What would your recommendations be for a lens set to be used with the 7d shooting in a wedding video environment.

Option A - On a budget
Option B - With an eye on weight i.e. flying with a Merlin
Option C - Quality over budget

Apologies if this has been asked already. If not, then I am sure there will be plenty of others interested.

Back in the day when most of us shot weddings with medium format "press" cameras, TLR's (Rollie & Mamiya C33/C330), and Hassleblad or Mamiya RB67 and no zoom lenses, I'd cover a whole wedding with the 'Blad and its "normal" 80mm F2.8 Planar. On an APS-C size sensor a 24mm will be a tad wider coverage than that (38mm FF equiv).

So (on a budget) I'll start out with an EF 24mm F2.8 (coming FedEx in a couple of days) and an EF 50mm F1.8 (metal barrel model left over from EOS film cam days and lens already on hand). I'm retired and not in any imaging business endeavor so what I do is largely for video challenges and any other projects that catch my fancy.

I've already worked some with the 50mm F1.8 on a T1i and will have a chance to work some of the "kinks" out of using the 24mm before the 7D comes available. I missed the "pre-order" so am on B&H's "Notify when in stock" list.

So those two are what I'll start out with, I'll still have the 18-55mm "kit" lens that came with the T1i, and a 55-250mm EF-S, plus a 70-210 EF zoom left over from the film kit (don't know if I'll "insult" the 7D by putting the 18-55mm "kit" lens on it but on occasion may need that wide end).

"L" glass is out of my budget range but an awful lot of the good looking footage we are seeing is shot with them.

OK, just found this post that made for interesting reading.

ProLost - ProLost Blog - Canon7D (http://prolost.com/blog/2009/8/31/canon-7d.html)

Now...PLEASE do not take anything I say as Gospel, I am happy to confirm that i am at the "throwing rocks at the moon" stage.

Wait for someone who knows what they are talking about to confirm.

If I read the article correctly, then a good choice may be

EF-S 17–55mm f/2.8 IS (27–88mm equivalent due to crop factor)

and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (112-320mm equivalent due to crop factor)

Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L USM - if you can afford it. looks like the results from it would be exceptional.

Another ive been looking at and it seems like its good value is the 35mm f2
FM Reviews - EF 35mm f/2 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=25&sort=7&thecat=2)

Ill probably stick with primes for the moment as the ratio of iq:price is better.

Would have helped if I had looked in the right place to start.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-7d-hd/377012-video-mostly-lens.html

I think what I'm going to do is go with the 7D kit lens, and use my Tamron 17-35 for wider angles. I also have an f1.8 50mm but it's way too long for much of what I do. The Tamron is 2.8 but only at the wide end, from 17mm to about 20 or 21mm. I'm also considering that Sigma f1.4 30mm. That would be about a 48mm equivalent, close to a "normal" lens and fast enough for low light conditions. Or if money permits, they also have a nice 20mm that is (I think) an f1.8. That would be very close to the wide angle on my XH A1, so it would probably be best if I wait and spend more on it. Last time I looked that 20mm was over $550.

However, I'm going to go with what I already have for awhile and see if I really do need to spend the money on a faster wide angle lens.

Hi Guys, Need some help with this pricey decision. I will be using the 7D primarily for video and want to get one good walk around lens. I will be using the camera mainly for personal family videos as I use an EX1 for work. The two lenses that I have narrowed it down to are the Canon 35mm 1.4L or the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

I know everyone has their own POV on the matter of lenses, so here's mine…

If you know you're going to be staying with a crop-sensor camera (APS-C of the 7D) and not moving to a 5D or similar, why go with full-frame "L" lenses? Yes, "L" series are built to a higher standard (or so I hear), and having owned both the 24-70mm "L" f2.8 and the 70-200 IS USM f2.8 lenses in the past, they are nice. But for the price, for a "walkaround" lens for video of family and what-not, I wouldn't spend the money on "L" series glass.

My suggestion would be to look at the 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S lens from Canon. You'll get more wide coverage, and a fast f2.8 lens (for zoom).

