Please Help!: Need Good Prime Lens (4 low light video)

[Pat Munoz]

Hey it's my wife's b-day in a few weeks.

We'll be going to several places outdoors shooting clips in very low light conditions. I shot this in October with 2 lenses (mostly a 60mm macro lens as it could go down to f2.8):

YouTube - Halloween 2009

The thing I didn't like about that 60mm EF-S lens was that I had to step back quite a bit to fit the subject in the shot.

I see there are an awesome 50mm Canon-EF lense that goes down to f1.4.

That's appealing but if I understand correctly, with the crop-factor of 1.6 it makes that an 80mm lens on my 7D which means I'm going to have to REALLY step back which I don't want because people are going to walk up to the camera and I'll have to constantly explain to them that they need to be 4-5 feet away.

Sooo... sorry for the long rant - Here's the question: What lens can you recommend that'll give me a MINIMUM of f2.8. Something around 40-50mm on the 7D.

Right now I'm eying these lenses:
1) EF-28mm-f2.8 (Approx. 44.8mm on 7D) $319.95 CDN
2) EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Wide Angle Lens (Approx. 56mm on 7D) $1,579.00 CDN
3) EF 35mm f/2.0 Wide Angle Lens (Approx. 56mm on 7D) $429.95 CDN
4*) EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Wide Angle Lens (Approx. 44.8mm on 7D) $729.95 CDN
5) EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Wide Angle Lens (Approx. 38.4mm on 7D) $1,949.00 CDN

I'm leaning towards option 4. Seems like a decent balance of f, mm and $.

So, this is an important decision as for me $800.00 CDN is a lot of $ and I want to buy a lens that I won't regret purchasing later. Should I just stick w/ the 60mm macro?

[Chris Hurd]

Does it have to be a prime? Why not consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM for $1,179.00 USD (about $1,235.00 CDN). It's a constant f/2.8 throughout the zoom range and it yields a field of view equivalent of 28mm to 90mm which covers the focal length you want, provides image stabilization, and gives you more flexibility than a prime.

[Pat Munoz]

Wait a min, you got me confused - there's 1.6x crop factor with EF-S lenses? Thought that was just EF series (full-frame). wouldn't 17-55mm EF-S on an APS-C lens still be 17-55mm?

If so... then I think you might have something interesting here. IS and zoom would be handy.

You know this gives me a 35mm equiv and a 50mm equiv lens in 1 lens. saves me the need to switch.

Some others that I've found:
1) Sigma AF 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Asph IF Macro Lens for Canon $549.95 CDN (Approx. 44.8mm on 7D)
2) Sigma AF 24mm f/1.8 EX DG Asph IF Macro Lens for Canon $699.95 CDN (Approx. 38.4mm on 7D)

Reason I'm looking for prime is because it offers f1.8, f1.4, f1.2 options which for video means less grain (lower ISO) and razor DOF. No IS tho and switching lenses when shooting impromptu gorilla would be a pain in the field.

So the question is, do I invest in a good prime and walk forward/back to position the shot and lose IS to gain better but shaky picture... or do I get a 2.8 (still decent fstop) zoom to frame shot, get IS but lower quality video.

Most of my Halloween video is 2.8 with ISO cranked to 6400 and the video is so grainy that you can't even tell that it's HD footage IMO.

urgh... I'm not convinced that a 2.8 lens for low light is good enough... then again, I'm not sure if 1.8 is low enough to make a real difference with ISO.

Still leaning towards prime, specifically the Sigma: AF 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Asph IF Macro Lens for Canon $549.95 CDN (Approx. 44.8mm on 7D).

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Pat Munoz

there's 1.6x crop factor with EF-S lenses?

Yes. All of these lenses are always labeled with their *true* focal length; the crop factor isn't figured in. You have to do that for yourself, whether it's 1.6x for an APS-C camera such as the EOS 7D or 1.3x for an APS-H camera such as the EOS 1D Mk. IV (although EF-S lenses aren't compatible with APS-H cameras).

The "S" in EF-S refers to short back-focus, which is a type of lens design that produces a lighter, more compact lens which is optimized for EOS cameras using the smaller APS-C image sensor (and therefore will fit only an APS-C camera lens mount). It's called a 17-55mm lens because that's what its focal length really is. You still have to do the math if you want to know the full-frame 35mm equivalent, which in this case is very close to 28-90mm, a common zoom lens focal length in the world of still photography.

