Videography vs. Photography Lenses

[jasonmillard81]

Greetings all,

I am new to the DSLR world and recently acquired a Canon 60D.

I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Canon 50 1.8

Low light performance is decent as well as "zoom" capability

I'd like to get a lens, or two, for a modest price that will allow me to capture better low light images and video as well as more zoom capability...

I am not sure if a Tamron or Sigma 17-200mm 2.8 is going to be feasible for video or low light although it will have the zoom and I know that a Rokinon 85mm 1.4 will be much better in low light but may not have the closeness from a distance that the 70-200 would give...are these both lenses that would solve me video issues?

Thoughts?

Main shooting types:

1. Narrative/Documentary
2. Sports
3. B-Roll (city shots, scenes, etc.)

 

[handsomerob]

low light + zoom capability = expensive

what is your budget?

 

[AprilForever]

There's a 30-300 T2.9 zoom coming out, for a mere 45,000 bucks, if I remember right...

Sounds like you need a few lenses...

The 17-50 should work for your wide...

The 70-200 2.8 and 120-300 2.8 are both considerations, but you will need a pretty good tripod...

There is no super zoom which will meet all your needs generally available... Except on broadcast cameras!!!

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Greetings all,

Hello there,

Don't want to dash your dreams but most lenses (especially affordable lenses) work poorly for traditional moviemaking. However, if you can get away with fixed views and fixed focus, any of the lenses will be good.

HERE is a good overview of some of the issues you might run into using lenses for video. I added a comment that might be worth reading as well.

Of course, the bottom line is that there isn't any problem that a little bit of ingenuity can't fix.

And in truth, the new TS-E lenses (17mm and 24mm) should work fine for most video and don't seem to add many problems.

Be glad that you aren't using one of the older DSLRs like the T1i or the 7D which don't allow manual control of video...that's something to be happy for. Also, I would suggest that your best tips for starting off are: 1.) Turn the Live View off when you're not using the video, to let the camera cool down; 2.) Remember to set White Balance in video.

 

[AnthonyWithNoH]

Greetings all,

I am new to the DSLR world and recently acquired a Canon 60D.

I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Canon 50 1.8

Low light performance is decent as well as "zoom" capability

I'd like to get a lens, or two, for a modest price that will allow me to capture better low light images and video as well as more zoom capability...

I am not sure if a Tamron or Sigma 17-200mm 2.8 is going to be feasible for video or low light although it will have the zoom and I know that a Rokinon 85mm 1.4 will be much better in low light but may not have the closeness from a distance that the 70-200 would give...are these both lenses that would solve me video issues?

Thoughts?

Main shooting types:

1. Narrative/Documentary
2. Sports
3. B-Roll (city shots, scenes, etc.)

Sigma 30mm F/1.4
The zoom will increase camera shake so I don't recommend it. If you want over 50mm a 70-200mm f/2.8 is the way to go - would recommend Sigma again, though not as strongly as I recommend the 30mm F/1.4. Perspective wise on a cropped sensor camera like the 60D, the 30mm f/1.4 will look fantastic and offer beautiful low light, bokeh, color, etc. If you are working in low light I would also recommend a portable LED light that connects to where your hotshoe is.

 

[AG]

Greetings all,

I am new to the DSLR world and recently acquired a Canon 60D.

I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Canon 50 1.8

Low light performance is decent as well as "zoom" capability

I'd like to get a lens, or two, for a modest price that will allow me to capture better low light images and video as well as more zoom capability...

I am not sure if a Tamron or Sigma 17-200mm 2.8 is going to be feasible for video or low light although it will have the zoom and I know that a Rokinon 85mm 1.4 will be much better in low light but may not have the closeness from a distance that the 70-200 would give...are these both lenses that would solve me video issues?

Thoughts?

Main shooting types:

1. Narrative/Documentary
2. Sports
3. B-Roll (city shots, scenes, etc.)

Unfortunately there is no 1 simple answer to this problem.


You could source up a decent 2nd hand (or even new if thou have the $$) 24-105 from a 5D2 kit. That would give you pretty much enough range to shoot most things. Especially since you have to factor in the 1.6 crop.

Your 50mm is essentially an 80mm lens atm (and pretty nasty for video).

If you are serious about video but don't want to spend a fortune then spend your money wisely. You don't have to buy L glass now. But at the same time cheap glass returns cheap results. Its all about the trial and error.

Personally i would buy the following...

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (great video lens and wiiiiiiiiiiide)
Canon 50mm f1.4 (Much better than the 1.8 and the focus ring is actually usable)
Samyang 35mm f1.4 (very under rated lenses)
Samyang 85mm f 1.4 (as above)
Canon 70-200 f2.8 (Everyone needs at least 1 zoom)

Start off slow and add them one at a time to your kit and you will find that its not as expensive as L glass but generally decent results.

The other thing i can't stress enough is go and buy a decent fluid head tripod if you haven't already done so.
Even a cheaper Manfrotto 701HDV is better than nothing.

Just don't get too caught up in the gear aspects of it.
You could shoot decent video with kit EF-s glass if you know what you are doing.

 

[archangelrichard]

Jason

for "Narrative/Documentary" you will want to zoom and the 17 - 50 should be OK, supplement with a 70 - 200 F 2.8 (I would go with the Canon - just my preference) (for repeating the same "interview", etc. you might want something like a 28 - 35mm F 1.4 to 1.8 to reduce Depth of Field / blur the background but it's uses are limited where the zoom is less limited; the 50mm 1.8 might work for this but I have reservations / doubts)

for "Sports" - you don't say which; each has special needs and anyone claiming that a lens for one sport is good for all hasn't tried it. You will likely need something more in the range of 300 to 400mm at the large end, really really need IS, this will be the expensive lens so you need to get real about what sports you want to shoot and preferably rent a few to see how they work for you

for "B-Roll (city shots, scenes, etc.)" you will likely want longer lenses, longer even than the 200mm, and a zoom is good - probably. You already have the 17 - 50 for wider shots (and zooming creates interest)

 

[avian]

The 24-70L 2,8 gives you the best reach & lowlight capability.
The 70-200 2,8 on a good shoulder rig will work great
in my opinion F4 lenses are not realy suitable for indoor/lowlight documentary shooting so if you can avoid them do so.
However i love my 10-20 ef-s on my 7D ;D

Built quality/weatherproofing is the next big thing to consider, and L lenses will give you most of that.