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!