Stan, regarding your comment ...

"On the ultrawides, I've read reports of problems with moire on the Tokina for video and that the Canon 10-22mm does better in this regard."

I personally think this is a red herring (= incorrect information) and I have posted about this on that other forum where the comment appeared on (you may well have seen it elsewhere, I don't know). However, I don't believe the originators of those comments, wherever they are posted, understand some of the limitations of the DSLR technology that they are using and how best to use ultra-wide angles with these limitations in mind.

I just don't want false information circulating on DVinfo (but I'm willing to be proved wrong if someone can show us EVIDENCE that the Tokina 11-16 has more moire problems than the Canon 10-22). For the record I own the latter (and a 7D).

OK, let's hopefully see the thread return to it's great main subject!!!

As I have posted a few times already, I'm afraid I have changed my mind again!
This is the problem with having to shoot a lot of different styles.

My 50mm 1.4 is on the camera 90% of the time. Just love the look and with the z-finder I'm starting to nail rack focus effects!

I have the 70-200 f4L and it's wonderful too but for a very different use and on tripod only.

Last...ok NEXT lens (assuming they are going to make enough of them) will be the 11-16 Tokina. A buddy of mine has one and raves about it.

And then there's the 24-70 f2.8 L from Canon.
And then the 100mm f2.8 L Macro
And then the Tamron 200-500
And then...
And then...
And then...

(sorry for the Dude, Where's my Car reference!)

Speaking of "Doubling Up ..."
 

This is a good point - and I struggled with the potential "duplicate focal length," but I've learned that with the unpredictability of the lighting - the speed of the 1.4 is ideal ...

... which brings me to my next question. Any thoughts on the EF-S f2.8 17-55 vs EF 24-70 (L series). Is the extra with at the wide end worth it? vs the "L-series" extra $300.

Thoughts?!?

Andy, I've removed the comment from my post. I certainly don't want incorrect info spread. Thanks, Stan

OK Guys and Gals... New to the HDSLR scene so I've been doing my home work and I have a question for you folks. Everywhere I've researched they all say the same, Canon 50mm1.8, 1.4 if you can afford it, the Tokina's, the Sigma's, Tamron's etc, etc. Pretty much verbatim of what has been mentioned in this thread. And, this is agreed upon, accross the board thoughout several forums and indie circles. I have even seen awesome footage!

I was ready to purchase my new lens, until I came across one blog that completely changed my perspective. I researched what he said and tend to lean toward his advice. Basically he mentioned the lenses that we all want and said that if you want to shoot for the big screen, none of them can hold thier weight. The Canon 50mm1.4 comes close but still doesn't look sharp(he used that word a lot) on the big screen.

For internet indie work, broadcast TV, they are fine, but according to him for the big screen you need to get into Zeiss or Leica. The only lens that came close to the ones we mention are the older Nikon lenses.

I'm apologizing beforehand because , for the life of me, I can't find that blog. But, was wondering what you good folks felt about that. And let me narrow my question to people who have successfully shot a film for the big screen or who's focus is cinematography.

Thanks mate - seems we both share the same values!

Just 3???
 

Let me do I quick count around my room... 7 Glass + 4 Plastic
Camera Gear on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
New Toys - Lomography Lenses on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I don't seriously think you can get away with just 3, I went to europe with three but mainly used my wide angle (buildings etc). But unless my video is going to be of just one thing, your going to need different lenses.

People - Whole Range depending on how far they are away from the camera
Night - Fast Glass
LandScape - Wide Angle or PC
Buildings - Wide Angle or PC

If I had to use just three for a particular short and I didn't know what I was shooting (say in a competition).
50 or 60mm Portrait Prime
Wide angle or Full-Frame Fisheye on an APC-S Sensor
70-200mm

If its animals I'd flip the 50mm prime for a ultrazoom
If its night I'd pull out the Fastest Glass I have access too
If its doc about location or landscape, 50 is out again and replaced with a PC lens or another wide angle (so I would have Wide + Fisheye)
Action - I have access to some older lenses where the zoom & focus is on one ring (turn=focus, slide back and forth = zoom) as long as your fixed to a motion ball head for stability you can track things pretty fast & accurately with these things.
Things close-up, dump the wide and tele for some Macros.

So Basically 1 Wide, 1 Normal, 1 Telephoto

You've even seen awesome footage -- bingo. What more of an endorsement do you need?

