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.

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.

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?

I am considering between the above 2 lenses. Which one is better for video?

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!

Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4

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.

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 - Yes
- better glass - Don't know
- faster lense - Yes

Better overall value!

I have purchased the above lens for US$474.36 in Hong Kong. I like the lens.

17mm is wide enough for me. Images are sharp and bright. The VC is very effective.

But the auto focus is not very fast and the motor is noisy.

Having used the Tamron 17-50 VC for a few days, I decided to keep the Canon 24mm 2.8f since it is light in weight and can be my one lens option for some shooting occassions.

My 3 lenses are :

Tamron 17-50 VC
Canon 55-250mm
Canon 24mm 2.8f

I have tried my friend's Canon 50mm 1.8f and I think it is a very goods lens in terms of the low price. However, it is not better than my Canon 24mm as it not wide enough for most shooting scene and the 1.8f is not that useful as I expected.

2.8f is already enough for video.

I will keep the Canon 24mm 2.8f and I don't think I need a Canon 50mm 1.8

An ultra wide angle is also not under consideration as the 17mm of Tamron is wide enough for me.

OK Guys and Gals... New to the HDSLR scene so I've been doing my home work and I have a question for you folks. Everywhere I've researched they all say the same, Canon 50mm1.8, 1.4 if you can afford it, the Tokina's, the Sigma's, Tamron's etc, etc. Pretty much verbatim of what has been mentioned in this thread. And, this is agreed upon, accross the board thoughout several forums and indie circles. I have even seen awesome footage!

I was ready to purchase my new lens, until I came across one blog that completely changed my perspective. I researched what he said and tend to lean toward his advice. Basically he mentioned the lenses that we all want and said that if you want to shoot for the big screen, none of them can hold thier weight. The Canon 50mm1.4 comes close but still doesn't look sharp(he used that word a lot) on the big screen.

For internet indie work, broadcast TV, they are fine, but according to him for the big screen you need to get into Zeiss or Leica. The only lens that came close to the ones we mention are the older Nikon lenses.

I'm apologizing beforehand because , for the life of me, I can't find that blog. But, was wondering what you good folks felt about that. And let me narrow my question to people who have successfully shot a film for the big screen or who's focus is cinematography.

from what ive read around here sharpness is almost never an issue shooting video on these cameras with any half decent lens as the amount of pixels used in full HD is very small compared to stills.. feel free to correct me if im wrong!

The main challenge in getting sharpness is to achieve accurate focus. A good, long-throw focus ring can be more important than having the very sharpest glass.

indeed.. it can sometimes be quite hard to get the relevant info when youre researching lenses as stills photographers have very different requirements, sharpness for them is high up on the list but can often be unnoticeable in video

Hi Aaron,

....what would you choose and why?

For three bodies:
2 x Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS
Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8

Why? I do events and I like the reach of the Canon 24-105 for close-ups more than I need the wide side and low-light ability of the Canon 17-55 2.8. I went back and forth on that decision for a while being that they're comparatively priced. I'd love to have the 2.8 IS version of the 70-200 but the weight and cost deterred me, especially because I wanted two. I like using the Tokina for dance floors, steadicam and detail shots. Its my favorite of the lot.

So which are the best lens brands for this camera?...

What about the Zeiss...?

(I'm looking for a wide angle lens, and a normal lens)

Hi all, first post here... so don't be too rude plz!

First off, I think this is a great forum, with lots of very useful infoz ... thanks to everyone who contributed to it!

I had to bump this one up because I would like your advice please, but first a short background (you can skip this part if you want to):
I don't make a living with my pictures/videos. I'm actually into the sound business(!) I do sound design/recording/mixing mainly for television. But I always loved cinematography and so I had a Canon HV20 and a Canon rebel xt. Sold both of them and bought a T2i...

