If buying the new 7D or the Mark2 body, for the purposes of mostly video, which 2 or 3 lenses would be YOUR choice that you have now? Understanding that the 7D can't take full advantage of fullframe glass, would there be any reason to avoid certain more expensive lenses for cheaper glass?

2 or 3 lenses... Zeiss Contax mount 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, with AF confirm adapters would be a good start.

2 or 3 lenses... Zeiss Contax mount 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, with AF confirm adapters would be a good start.

Let's say I pre-ordered a 7D body and have 2000USD to work with?

I think it depends on what kind of work you shoot, if you have time to change lens then yeah prime is nice, for my line of work, I need low light and flexible so I'm getting the Canon17-55IS 2.8 first, then if I think I can live with shooting video with a still camera (-: and overcome all of its shortcoming, 12minutes max per clip, no articulated lcd, alliasing, then I will get a Tokina 11-16 2.8 for the wide range and the Canon 70-200IS 2.8 for the long range.

I think it depends on what kind of work you shoot, if you have time to change lens then yeah prime is nice, for my line of work, I need low light and flexible so I'm getting the Canon17-55IS 2.8 first, then if I think I can live with shooting video with a still camera (-: and overcome all of its shortcoming, 12minutes max per clip, no articulated lcd, alliasing, then I will get a Tokina 11-16 2.8 for the wide range and the Canon 70-200IS 2.8 for the long range.

I'm new to video (Not photography) and love what I see as far as walk around capturing the city. I live in Japan where everywhere you turn something interesting is happening.

I'd also like to start doing some bridal work as far as sitting couples down for some one on one time or to create some sort of banquet ceremony video (10 minutes) to enjoy will waiting OR at the end. Starting with friends and possibly working my way up.

Other than that...just JAPAN shots

If money is tight, the 28-135 IS lens that is part of the kit is not a bad deal, but it's not wide enough for me. I have a Tamron 17-35 on my 20D which I could use on the 7D. If you do lots of hand held work, you probably want a lens with IS, which the kit lens has. I'm wondering if a person could put a decent wide angle adapter on that lens for wider angle shots. I know life would be much better with the pricier and faster lenses, but you go with what you can afford. I have that cheap f1.8 50mm which feels like a toy but is surprisingly good under most conditions, so cheap isn't always bad.

If money is tight, the 28-135 IS lens that is part of the kit is not a bad deal, but it's not wide enough for me. I have a Tamron 17-35 on my 20D which I could use on the 7D. If you do lots of hand held work, you probably want a lens with IS, which the kit lens has. I'm wondering if a person could put a decent wide angle adapter on that lens for wider angle shots. I know life would be much better with the pricier and faster lenses, but you go with what you can afford. I have that cheap f1.8 50mm which feels like a toy but is surprisingly good under most conditions, so cheap isn't always bad.

I love my 50mm 1.8 for stills. Great lens. Nikkor glass though.
In a perfect world I'd like a nice prime 1.4, a wide-angle that is fast and a walk around zoom that is fast.

I have all my ancient pre-AI Nikkors...24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 105mm, 135mm and 200mm. I would probably have bought an adapter and gone with the 5DMKII if it did 24p.

Jason,

Tough ask, moderate budget, for video only, 7D only, I'd go for a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Canon 70-200 f4L IS (or f2.8 version if you need or can afford it), and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 (or Canon 35mm f1.4L or a Canon 50mm f1.2L if funds allow). That would be my personal kit. If you could add an extra lens then I would get a Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS as well.

Dan

I am planning to get the Canon 17-55 2.8IS and the Canon 28 1.8 (as a slightly wider "normal" lens once the crop is factored in) and probably a Canon 50 1.4. I will then see how that goes and work from there. I have some Nikons that I used with my Letus (notably a 50 1.4, 28 2.0, 85 1.4 and 135 2.0) which I will use but I want the Canon lenses for the AF capability for stills shooting. I am going to hold off on the 70-200 for a bit.
Personally (and based on ZERO hands on experience) I think that for video the L series lenses (specifically the 50 1.2, and 85 1.2) are probably overkill. The 1.4 (50) and 1.8 (85) are such highly rated lenses (check out Ken Rockwell's reviews) and I am not sure that in video mode these lenses would be noticeably different to their higher priced L-versions. I think they become more key for stills work.

My two cents.

