Best wide angle lens for video for Canon 7D

[Jeff Wisener]

I own a Canon EOS 7D SLR Digital Camera with 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens. I am looking for a wider angle lens with the hope of getting the best still & video I can for lets say under $850. Here are two options I am considering. Please give feedback if you know pros/cons. BTW, If you think there are better options, feel free to add them to the discussion:

1.Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens: I have read this lens has jagged edges when videoing. That is a concern if true & holding me back from buying it. If someone has this lens on a 7D & has videoed with it, please confirm or deny this is an issue.

2. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX Digital Zoom Lens (for Canon EOS Cameras)

[Ted Ramasola]

#2. It works great, its sharp, its bright. And I also use it on my full frame 5D at 15-16mm.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wisener

I have read this lens has jagged edges when videoing. That is a concern if true & holding me back from buying it. If someone has this lens on a 7D & has videoed with it, please confirm or deny this is an issue

I have that lens, not sure what they are referring to, do you have an example showing these jagged edges? I have not noticed that in my shots.

[Jeff Wisener]

Noa, I know I read it but cannot find the comment at the moment. It is past midnight so I am going to call it quits for tonight, got to go to work early.

Regardless, let me ask you if you have used this lens for video on a 7D & if so, did it perform well? Would you recommend it for a lens to do general video?

Thanks,'
Jeff

[Noa Put]

use it on my 550d but video performance wise it should be the same, it's 9 in the morning here and I have to leave now for a wedding and have one tommorow as well, if you want I can film a particular scene and post it on youtube, or upload a short sequence of the raw material to dropbox so you can have a look at it yourself? Will be earliest Sunday before I can do this.

[Mark Watson]

I have both lenses. What I like about the Canon is the extra zoom range and the MF/AF switch. I got this lens first and shot plenty of video and mega timelapse photos. Very good as a walk around lens also. I never noticed any jaggedness to my video shots. If you go all the way down to 10mm, you will see some distortion towards fisheye effect, but not too bad. Back if off just a tad and it's gone.

The Tokina I got last year and have been using in place of the Canon just to see how it does. The lens has very nice optical quality, I'd say it out performs the Canon, but not by much. I prefer it for video indoors for the fixed aperture. I still prefer the Canon for walking around picture/video shooting. For timelapse, it's a mixed bag. On the Canon, I can set the camera up on a tripod during daylight hours and use the AF mode to get good focus, then I switch to MF so it doesn't change as the sun is going down and I'm shooting. The Tokina has a push-pull ring around the barrel which I can't seem to shift to MF mode without throwing off the setting. I think the Tokina will fit on a full frame sensor camera also, so that's a plus.

Mark

[Seth Bloombaum]

How wide a lens are you looking for? I always have to relate it back to crop factors and 35mm film cams.

10mm lens with 1.6 crop factor = equivalent 16mm, an effects lens.
11mm = 17.6, an effects lens.
16mm = 25.6, a true wide angle.
22mm = 35.2, a moderate wide angle.

Why go through the math? These equivalents can be very helpful! The most useful (equivalent) wide angle range for general photo/video is 24 to 28mm. This gives you good looks at interior spaces without much distortion, and is great for shooting rooms full of people.

Shorter than 24mm (equivalent) falls into what I call an effects lens; very useful if there's something you're shooting that requires it. However, lines near the edges won't be straight, and objects or people close to the camera look very distorted. A lot depends on what you're shooting; organic shapes in the outdoors don't seem as objectionable when distorted by extreme wide angles.

So much depends on what you're shooting and what you want it to look like. There's nothing wrong with extreme wide angles, but they fall outside of "representational" guidelines. I'm having a great time with a new Rokinon/Samyang 8mm (12.8 equiv) for stills, but I mostly do distortion correction in post, and I haven't found a video use for it yet. I'm sure I will, but that will be a heavily distorted shot!

I love the Canon 17-55mm range on a Canon crop cam (27-88mm equiv), to me this is the most useful range. Having a 28mm (45mm) wide would be very frustrating. It's really not wide at all.