Here's my list of humble little lenses: Canon 18-55mm IS kit, Canon 28-105mm mkII Japan, Canon 50mm f1.8 mkII, Canon 55-250mm IS.
So the first thing I'm gonna do is replace the kit lens with the ever popular Tamron 17-50mm VC (that's an easy decision) BUT::
Here's my dilemma: what prime should I choose?
I was looking into those:

Sigma 30mm f1.4
Canon 35mm f2
Canon 50mm f1.4
Tamron 60mm f2 macro

I'm really trying to stick with a maximum of 3 lenses that could cover as much as possible while still being as versatile as possible ... I like the fact that the 30 and 35 gives me almost a standard lens. I also like that the 60 doubles as a full macro lens. Arghhhh terrible indecision!

Any help is appreciated ...

I do not own them but I believe the performance of Sigma 30, Canon 35 f2 and 50 f1.4 are quite similar in video. I have tried Canon 24mm f.2.8 and 50mm f1.8 and I found that there is very little difference in my video. The finishing and build of the lenses are of course very different. The Canon 24mm 2.8f is HK$2750 and the 50mm 1.8 is just HK$690!!!

I emphasis, little difference in in family video shooting only, not in photo or pro video.

The 60mm maco may give you a whole new dimension in video as it can shoot close-up. Perhaps you may consider a Canon 50mm 2.8 maco.

Besides, the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC is great. I have one.

I find that the EF 50/1.4 and EF 35/2 couldn't be more different. The main difference is the focus ring. The ring on the 35 is narrow and crummy. The ring on the 50 is wider and travels about 180 degrees. It isn't very smooth though. The extra stop makes the 50/1.4 superior in low light.

One advantage of the 35/2 is that it has a very short focus distance.

Optically, one thing I dislike about the 50/1.4 is that it has some barrel distortion. I want my normal shots undistorted. I can't recall if the 35/2 has much distortion. I sold it a few months ago.

I got my T2i few days ago basicaly for video work and bought a new Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 zoom(full frame).
I `m very happy with this zoom regarding image - contrast, colour transmition, resolution.
I`s not wide enough for all requirements though. So I`m going to keep the kit zoom lens to use it`s 18mm and, latter on, I intend to buy a EF 50mm 1.4 for low light work / exterior location.

So no one's mentioning the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 which, on paper, seems like a great deal for the money. Is it not very sharp? Made by terrorists? What's the story with this one?

Thanks Jon for the info on the manual focus rings... that makes a big difference. I guess I should be looking into the Nikon manual focus lenses for a long and smooth travel ... (?)

@ David: If Im not mistaken, the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 is not a constant aperture lens. It's only f2.8 @ 17mm. Its probably f4 @ 70mm. If you can live with that it has a very nice range for sure ...

from what ive read around here sharpness is almost never an issue shooting video on these cameras with any half decent lens as the amount of pixels used in full HD is very small compared to stills.. feel free to correct me if im wrong!

I totally agree! A good external mic, stablization during handheld, panning on the tripod, and even the smoothness of the focusing ring can be more a concern for me in shooting video.

I have compared a Canon 17-40mm L lens with Canon 24mm 2.8f and found that the difference in stills is great. There is no big difference in video.

Yes - has anyone done any tests to see if "L" or Zeiss - quality glass really makes a difference when shooting video? I can see using fast lenses in low light, but not sure if really fine glass is needed.

The main advantage of Zeiss lenses is the long-travel, smooth focus ring with hard stops.

At NAB, I believe it was Shane Hurlbut who said that when he started shooting video with the 5D2, he was just figuring it out with cheap lenses, and that before long, he learned the importance of using good glass.

Hi Sam,

Yes - has anyone done any tests to see if "L" or Zeiss - quality glass really makes a difference when shooting video? I can see using fast lenses in low light, but not sure if really fine glass is needed.

When I was shopping for lenses the tipping point for me was seeing the comparisons between an inexpensive and expensive lens. Near the bottom of the linked review of the 17-55 f/2.8 Canon is a rollover image comparison with the 18-55 kit lens that comes with the T2i. The difference in clarity and amount of chromatic aberration is noticeable.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

If you know what to look for you'd see that in a video file, but in this business your success is based on what you do with your gear rather than what gear you do it with...