Jason,

Tough ask, moderate budget, for video only, 7D only, I'd go for a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Canon 70-200 f4L IS (or f2.8 version if you need or can afford it), and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 (or Canon 35mm f1.4L or a Canon 50mm f1.2L if funds allow). That would be my personal kit. If you could add an extra lens then I would get a Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS as well.

Dan

The Tokina 11-16mm is a yes, for sure.
Why the 70-200 f4L IS?? Just out of curiosity? (For stills I have my D700 and a 70-200 VR...wonderful glass)
The Sigma was something I was looking at but not sure. Would the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM be better, worse, the same?
And what about the 100mm f/2.8 macro?

How much is that Tokina?

B+H has the Tokina for 599 (out of stock though). Just looked it up. Might be a good buy.

B+H has the Tokina for 599 (out of stock though). Just looked it up. Might be a good buy.

It's 450 here in Japan and in stock.

Jason,

I really like the 70-200 f4L IS, the IS is a very useful thing to have when shooting on a shoulder rig with a long lens. The IS in the f4 lens is about as good as it gets and actually better than the IS in the f2.8 version in my experience. Its also light enough and small enough to carry most of the time, unlike the f2.8. The ideal combo for me would be a 70-200 f4IS and a 135mm f2L, I'd take that over a 70-200 f2.8 IS, but thats me :)

100mm macro, old, new and soon to released IS versions are all stellar IMHO, but not as versatile if you want a 3 lens kit.

I also have a D700, had a 70-200 f2.8VR but actually prefer the 80-200 f2.8 AFS and 80-200 f2.8 AFD as well (don't ask, need to sell one) I'm probably going to pick up the 70-200 VR II when its available. You could use the 70-200 f2.8 VR on the 7D if you get a 16-9.net adapter, would save some cash but not as easy to use as the Canon and no IS.

I don't rate the Canon 28mm f1.8, had 2 and was never really happy with it. I'd take a close look at the Sigma instead, I'd say it was a much sharper lens wide open.

Dan

I'm new to video (Not photography) and love what I see as far as walk around capturing the city. I live in Japan where everywhere you turn something interesting is happening.

I'd also like to start doing some bridal work as far as sitting couples down for some one on one time or to create some sort of banquet ceremony video (10 minutes) to enjoy will waiting OR at the end. Starting with friends and possibly working my way up.

Other than that...just JAPAN shots

Jason,

If you're serious about shooting weddings to 'start', you're going to need more than just a lens or two with your $2000usd. You will need a decent tripod, or DSLR rig and an external mic at the very least. Shooting usable handheld footage with a DSLR in full manual mode is nearly impossible even with a very wide lens. And the standard on board audio won't cut it.

Also, you need some fairly serious horsepower, and an NLE to edit HD video.
Not trying to rain on your parade, but it's better to have a heads up.

The 28-135 is the kit lens, and needs to be stopped down to be sharp. It's very much a "consumer" lens.

the 17-55 is the best general lens for a 1.6 crop camera, but can't be used on the 5DII

All the Canon 70-200 are very good. If IS isn't need, the 70-200 f4 non-IS can be found used at good prices.

The trouble with not basing a kit around the 17-55 2.8 is that it probably leads to buying an additional lens. It's the only Canon 2.8 that goes from wide to long on the 7D. Zooms starting at 24 or 28mm are not wide on the 7D, more a relaxed normal to long lens.

To the OP, for film or video I believe in starting with the better zoom designed for the camera, that is

7D 17-55 f2.8
5DII 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4

These match the quality of the camera, may actually save money over time, reduce lens changes because they cover wide to long, and have excellent resale.

Jason,

If you're serious about shooting weddings to 'start', you're going to need more than just a lens or two with your $2000usd. You will need a decent tripod, or DSLR rig and an external mic at the very least. Shooting usable handheld footage with a DSLR in full manual mode is nearly impossible even with a very wide lens. And the standard on board audio won't cut it.

Also, you need some fairly serious horsepower, and an NLE to edit HD video.
Not trying to rain on your parade, but it's better to have a heads up.

Wedding stuff would be from non-paid friends' weddings to something paid over time. I'm a minister so I am usually in front of the camera on the weekends.

I have a a rig: Cinevate Proteus Rails System, Proteus Shoulder Mount "Monstor Grip" Kit, Pegasus Kit - for Proteus Rails, Proteus Cage and old, heavy...but sturdy, tripod.

