3 Wide Zoom lenses for Short Film on a 7D (Wow! My 100th message!)

Jon Braeley · September 20th, 2010, 10:59 AM

IS is not noticeable at wider angles - in fact you are better without it below 35mm thats why the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L has no IS and probably never will.
Some of the wider ranges such as 24-70 should have IS though, as they are also heavy lenses.

Richard D. George · September 20th, 2010, 11:27 AM

What you said is mostly true for use of a 16 - 35 mm zoom on a full frame but not for crop bodies. There is a very good reason that the EF-S 17 -55 has IS for a crop body. Its range is moderately wide (27 mm equiv field of view) to moderately telephoto (88 mm equiv field of view) on a crop body.

The crop body equivalent to the EF 16 - 35 L is the EF-S 10 - 20 mm (26 mm equiv field of view to 32 equiv field of view), which does not have IS.

Search the forums and you will see that the EF-S 17 - 55 IS is well regarded optically, and the I.S. is very important for this zoom on a crop body (like the 7D).

On a crop body, the EF-S 10 - 20 mm would be the equivalent of a wide-angle zoom.

Interestingly, Nikon just came out with a high-end 16 - 35 wide angle zoom for their full-frame sensor bodies that has V.R. (equiv of I.S.). It is over $1,000 street price, and supposedly excellent.

Gregory Dillard · September 20th, 2010, 01:43 PM

How is the Canon 24-70 compared to the 16-35?

Richard D. George · September 20th, 2010, 02:27 PM

This is from experience with stills, not video:

I used to own the EF 24-70 mm F/2.8 L. Excellent optical quality, and L grade build quality. I traded mine it because it was bulky and heavy. The lens hood could be used for a lamp shade in your house. There is no I.S. Optically it is perhaps better than the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II, but they cover different ranges, so I'm not sure why you would be comparing them. I also used to own, but also traded in, the EF 17-40 f/4.0L, which was slower (f/4.0) but a good wide angle for full-frame bodies.

There are several web sites that review Canon EF and EF-S lenses from a still photography perspective.

Jon Braeley · September 20th, 2010, 05:15 PM

If a person needs IS for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - even on the 7D, then you need a better shoulder rig or maybe do some pushups! I used this lens for one weekend and it never occured to me that it should have IS. My video was rock steady hand held without it with a zacuto rig.

Its absurd to disregard lenses unless they have IS ... and many shooters are doing just that through reading forums without actually trying out the lens for a while. I use the EF-S 17 - 55 myself and could easily forego the IS at say 24mm which is my normal angle. Its good to have but not essential for me - unless I'm in a really strong wind maybe.
Do I need IS on the 70-200 2.8 - absolutely - its a very heavy lens hand-held. In fact I almost always put mine on the tripod.

Jon Fairhurst · September 20th, 2010, 06:19 PM

Stability can be important - even with a wide - when the subject is really close to the lens. For a typical, wide view, it doesn't matter. When doing extreme, forced perspective it can.

Just last week I shot a photo with a 21mm lens on a 5D2 - and I used a tripod. The lens was squeezed right up against the subject, and any little camera movement made a big difference in the composition. By the same token, when shooting landscapes and architecture with that lens, handheld without IS is just fine, even at relatively slow shutter speeds.

It's not the angle of the lens, it's how big things look in the frame that determines the stability you need.

Richard D. George · September 21st, 2010, 06:11 AM

The 16-35 f/2.8L II is a great lens, but it's forte is for use as a wide zoom on a full-frame body. The functional equivalent on a crop body is the EF-S 10-22.

The EF 24-70 f/2.8L and EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS are great lenses that cover moderate wide to modest telephoto on a full-frame body. One is faster and the other has more range and has IS. The functional equivalent on a crop body is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

The original poster was mixing "apples and oranges" from an effective field of view perspective.

The 16-35 f/2.8L II has an oddball filter size. On a full-frame body, using a step-down ring to 77mm is not a good solution. The other L and EF-S lenses I have mentioned use the 77mm filter size.

Ben Tolosa · September 22nd, 2010, 10:06 PM

Hey I just wanted to tell you guys my lens finally got home. I tested it out and it is 'superb'.
I do love it, it feels so great on the camera. I mean, the weight does kind of balances it really well. Better and the 50mm and the 70-200mm. At least IMO.

I did get the 82mm 'slim' UV filter from B+W. It fits very nicely. But you just can't use the Canon lens cover.

I found this two amazing videos in Vimeo about filming with a 7D and this lens. Just amazing, specially the first one. The second one is good too, but the first one is 'superb'. ^_^

Check'em out!

