....what would you choose and why?

I guess this would apply in the 7D forum, but since I'm getting a T2i/550d I posted here instead.

Since I am new to the HDSLR front, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, 16-50mm f/2.8, and 50-150mm f/2.8 would make a nice set. However, I've read that only the 11-16mm is a great lens, as the others often have significant chromatic aberration. And none of them have image stabilization. You can get all three for around $1600 total.

If money were no object, then the best selection would be the Tokina 11-16mm, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L. They are simply the best zoom lenses available for the Canon EF system.

When I bought the 7D I asked myself the same questions. I got:
50mm 1.8 (Because the following lenses weren't going to be available for 2 weeks)
Sigma 30mm 1.4 A wonderful lens which was my favorite. Great in low light, great DOF.
Canon 17-55mm 2.8 Giving me some more room to shoot with it was also a good walk around lens for photography.
Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 which was WIDE. Great lens when you're inside and everyone is close.

L glass is more expensive, but if you ever do decide to go to full-frame, selling your lenses can take time (Unless you keep your crop lens camera as backup or second camera)

You must not like to shoot with long focal lengths, evidently...

Tip: Buy all of your lenses used. I can think of no good reason why you would buy brand new lenses, unless you're concerned about the warranty. Great lenses will hold their value, so if you ever sell them, you will have gotten a "free rental."

Without knowing what you're shooting, it's hard to know what to suggest.

I have the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and it's a great lens, but not necessary most of the time - I got mine more for stills than video. By the summer, you'll have 3 choices for a 17-50/2.8 with IS/OS/VC from Canon, Sigma and Tamron. A possible 17-50/2 from Canon would definitely be the best bet, but the pricetag will be hefty. A 17-50 is good enough for 90% of shooting needs in good light and 17mm is often wide enough.

I would consider a fast prime more important due to the limitations with shutter speed, you might be stuck shooting 1/60 due to the type of lighting, so a Sigma 30/1.4 or even 20/1.8 would be much higher on my list - I have the 30/1.4. If the Canon 17-50/2 shows up soon, that would solve a lot of problems.

With that, 90% of your indoor and outdoor shooting should be taken care of with just 2 lenses. Then you have to figure out whether you want to go a lot wider or longer.

With tele's, the sky and your wallet is the limit. I'd be very happy with an EF1200/5.6 :) , but I have 70-200/2.8, 120-300/2.8, 400/5.6 and 50-500 and 1.4x and 2x TC's. A good possiblity here might be the EF100/2.8 Macro as your only tele, it's a lot longer than the 17-50, and you'd have a very good macro and it's pocketable.

I can think of no good reason why you would buy brand new lenses, unless you're concerned about the warranty. Great lenses will hold their value

But to be fair, it's a bit like Dedo lamps and great tripods: second-hand ones are very rare and usually beaten up or fatally flawed. You can get lucky, but you can also miss out great opportunities by waiting.

But to be fair, it's a bit like Dedo lamps and great tripods: second-hand ones are very rare and usually beaten up or fatally flawed. You can get lucky, but you can also miss out great opportunities by waiting.
I don't think that that's fair when we're talking about lenses. Rarely will you find a second-hand lens that's "beaten up or fatally flawed," especially if you use a reputable dealer like KEH. And we're talking about quality lenses here. Do you really think that any photographer who cares about his hobby or trade would not take good care of his lenses?

Modern AF lenses are a lot more fragile/delicate than old manual lenses. But one should still note that the old manual lenses in rough physical condition have been shown to perform as well as brand new manual lenses of the same models.

After exhaustive research... I picked up a EF 50mm f1.4 from Canon which is GREAT and not a ton of money. Next on my list is the 70-200 f/4 L from Canon (About $650 with no IS) and last will be the 24-70 f2.8 L from Canon...the beast. Total around $2500...OMG! I'm spending WHAT?

This package will give me the DOF, general shooting, and long throw zoom. If I need wide (which would be the 4th lens) Tokina 11-16/2.8 though my HMC-150 provides me with super wide angle AND my continuous 200 minutes of recording with pro audio inputs! The T2i will be for the "beauty" shots!