For Audio I have the H4n Zoom, a wonderful piece of equipment. The chapel I work at has plenty of audio/mic equipment I can borrow. Hopefully the photography department won't mind if I borrow a lens every now and then either.

NLE, I have been working with Vegas. So I have that covered. I have used After Effects and Premier Pro...but have found that Sony Vegas is easier at this point.

Allright! you're covered then... Go get some nice glass!

NLE, I have been working with Vegas. So I have that covered. I have used After Effects and Premier Pro...but have found that Sony Vegas is easier at this point.

Then you'll want NeoScene from Cineform. It makes editing on Vegas fast and simple.

I think the EF-S 18-135mm lens Canon announced would be very flexible for video shooting. IS for handheld. Fairly wide to telephoto. Yeah, yeah I know it's not very fast. But for most shooting I don't want to be using a super shallow depth of field anyway. It can be overused. I might get one fairly fast prime at some point, but a multi-purpose lens is handy to have. And at $500 it won't break the bank.

This is Canon's info:
EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens
Canon’s new EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens is the perfect Image Stabilized lens for advanced photographers looking for a wide-angle zoom lens with telephoto capabilities. Featuring a compact IS unit with shake correction up to four shutter speed steps, the zoom range of this lens is equivalent to 29-216mm on a full-frame camera.

Brett,

For me f5.6 is just too slow at the long end, its not just about shallow depth of field which I agree can be overused, its also about light gathering power. I'm finding that the f4 of the 70-200 f4L IS is fine most of the time, but 5.6 would be too limiting for me.

Dan

OK, how does this look?

Canon 17-55 f/2.8
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
Sigma 30 f/1.4

I suppose it depends on your shooting taste, but I think you need something a little longer somewhere in there. The 18-135mm Brett mentions has decent reach but no speed. I have a 70-200 f2.8L that I absolutely love. The non IS version is not too badly priced in the used market - and as mentioned you can go with the f4.

You could just pick up the 17-55 f2.8 for starters which is a decent lens, and then see what you think you need after that. If you're shooting outdoors mostly then 2.8 is more than adequate, but indoors in low light... I have the Canon 50mm f1.4 on the 5d2 that some don't like but I love for the the price and speed. That would roughly equate to the Sigma 30mm 1.4.

Even if you started with those two and then decided if you wanted to go longer or wider after that, you'd be in a pretty good place.

I have seen better reviews of the Canon 28mm 1.8 than the Sigma 1.4 (although I think someone here said otherwise). Anybody with hands on experience with these 2 lenses?

We have the following lens for my 5d and are happy with them:

Canon EF 70-200L F2.8
Canon EF 50mm F1.4
Canon EF 28mm F2.8

I would love to get the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 to have a fisheye on hand.

OK, how does this look?

Canon 17-55 f/2.8
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
Sigma 30 f/1.4

Looks good but I would add in something longer if you are doing a lot of candid stuff on the street, all depends on your style. If you really don't want a 70-200 have a look at the Canon 135mm f2L, its a stellar lens. Also consider adding a 50mm f1.4 Zeiss lens or a Canon 50mm f1.2L and/or a 85mm f1.4 Zeiss or a Canon 85mmf1.8. But thats getting away from your 3 simple lens combo.

Dan

Looks good but I would add in something longer if you are doing a lot of candid stuff on the street, all depends on your style. If you really don't want a 70-200 have a look at the Canon 135mm f2L, its a stellar lens. Also consider adding a 50mm f1.4 Zeiss lens or a Canon 50mm f1.2L and/or a 85mm f1.4 Zeiss or a Canon 85mmf1.8. But thats getting away from your 3 simple lens combo.

Dan

What about the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro instead of the 135mm f2L

Jason,

The 100mm f2.8 macro is also a stunning lens but not my favourite focal length on a 7D, too long for portrait, not quite long enough for a very tele look. Maybe look at a 60mm Canon macro down the line if you want a nice portrait lens with close up abilities.

Also the 135mm f2L usefully takes Canon's 1.4x and 2x teleconvertors which can be very useful too.

Dan

What about the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro instead of the 135mm f2L

Having a macro lens is a great idea. You'd be surprised at how limiting the minimum focal distance can be for many lenses.

