Buying a 7D

[Bill Pryor]

That 70-200 f4 is turning out to be a much better lens than I expected. And it's light enough so you can still mount the camera directly on the tripod. With the heavier f2.8 versions you have to mount the lens by its collar to a tripod. I use mostly old pre-AI Nikkor primes and a Zeiss ZE 50mm, but that Canon zoom hangs in very nicely with the other lenses. I doubt that anybody could tell the difference.

[Mitch Hunt]

Bill,

Do you have the IS version? Do you think it's worth the extra money?

[Jon Braeley]

I have the work 70-200 F4 - superb lens and I prefer it the 2.8!

But unless you shoot only on a rock-solid tripod in a vacuum, I suggest IS. It makes that much of a difference.

[Bill Pryor]

I don't have the IS. For video you'll never use a lens that long hand held. If you want it mainly for stills, then IS might be useful.

[Liam Hall]

I have the f/2.8 IS. The extra stop makes a big difference when using a doubler or shooting an interview indoors, plus the bokeh is pretty awesome.

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

Super Takumars are very nice though, they are prone to going off leading to a yellow tint. Also, they have such a distinct look that you may have problems creating a full set. But, if you want a vintage look on a budget they're tough to beat.

There is no general yellow tint or cast to Takumar lenses. The main 3 instances of the 50mm f/1.4 contain elements that are made using thorium, which is radioactive. The radiation from this causes the glue and coating to yellow over time, but this can be cured with a UV party light in 3 days. If you don't fix it, you will also be losing up to a stop of light.

I have 8 takumar lenses, and none of them (after I fixed my 50's) impart any kind of cast. In fact each one has superb colour saturation. The only aspect in which they impart a vintage look is the character of the flaring, which owing to the layered coating used throughout the range, is uniform, and rather nice if you like that sort of thing.

A good option for a bargain, and much overlooked is the SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8. Only today I saw one go for £25, and really, the are much like the sought after 50mm f/1.4s in many ways. Very sharp glass.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

What filter size does it take? I'd rather not have to play all those game again. So if it 52mm or 58mm, we're good.

49mm. Get a £10 set of step up rings.

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

Complete cobblers.

Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss, Tamron and a bunch of others all make dedicated lenses that are fully compatible with Canon EOS. They work now. They'll work in the future. Don't get confused between a legal disclaimer and reality.

Cobblers, yes. Complete cobblers, no. Sigma decided not to purchase a license from Canon at one point. Instead they decided to reverse engineer the spec to make compatible lenses. End result: there are some marvelous fixed f/2.8 zooms out there which no longer have aperture control on Canon DSLRs (on my one AF still works, sort of). Sigma had a stock pile of chips to retrofit these when Canon slightly changed the spec, and used to fit for free, but they've run out of chips now.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

49mm. Get a £10 set of step up rings.

Yes, I'm familiar with the solution. Was just hoping not to have to buy 1 set of step up rings for Nikon to Canon, and another set of rings from these to Canon. And I don't really know how a 49mm to 58mm step up ring is going to work. Easier for me to just stick with Nikon glass to be honest. Especially since I have both Nikon and Canon bodies.

[Bill Pryor]

My filters are 77mm. I put stepup rings on every lens, and leave them on permanently. Fortunately, B&H also has 77mm threaded metal lens caps. And I got a 77mm collapsable lens hood, so only need to carry one hood for all the lenses now.

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Norman Pogson

I use the Cokin style of holder and ND filters, so I have a 4x and 8x, I can stack these together as well and I can also use a polarizing filter, these are usually enough to get the shallow depth of field I'm looking for. Also there is a screw in variable ND filter which you turn like a polarizing filter to cut down.

Filming should be on full manual including focusing and iso etc, so you are "handcuffed" to a set shutter speed, which as someone has said is normally twice your frames per second, the only variables are ND filters, iso or aperture.

I seriously considered setting up around a DIY matte box with a Cokin filter attachment, but I was put off by talk of the ND filters having problems with colour balance.

What is your experience? Maybe there are 3rd party ND's available that are better? I am fed up with having a gazillion step up rings, filters and lens hoods.

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Yes, I'm familiar with the solution. Was just hoping not to have to buy 1 set of step up rings for Nikon to Canon, and another set of rings from these to Canon. And I don't really know how a 49mm to 58mm step up ring is going to work. Easier for me to just stick with Nikon glass to be honest. Especially since I have both Nikon and Canon bodies.

The rings I have come in a set of 7 and to go from 49 to 58, you use 3 rings. It's very solid, and a very cheap solution.

C'mon Perrone, if you go out and buy some Takumar glass, I will take the plunge and buy a Nikkor. Always wanted to know what the fuss was about.

[Mitch Hunt]

Will the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 need an adapter to fit on the 7D?

If any of you have experience with this lens, how does the manual focusing work for video? Some reviewers said that they returned the lens because of manual focusing issues.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

C'mon Perrone, if you go out and buy some Takumar glass, I will take the plunge and buy a Nikkor. Always wanted to know what the fuss was about.

What mount am I looking for and what adapter?

[Perrone Ford]

So I just had a look through EBay at these lenses. I can't find any compelling reason to buy one. The only lens faster than F2.8 was the range of 50/55mm lenses and they were more expensive than the Nikons.

So the problem for me is this:

The lenses are slow. I can get Nikon glass at F2 or faster for the entire cinematic range.
They aren't any cheaper. This is what really surprised me.
I don't think the glass is any better.
I'd have to buy new adapters (both to Nikon and Canon).
I'd have to buy step up rings for my current filters.

I'm sorry, and I was curious. But I can't see how this would make any good economic sense for me. If I had an M42 body maybe...