If you're shooting for the big screen, then you're most likely going to be using some camera other than the delicate, plastic little Rebel.

The Rebel certainly has some limited big-screen filmmaking applications as a crash cam, I'll admit that right away. As cheap and disposable as it is, you could happily destroy it if a certain type of shot calls for it -- that's the beauty of it. However as far as big-screen filmmaking with a D-SLR goes, I think you'll want to explore our 5D Mk. II forum, because you're going to want a camera that isn't plastic, is much more robust, and offers much better image control, particularly with regard to White Balance and ISO. It's a "right tool for the right job" kind of thing.

Hi Graeme,

My primary reason in starting this thread was as a resource guide for people dipping their toes in the world of HDSLRs. I completely agree that each event will require a different set of lenses, however for most people funds will initially be a sticking point (which is why i settled on three).

Thanks for all your info in your post. I'm sure many will find it useful.

I sort of think differently about the lenses. Many people choose a mixture of focal lengths to get the highest quality at any given focal length. My strategy would be more functional. The lenses would be:

EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens - Around $300, for times when there is enough light and you only want to carry one lens

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens - $1000 Better in low light and decent telephoto range. This would be the go to lens

Canon Wide Angle EF 35mm f/2.0 Autofocus Lens - $300. When you want razor thin shallow depth of field or for really dark environments. Not for handheld work though, no IS.

Well if your on a budget and only "dipping" your feet into it, get an 18-200mm lens + a fast 50mm or 85mm (85mm if your style is more zoom on people's faces when they are talking). Sure the mega-zoom will not have the best IQ, however if your just starting out then you want ability over quality, and your mid-range fast prime will give you good IQ on the cheap.

Save your third lenses choice for later once you do some shooting with the HDSLR you'll feel what is lacking out of the two (you'll also notice which range you tend to shot more it). Just a note: if your shooting a lot of flat surfaces (walls, items in a line) a Macro lens will outperform a regular lens as they tend to have flat focus fields, where as many other lenses get "soft" and out of focus at the edges because their focus field isn't flat, it has a curve to it. The 18-200 will suffer for this, so if that is a problem you may want to rethink the above.

17- 55mm IS family video shooting
 

Dear Jon Fairhust,

Thank you for your advice. I have tried to shoot some family video and found that the 24mm 2.8f is really not the lens for family video shooting. The video footage seems better with image stablization.

The Canon 17- 55mm IS really covers most of the situation. But I am now think of getting the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC for its cheaper price.

Regards

Kenneth

Hi Kenneth,

Shooting with the 24mm should give you a feel for the range that you'll get with the zooms that you're considering. You'll get both wider and tighter shots.

Regarding the Canon vs. Tamron, I don't know how they compare. The Canon has a great reputation. I'm not sure about the Tamron.

Jon,

You are right. Perhaps it is just an urge to buy lens that makes me consider the 17-50 VC. Maybe I should keep the 24mm and try some other ways to solve the image stablization problem. A support brace or a monopod will be fine.


Kenneth

I'm very pleased with my choice to get the Tamron 17-50 VC lens to use as my primary lens.

As a secondary lens, I was considering the Sigma 50-150mm or the Tokina 50-135mm. I think the Tokina 50-135mm was discontinued, although I'm not sure why. I guess neither of these lenses have IS.

Has anyone else been considering these lenses, or other alternatives within the same focal range approximately?

Tamron 17-50 VC or Canon 15-85mm
 

I am considering between the above 2 lenses. Which one is better for video?

I now have...
 

Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4
Canon EF-s 17-55mm f/2.8
Canon EF 70-200mm L f/2.8
Yes, there's a gap, but I'm good now!

Question for you. Did you choose the Sigma over the Canon 50mm because it's wider, faster, or has better glass. For an all purpose starter kit in what order would you place importance:
- greater width
- better glass
- faster lense

Probably have posted this before, but I did buy the Tamron 17-50 VC.

Tamron glass is excellent; the brand has improved greatly over the years.

It is a true f/2.8 across the full zoom range.

Images seem very adequate for video. Of course, fast primes are preferable.

The major weakness of the lens is the manual focus ring. It has almost a motorized feel to it and is difficult to achieve critical focus. I have not tried to mount the camera to rails and adapt my Petroff follow-focus to the Tamron, but I suspect that focus would still be difficult.