Choosing was especially difficult as I shoot such a wide variety of stuff. Thankfully, there's a great camera store that rents nearby!

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, 16-50mm f/2.8, and 50-150mm f/2.8 would make a nice set. However, I've read that only the 11-16mm is a great lens, as the others often have significant chromatic aberration. And none of them have image stabilization. You can get all three for around $1600 total.

If money were no object, then the best selection would be the Tokina 11-16mm, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L. They are simply the best zoom lenses available for the Canon EF system.

That's a good choice. My budget collection is Tokina 11-16mm, Canon 17-40mm F4 L, Canon Mk1 50MM f1.8 (Metal bayonet), Canon 70-200 F4 L and Canon 1.4x. Three good lenses one cheapy and a converter. I also have the old $50 Canon 18-55mm non IS kit lens for macro use only.

I would like to have the following 3 lenses :

a. Tokina fisheye 10-16mm (to make boring landscape more interesting)
b. Canon 24mm 2.8f (to shoot everything mid-range including indoors, people conversations and close-ups)
c. Canon 55-250mm (to shoot subjects that are too far away such as animals and sports)

There is no need for more lenses as there is not much time for me to change lenses during actual shooting.

Regards.

Kenneth

If you don't want to change lenses, rather than a 24/2.8, I'd go for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's just as fast as the prime, has IS and covers the most important range for filming people in normal situations.

If you primarily shoot sports and can get up close, a fisheye/super-wide and long zoom are exactly what you want.

Is there such a lens where you can use for all applications, super-wide, Zoom, close up and have a f/1.8 or so for low lighting, (EF not EF-s)even if it is a high price, that will be a lens that stays on your camera all the time.

There are some broadcast lenses for 2/3" cameras that just about fit that description.

Here's a field lens that has a 100x zoom(!) from 9.3 to 930mm. Talk about reach!

Canon (http://www.usa.canon.com/opd/controller?act=OPDBCTVCanonSpecificationsAct&fcategoryid=2455&modelid=15227)

Or, if you want something a bit wider, you can start at 6.5mm and go to 180mm. From 6.5 to 123mm, it's an f/1.5 lens. With macro, the minimum focus distance is 10mm.

Canon (http://www.usa.canon.com/opd/controller?act=OPDBCTVCanonSpecificationsAct&fcategoryid=2456&modelid=18054)

BTW, both lenses have autofocus. I'm not sure on the wider studio lens, but I hear that the AF in the field lens was developed to track a Formula 1 car accelerating down the straightaway toward the camera.

If you have to ask the price...

Ah! I almost forgot. I have been thinking of getting a 17-50/55mm lens. Now I have a Canon 24mm and a 55-250mm and I will buy a Tokina 10-16 fisheye soon.

A 17-55 2.8f IS lens is a great lens choice. Even the 3-rd party lens companies have similar products. But it is just a bit expensive and a bit too heavy.

If I reduce the lens combinations to 2 only, I may choose the following :

a. Canon 15-85mm / Tokina 12-24mm (for everything from super-wide to mid-range shoots)

&

b. Canon 55-250mm (for things that I cannot get too close such as animals in the wild, sports events & stage performances)

(p.s.. a 24mm without IS is ok in most situations and I enjoy it light weight)

Regards,

Kenneth

If I could only have 3 lenses I'd go with the 16-35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2.

I'd even be tempted to go with the 24mm f/1.4 over the 16-35mm f/2.8. That lens is the absolute jam. I'd also consider the 85mm f/1.2 over the 135mm f/2.

Telephotos on DSLRs are a limited use deal. They induce Jello readily, but I've had lots of luck with the 200mm f/2.8 in controlled situations.

Just picked up a T2i and haven't even taken out of the bag yet!

I decided to replace kit lens with Tamron 17-50 VC f/2.8. About $450 less than the Canon (net of the Tamron rebate) and the only major complaint I've heard about it is touchy focus. I'll see if this is wide enough (probably will not be) and will add a Tokina 11-16 when available. Now just need a telephoto to complete the kit and still pondering what to do there.