Now, if you have your heart set on one of those two lenses, it's hard to beat the 24-70.

I lug around my 24-70mm L lens even for everyday family stuff. I've gotten use to the weight years ago. It's important for me to photograph/video those moments in the highest quality possible. (I'm also picky about CA fringing, which can make a photo look amateurish if there is too much CA, so it's L lenses all the way for me.)
Just my two cents.

I have the 24-70 for the 5D and I rarely shoot beyond 24/35mm. So on the cropped 7D, you will be losing a lot on the wide end. If you can deal with that, the 24-70 is awesome for video and photo. Just make sure you have some sort of stabilizer on the farther end (like a monopod).

Personally, I think the 16-35 2.8 would be a nicer but I guess that might be out of your price range.

Have you compared the 24-70 on the 5D vs 7D? After I switched to full frame, I've found it difficult going back to a crop-sensor without a using a different set of lenses.

I think the 17-55 Canon is a no-brainer choice (or the Tamron equivalent for the more budget minded). The 24-70 doesn't seem wide enough on a crop sensor for a walk around lens. I agree with Stephen that the L series lenses may be overkill when their are very nice non-L options. I think the L-series glass probably makes more of a difference for stills.

I bought the 17-55, sitting here waiting for the 7D to arrive.

In my opinion the ideal choice is the new EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. I've been told by Canon USA that it has a very high build quality, and it would be a "L" series lens if not for the fact that there will never be an "L" designation for the EF-S line. It's made for APS-C and provides a field of view equal to 24-136mm.

It is to the 7D what the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS is to the 5D Mk. II, and that is a multipurpose zoom lens which is sufficiently wide with a bit of telephoto reach (actually it has a slightly longer zoom ratio over the 24-105). It's the one I have my eye on. I believe the 7D kit lens is going to be the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens; but frankly I think the new EF-S 15-85mm is going to be a choice for better overall quality (it's about $800).

If you're going to be shooting mostly indoors, then I agree with Stephen's suggestion above for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 (around $1000).

As a second lens with a longer reach, I'd go for the EF 70-200mm f/4 L (without IS if it's mostly for video, since you'll be shooting from a tripod with this lens), for $650. The same lens with IS goes for $1200 or so. There's an f/2.8 version of this lens which is bigger and quite a bit heavier, not to mention more expensive (if I recall, it's $1200 without IS and around $2000 with IS).

For those on a budget, there's also the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for only $600.

I'm confused now. So is an EF-S Lens rated at 17mm going to be wider on an APS-C than an EF series lens? I guess what I"m asking is if the EF-S 17mm is truly 17mm or is it 17mm x 1.6x crop factor still?

All focal lengths are given with respect to full-frame 35mm standards; so a 17mm EF-S is the same as a 17mm EF lens.

It'll be 17mm times 1.6 -- the focal length of the lens is what it is. It's called a 17mm
because that's its actual focal length, it doesn't matter if it's EF or EF-S or IMAX.

Because you have a general idea through experience with 35mm still photography what kind of field of view you get through various focal lengths, you have to do a little math to get the conversion. 17mm on an EF-S lens designed for an image plane the size of an APS-C sensor is in fact 17mm. But the resulting field of view is going to be more telephoto than what you would expect from a full frame camera (one point six times more, in fact).

So it's important to note that the numbers on the side of an EF-S lens are *not* 35mm equivalents, but rather the actual focal length of the lens. Multiply by 1.6 times to get an idea of what the field of view will look like relative to your experience with 35mm still photography. Hope this helps,

All focal lengths are given with respect to full-frame 35mm standards; so a 17mm EF-S is the same as a 17mm EF lens.Well, yes and no. It is true that a 17mm EF-S is the same as a 17mm EF lens. Both are 17mm in focal length.

However, it's not really "with respect to full-frame 35mm standards." Instead, it just is what it is, which is 17mm.