I suppose several considerations mitigated my decision-- 1) I didn't want to use the kit lens even for family photos 2) I wanted a fast lens that I could use for interview work 3) price. At $629 less a $25 rebate (which I received in two weeks), it was a far more reasonable alternative than a comparable Canon.

I also added an inexpensive telephoto-- Canon 55-250 IS. The Tamron glass is far superior but again, price was a consideration-- $195 at B&H for refurb 55-250 vs $1200+ for Canon 70-200 f/4 IS and more like $1800 for the f/2.8

I'm next going to add the Tokina 11-16 whenever they become available again.

Should I find I really can make money with the DSLR, I would then upgrade both camera body as well as lenses.

Meanwhile, for interviews destined primarily for web, I find the T2i and my lens choices adequate.

But if you have the ability to monetize the hardware, go for the best glass you can.

- greater width - Yes
- better glass - Don't know
- faster lense - Yes

Better overall value!

Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC
 

I have purchased the above lens for US$474.36 in Hong Kong. I like the lens.

17mm is wide enough for me. Images are sharp and bright. The VC is very effective.

But the auto focus is not very fast and the motor is noisy.

Keep the Canon 24mm 2.8f
 

Having used the Tamron 17-50 VC for a few days, I decided to keep the Canon 24mm 2.8f since it is light in weight and can be my one lens option for some shooting occassions.

My 3 lenses are :

Tamron 17-50 VC
Canon 55-250mm
Canon 24mm 2.8f

I have tried my friend's Canon 50mm 1.8f and I think it is a very goods lens in terms of the low price. However, it is not better than my Canon 24mm as it not wide enough for most shooting scene and the 1.8f is not that useful as I expected.

2.8f is already enough for video.

I will keep the Canon 24mm 2.8f and I don't think I need a Canon 50mm 1.8

An ultra wide angle is also not under consideration as the 17mm of Tamron is wide enough for me.

from what ive read around here sharpness is almost never an issue shooting video on these cameras with any half decent lens as the amount of pixels used in full HD is very small compared to stills.. feel free to correct me if im wrong!

The main challenge in getting sharpness is to achieve accurate focus. A good, long-throw focus ring can be more important than having the very sharpest glass.

indeed.. it can sometimes be quite hard to get the relevant info when youre researching lenses as stills photographers have very different requirements, sharpness for them is high up on the list but can often be unnoticeable in video

Hi Aaron,

For three bodies:
2 x Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS
Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8

Why? I do events and I like the reach of the Canon 24-105 for close-ups more than I need the wide side and low-light ability of the Canon 17-55 2.8. I went back and forth on that decision for a while being that they're comparatively priced. I'd love to have the 2.8 IS version of the 70-200 but the weight and cost deterred me, especially because I wanted two. I like using the Tokina for dance floors, steadicam and detail shots. Its my favorite of the lot.

So which are the best lens brands for this camera?...

What about the Zeiss...?

(I'm looking for a wide angle lens, and a normal lens)

Hi all, first post here... so don't be too rude plz!

First off, I think this is a great forum, with lots of very useful infoz ... thanks to everyone who contributed to it!

I had to bump this one up because I would like your advice please, but first a short background (you can skip this part if you want to):
I don't make a living with my pictures/videos. I'm actually into the sound business(!) I do sound design/recording/mixing mainly for television. But I always loved cinematography and so I had a Canon HV20 and a Canon rebel xt. Sold both of them and bought a T2i...

Here's my list of humble little lenses: Canon 18-55mm IS kit, Canon 28-105mm mkII Japan, Canon 50mm f1.8 mkII, Canon 55-250mm IS.
So the first thing I'm gonna do is replace the kit lens with the ever popular Tamron 17-50mm VC (that's an easy decision) BUT::
Here's my dilemma: what prime should I choose?
I was looking into those:

Sigma 30mm f1.4
Canon 35mm f2
Canon 50mm f1.4
Tamron 60mm f2 macro

I'm really trying to stick with a maximum of 3 lenses that could cover as much as possible while still being as versatile as possible ... I like the fact that the 30 and 35 gives me almost a standard lens. I also like that the 60 doubles as a full macro lens. Arghhhh terrible indecision!

Any help is appreciated ...