I have the Canon 70-200 F4 IS (for my 7D) - if your budget can stretch to that you won't be disappointed. IS is a bit noisy but terrifically effective. Some buy the F2.8 version but I'd rather have this one as it's half the weight, size and price :-)

My other two lenses are the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS AF USM EF-S (stunning for both video and stills) and the Canon 10-22 F3.5-F4.5 AF USM EF-S (equally superb, not as fast as the much talked about Tokina but has many other advantages for the work I do - especially less barrel distortion and much less flare suseptibility than the Toki, more usable zoom range etc.).

I also have a Canon 1.4x Extender for the Tele (the only EF lens I have/it will fit). It's mainly for photographic stuff - even with it on (and at full stretch) I still get superbly sharp pictures.

Eventually I'll get a super fast 30mm (or thereabouts)...but that makes 4 so I guess I'm not allowed to mention that on a thread asking for only 3 lenses! :-)

When I (soon) get my T2i, I intend to buy a new Tamron 28-75mm as a workaround lens, because it has had good user reviews, but mainly it is a full frame lens.
Anyone have any experience with this zoom?

If I were to have only 3 lenses, good for video and photo it would be:

- canon ef-s 10-22 f3.5-4.5 usm
- tamron 17-50 f2.8 di-2 VC
- canon 70-200 f2.8L IS

The 10-22 has a FOV of 16-35mm. This gives you the wide for dramatic vista or interior shots. It is also good and gives a nice effect on gliding/flying. This lens is an L lens in essence even if it is not marked as such. It is sharp, contrasty, has good saturation, flare resistant (for a wide angle), focuses fast and accurately, is rectilinear for a wide. Others will choose the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for this, but in my experience, the wideness of this lens is more tolerable to hand shakes and there is virtually very little shallow DOF you can get with f2.8 vs f3.5-4.5 anyway that the reason for f2.8 is hard to justify in my case. Also, the canon has very little chromatic aberrations (w/c the tokina is usually known for) and the 10-22 range is more useful than the 11-16. That 1mm difference is big if you are in a tight spot.

I will not and do not go for the Sigma 10-20/22 because Sigma's tend to be flaky in QC. They are also less sharp in many copies compared to Canon's. I am not going to go on a trial and error to get a good copy with Sigma.


I chose the Tamron 17-50 VC over the canon ef-s 17-55 f2.8 IS because optically it is on par with the latter without the size, weight, and the price of the canon version. The tamron does a very good "macro" as well. The VC will help stabilize handheld shots both in video and photo. The only downside of the Tamron is the lack of ring USM. In most situations this is not needed though and since today's AF is very slow to the point you'd best do it yourself, the slower AF speed is basically moot and not a relevant disadvantage. Also, the tamron costs half the price of the Canon!

I was torn between my 50 f1.4 usm vs the 70-200 f2.8L IS as my third lens. I own both of them. In fact I already have all the lenses I mentioned here. However, I opted for the 70-200 f2.8L IS because of the range, IS and great bokeh and sharpness if used properly. More importantly, if I am forced to shoot from afar, such as inside the church or in a reception, or stage play/show, I have the long range covered. That basically tilted my choice overall even if the 50 1.4 usm would have given me the shallower DOF for some artsy shot.

An alternate 3 lens lineup is:

- 10-22
- 50 f1.4
- 70-200 f2.8L IS

I lose the flexibility of the 17-50 f2.8 but gain the sharp 50 1.4. For photography this would work well using 2 bodies. For video, it may be tougher to use even if one is to carry 2 bodies for video!

These 3 lenses would do both well in almost all situations and different types of photography. The good thing is I'm not really constrained to three. In the real world of a pro and events shooter, you do carry backups, so the 50 f1.4 will definitely be in there for a 4-lens lineup minimum. In reality, I might even have the 18-55 IS kit lens in there as a backup in case the tamron fails. Maybe a 55-250 IS is there to backup the 70-200 f2.8L IS. Both are small light and not a burden to carry or have in the bag. Only the 70-200L is heavy and large, but it justifies its existence because of it's range, great optics, and low light capabilities. Add a 1.4x TC there and you extend the range further just in case you need more range.