Anyone had experience with Sigma 50mm 1.4 ?

i have a t2i and right now i have the canon 50mm 1.4 and am very happy with it, and now im trying to decide on my next lens. im looking for a zoom lens with IS thats not going to break the bank, heres what im looking at.
Newegg.com - TAMRON AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens for Canon (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830997776&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Digital+Camera+Lenses-_-Tamron-_-30997776)

Canon | EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens | 2752B002


Canon | EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens | 0345B002 | B&H Photo

and i am considering a Tamron 17-50 VC as my 3rd lens

so basically the next lens ill buy will cover the top end of my focal range. are those good lenses to consider buying? does anyone have experience with any of them? will these work well with the 1.6 aps-c sensor? im also open to suggestions in that price range. any help would be greatly appreciated.

I agree with many others that the Tokina 11-16mm, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L would be definitely the ones to get if you can afford them.

If not, don't buy cheap zoom lenses, go for some good primes instead. They are even faster and cheaper.

Check out my blog on basic lenses for the T2i/550D - people keep telling me it's quite helpful. I've used most of the lenses before.

On a budget? Pimp your new Canon EOS Rebel T2i / 550D with essential accessories! Part 1: BASIC LENSES | Nino Film - Blog - Nino Leitner (http://ninofilm.net/blog/2010/03/01/pimp-t2i-550d-part1/)

Here's what's in my arsenal-
1- Canon 17-55 f2.8 is
2- Tokina 11-16 f 2.8
3- Canon 50mm f 1.4
4- Canon 70-200 f2.8 is.

I also have a bunch of older Nikon primes with my Letus, and bought a couple of Nikon to Canon adapters. My favorite Nikon prime is the 105mm f2.8...beautifull lens. I also picked up a Tokina ( Nikon mount) 28-70 f2.8, manual and auto, for my letus. I've used it a few times on my 7d when I needed a little more zoom than the 17-55.
Bruce Yarock

great to see everyones opinions on lenses.

regarding image stabilization (IS, VC) how important/critical is this when shooting mostly video with tripod, jib and shoulder rig?

I'm trying to justify the added expense in stabilization lenes.

Thanks.

It uses up batteries, so on tripod I turn it off because it makes no difference.

Panning might look different with it on, depending on the lens. Some lenses have panning detection, some lenses have different IS modes to allow for it.

In general, for film making if there were 2 lenses the same price and one had IS while one had even slightly better glass, I would go for the better glass.

For hand holding IS really does help though.

James,

What are your thoughts on the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with or without stabilization?... the difference is 200 us dollars?

or in other words the lenses would be the same brand, length and f-stop with the only difference being the stabilization.

Thanks

I've been shooting for a while, trying out different lenses. Here's what I've decided (most of what I shoot is interviews and doc style material).

The lens that is on my camera 80% of the time (when not shooting interviews) is the Canon 24-70 2.8. It's a great lens and works well to be able to shoot somewhat wide but be able to have a zoom at the ready.

Next is the Canon 70-200 2.8. This is my go to for interviews. Creates a beautifully shallow image. If the interviewee isn't moving too much and the camera can remain stationary, this is a great lens for interviews. If I need to move the camera during the interview or if the person keeps moving in and out of focus I'll go back to the 24-70.

Finally the Canon 50mm 1.8. Great lens for lower light, or when you don't need a zoom (planned shots). I think it's about the best bang for the buck that I've found.

So right now those are the three that I have with me at all times.

Maybe this is crazy, but I've started shooting my TV show (two guys just talking about a movie they just saw) with the Canon 50mm 1.8.

It is great with no light outside a movie theater at night. And anyone around us are just a blur.

But my favorite lens right now is the Lensbaby 2.0. I just haven't figured out where I'm going to use it for my work. It was cheap on Amazon, so, I bought it last month.

I speculate that you could shoot handheld with it for several minutes and maintain follow focus pretty well within the sweet spot. I did this walking around the yard following my daughter and the video was very cool.

Anyone using the Lensbaby for video?

James,

What are your thoughts on the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with or without stabilization?... the difference is 200 us dollars?

or in other words the lenses would be the same brand, length and f-stop with the only difference being the stabilization.