30mm 35mm 50mm are too similar
 

I do not own them but I believe the performance of Sigma 30, Canon 35 f2 and 50 f1.4 are quite similar in video. I have tried Canon 24mm f.2.8 and 50mm f1.8 and I found that there is very little difference in my video. The finishing and build of the lenses are of course very different. The Canon 24mm 2.8f is HK$2750 and the 50mm 1.8 is just HK$690!!!

I emphasis, little difference in in family video shooting only, not in photo or pro video.

The 60mm maco may give you a whole new dimension in video as it can shoot close-up. Perhaps you may consider a Canon 50mm 2.8 maco.

Besides, the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC is great. I have one.

I find that the EF 50/1.4 and EF 35/2 couldn't be more different. The main difference is the focus ring. The ring on the 35 is narrow and crummy. The ring on the 50 is wider and travels about 180 degrees. It isn't very smooth though. The extra stop makes the 50/1.4 superior in low light.

One advantage of the 35/2 is that it has a very short focus distance.

Optically, one thing I dislike about the 50/1.4 is that it has some barrel distortion. I want my normal shots undistorted. I can't recall if the 35/2 has much distortion. I sold it a few months ago.

I got my T2i few days ago basicaly for video work and bought a new Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 zoom(full frame).
I `m very happy with this zoom regarding image - contrast, colour transmition, resolution.
I`s not wide enough for all requirements though. So I`m going to keep the kit zoom lens to use it`s 18mm and, latter on, I intend to buy a EF 50mm 1.4 for low light work / exterior location.

So no one's mentioning the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 which, on paper, seems like a great deal for the money. Is it not very sharp? Made by terrorists? What's the story with this one?

Thanks Jon for the info on the manual focus rings... that makes a big difference. I guess I should be looking into the Nikon manual focus lenses for a long and smooth travel ... (?)

@ David: If Im not mistaken, the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 is not a constant aperture lens. It's only f2.8 @ 17mm. Its probably f4 @ 70mm. If you can live with that it has a very nice range for sure ...

I totally agree! A good external mic, stablization during handheld, panning on the tripod, and even the smoothness of the focusing ring can be more a concern for me in shooting video.

I have compared a Canon 17-40mm L lens with Canon 24mm 2.8f and found that the difference in stills is great. There is no big difference in video.

Yes - has anyone done any tests to see if "L" or Zeiss - quality glass really makes a difference when shooting video? I can see using fast lenses in low light, but not sure if really fine glass is needed.

The main advantage of Zeiss lenses is the long-travel, smooth focus ring with hard stops.

At NAB, I believe it was Shane Hurlbut who said that when he started shooting video with the 5D2, he was just figuring it out with cheap lenses, and that before long, he learned the importance of using good glass.

Hi Sam,

When I was shopping for lenses the tipping point for me was seeing the comparisons between an inexpensive and expensive lens. Near the bottom of the linked review of the 17-55 f/2.8 Canon is a rollover image comparison with the 18-55 kit lens that comes with the T2i. The difference in clarity and amount of chromatic aberration is noticeable.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review

If you know what to look for you'd see that in a video file, but in this business your success is based on what you do with your gear rather than what gear you do it with...

Sigma prime?
 

Anyone had experience with Sigma 50mm 1.4 ?

point me in the right direction
 

i have a t2i and right now i have the canon 50mm 1.4 and am very happy with it, and now im trying to decide on my next lens. im looking for a zoom lens with IS thats not going to break the bank, heres what im looking at.
Newegg.com - TAMRON AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens for Canon

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/582444-USA/Canon_2752B002_EF_S_18_200mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-GREY/Canon_0345B002_EF_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html
and i am considering a Tamron 17-50 VC as my 3rd lens

so basically the next lens ill buy will cover the top end of my focal range. are those good lenses to consider buying? does anyone have experience with any of them? will these work well with the 1.6 aps-c sensor? im also open to suggestions in that price range. any help would be greatly appreciated.

I agree with many others that the Tokina 11-16mm, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L would be definitely the ones to get if you can afford them.

If not, don't buy cheap zoom lenses, go for some good primes instead. They are even faster and cheaper.

Check out my blog on basic lenses for the T2i/550D - people keep telling me it's quite helpful. I've used most of the lenses before.

On a budget? Pimp your new Canon EOS Rebel T2i / 550D with essential accessories! Part 1: BASIC LENSES | Nino Film - Blog - Nino Leitner