I could do 95% of what I want for stills and video with two T2i bodies (with grips) and these two lenses:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

For the other 5% I would want:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

I could take only the 70-200 with me if I went full frame, but I don't see that happening unless I won the lottery. On my budget, $1000 is as much as I dare spend at one time. I'm about a third of the way with what I have now, but if I did get all that gear above, I'd have to make it pay for itself much more than I do now. I consider myself a semi-pro..don't make enough to afford the best of the best, but I have more fun with it since I don't have to depend on it for a living.

this is certainly not the precise place to ask, but for someone on a budget the Canon 50mm 1.8 looks very appealing because of the sub 100 price tag. Is it worth it, or would I be wasting my money?

The 50mm 1.8 is easily worth the money... fun lens to shoot with.

Call me crazy, but I'd buy primes. For an APS-C sensor (like the 7D/T2i) I'd probably get a 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm lens. If money were no object, I'd buy L glass. Otherwise, I'd look into getting a set of used Canon or Nikon lenses.

Sure, I'd still want something wider occasionally. But I could always rent or borrow from a friend.

Reading this post just gets me more and more confused. Let's say I want only video work, and that too indie filmmaking, guerrilla style (but with the option of scaling up lights, night work, etc), what are the three lenses I absolutely need to go for?

I might have the option for a tripod in some shots, handheld in others. Motion (dolly, crane and handheld) will be standard. Lighting conditions including night work (with lights) and bright days; green screen work and shallow DOF. I guess that's about it.

Any suggestions on what 2-3 lenses I absolutely need to go for and can depend on for an entire 30-day shoot?

I think all these answers cover video pretty well. That's the primary use of my T2i and my 3 choices are the Canon 10-22 F3.5-F4.5 (or Tokina 11-16), Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L and Canon 70-200 F/4 L.
Wide, general, and tele.

Sareesh,

It sounds to me like you are doing human-scale narrative. IMHO, the key range on a full frame camera is roughly 28-85. That's 17.5 - 53 on an ASP-C camera. You could cover this with an EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

On the other hand, you mention dollies and cranes, in which case, you don't need IS. And if you absolutely want to nail focus, you will want the best focus control you can get. In that case, I'd get the Zeiss 18mm, 28mm, and 50mm lenses. The ZE and ZF series lenses have high quality and excellent focus rings. In fact, soon Zeiss will introduce a new set of Compact Prime II lenses. These will have even longer throws of 300 degrees for accurate focus control. The Zeiss ZE and ZF lenses are in the $1,000 range. The Compact Prime II lenses will be more like $3,500 each.

So, if you want the best quality and focus control in the critical range, Zeiss primes are a good choice.

But it really depends on style. The 18, 28, and 50mm lenses will let you shoot straight narrative. To "wow" the audience, you will need to rely on lighting, costume, acting, etc. But what if you want a bigger than life shot? Put a super wide lens at the feet of your actor. Or maybe you want the look of a sheriff walking down a dusty street through the heat waves. For that you need a telephoto.

In that case, I'd get something like the EF 10-22, EF 17-55 IS, and the EF 70-200 IS. With this set, you cover a wider creative range, but you give up the super fine focus control.

On the other hand, if you are creative enough, you can shoot a whole film with a 28mm lens, give it a consistent feel, and make a great movie.

For the typical Indian-style film, the 18, 28, and 50mm could very well do the trick. The 18mm covers establishing shots, wide action, and dance scenes, though you might want something wider if you aren't able to back up the camera. The 28mm covers the normal view, including interaction of a small number of people. The 50mm is your moderate closeup lens. An 85mm would be useful if you want really tight closeups.

The big question is whether you want to cover the critical range with the best lenses for accurate video focus, or if you want to cover a wider range of focal lengths and use still camera zooms. There is no one correct answer. It all depends on your vision and goals.