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

So I just had a look through EBay at these lenses. I can't find any compelling reason to buy one. The only lens faster than F2.8 was the range of 50/55mm lenses and they were more expensive than the Nikons.

Agree about cost, not so sure about speed. 10 years ago, these lenses were peanuts. I built my collection a few years ago, and since then most or all of them have doubled in value. Expensive or not, they are a good investment.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

So the problem for me is this:

The lenses are slow. I can get Nikon glass at F2 or faster for the entire cinematic range.

Wow, slow is a bit harsh. There is no 85mm f/1.4 to match the Nikon (I have my heart set on a Samyang), and there is a gap below 35mm for fast takumars (I have a nice Vivitar 28mm f/1.9 for that) but otherwise there are options.

The 35mm f/2 is a great lens, if not the best Takumar. The 85mm f/1.8 is very special. I have the 85mm f/1.9, and it is also a fine lens. As you said there are the 50mm varieties. The f/1.4 SMC is legendary, nuff said. Some say the 50mm f/1.2 is the finest, but it is super rare. Less rare is the 55mm f/1.8, which is a VERY underrated lens, believe me. Especially considering you can still get it for pennies.

Beyond f/2 you have the 135mm f/2.5, which is another GREAT lens. Finally the 105mm f/2.8 is worth a mention and has its uses.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

They aren't any cheaper. This is what really surprised me.
I don't think the glass is any better.

Agree. Maybe worse. Depends on your preference, but I promise you Takumar images have a special character which is exciting. Also, although it doesn't necessarily make your video any better, the build quality and focus action of these lenses is a dream to work with.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

I'd have to buy new adapters (both to Nikon and Canon).

I'd have to buy step up rings for my current filters.

Yes the best way is to shell out on adapters and rings for each lens, which does mount up. Saying that, M42 adapters open up other possibilities for yard sale finds. I have a 15 blade 'bokeh monster' 135mm f/2.8 Pentacon, which is just superb and cost £40.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

I'm sorry, and I was curious. But I can't see how this would make any good economic sense for me. If I had an M42 body maybe...

You are of course correct, but I never let economic sense interfere with my lens buying addiction. I still plan to buy a Nikkor.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

Wow, slow is a bit harsh. There is no 85mm f/1.4 to match the Nikon (I have my heart set on a Samyang), and there is a gap below 35mm for fast takumars (I have a nice Vivitar 28mm f/1.9 for that) but otherwise there are options.

My comment of them being slow should not be extrapolated to the entire series of lenses. My comments were ONLY directed at the lenses I found currently for sale on EBay. Nearly all of the lenses were F3.5, the only exceptions being a 105mm F2.8, and the fast(er) 50-55mm lenses. I have zero interest in F3.5 glass.

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

The 35mm f/2 is a great lens, if not the best Takumar. The 85mm f/1.8 is very special. I have the 85mm f/1.9, and it is also a fine lens. As you said there are the 50mm varieties. The f/1.4 SMC is legendary, nuff said. Some say the 50mm f/1.2 is the finest, but it is super rare. Less rare is the 55mm f/1.8, which is a VERY underrated lens, believe me. Especially considering you can still get it for pennies.

Much of this reads like Nikon's offerings. And I suspect that the lens designs of the day were all quite similar. However, I'd imagine that Nikon was outselling Pentax 10:1 or 20:1 at the time. I was shooting for the newspaper back then and I don't know a single photographer who had a Pentax. It wasn't until I was doing portrait work at University that I finally ran into a Pentax photographer and he had a 6x7 that I fell in love with.

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

Agree. Maybe worse. Depends on your preference, but I promise you Takumar images have a special character which is exciting. Also, although it doesn't necessarily make your video any better, the build quality and focus action of these lenses is a dream to work with.

I need to see some images from these lenses on a 7D or similar. I need a couple of portrait lenses (85mm, 105, and 135) and am interested in trying a few things out. But it looks like it will be a $300-$400 per lens experiment, and I am not willing to put forth that much cash without a VERY good reason. I KNOW what I am getting with the Nikon glass in those focal lengths. The Nikon 85mm and 105mm are world wide legends and are still used all over the world by 35mm portrait photographers.

CLEAN NIKON NIKKOR AI 85MM F/1.8 F1.8 LENS D300 D700 D1 - eBay (item 300454832122 end time Aug-17-10 19:58:34 PDT)

MINT NIKON NIKKOR AI 105MM F/2.5 F2.5 LENS F F1 F2 F3 - eBay (item 300455273993 end time Aug-19-10 07:50:50 PDT)

NIKON NIKKOR 135mm f/2 AI-S TELEPHOTO LENS #BR006 - eBay (item 170522702235 end time Sep-02-10 13:31:50 PDT)

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

Yes the best way is to shell out on adapters and rings for each lens, which does mount up. Saying that, M42 adapters open up other possibilities for yard sale finds. I have a 15 blade 'bokeh monster' 135mm f/2.8 Pentacon, which is just superb and cost £40.

See this comes back to the problem for me. At F2.8, I can put a quality zoom lens on. For stills work, the prime would certainly be better, but for video work, the immediacy of the zoom essentially outweighs the slight resolution advantage of the prime. Now if that prime were F2, then we might have something to talk about.

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

You are of course correct, but I never let economic sense interfere with my lens buying addiction. I still plan to buy a Nikkor.

There are a great many good ones to choose from. Some tack sharp wides, to some creamy portraits, to some insane longer glass. I've got my eye on the 200mm F2 for some of my sports video this fall. Night video demands faster glass.

Nikon 200mm f/2 D ED 200 2 f2 Excellent + - eBay (item 300456023506 end time Aug-22-10 00:39:20 PDT)