Some EF-S lenses are better than others, and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is just about the same build quality as an EF "L" series lens, which is why it's considerably more expensive than most EF-S lenses... but you get what you're paying for, of course.

[David Chapman]

Hey Pat, one thing to keep in mind is Image Stabilization. The 17-55 f/2.8 has IS. I have that and the 50mm f/1.4 and while the 1.4 gets great images in low-light compared, the footage can become extremely shaky for handheld. Most primes are small too, lending to more shakiness. I definitely feel confident handheld with the 17-55 with IS on.

[Mikko Topponen]

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is great for low-light situations.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Pat Munoz

What lens can you recommend that'll give me a MINIMUM of f2.8. Something around 40-50mm on the 7D.

I suggest the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ($470 CDN) or Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX ($240 CDN with adapter).

You might also consider spending that money on a 5D2, which is like turning your f/2.8 into f/1.7 (i.e. same noise at higher ISO).

For example, the 24mm f/1.4 II is my favorite lens (evar), but for that much money you could upgrade to a 5D2 ($900 more), buy a Canon 24mm f/2.8, and still have $400 leftover. The Sigma 24mm f/1.8 is another alternative to the Canon.

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Some EF-S lenses are better than others, and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is just about the same build quality as an EF "L" series lens, which is why it's considerably more expensive than most EF-S lenses... but you get what you're paying for, of course.

Personally, I think the 17-55 has much lower build quality, but the image quality on a 7D to be superior in contrast and resolution to the 16-35 L, 17-40 L, 24-70 L, and 24-105 L.

[Pat Munoz]

Originally Posted by David Chapman

I have that and the 50mm f/1.4 and while the 1.4 gets great images in low-light compared, the footage can become extremely shaky for handheld.

Hey David,

That's soo interesting, I'm researching the 50mm 1.4 right now. How convenient that you posted this reply at this very moment.

IS is important when shooting handheld, agreed. maybe if I got something like the Sigma AF 24mm f/1.8 then I'm wide enough not to notice so much shake.

I think the 17-55mm would be a good one to have for general purposes, but if I absolutely need the low light, then I should have a good 1.8 wider lens and possibly a decent redrock micro or zacuto field kit for IS.

We'll see.

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

You might also consider spending that money on a 5D2

Hmm... lot's to think about!

Thanks everybody!

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

Originally Posted by Pat Munoz

... then again, I'm not sure if 1.8 is low enough to make a real difference with ISO.

There is a huge difference between f 2.8 and f 1.8. A whole 1 1/3 stop. Which means that what you were able to shoot at 6400 ISO with the 2.8f , you will be able to get the same exposition at 2500 ISO at 1.8f given the same shutter speed is used. If you go with the 50 1.4 or the sigma 1.4, there is a 2 stops difference, so you can lower the ISO to 1600 and get the same exposition.

You are right, for low light video shooting, if you can't control the level of light at all, a good fast prime is better than a zoom lens with IS.

[Khoi Pham]

I recommend the Sigma 30mm 1.4, I'm using it with the Z finder and it help stable it alot bcause you can press the viewfinder on your eyes and use it as another stablelizer point, not as stable as the 17-55 IS 2.8 but for low light/available light walk around lens, that is my choice.

[Pat Munoz]

So ya, FYI - Going to go w/ a 50mm 1.4 prime lens (Either Sigma or Canon).

Thanks Jean-Philippe for the awesome f info!! 2.8 is decent but it's not going to be enough for this event.

Oh and Chris, I am also going to get that EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens. Thanks for your help 2.

[Kirk Candlish]

This looks like an ideal standard prime for video on the 7D.

Carl Zeiss launches Distagon T* 2/35 lens for Canon: Digital Photography Review

[Ty Haegele]

Originally Posted by Mikko Topponen

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is great for low-light situations.

i agree... and cheap too.

[Bart Wierzbicki]

Do you advice that Zeiss T2/35 lens ?
I'm thinking of buying a Canon lens instead of my Nikon lens with adapter.
I wanted to buy Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM but it's really expensive and I don't know
if the price equals the quality. Any help ?

[Kirk Candlish]

The new Zeiss 35mm won't be shipping until the end of this month. So at this point no reviews or field tests. I'm sue it'll be a great lens.

35 X 1.6 = 56 Pretty ideal for a normal.