It seems that the addition of a 50mm (f1.4 or f1.8) is a nice addition for low light situations.

The 70-200 f4 IS is very nice but not within my budget!

Besides lenses, I may need to get a very very good tripod & microphone for my video. A bit off the topic.

Sareesh,

It sounds to me like you are doing human-scale narrative. IMHO, the key range on a full frame camera is roughly 28-85. That's 17.5 - 53 on an ASP-C camera. You could cover this with an EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

On the other hand, you mention dollies and cranes, in which case, you don't need IS. And if you absolutely want to nail focus, you will want the best focus control you can get. In that case, I'd get the Zeiss 18mm, 28mm, and 50mm lenses. The ZE and ZF series lenses have high quality and excellent focus rings. In fact, soon Zeiss will introduce a new set of Compact Prime II lenses. These will have even longer throws of 300 degrees for accurate focus control. The Zeiss ZE and ZF lenses are in the $1,000 range. The Compact Prime II lenses will be more like $3,500 each.

So, if you want the best quality and focus control in the critical range, Zeiss primes are a good choice.

But it really depends on style. The 18, 28, and 50mm lenses will let you shoot straight narrative. To "wow" the audience, you will need to rely on lighting, costume, acting, etc. But what if you want a bigger than life shot? Put a super wide lens at the feet of your actor. Or maybe you want the look of a sheriff walking down a dusty street through the heat waves. For that you need a telephoto.

In that case, I'd get something like the EF 10-22, EF 17-55 IS, and the EF 70-200 IS. With this set, you cover a wider creative range, but you give up the super fine focus control.

On the other hand, if you are creative enough, you can shoot a whole film with a 28mm lens, give it a consistent feel, and make a great movie.

For the typical Indian-style film, the 18, 28, and 50mm could very well do the trick. The 18mm covers establishing shots, wide action, and dance scenes, though you might want something wider if you aren't able to back up the camera. The 28mm covers the normal view, including interaction of a small number of people. The 50mm is your moderate closeup lens. An 85mm would be useful if you want really tight closeups.

The big question is whether you want to cover the critical range with the best lenses for accurate video focus, or if you want to cover a wider range of focal lengths and use still camera zooms. There is no one correct answer. It all depends on your vision and goals.

First of all, let me thank you for the fantastic answer.

I personally like the wider lens (21-28mm - 35mm) range and feel. Somehow it seems more visceral. Your suggestions are spot on. I might go for the three zoom lenses in my kit and when required, hire/buy the prime lens/additional lens as required.

However, I'm seriously reconsidering DSLRs as a whole because of Barry Greens inputs regarding the low lines of resolution and poor blow-up to cinema screens.

kenneth
Sound does not enter the equation because there's no way I'll be using camera mics ports for a feature film! There'll be a sound guy for that.

As far as tripods are concerned, yes of course. But I'll have to design a rig so pans/tilts can be smooth.

The three lenses I use all the time is...

Canon 16-35mm F2.8L
Canon 24-70mm F2.8L
Canon 70-200mm F2.8L

For macro shots the...
Canon 100mm Macro F2.8

Buy quality glass.

Great to see so many posts on this thread. I received my 550D a couple of days ago along with a canon 50mm f1.4 and so far so good.

My main aim in starting this thread was primarily for those just starting out in the vDSLR territory (and like me this cam would have been their first purchase). For me the glass is more important that the body, so my money will probably be spent there. Thank you for everyone who has so far contributed to this thread, it is very insightful for me and hopefully others who are using this cam.

Dear Aaron,

Thank you for putting such a good topic for discussion. For hobby video like me there is no need to keep too many lenses. 2 - 3 lens will be enough.

Besides, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is also a very goods lens. I do not have it. It has low light capibility which may be better than my prievous choice of Canon 24mm f2.8.

Enjoy your new purchase!