If the focal lengths of EF-S lenses were given with respect to full-frame 35mm standards, then they'd have an entirely different set of numbers on them (for example, they would be labeled with their 35mm equivalents). Instead, they're labeled with their *actual* focal length, which doesn't have anything to do with the full-frame 35mm standard, or any other standard for that matter... for example, the focal length of the Canon XH series camcorder 20x lens is 4.5-90mm and it's not related to the 35mm standard at all.

I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the 10-22mm... its a great lens for the 7D...
you can read users comments about the lens here...

FM Reviews - EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=221&sort=7&cat=27&page=3)

That would be the EF-S equivalent of the EF 16-35mm (just not as fast, and not an "L" class).

Samyang has a new 14mm F2.8 that would have an 89° FOV on the 7D.
Samyang offers 14mm F/2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical lens: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09091801samyung14mm.asp)

Ray-

That one may be on my 7D shortlist, but for an all-purpose "walkaround" lens it may be too wide, methinks.

But it's supposed to be a kick-a*s lens.

--SM

ah... the 16-35... one of my favorite lenses.... but at $1500 to the $750 for the 10-22mm

another good solution is the 70-200 f4... a great lens, L type,super sharp output and also takes to the x1.4 and x2.0 extenders.... and the pic quality is actually good with the extenders stacked... to get out to ~900mm

and with tubes it does a pretty good job of macro work.

I've always liked the Scarborough faire photos from this lens...

Its also small enough to take on vacation..

Agree w/ all you're saying, Ray, but the price difference between the IS and non-IS versions of that lens makes me cringe a bit ($650 vs. $1230). Believe I will take the f/4 over the f/2.8 for its smaller size, lower weight and greater portability.

I also have the 70-200mm F/4 L non-IS and can attest to it's dead on sharpness. It's the L lens series little $650 secret. On the 7D you'll get 112-320mm equivalent. Can't beat that for the price and quality!

With my experience with a telephoto on the 5d, I wouldn't settle for anything without IS if you're going to be doing much telephoto work. Rack focus shots can be ruined if you're on a monopod or on a shoulder system without the IS. Does it happen all the time? No, but that one shot you can't miss is usually when it decides to happen.

I wouldn't suggest anything with a variable aperture throughout the zoom as I've read reports of the aperture being affected to cause problems in the video in the beginning with the 5D. I'm not so sure if the manual control has fixed that issue, but it's still considered a not so good idea to use those zooms.

If people have reports of no issues, I'd be the first one in line to jump on a variable aperture lens :).

Now of course this is all considering you have it wide open and not stopped down as it won't change apertures if you are at 5.6 for a 3.5-5.6 lens. If that's the case, ignore :).

Well, yes and no. It is true that a 17mm EF-S is the same as a 17mm EF lens. Both are 17mm in focal length.

However, it's not really "with respect to full-frame 35mm standards." Instead, it just is what it is, which is 17mm.

If the focal lengths of EF-S lenses were given with respect to full-frame 35mm standards, then they'd have an entirely different set of numbers on them (for example, they would be labeled with their 35mm equivalents). Instead, they're labeled with their *actual* focal length, which doesn't have anything to do with the full-frame 35mm standard, or any other standard for that matter... for example, the focal length of the Canon XH series camcorder 20x lens is 4.5-90mm and it's not related to the 35mm standard at all.

So a 17mm PL lens on the 7D (if it was possible) would give the same or very close field of view it gives on a 35mm movie camera or that a 17mm EF-S lens would give on the 7D right?

There's several different sizes of 35mm motion picture frames (3-perf, 4-perf, Super, etc.), but the
answer is yes, due to the *roughly* equal sizes of the APS-C and 35mm motion picture frame sizes.

APS-C = 22.3mm x 14.9mm

35mm 4-perf Academy = 22mm x 16mm

would the tokina 11-16mm 2.8 or tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC(low light is important to me) make a good first lens purchase to go w/ either the 18-55mm or 28-135mm kit?

i'm deciding if i should go body only and purchase the 18-55mm for $100 or just purchase the 7D w/ the 28-135mm kit lens. but either way, i would like to purchase one f2.8 lens as my budget will only allow.

camera will be on a various shooting situations which include crane shots, tripod, shoulder mount, handheld and steadytracker.

thanks for your feedback/suggestions.

