This is a factually incorrect statement. As I'm sure you will know, 1 stop equals double the light, or half the ISO. Clearly there are a multitude of situations where having f/2.8 will allow you to make a shot without 5 digit ISO.


You are not really saying anything here. Define poor light conditions. Again, f/2.8 means double the light. If you take a real situation where there is enough light for 3200 ISO on an f/4 lens, this means f/2.8 will allow you to shoot at 1600 ISO. Despite what you say, this matters to film makers. A lot.

Low light potential and shallow DOF are two of the main selling points of DSLRs. The 'bulk of shooters' who don't care about maximising the light gathering potential of a camera use camcorders and bypass all the limitations of DSLR.

The 24-105mm is a great lens. Jeremy stated that the lens was a good all round choice for the 7D, and I thought it was worth pointing out that most people on this forum would not recommend this as the ideal choice to start a lens collection for the camera.

This is because there are other choices which will be more suited. Not only on the basis of the maximum aperture, but because 24mm is not really that wide on a cropped sensor. That does not mean I am dismissing the lens. As Liam has pointed out, it is a better choice if you own the 5d.

Like many people, I still use a camcorder in many situations. I use a DSLR because for my projects, I do not want the look created by a typical lighting set up. I need to be able to shoot in ambient light to achieve the look I am after. There are many many occasions where if I only had f/4, I simply would not have been able to make the shot, whereas f/2.8 has been sufficient.

I have never shot video in a graveyard on a cloudy night. In all honesty, I would be too scared.

James, how many times can you say "double the light" in one thread?

Ok yes, you could shoot 6400 ISO f2.8 instead of 12,500 ISO, f4. But you'd still have a CF card full of garbage because neither lens is the right tool for the job.

Let's be civil please (it might not looks like it, but I'm trying real hard)... If you are riding the noisy end of the ISO, you're going to get ugly footage with either lens. If you are riding the clean end, you are going to get clean footage with either lens. In either case the 24-105 is more versitile in every other aspect.

Where I come from, filmmakers use lights. Lighting matters to filmmakers... A lot.
Good filmmakers anyway. Just because you CAN shoot f2.8 6400ISO, and not light, doesn't mean you should.

That's a factually incorrect generalization.

And I thought it was worth pointing out that you're speaking for an incredibly tiny niche of shooters. If you want to represent your niche, great... you are welcome to. But most of us here don't shoot no-light indie film in ambient light.

At this point I'll toss in a better choice, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS (the EFS equiv to the 24-70L).
If you shoot the 7D it offers the best of both lenses in a more usable focal range.

You ARE one of the people who don't think they need to light a scene because they shoot 6400iso!

Anyway, I think that pretty much wraps up this discussion.
Sure, why not.... I'll agree... if you don't plan on EVER lighting anything and only ever shoot from a tripod, in low light... you might as well go for that extra stop from the 24-70 f2.8, or better the 17-55 f2.8 IS...
Or even better, (at least if you are serious about filmmaking) spend the same money on the 28mm, 50mm, 85mm set of prime lenses.

Agreed..

Dylan, you seem like an intelligent fellow. Given that, I think it's important to note that there are probably more event shooters on this forum than indie filmmakers. At least based on my observations during my time here. In a large proportion of cases, event guys cannot light. Just can't. I constantly go back and forth between the two worlds. I shoot event work at my job, and indie film for my hobby. I light everything I can.

I'll offer a couple of real-world examples. As part of what I do, I volunteer with my local roller derby team. They use one venue for practice, and a different one for their games (bouts). When I film for them at bout time, they are in a fairly well lit venue. It seats about 1000 people, has overhead fluorescent lightnig as well as large bay windows at one end of the space. I find that with the EX1 set to about 320 ISO, I can shoot at F4 until the sun begins to set, and then I am at F2.8 to F2.0. I can't get critical focus at that stop but it's "good enough for purpose". We are talking an area about the size of a basketball court.

When I shoot them at their practice venue it's less than 4 footcandles on the floor. I am two stops under shooting F1.9 at 640 ISO. It's a public venue. I have no way to light it. Even if I could afford the 10 5K lights I'd need, I couldn't hang them anywhere. I was told last week that they'd be holding the season ending bout in this venue. So I am sourcing an F1.4 lens and I'll have to shoot on the T2i because I just cannot get decent exposure with the EX1.

Similarly, a few years ago, I had to shoot a weekend conference for work. It was to be 2, 8 hour days and 1 4hr day. I was shooting with the EX1. When I got there, I found that I needed to be placed about 40ft from the stage. My job was to film speakers at the podium. When you zoom in the EX1 lens, it stops down to about F/2.8. When I metered the podium position it read 1.3FC. Essentially, the equivalent of a candle. I asked if they had lights, and they said yes, they would provide lights. Some time later, about an hour before the show was to start, they brought out the "lights". Essentially 2 750s that would be placed about 30ft each from the stage. Once they turned them on, I read 13FC at the podium. About what you'd have in a bedroom in the evening. I was 40ft away, and this was the best they could do.