Kenneth

As soon as i get my T2i I'll be purchasing the Canon 50mm 1.4. I shoot alot of weddings and i absoutly need a fast low light capable lens. I think we should all realize that fixed focal length lenses are the way to go. While we have more play with tele lenses i don't think its possible to get the same "look" you can get out of a fixed focal length lens. The less glass the better in other words.

Ha! Three lenses? Who do you think you're kidding? The only reason to own three lenses is you haven't saved enough for four. Or you made that fatal mistake and have promised your wife/better half that with "just" three lenses you will be all set for life. Silly boy. You then find yourself hiding lenses because you are pretty sure she couldn't tell them apart but she CAN count to four. Hint: If you did that make sure one of your lens purchases is a white Canon lens because one day you WILL want one of those and you can bet your bottom dollar she knows the difference between white and black.

Red ring around the end of the lens could be problematic depending how close she inspects your stuff so you should probably get one of those too. Over the last couple of decades I have bought and sold dozens of lenses and at last count I have 11. Now I am looking at the new 70-200 2.8 to get me back to 12. I do have two ex wives and agree that three should be the limit, but not for lenses.

First of all, let me thank you for the fantastic answer.

I personally like the wider lens (21-28mm - 35mm) range and feel. Somehow it seems more visceral. Your suggestions are spot on. I might go for the three zoom lenses in my kit and when required, hire/buy the prime lens/additional lens as required.

However, I'm seriously reconsidering DSLRs as a whole because of Barry Greens inputs regarding the low lines of resolution and poor blow-up to cinema screens.

Not sure who Barry Greens is but you should check out this article from Phillip Bloom about his trip to Skywalker Ranch.

The tale of Lucasfilm, Skywalker Ranch, Star Wars and Canon DSLRs on a 40 foot screen! | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/12/12/skywalker/)

If George frickin Lucas and Quentin Tarantino are impressed with the capability of the 7d (and assumably the T2i) to hold up on the big screen, that's enough to convince me.

Great to see so many posts on this thread. I received my 550D a couple of days ago along with a canon 50mm f1.4 and so far so good.

My main aim in starting this thread was primarily for those just starting out in the vDSLR territory (and like me this cam would have been their first purchase). For me the glass is more important that the body, so my money will probably be spent there. Thank you for everyone who has so far contributed to this thread, it is very insightful for me and hopefully others who are using this cam.

I too just got into DSLR video and secondarily shoot stills. The videos I shoot are often in uncontrolled lighting situations and cover a variety of situations. I figured that Canon f2.8 17-55 would be best for me. After about 2 weeks (which is the amount of time I have to try it before no longer being able to return it to the 1 local store), I am returning it to try and see how I do with a few primes at the same price point. The 17-55 was great and I certainly love not having to swap lenses for different applications, but I've learned in my brief experience taking it beyond 800 and max 1600 ISO generates a bit of noise in some of the situations in which I find myself.

So ... I am targeting picking up the Canon f1.4 50mm [ to see how that goes. I then plan on either for a wider (Tokina 11-17 2.8) or longer fast prime (Canon 1.8 85mm, Canon 2 100mm). It's tough to know what I want given I'm not sure exactly what I'll be shooting; but if nothing else I'll get some more practice with the primes and have a bit of variety. Apparently knowing your style and applications are direct inputs for this whole decision thing.

Canon 17-55mm 2.8 = ~$1000
Canon 50mm f1.4 = ~400
Canon 85mm f1.8 = ~450
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 =~ 600

I'm definitely interested in others' thoughts between the zooms and the primes!! (I too appreciate the discussion)

After much deliberation and hours reading posts / reviews here and elsewhere I have ordered 3 lenses.

Sigma 30mm 1.4 (APS-C)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (APS-C)

I was originally going to get the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC, (I think it was around $650) but after reading how the focus control was short and touchy as well as that is was focus motor was loud I began looking at the Canon version ($1060). Frustrated that I would be spending over a grand on a APS-C specific lens I began looking at the Canon L 2.8 wide angle zoom which was around $1500 w/ no image stabilizatoin.

I eventually decided against getting a fast wide zoom for now as I do not have enough experience to know what lenses will be best suited to me.

