.
I second the comment that the Tokina 11-16 is an excellent lens on aps-c, and it's fairly decent as a 16mm f2.8 on a 5d.
syder:
--- Quote from: iseowl on July 27, 2012, 11:02:23 PM ---
I'm still new to photography/videography & I mainly do video work which involve filming events like the occasionally gig if I'm lucky but I film monthly fashion shows which take place at different night clubs, where I also film interviews of the designers...
So my choices are narrowed down to the 16-35mm L F2.8 or 17-40mm L F4. And I'm just wondering which is the better lens? or if there are any better prime alternatives.
--- End quote ---
The 16-35 is a better lens hands down - and if you're working in clubs the extra stop might be quite useful. TBH for that kind of event documentary work you're likely better with the versatility of a zoom... Though the Tokina 11-16 is about 1/3rd of the price of the 16-35... and 16mm on aps-c isn't that wide.
Also if I were you I'd be thinking about an interview lens - the 24-105 isn't exactly great, especially in a nightclub, and the 50 1.8 is a nightmare for video (tiny focus ring with minimal travel). Canon or Sigma 50 1.4 would be a huge improvement
Policar:
--- Quote from: syder on July 28, 2012, 04:12:12 AM ---For video its hard to see why you'd spend all that cash on the canon 14mm when you can pick up a manual samyang 14mm f2.8 for a fraction of the price. The difference would let you also pick up the 17-40L and upgrade your 50mm.
--- End quote ---
Because, although the Samyang has great resolution and contrast, it has a ton of mustache distortion, which renders it useless for anything with straight lines. For stills it's okay if you can fix the distortion later, but for video it's really hard to use for interior spaces or anywhere there are straight lines, imo. It's a nice lens otherwise. The Canon has virtually no distortion.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version