Thanks

If you just look at the numbers then the VC looks like the only difference, however the general view is that the non-VC variant is sharper and generally a better performer.

The thing about stabilisation is that it becomes more necessary the greater the focal length of the lens, so on a wide to normal lens, it's not a must-have feature in my opinion.

Personally I would take the non VC and spend the money on another lens to fill a gap in your range, but that's just me.

I have recently purchased a Sigma 150mm maco at HK$4,500 (US$577). It is not just a maco lens for shooting little insects. It produces very sharp image and very good colour. It could be used to shoot portraits and performances. It is used to create a blurred background when I do not want to use the Canon 55-250mm

Tamron 17-50 VC
Canon 55-250mm IS
Canon 24mm f2.8 &
Sigma 150mm maco

Easy for me to chose 3, would want 2 others eventually though.

Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS
Canon 50mm f1.2
Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS mkii

I'm sure I could do almost everything I want with this set, well other than serious macro work.

If I have a choice I would buy most lens fixed/ prime.

Anyway, I now have a 17-50 Tamron, 70-200mm Tamron, 90mm Tamron, 24mm Nikkon and 30mm Sigma.

Out of all these lens, they all have different purpose. If you want three lens, I would suggest just getting one lens that will cover wide to zoom, the sigma 17-70 F2.8 sounds like a good choice. The reason is that it is really hard to just live on 3 lens.

I like the Tamaron 17-50mm but does it need to be VC for it to work with the T2i?

And since I already have a Nikon to Canon mount, can I use the Nikon mounted ones?

You can buy a Nikon to EF adapter from e bay, I bought mine through Kawaphoto, eBay My World - kawaphoto (http://myworld.ebay.com/kawaphoto)

The tokina 11-16mm 2.8 after checking the uk price i see its about the same price as the 550D body, can it realy be worth the the same..

You can buy a Nikon to EF adapter from e bay, I bought mine through Kawaphoto, eBay My World - kawaphoto (http://myworld.ebay.com/kawaphoto)

Thanks! Thats exactly where I got my Nikon to Canon EOS adapter. I currently am using a 28mm f1.8 Nikkor lens. However I want to use the Tamaron 17-50mm but am wondering if since I have the Nikon to Canon mount, I could use the Nikon mounted version instead of the Canon. Reason being because I can find the Nikon versions substantially cheaper..

Terry, I've a Tammy 17-50mm, but it is a EF mount.

My suggestion is that if your main camera is a nikon and "ONLY" use the T2i for filming, sure.

But if your main camera is T2i, and want to save a little money by using the nikon mount, it doesn't seems logical to me. As you will lose the AF function for still image on the T2i.

Another suggestion, buy a used one on Ebay, I bought a 90mm on Ebay before and it works perfectly.

The T2i is my main filming camera as of now and hardly used for photography so as you suggested the Tamron would work for this application. I just wanted to make sure that the choice of Nikon mount instead of Canon mount would work for film..but you do bring up a good point about the AF which might be a good thing to have if I wanted to do some photography...which is likely.

Thanks for your time!

I gotta add another vote for the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII. Last 3 music videos and the zombie flick i keep spamming were done mostly on those two lenses.

For lens #3? i'm undecided. Probably a 50mm 1.4. 1.8 is probably bright enough, but the focus ring sucks.

I think the 24-70 F2.8L is a must-have lens, it is a little expensive but the quality of the glass and the image that it produce worth every single penny.

I know it does not have IS, but it really doesn't need it if you use it on a monopod or a tripod which you have to do anyway when you're shooting video with DSLR.

Hey Andrew, LOVED the interactive zombie film..

However I wasn't feeling the bokeh for either of those lenses...I thought it looked a bit smeary..

i was just wondering... as i have a canon 50mm 1.4... how does the tamron 17-50 2.8 compare to it in low light? if i just set the canon to 2.8 i'll get a precise idea?

i'm going to shoot a feature film with lots of night street scenes, available light... i would hate to get them with only one focal length!

i'm going to get the tamron anyway, but i'm thinking if i should or shouldn't add a sigma 30mm 1.4 for the night street scenes...