I personally wouldn't bother with the kit lens and just spring for a tamron 28-75 2.8 if you're looking for something in that focal length. I've had that lens and it took great pictures. I'm not so sure what it would be like in video mode. I use the sigma 24-70 all the time and get great sharp results in video with the 5d and since the tamron is considered comparable, I can assume it'd be a great choice.

If you're looking for wider, the 17-50 you mentioned is always a great choice.

I personally will be going with a 17-55 2.8 is and telephoto first then shortly after purchase a tokina 11-16 (if I can ever find one).

tamron 28-75 2.8 is ok for 5D, but not very convenient for 7D, you probably mean 17-50 2.8 which is EF-S equivalent.

well i've narrowed down my choices between the tokina 11-16mm 2.8 and the tamron 17-50mm 2.8. both cost about the same and have gotten great reviews. i'm trying to decide between the two as my overall video lens as this is what i can budget for now. i like the tokina for its wideness and the tamron for its zoom range. your thoughts?

If you're shooting dramatic narrative and normal people-based stuff, get the 17-50. If you're doing more artistic stuff or handheld, up-close action, the wider lens is the better choice.

I haven't used either lens. I'm writing just in terms of the field of view.

well i've narrowed down my choices between the tokina 11-16mm 2.8 and the tamron 17-50mm 2.8. both cost about the same and have gotten great reviews. i'm trying to decide between the two as my overall video lens as this is what i can budget for now. i like the tokina for its wideness and the tamron for its zoom range. your thoughts?

Are you sure you know the FOV on a 11-16 with a 1.6 crop sensor? It's still an ultrawide, which is an unusual choice for a walk around lens.

As a second lens with a longer reach, I'd go for the EF 70-200mm f/4 L (without IS if it's mostly for video, since you'll be shooting from a tripod with this lens), for $650. The same lens with IS goes for $1200 or so. There's an f/2.8 version of this lens which is bigger and quite a bit heavier, not to mention more expensive (if I recall, it's $1200 without IS and around $2000 with IS).

For those on a budget, there's also the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for only $600.

Chris,

what do you think of the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 over the Canon f/4 version? this lens has gotten excellent reviews and feedback from owners. it doesn't cost too much more than the Canon f/4 plus you gain the extra light w/ the Sigma being an f/2.8. thanks.

That 11-16 is pretty wide. If you can only afford one lens, I'd go for the 17-50. If you can afford it, Tamron has made a new version of that same lens that has IS. They call it VC, vibration compensation, or someting like that. Adds around $200 or so to the price. They hit with the Nikon version first but the Canon version is supposedly shipping and will probably be available about the time the camera is. I have a Tamron 17-35, which is 2.8 at the wide end. It's solid and heavy and seems reasonably sharp all the way through. The measurebators say it's not as sharp when wide open but you can probably say that about most lenses.

tamron 28-75 2.8 is ok for 5D, but not very convenient for 7D, you probably mean 17-50 2.8 which is EF-S equivalent.

I'm referencing to the kit lens being the 28-135 option. I am saying the tamron is a much better choice than that. In focal length, it's about the same but a bit shorter.

Does the 7D use the same EOS adapters as the 5D for using older Nikkor or Pentax lenses? Not sure if the reduced sensor requires a special adapter.

Chris, what do you think of the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 over the Canon f/4 version? Sorry, I have no direct experience with either lens... although the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L is on my to-buy list.