Wedding videographers, press videographers, and other people doing event work face this challenge daily. There is no opportunity to light properly, and you have to do the best you can with what you have. Had I been in a position where I only had an F4 lens, I would not have been able to capture anything. As it stands now, I have 4 pieces of glass that fit my T2i and none is faster than F3.5. Consequently, I don't use it indoors much. It might be more fair to say that F2.8 is a better place to start because it opens possibilities to shoot indoors in more poor lighting conditions. But in the spaces some of these folks need to work (dimly lit churches, or dance halls), An F/2.0 lens is the ragged edge, and F/1.4 is really where they need to be. Even with all it's problems.

So while I feel you two are talking across purposes here, I think some understanding and tolerance for the guys who simply cannot light for various reasons is warranted.

The concept of not lighting night exteriors is a whole new choice--no, it's not an excuse for not being able to light them if you needed to, but it is an opportunity to experiment and break some "rules".

After being involved with "Reverie" and a subsequent job in NYC with Vincent Laforet, I decided I had to get a 1DMKIV. Shortly thereafter I was up to shoot a music video with a well-established director; frames I showed him from the NYC job got him excited enough that I won the gig. Cut to: standing in a graveyard on a cloudy night (seriously!), shooting the lovely young lead singer as she strode half-dressed through the mud. It wasn't all available light--had a ring light on the camera, and four to six road flares carefully placed in the background of each setup, but the results were still amazing at 3200 ASA (this was just before we learned about the good and bad ISO settings). Had we had to hot-light the background, it would have required a ton more gear and crew and rigging and time, none of which we had; the road flares did an admirable job. The director loved it and I've done several more jobs for him.

Moral of story: shooting in ambient light at high ISO's is a great new weapon--but agreed, it's not the be-all and end-all.

(wish I could show you even a frame grab of this job that was shot months and months ago, but the legal department of the label has been wrestling with it and it may never see the light of day)

I think it's an important point. Maybe even informative to some people reading the thread.

Whatever ISO were quoted in my example (not the ones you used), the very simple point of my statement is that being able to half your ISO in any given situation is without debate an important thing. But it was just an example!

I am not advocating 'riding the noisy end' of ISO. Again, you seem to be suggesting that the lenses are as good as each other in low light. The reason I am partaking in this debate is to emphasise the point that 1 stop does make a tremendous difference in the real world, not to irritate anyone, so I apologise if I have appeared to lower my standard of civility to you, it was not my intention.

I regard myself as a film maker, and I sometimes even use lights, so I agree with you. In my example I used the figure of 1600 ISO, not 6400 or 12800 ISO because in my experience, 1600 has been the absolute maximum level required to produce a usable shot. Of course, ideally it should be as low as possible.

I don't advocate shooting above 1600, I don't deny lights are used almost universally, and I don't shoot in graveyards. Let's not take what is offered as examples to type cast each other.

For certain types of project, often I need a look or a shot that precludes lighting, or I want a super shallow depth of field. That's it. My whole entire point. I am not a hard bitten anti-light high ISO fan I seem to be becoming here.

I don't think so. I think the vast majority of people on this forum regard that extra stop to be important, and are also confronted with situations where frequently lighting is not possible or desirable. I am not in a tiny niche.

Just because I say I use a certain method for a certain project, it doesn't mean I use it all the time. I also shoot interviews and other standard stuff.

I occasionally shot a film with no lighting at all, but rarely. I have never shot a film where every scene is lit. I don't think that's so unusual.

I agree.

Eh? I really have no clue where you got that idea. It is not something I have ever stated because it is ridiculously far from the truth. I am the same as anyone else, I try to minimise the ISO, and light if I want to or have to.

Let me throw in a quote from earlier in the conversation here, as thing seem be rather absurdly becoming reversed:

Back to your last post...

Even if you do plan to light, those f/2.8 zooms are still a better choice as all round DSLR videographers lenses.

I agree with your range of primes. I personally only use primes for my films. I really enjoy the experience of shooting with them. I use a 28mm f/1.9, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 85mm f/1.9, and I really appreciate the speed of these lenses, among other qualities. I would consider adding the Tokina 11-16mm, and I am awaiting delivery of a 135mm f/1.8, but I doubt I will use it much.

James, could you post a link to some of your work?

I think it would be helpful to many people, particularly newbies, to "judge the source".

I'm all for long winded arguments, technical or creative, but I think this community is best served when we know who each other is.

Cheers,

I am more than happy to allow my statements to be evaluated without being backed up by evidence of my work. In my opinion, the points I make are obvious, and not rocket science, and stand up without any need for source to judge. If anyone feels that somehow they are less valid because of this, I will have to just say so be it.

For the record, I am not short of experience, having started as a runner for a video editing suite in Poland Street in 1991, and progressed in to editing, telecine and camera work from there. My father was a television and film actor, and I have been lucky enough to have spent some time on various sets and getting to know some knowledgeable people. I understand the technical and creative processes very well.

These days I am not in the industry. Instead, I am in the software business, which allows me to focus on film making as a hobby, and contribute freely to local community projects.

Well, so be it:)

In 1991, hmm. I'll take a guess at Palace Video or Dubs?