Regarding the 28/1.8, I have one and really like it. It's definitely sharp enough for video, and the falloff isn't too bad. I find that it matches the 85/1.8 really well. That said, sharpness is a bit more important on the 7D due to it's smaller sensor.

Whether you need longer lenses than the three you listed depends on your goals. We shot a 48-hour film with the 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 with no need for a longer lens. (Okay, we used the 200/2.8L on two shots for one scene, but it was far back. The 85 would have done the job.) The film was "human scale" with establishing shots, interviews, and a bit of action.

On the other hand, if you're shooting wildlife, sports, or candids on the street, you'll need the longer lens. The macro is a great idea. At 2.8 it's reasonably fast for use as a medium tele, and for macro, you'll want enough light to stop it down a bit to get enough in focus. Macros are great for showing what people are doing with their hands.

Thanks for all the posts.

I have 3 weeks to think about what to start with. I will be adding to the collection of lenses as I figure out what I'm doing.

Jon,

I'm not sure I agree with you about the usefulness of the 100mm f2.8 macro on a 7D. Don't forget it ends up being about a 160mm f2.8 lens. In my experience I find a 180mm or 200mm equivalent and a 85 or 100mm equivalent to be more usable focal lengths, these were the old photographic standards for good reason.

Reading down this thread it seems a lot of people are recommending lenses for the 7D based on how they work on the 5DmkII. With the crop factor the whole equation changes and so do my recommendations.

Dan

Good point, Dan. Still, a macro would be useful. And the 100mm would give a longer lens, even if it is a tweener, between the typical lengths. Shorter macros are worth considering. I would avoid the 180mm macro though. That would be too big a jump.

And what about Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di II LD?
The users reviews are excelent and it`s compatible with APS-c.
Ron

And what about Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di II LD?
The users reviews are excelent and it`s compatible with APS-c.
Ron


You probably saw this:
FM Reviews - AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=308&sort=7&cat=43&page=1)

I would suggest testing if its adequately sharp wide open through the focal length range. It sounds good.

Having a macro lens is a great idea. You'd be surprised at how limiting the minimum focal distance can be for many lenses.

.............

I use extension tubes on the 135/2 for macros. Works great for occasional shots. The 135/2 is a great lens and has an extra stop. It's as close as one can get to the supertele look without spending the big bucks.
But it is a pretty specialized lens. On a 1.6 crop the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 might be a better longish fast prime to start. Half the price and a bit faster.

And what about Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di II LD?
The users reviews are excelent and it`s compatible with APS-c.
Ron

Ron, always found the Tamron's had slightly rougher and noiser manual focus than the Canons, Nikons, Sigmas or Tokinas. Not much of an issue with stills but a real PITA for video. Would definately check it out before buying, I think given the alternatives I wouldn't bother with it. I have the Tamron 28-300 VC lens and which had OK manual focus, but it could be a lot better.

Lenses for video use have other criteria than what you see in the average lens review, worth bearing in mind when searching for them. Manual focus ability and excessive lens breathing are the most obvious factors, flare handling is also more important for video than stills.

Dan

...flare handling is also more important for video than stills...

On the flare handling, stills and video are certainly different.

On photos, I want flare minimized, so that it doesn't lower the contrast of the shot. Because it's stationary, I can't necessarily tell what is flare and what isn't.

On video, if I move the camera, the flare comes and goes. That lets me distinguish the flare from the image.

I think for video, we want pretty flare - nice circles with each reflection in a nice line. For photos, we want flare minimized.

Anyway, that's my theory. As to how the above lenses handle flare, I have no idea!

Thank for your advice, Dan.
Unfortunately I probably won`t be able to test the zoom lens.
I can`t find better option (17-50 / 2.8) for the same price to use with my future 7D.
The main use will be narrative / fiction.
Best wishes
Ron

I can`t find better option (17-50 / 2.8) for the same price to use with my future 7D.
The main use will be narrative / fiction.

The nice thing about narrative/fiction is that it's not too hard to provide enough light for an f/2.8 lens. While it's nice to be able to film in natural light or with a few candles, one to three moderate lights will easily get your images out of the noise. In fact, you'll probably want some silks to keep from over lighting.

You wouldn't want to run every f/2.8 lens wide open, but from the reviews I've read, falloff and soft corners aren't too bad with this lens.

On paper, the EF-S 17-50mm f/2.8 IS looks like a great lens for narrative use on the 7D. Let us know how you like it.