Hi all

I have a 7D on preorder (should receive it next week) and although I'm new to vidDSLR's my current main video camera is a Sony HVR-V1. I already own a number of lenses used for still photography and I'd really appreciate an opinion on how the lenses would perform for video and if there are any gaping holes that I'd need to plug.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Canon EF-S 15-85mm (shipping with the 7D)
Canon EF 100 Macro
Canon EF 55-200
Sigma 200-400 telephoto zoom (can't remember the exact specs)

Any input would be really appreciated.

if there are any gaping holes that I'd need to plug.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Canon EF-S 15-85mm (shipping with the 7D)


What kind of shooting are you going to be doing? My one concern would be that both these lenses are 3.5-4.5/5.6 lenses. If you're planning to shoot a lot of stuff at night (which seems to be what everyone is doing with this camera :) !) you might want a lens or two that go wider in aperture.

Hi Michael

I'm mainly an underwater filmmaker/camera operator so low light performance is a high priority, but it will be awhile before a housing becomes available for the 7D. Until then I'll be using it for above water daylight 'scene setting', interviews and general stock shooting. I'm about to leave on a 4 month filming trip to Asia and the Pacific and ideally I'd like to have everything I need with me when I leave rather than get into the middle of the Pacific and find I'm missing something fairly essential! Thanks for your input.

Simon, I prefer full-frame cameras, especially for underwater, so I would have thought that you'd have gone for the 5D - especially for the absence of crop using wide lenses.

The Canon 10-22mm will probably be used a lot on your dive on the 7D, but you might also want a fixed extreme wideangle lens in some situations (although you can bump up the ISO a bit to compensate when using the slower zoom lenses - depending if you are surface diving using natural light or deeper with TTL flash). The Tokina Pro DXII 12-24mm f/4 is also a good performer.

Regarding UW housings, quite a lot of the ones for the 5D should also fit the 7D.

I'll second the recommendation for the Tokina. That 12-24 has outstanding colour and contrast for its price point.

Just got back from picking up my 7D and Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 lens. I'll do some test shooting tomorrow and try to post some samples for people to review.

--SM

Sounds great Stephen!
I'm planning on buying the same kit plus a few lens more.
Any feedback or samples would be very usefull.
Looking forward to see the results.
Enjoy your new purchase,
Javier

Simon, I prefer full-frame cameras, especially for underwater, so I would have thought that you'd have gone for the 5D - especially for the absence of crop using wide lenses.

The Canon 10-22mm will probably be used a lot on your dive on the 7D, but you might also want a fixed extreme wideangle lens in some situations (although you can bump up the ISO a bit to compensate when using the slower zoom lenses - depending if you are surface diving using natural light or deeper with TTL flash). The Tokina Pro DXII 12-24mm f/4 is also a good performer.

Regarding UW housings, quite a lot of the ones for the 5D should also fit the 7D.

That's very intertesting - I had no idea that the form factor was so similar to a 5D to allow the same housings to work. I'll look into that for sure and the Tokina lens too. Thanks for the info.

Just got back from picking up my 7D and Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 lens. I'll do some test shooting tomorrow and try to post some samples for people to review.

--SM

Please post some footage Stephen. :) I'm looking to pick up the 17-55 2.8 IS again and would love to see how the footage turns out!

I've been looking at the Tonika 12-24 f4 and 11-16 f2.8, both look good. Are any of these Tonika's available with IS?

Is anyone have experiences with the Sigma 17-70 F:2.8-4.5 ? The range, speed and price seems to be interesting for a standard zoom on the 7D.

I'll try to get some footage up later tonight, if possible. I've also rented the 85mm f1.2L lens for a shoot next week. I'll be testing that out a bit this weekend, but I think it'll be a killer interview lens.


And don't forget, folks, that renting is still (probably) the best way to get great lenses you couldn't otherwise afford. The above lens costs $2000+ new. I'm renting it for a full week, insured, for $100. It's a great way to offer clients a "wow" without mortgaging the house, and it's a great way to test lenses before buying.

--SM

anyone have experience w/ the tokina 16-50mm 2.8? another option over the tamron 17-50mm 2.8...

Tokina | 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X 165 PRO DX Autofocus | ATX165PRODXC (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498661-REG/Tokina_ATX165PRODXC_16_50mm_f_2_8_AT_X_165.html)