I instead picked up the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS which is a good still photo lens (same range as the Nikon lens which lives on my D80) and has the range of 2 or 3 fast (2.8) zooms.

I will post more when all my gear arrives later this week.

Gabe

Gabe,

I feel your pain on the cost of the lens, but after moving to the prime (Canon 1.4 50mm), I miss the flexibility the 2.8 17-55mm provided. So ... I have officially gone 180 and am considering the 17-55 and the 24-70. I can attest to the 1.4 50mm being very good - but the ring can be a bit noisy in my opinion. For what it's worth, I've gone back and forth on this thing for a bit and have decided that I need both the fast zoom and the 50mm prime.

With that whole zoom decision, I never know if i might upgrade, so I'm strongly considering the L-series lens - just to future proof it (as best I can).

Hope that might provide a bit of insight from someone sharing in the same decision-making process!!

I've noticed a lot of people are choosing to double-down on the 50mm focal length. They seem to cover it as part of their zoom range, and yet they also get the Canon 1.8 or 1.4 prime. I do understand that the Canon is a terrific bargain, and it's faster than most zooms.

But I guess my question is, should I be considering that as my next lens, or should I opt for a Tokina 11-16mm. I just bought the Tamron 17-50mm so far and it so far it seems great. Is there any reason to get the Canon 50mm if the Tamron is already covers that length and is a 2.8mm?

What I was REALLY hoping was that the Tamron (since designed for EF-S style mounts) already took into consideration the crop factor (like the Tokina is rumoured to have done) and that it was actually 17-50mm, while the Canon would be around 70mm after crop factor. But I've been told that that's untrue and that aside from the light issue, the Canon 50mm will have the exact same focal length as my Tamron at max telephoto. I suppose there may be a sharpness advantage though?

If Tokina already took into consideration the range, it must be a BIG difference between 16mm Tokina and 17mm Tamron, am I understanding that correctly?

But I guess my question is, should I be considering that as my next lens, or should I opt for a Tokina 11-16mm. I just bought the Tamron 17-50mm so far and it so far it seems great. Is there any reason to get the Canon 50mm if the Tamron is already covers that length and is a 2.8mm?
As far as getting another 50mm, I think it depends on how much low available light shooting you plan on doing. I haven't had a problem so far with my 17-55mm f2.8 at 50mm, but I don't shoot inside museums, churches, etc.

My next lens will be either a f4L or f2.8L 70-200mm IS. If I can find a great deal on a f2.8 from an owner who's upgrading to the II version, I'll get that.

This will give me a two lens 17-200mm at f2.8 with IS and L quality glass. Canon's EF-S consumer superzoom lens is an 18-200mm, but with a variable aperture of f3.5-5.6. This range seems to be the most popular for covering most everything.

Stan, regarding your comment ...

"On the ultrawides, I've read reports of problems with moire on the Tokina for video and that the Canon 10-22mm does better in this regard."

I personally think this is a red herring (= incorrect information) and I have posted about this on that other forum where the comment appeared on (you may well have seen it elsewhere, I don't know). However, I don't believe the originators of those comments, wherever they are posted, understand some of the limitations of the DSLR technology that they are using and how best to use ultra-wide angles with these limitations in mind.

I just don't want false information circulating on DVinfo (but I'm willing to be proved wrong if someone can show us EVIDENCE that the Tokina 11-16 has more moire problems than the Canon 10-22). For the record I own the latter (and a 7D).

OK, let's hopefully see the thread return to it's great main subject!!!

As I have posted a few times already, I'm afraid I have changed my mind again!
This is the problem with having to shoot a lot of different styles.

My 50mm 1.4 is on the camera 90% of the time. Just love the look and with the z-finder I'm starting to nail rack focus effects!

I have the 70-200 f4L and it's wonderful too but for a very different use and on tripod only.

Last...ok NEXT lens (assuming they are going to make enough of them) will be the 11-16 Tokina. A buddy of mine has one and raves about it.

