I am seriously considering buying a 7D. It would be my main still camera and secondary video camera.

After some research, I found these lenses: the "EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM" (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm) and the "EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM" (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_15_85mm_f_3_5_5_6_is_usm). I have read a lot of positive reviews from a photography standpoint. Would these be good lenses for capturing quality HD video?

Both of these lenses have an image stabilizer. Can this feature be used while shooting video to help smooth out camera movements?

Any suggested accessories?

Does the 7D have an audio input?

What compression format does it use for video?

Does it have a maximum clip size? If so, what is the maximum length a clip can be if recording in 24p HD?

My current camera (Canon SX10 IS) has a 20x zoom (5.0-100.0mm). Does that mean the 70-300mm lens has a maximum zoom of three times what my current camera is capable of?

Thanks!

- Good lenses, for outdoors (i use the 15-85 as my walk around), you'll need a faster one for indoors, and you might want a wider one as well

- I usually shoot on a tripod with the longer lenses, and have some sort of rig with a wider lens for hand held

- there is a whole plethora of accessories for these, I'd start with lenses, ND filters and stabilization

- yes, not great though, I use the Zoom and sync with the cameras audio

-h264

- clip size? depends on how big your cards are. 12 minutes length

- that depends on sensor size of the canon a little bit. with the 7ds sensor, I think your at about 480mm compared to a full sensor

"EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM" and the "EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM". I have read a lot of positive reviews from a photography standpoint. Would these be good lenses for capturing quality HD video?
No. Doable, but in an ideal world you'd want a lens with a constant aperture.

Both of these lenses have an image stabilizer. Can this feature be used while shooting video to help smooth out camera movements?
Yes, sometimes.

Any suggested accessories?
Lots. Try the search button.

Does the 7D have an audio input?
Yes. Mini-jack & it's crap. Again, hit the search button - all work arounds have been discussed in detail.

What compression format does it use for video?
H264.

Does it have a maximum clip size? If so, what is the maximum length a clip can be if recording in 24p HD?
12 mins.

My current camera (Canon SX10 IS) has a 20x zoom (5.0-100.0mm). Does that mean the 70-300mm lens has a maximum zoom of three times what my current camera is capable of?
No. You need to read up on focal length, sensor size and angle of view.

Hope that helps.

The lenses you list are "consumer" lenses and they will be good for sunny 16 photography in bright conditions, video lenses can be a little softer than still photography lenses because of the medium the image is being reproduced on. Once your photographs are being sold for commercial use and reproduced on fine quality magazine paper, these lenses will show there softness.

You won't realize until your filming the impact of aperture on your footage, buying a DSLR for video, one of the attractions is shallow depth of field shots, lenses with f3.5-5.6 wont give that look.

I shoot mainly with primes and at times my f2.8 on a 24mm lens is not a wide enough aperture, when I switch to my Canon 50mm f1.4 I can save 200 worth of ISO which takes off a lot of digital noise.

My recommendation is buy a Canon 50mm f1.4 do some shooting, then buy lenses that fit a need you identify.

The 70-300 lens is a 4x zoom, if your looking for a long 12x zoom stick with a camcorder.

Your questions are answered well in the above posts.

Lenses are a very personal thing. And your style of shooting will dictate what you choose.

I find that shooting video with a DSLR is a totally different discipline than with a video camera. I have had dozens from Betacams to XDcams. I now have an EX3 and an EX1R a couple older Panasonic and Canon cams. I also have been shooting stills for a living since the 70's. In video you very rarely change lenses and it is hard to get SDOF unless you are in tele mode. Still lenses tend to be specialized unlike video lenses. The good ones are also very good. But you can pretty much forget about zooming in a shot, you really should not anyway as a general rule.

I also have a 5DmkII and a 7D.

My lens for the Canons are choices are:

17-40 L f4
24-70 L f2.8
70-200 L f2.8 IS
50mm f1.4
100mm f2.8 macro
100-400 L f4-5.6 IS

This gives me a real good range. I also have the 24-105 L f4, but I don't use that much for video.
The 24-70 and 70-200 are my most used lenses. They cover 90% of my needs. I find f2.8 is plenty for most SDOF situations.
The 50mm is very good value and great in low light.

I would consider an EF-S 10-22 mm lens as well for a 7D if you want super wide.

Olof,

I think you meant the EF-S 10-22mm or Tokina 11-16? That's what you'd want for the 7D. But for wide angle on the 5D you'd be looking at the EF 16-35mm f2.8.

Thanks for the replies.

So either the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM or the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM would be a good lens to start with? The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM looks like a good lens. I may have to pick one up when the budget allows.

Is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM that much better than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM to merit the extra $500?