7D Cinematography

September 20th, 2010, 01:43 PM	#18
Gregory Dillard Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 55	How is the Canon 24-70 compared to the 16-35? __________________ Canon 7D and 5D Mark II,Canon XL H1, XL2, Cinevate Atlas 30, Advanta Jib, AJA i/O, KONA LHe, AJA I/O HD, ZEISS PRIMES, G5 Quad Core, MacPro 2.66GHz, XSERVE RAID 10TB

September 20th, 2010, 06:19 PM	#21
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Stability can be important - even with a wide - when the subject is really close to the lens. For a typical, wide view, it doesn't matter. When doing extreme, forced perspective it can. Just last week I shot a photo with a 21mm lens on a 5D2 - and I used a tripod. The lens was squeezed right up against the subject, and any little camera movement made a big difference in the composition. By the same token, when shooting landscapes and architecture with that lens, handheld without IS is just fine, even at relatively slow shutter speeds. It's not the angle of the lens, it's how big things look in the frame that determines the stability you need. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

September 22nd, 2010, 10:06 PM	#23
Ben Tolosa Major Player Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Hartford, VT Posts: 201	I've got it! (Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM) Hey I just wanted to tell you guys my lens finally got home. I tested it out and it is 'superb'. I do love it, it feels so great on the camera. I mean, the weight does kind of balances it really well. Better and the 50mm and the 70-200mm. At least IMO. I did get the 82mm 'slim' UV filter from B+W. It fits very nicely. But you just can't use the Canon lens cover. I found this two amazing videos in Vimeo about filming with a 7D and this lens. Just amazing, specially the first one. The second one is good too, but the first one is 'superb'. ^_^ Check'em out! 7D Cinematography 7D Cinematography on Vimeo Canon 7D Video Test on Vimeo

September 20th, 2010, 10:59 AM	#16
Jon Braeley Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 528	IS is not noticeable at wider angles - in fact you are better without it below 35mm thats why the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L has no IS and probably never will. Some of the wider ranges such as 24-70 should have IS though, as they are also heavy lenses.

September 20th, 2010, 11:27 AM	#17
Richard D. George Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 351	What you said is mostly true for use of a 16 - 35 mm zoom on a full frame but not for crop bodies. There is a very good reason that the EF-S 17 -55 has IS for a crop body. Its range is moderately wide (27 mm equiv field of view) to moderately telephoto (88 mm equiv field of view) on a crop body. The crop body equivalent to the EF 16 - 35 L is the EF-S 10 - 20 mm (26 mm equiv field of view to 32 equiv field of view), which does not have IS. Search the forums and you will see that the EF-S 17 - 55 IS is well regarded optically, and the I.S. is very important for this zoom on a crop body (like the 7D). On a crop body, the EF-S 10 - 20 mm would be the equivalent of a wide-angle zoom. Interestingly, Nikon just came out with a high-end 16 - 35 wide angle zoom for their full-frame sensor bodies that has V.R. (equiv of I.S.). It is over $1,000 street price, and supposedly excellent.

September 20th, 2010, 02:27 PM	#19
Richard D. George Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 351	This is from experience with stills, not video: I used to own the EF 24-70 mm F/2.8 L. Excellent optical quality, and L grade build quality. I traded mine it because it was bulky and heavy. The lens hood could be used for a lamp shade in your house. There is no I.S. Optically it is perhaps better than the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II, but they cover different ranges, so I'm not sure why you would be comparing them. I also used to own, but also traded in, the EF 17-40 f/4.0L, which was slower (f/4.0) but a good wide angle for full-frame bodies. There are several web sites that review Canon EF and EF-S lenses from a still photography perspective.

September 20th, 2010, 05:15 PM	#20
Jon Braeley Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 528	If a person needs IS for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - even on the 7D, then you need a better shoulder rig or maybe do some pushups! I used this lens for one weekend and it never occured to me that it should have IS. My video was rock steady hand held without it with a zacuto rig. Its absurd to disregard lenses unless they have IS ... and many shooters are doing just that through reading forums without actually trying out the lens for a while. I use the EF-S 17 - 55 myself and could easily forego the IS at say 24mm which is my normal angle. Its good to have but not essential for me - unless I'm in a really strong wind maybe. Do I need IS on the 70-200 2.8 - absolutely - its a very heavy lens hand-held. In fact I almost always put mine on the tripod.

September 21st, 2010, 06:11 AM	#22
Richard D. George Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 351	The 16-35 f/2.8L II is a great lens, but it's forte is for use as a wide zoom on a full-frame body. The functional equivalent on a crop body is the EF-S 10-22. The EF 24-70 f/2.8L and EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS are great lenses that cover moderate wide to modest telephoto on a full-frame body. One is faster and the other has more range and has IS. The functional equivalent on a crop body is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The original poster was mixing "apples and oranges" from an effective field of view perspective. The 16-35 f/2.8L II has an oddball filter size. On a full-frame body, using a step-down ring to 77mm is not a good solution. The other L and EF-S lenses I have mentioned use the 77mm filter size.