And then there's the 24-70 f2.8 L from Canon.
And then the 100mm f2.8 L Macro
And then the Tamron 200-500
And then...
And then...
And then...

(sorry for the Dude, Where's my Car reference!)

I've noticed a lot of people are choosing to double-down on the 50mm focal length. They seem to cover it as part of their zoom range, and yet they also get the Canon 1.8 or 1.4 prime. I do understand that the Canon is a terrific bargain, and it's faster than most zooms.

But I guess my question is, should I be considering that as my next lens, or should I opt for a Tokina 11-16mm. I just bought the Tamron 17-50mm so far and it so far it seems great. Is there any reason to get the Canon 50mm if the Tamron is already covers that length and is a 2.8mm?

This is a good point - and I struggled with the potential "duplicate focal length," but I've learned that with the unpredictability of the lighting - the speed of the 1.4 is ideal ...

... which brings me to my next question. Any thoughts on the EF-S f2.8 17-55 vs EF 24-70 (L series). Is the extra with at the wide end worth it? vs the "L-series" extra $300.

Thoughts?!?

Stan, regarding your comment ..."On the ultrawides, I've read reports of problems with moire on the Tokina for video and that the Canon 10-22mm does better in this regard."I personally think this is a red herring (= incorrect information) and I have posted about this on that other forum where the comment appeared on (you may well have seen it elsewhere, I don't know).
Andy, I've removed the comment from my post. I certainly don't want incorrect info spread. Thanks, Stan

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.

Thanks mate - seems we both share the same values!

Let me do I quick count around my room... 7 Glass + 4 Plastic
Camera Gear on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gkhay/3273751678/)
New Toys - Lomography Lenses on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gkhay/4403207618/)

I don't seriously think you can get away with just 3, I went to europe with three but mainly used my wide angle (buildings etc). But unless my video is going to be of just one thing, your going to need different lenses.

People - Whole Range depending on how far they are away from the camera
Night - Fast Glass
LandScape - Wide Angle or PC
Buildings - Wide Angle or PC

If I had to use just three for a particular short and I didn't know what I was shooting (say in a competition).
50 or 60mm Portrait Prime
Wide angle or Full-Frame Fisheye on an APC-S Sensor
70-200mm

If its animals I'd flip the 50mm prime for a ultrazoom
If its night I'd pull out the Fastest Glass I have access too
If its doc about location or landscape, 50 is out again and replaced with a PC lens or another wide angle (so I would have Wide + Fisheye)
Action - I have access to some older lenses where the zoom & focus is on one ring (turn=focus, slide back and forth = zoom) as long as your fixed to a motion ball head for stability you can track things pretty fast & accurately with these things.
Things close-up, dump the wide and tele for some Macros.

So Basically 1 Wide, 1 Normal, 1 Telephoto

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!You've even seen awesome footage -- bingo. What more of an endorsement do you need?

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. If you're shooting for the big screen, then you're most likely going to be using some camera other than the delicate, plastic little Rebel.

The Rebel certainly has some limited big-screen filmmaking applications as a crash cam, I'll admit that right away. As cheap and disposable as it is, you could happily destroy it if a certain type of shot calls for it -- that's the beauty of it. However as far as big-screen filmmaking with a D-SLR goes, I think you'll want to explore our 5D Mk. II forum, because you're going to want a camera that isn't plastic, is much more robust, and offers much better image control, particularly with regard to White Balance and ISO. It's a "right tool for the right job" kind of thing.

I don't seriously think you can get away with just 3, I went to europe with three but mainly used my wide angle (buildings etc). But unless my video is going to be of just one thing, your going to need different lenses.

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.

I sort of think differently about the lenses. Many people choose a mixture of focal lengths to get the highest quality at any given focal length. My strategy would be more functional. The lenses would be:

EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens - Around $300, for times when there is enough light and you only want to carry one lens

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens - $1000 Better in low light and decent telephoto range. This would be the go to lens

Canon Wide Angle EF 35mm f/2.0 Autofocus Lens - $300. When you want razor thin shallow depth of field or for really dark environments. Not for handheld work though, no IS.