When using a wide aperture, how does one bring the brightness to an acceptable level? Lowering the ISO, highering the shutter speed, using ND filters or a combination of these?

How many ND filters do you like to keep on hand?

Thanks!

Generally outdoors you would have to use an ND filter to get the correct exposure with a wide aperture.

Your ISO is likely to be at 100, but that won't allow you to shoot wide open on its own. Your shutter speed basically needs to be double your framerate to get the right look, so you can't just crank it up to cut out light, or you end up with stroby video.

The only thing to watch with ND filters is that they don't distort the colour balance. Even two samples from the same manufacturer can impart a different level of colour cast to the image.

How many ND filters do you like to keep on hand?




I use the Cokin style of holder and ND filters, so I have a 4x and 8x, I can stack these together as well and I can also use a polarizing filter, these are usually enough to get the shallow depth of field I'm looking for. Also there is a screw in variable ND filter which you turn like a polarizing filter to cut down.

Filming should be on full manual including focusing and iso etc, so you are "handcuffed" to a set shutter speed, which as someone has said is normally twice your frames per second, the only variables are ND filters, iso or aperture.

I would wait another month and see what the 60D is like, now is not a good time to buy a 7D.

If I was only getting 1 lens I would start with the 24-70 f2.8.

Next would be either a 70-200 or a fast 50, depending on your needs.

The older 70-200 is excellent, but unbelievably the new one is better. I would get the new one if I had the money, but the older could be a pretty good deal now, there should be some used ones showing up from people trading up.

Canon L glass tends to keep its value very well, so don't expect super bargains. But look around.

Below is a really good site for reviews of Canon glass etc..
Canon & Nikon Digital SLR Camera & Lens Reviews (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/)

If I was only getting 1 lens I would start with the 24-70 f2.8.

[/url]

I agree. I mainly use a 28-75 f2.8. I find I don't often need to go wider, but I always want more tele.

I am seriously considering buying a 7D. It would be my main still camera and secondary video camera.

After some research, I found these lenses: the "EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM" (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm) and the "EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM" (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_15_85mm_f_3_5_5_6_is_usm). I have read a lot of positive reviews from a photography standpoint. Would these be good lenses for capturing quality HD video?

Both of these lenses have an image stabilizer. Can this feature be used while shooting video to help smooth out camera movements?

Any suggested accessories?

Does the 7D have an audio input?

What compression format does it use for video?

Does it have a maximum clip size? If so, what is the maximum length a clip can be if recording in 24p HD?

My current camera (Canon SX10 IS) has a 20x zoom (5.0-100.0mm). Does that mean the 70-300mm lens has a maximum zoom of three times what my current camera is capable of?

Thanks!


As far as the lenses, you may want to consider the FD Canons. They are full manual, not AF there, but you can use them on a 7D no problem with and adaptor and, best of all, you can even get really fast 50mm 1.4 on ebay for less than $100. You may want to do some research on ebay (type in Canon FD lenses).

But remember, manual focus, manual aperture, no electronic communication between you 7D and the lens...

Carlo Zanella
The Santa Fe TV Show (http://www.santafetvshow.com)

I know very few people using FD glass on the Canon's because the adapter required to make it work includes a glass element that reduces sharpness and quality. More people (MANY more) are using Nikon manual focus glass because the adapter to that requires no glass and a lot of early Nikon glass is just gorgeous. Especially the primes.

I know very few people using FD glass on the Canon's because the adapter required to make it work includes a glass element that reduces sharpness and quality. More people (MANY more) are using Nikon manual focus glass because the adapter to that requires no glass and a lot of early Nikon glass is just gorgeous. Especially the primes.

This is my understanding as well.

As an alternative to Nikon, I suggest the Pentax Super Tak 50mm 1.4. $95 on ebay, $6 adapter. Nice lens. Focus is silky, way better than some big buck new lenses.

This is my understanding as well.

As an alternative to Nikon, I suggest the Pentax Super Tak 50mm 1.4. $95 on ebay, $6 adapter. Nice lens. Focus is silky, way better than some big buck new lenses.

What filter size does it take? I'd rather not have to play all those game again. So if it 52mm or 58mm, we're good.

Super Takumars are very nice though, they are prone to going off leading to a yellow tint. Also, they have such a distinct look that you may have problems creating a full set. But, if you want a vintage look on a budget they're tough to beat.

More people (MANY more) are using Nikon manual focus glass because the adapter to that requires no glass and a lot of early Nikon glass is just gorgeous. Especially the primes.

So the 7D is not limited to just Canon's lenses? How do I know which ones are compatible?

Unless you already have Nikon or similar glass. I would buy Canon glass, there will be fewer problems and the AF and Auto Iris will work, great for stills, not so important for video. But you will probably be using it for stills as well. Also all non canon lenses made for canon can stop working in future firmware upgrades, read the disclaimers.