YMMV. In your shoes I would consider renting before buying. In my town, just about any canon lens is available for $30 per day or weekend from a couple pro shops, then there's lensrentals.com, too.

FWIW, here is my sense of focal length use. All in 35mm equiv. These are offered as guidelines, not rules:
* <22mm, lots of wide angle effects and distortion
* 24-28mm, really useful for wide angle interiors and exteriors.
* 35mm, billed as a W.A., but really not very wide. Some say this is closer to what the eye sees.
* 50mm, the classic "normal" lens, optical engineers say this is most equivalent to the eye (ignoring the eye's much wider field of view)
* 85-105mm, classic head&shoulders or portrait lens. Very useful for shooting people int/ext. when you're in control of the distance to the subject.
* >150mm, useful for isolating people or action when you're not in control of the subject distance, eg. sports & wildlife. Not very useful for interiors.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Jeff,

This wide angle question crops up a lot on here. I went with Canon 10-22mm for my own reasons which are summarised here. I'm also looking forward to using this lens on my C100 (when that eventually arrives!)

Anyway, hope this helps.

CanonWideAngle

[Daniel Epstein]

I bought the Canon 15 to 85 for my 7D mostly for stills but it can be used for Video as well. Right about in the $850 price range you are looking at. Not a real Cine lens so for video it is not perfect.

[Seth Bloombaum]

Andy, great review on your choice of the Canon vs. Tokina superwides.

I was interested to read that you also have the Canon 17-55 f2.8. I love that lens! Along the lines of general lens usefulness, how would you compare the situations in which you are using the 10-22 vs the 17-55?

[Andy Wilkinson]

Hi Seth,

The LOVELY 17-55mm EF-S Canon "lives" on my 7D. I would say about 80% of the shots I do with that camera are with this lens (video and stills).

The Canon 10-22mm is a treat and gets used now and again - maybe 10% of the time - but when I need it REALLY delivers. Without it I'd be lost - it is a joy. It's a tack sharp lens for stills (like the 17-55mm - which is as far as I'm concerned is "L glass quality" in optics, but not in build quality) and a great lens on the Merlin Steadicam too.

It's not ideal in low light - the Tokina would win there (if you can handle the ultra shallow DOF at F2.8). Also, in it not being fixed aperture, that's (yet) another aspect to think about when shooting video - but heck that's rarely a problem (and at least its got a better, more useful zoom range).

More important (for me) is that I don't get much barrel distortion, even on full wide. Being in the Cambridge area I do a lot of techinical - and occasionally architectural - type work. Unexpected "bends in walls and precision engineered/hi-tech bits of kit" would draw unwelcome comments from my clients....

But as we all know, wide shot resolution (in video mode) is far from a strong point with the 7D, which is one reason I'm buying a Canon C100. I think both this 10-22mm and the 17-55mm will be great lenses on that cam!

[Robert Turchick]

Had the Tokina 11-16 while I owned a 7D and it was great. Will probably get one again if I go the Blackmagic route. If not...the new Zeiss 15mm f2.8 should be a killer. Also Rokinon just released a 14mm cinema style for EF mount. All will work great with the 7D

[Jeff Wisener]

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

How wide a lens are you looking for? I always have to relate it back to crop factors and 35mm film cams.

10mm lens with 1.6 crop factor = equivalent 16mm, an effects lens.
11mm = 17.6, an effects lens.
16mm = 25.6, a true wide angle.
22mm = 35.2, a moderate wide angle.

Why go through the math? These equivalents can be very helpful! The most useful (equivalent) wide angle range for general photo/video is 24 to 28mm. This gives you good looks at interior spaces without much distortion, and is great for shooting rooms full of people.

Shorter than 24mm (equivalent) falls into what I call an effects lens; very useful if there's something you're shooting that requires it. However, lines near the edges won't be straight, and objects or people close to the camera look very distorted. A lot depends on what you're shooting; organic shapes in the outdoors don't seem as objectionable when distorted by extreme wide angles.