No, but i play one on TV.

There's more everything here than indie filmmakers! :)
So... Event shooters can be broken up into several different categories. yes, wedding shooters shooting low light receptions is a great example of where an extra stop would be helpful. On the other hand, there are a greater number of event shooters who shoot full time in full light, who would suffer from the limitations of this lens because... the 24-70 is a really bad event lens in the first place! Especially on a 7D... Short reaches, too little DOF, no IS for on the fly.. the 24-105L IS is a much better tool for the job in most people\s cases.

Plus when you look at the other people shooting here, corporate video, commercial video, industrial video, etc... which represent a major demographic on top of the indie film scene who can light (whether they *cough* choose to or not), then the extra stop of the 2.8 is barely relevant.

My point is that it is ridiculous for James to completely dismiss the 24-105L for the 24-70L for everyone in this forum, just because he represents a small niche.

Both of you are making valid points, from differing perspectives. But I think the points are both understood by those who need them. So I vote shake hands and let it go...

And did you shoot anything slower than f1.2 this time? Just kidding... mostly... :)

I'm actually totally in favour of more "natural" light shooting, done properly, with the right tools for the job. Having said that, I've been holding off buying a 1D4 for months of Photokina/1DsIV rumours. If it doesnt come out then, I'm caving and getting the 1D

Agreed! People can read both points and make their own judgments based upon what they shoot.
(cough)FILMMAKERS BUY PRIMES!(cough)

Look, as silly as this is getting, as long as you keep mis-representing me, I will happily set the record straight. If you stop putting words in my mouth, making false claims about what I have said, I will fall silent on the issue forever more.

I like the lens. It really would be ridiculous if I had dismissed it. I never did. I believe the question arose 'what is a good alround lens for the 7D'. I simply stated that most people would recommend an f/2.8 zoom over an f/4 zoom for DSLR videography. I stand by that statement for all the previously listed reasons, and I genuinely believe that would be supported by a consensus of DSLR users.. I am frankly incredulous how much this simple expression of opinion has bothered you Dylan. Do you own a 24-105L by any chance?

So much for ending it with class.

This is what you wrote, and this is what I refute.
You ask why I've been so irritated by you... it isn't really your point that bothers me... it's your condescending attitude. As I pointed out a half dozen times, not everyone shoots no-light indie film, and if they do, they should be shooting fast primes so they can get ISO into at least the low 4 digits.

Clearly I know which lens you own, but for the record I own BOTH 24-105 f4 and 24-70 f2.8 lenses (and about 12-14 more). I probably shoot a wider range of stuff than anyone on here, and I've never wished for just one more stop (3 or 4 stops, yes), but I've often wished for IS and extra reach when I had the wrong lens with me.

Perrone made a nice attempt to close this discussion with class. We've both made our points. Let's try it one more time.

To the original poster... what lenses do you buy to get a film look out of a 7D?

Best bang for the buck (all AI or non-AI glass)
Nikkor 24mm f2.8
Nikkor 35mm f2.0
Nikkor 50mm f1.4
Nikkor 85mm f2.0
(the last one I don't own, but am taking Ken Rockwell's word for it).
You can get that set of lenses, plus adapters, for $600-$800 off eBay or Craigslist, and they will outlast your 7D.

Or if you want AF lenses:
Canon 28mm f1.8
Canon 50mm f1.4
Canon 85mm f1.8
Will come to $1400ish, but will deliver great low light and insane DOF when you need it.

Hi guys, how do you go about 'de-clicking' the samyang 85mm.

Just got mine, love it, great build, focus is so smooth, apetture ring not so much

Cheers

James

Is this list good for Canon 5D as well ???? i end up buying 5D and was wondering it same lense would work with 5d as well .

Wow, this spicy old thread.

FYI I just finished shooting a project in a submarine that required me to shoot at 1250 ASA (on the 1DMKIV's) to work with the existing light as much as possible (I did a lot of shaping and re-lit the foregrounds anyway). Shooting stop was generally around a 2.8 to a 4 as I needed the option of shooting with zooms. I used the Canon 24-70 and 70-200, the Focus Optics Ruby 14-24 and Zeiss CP2's. After living on the zooms for the first day for working speed, I finally broke out the CP2's on some of the "larger" sets on the sub and the difference was readily apparent on the monitor. It wasn't just an issue of sharpness but clarity, smoothness of tone and an overall cleaner image. While that may suggest to some a more video image than filmic, in this instance it just made the camera look better.

Charles,

I don't think your finding would come as any surprise to anyone with a healthy background in photography, cinematography, or extended use of the DSLRs.

Whenever I put on one of my nicer primes, I am astounded by how marvelous they look. As you say, it's just "obvious".

But people do what they can do. Working on primes is a heck of a lot easier when you control the framing! :) I had to use the butt-zoom last night on my shoot. For those unfamiliar with that term, it means moving your butt further back or closer to get the framing you need instead of twisting the zoom!

Charles, you'll understand the challenges when I say that one of my weekly shoots is of high motion sports in an facility with about 1.5-3 candlepower on the floor! And I need slo-mo from it!