So much depends on what you're shooting and what you want it to look like. There's nothing wrong with extreme wide angles, but they fall outside of "representational" guidelines. I'm having a great time with a new Rokinon/Samyang 8mm (12.8 equiv) for stills, but I mostly do distortion correction in post, and I haven't found a video use for it yet. I'm sure I will, but that will be a heavily distorted shot!

I love the Canon 17-55mm range on a Canon crop cam (27-88mm equiv), to me this is the most useful range. Having a 28mm (45mm) wide would be very frustrating. It's really not wide at all.

YMMV. In your shoes I would consider renting before buying. In my town, just about any canon lens is available for $30 per day or weekend from a couple pro shops, then there's lensrentals.com, too.

FWIW, here is my sense of focal length use. All in 35mm equiv. These are offered as guidelines, not rules:
* <22mm, lots of wide angle effects and distortion
* 24-28mm, really useful for wide angle interiors and exteriors.
* 35mm, billed as a W.A., but really not very wide. Some say this is closer to what the eye sees.
* 50mm, the classic "normal" lens, optical engineers say this is most equivalent to the eye (ignoring the eye's much wider field of view)
* 85-105mm, classic head&shoulders or portrait lens. Very useful for shooting people int/ext. when you're in control of the distance to the subject.
* >150mm, useful for isolating people or action when you're not in control of the subject distance, eg. sports & wildlife. Not very useful for interiors.

Excellent information. Thank you for taking the time to post all of this! I have a 28-135mm lens (+ a number of larger lens) which as you stated, it not wide enough thus the reason for the post. Based on what you are saying (guidelines) & others regarding quality of lens, it appears either would do well for me. The main thing that made me want to get a wider angle lens was shooting in Angor Wat this summer which is a lot of indoor type shots & shooting exterior, landscape type shots of massive temples. I have a number of telephoto lens (surf photography) which was my primary reason to begin shooting but now I am branching out. Regarding portrait, I have the 100mm Macro lens by Canon & believe it or not, it doubles as an excellent portrait type lens. My 28-135mm has been my jack of all trades lens. I believe if I get one of these wider angles lens, it might be on my camera a lot on vacations.

[Jeff Wisener]

Originally Posted by Mark Watson

I have both lenses. What I like about the Canon is the extra zoom range and the MF/AF switch. I got this lens first and shot plenty of video and mega timelapse photos. Very good as a walk around lens also. I never noticed any jaggedness to my video shots. If you go all the way down to 10mm, you will see some distortion towards fisheye effect, but not too bad. Back if off just a tad and it's gone.

The Tokina I got last year and have been using in place of the Canon just to see how it does. The lens has very nice optical quality, I'd say it out performs the Canon, but not by much. I prefer it for video indoors for the fixed aperture. I still prefer the Canon for walking around picture/video shooting. For timelapse, it's a mixed bag. On the Canon, I can set the camera up on a tripod during daylight hours and use the AF mode to get good focus, then I switch to MF so it doesn't change as the sun is going down and I'm shooting. The Tokina has a push-pull ring around the barrel which I can't seem to shift to MF mode without throwing off the setting. I think the Tokina will fit on a full frame sensor camera also, so that's a plus.

Mark

Thank you so much for posting! I did not think I would find a person that owns both. It sounds like I cannot go wrong with either based on your summary. It sounds like the Canon is more versatile but a bit more limited on available light with a smaller aperture?? If you had to own one, which would it be & if the Canon, is it worth the extra $ in your mind?

[Jeff Wisener]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

use it on my 550d but video performance wise it should be the same, it's 9 in the morning here and I have to leave now for a wedding and have one tommorow as well, if you want I can film a particular scene and post it on youtube, or upload a short sequence of the raw material to dropbox so you can have a look at it yourself? Will be earliest Sunday before I can do this.

Noa:

Of course I would appreciate it if you post some footage of that lens. If you decide to do it, if possible try to show the range of the lens so I can see the extremes of the 10mm to 22mm. Thanks ahead of time....