I have a bunch of old Canon FD glass and the adaptor. It is not a good solution, unless you are looking for soft focus and low contrast glass. I posted some video from those adapters a while back, on this site.

Unless you already have Nikon or similar glass. I would buy Canon glass, there will be fewer problems and the AF and Auto Iris will work, great for stills, not so important for video.


Fewer problems? Like what? For stills purposes I'd agree, but for video?


Also all non canon lenses made for canon can stop working in future firmware upgrades, read the disclaimers.


What is going to "stop working" with a Nikon lens mounted to a Canon body with a mechanical adapter. As long as the lens fits, and Earth still has a sun, it's going to work just fine. If you are talking about auto features, then maybe so. I don't use any auto features when I shoot video.

Unless you already have Nikon or similar glass. I would buy Canon glass, there will be fewer problems and the AF and Auto Iris will work, great for stills, not so important for video. But you will probably be using it for stills as well. Also all non canon lenses made for canon can stop working in future firmware upgrades, read the disclaimers.

I have a bunch of old Canon FD glass and the adaptor. It is not a good solution, unless you are looking for soft focus and low contrast glass. I posted some video from those adapters a while back, on this site.

Complete cobblers.

Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss, Tamron and a bunch of others all make dedicated lenses that are fully compatible with Canon EOS. They work now. They'll work in the future. Don't get confused between a legal disclaimer and reality.

I took the plunge and purchased a 7d rig.

You should do a lot of reseach about the lenes and see if you can marry your lens purchase to your style of shooting. I love telling a story in close ups, but i went out and bought mostl wide/medium. Hah

I snarfed this:
Canon 50mm 1.4 (low light, prime, medium, shallow dop when you need it, frame people, things, places)
Tamron 17-50 2.8 (zoom , for days i dont want to swap lenses, 50 end for people, 17 end for establish shots)
Tamron 90mm 2.8 (tele prime with macro.for closeups of people and things, macro is 1:1)
Tonika 10-17 3.5 fisheye (cheesey , but i love fisheye, might get returned. Only lens i bought that doesnt hold its fstop thru the zoom, but its ultra wude at 17 and fisheye.at 10. Arsty, stylized, mega establishing shots)

At some point i will get another prime or zoom in the telephoto range with a low fstop. I got no l series glass, but i have a matte box with nd filters which i love to work with and i shoot eith lights often

Research galore and watch tests on vimeo and youtube

What filter size does it take? I'd rather not have to play all those game again. So if it 52mm or 58mm, we're good.

They're 49mm.

With regard to the yellowish cast, Mine doesn't seem to have it much but there are reports; but there's a quick fix: leave the lens in sunlight for a few hours. Have no idea how that works, but they say it does. Has to do with radioactivity or something something.

Perrone and Leam, I was just expressing my opinion. I am not trying to say it is the only viable opinion.

And I shoot video without the auto features myself. But when shooting stills I do use them, that is what I meant, and wrote. I do a lot of stills as well.

I am not saying that all the other manufactures lenses are not good. I think some of the Zeiss lenses are superior to the Canons.

But I personally am very comfortable buying Canon L glass that is all I am saying. And I am not worried about future updates to the Canon EOS series, they will be compatible for the foreseeable future.

Third party lenses probably will be as well but Canon has no interest in keeping them compatible. So you would have to wait for the third party to update your lens if Canon does something new with their pin-outs. This may happen or not. I don't know. And it would not apply to mechanical lenses only lenses that use the Canon Pins.

These are just my thoughts. I don't mean to offend anyone.

No offense taken. I wasn't sure from your words whether you were talking about video or stills. The conversation at hand was about video so I wasn't sure to what you were referring.

As for buying "L" glass, to me it's way overblown. Yes, it's good glass, but there's lots of good glass out there. The auto-focus lenses are HORRIBLE when you are shooting video and need to use a follow focus. The throw is so short, and in many cases very sloppy. I much prefer the Nikon manual focus lenses. They have superior focusing mechanisms (for manual use), give me a real iris ring, and I can use them on both my Canon and Nikon bodies.

There's lots of ways to approach this problem, and yours has just as much merit as anyone else's. I was just confused by the shift to talking about stills.

If I was only getting 1 lens I would start with the 24-70 f2.8.

Next would be either a 70-200 or a fast 50, depending on your needs.

The older 70-200 is excellent, but unbelievably the new one is better.

The 24-70 f2.8 does look like a good lens. But it doesn't have an image stabilizer. Some of the video will need to be taken handheld and an IS would help smooth out the shakes.

What about the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_17_55_f_2_8_is_usm)? It has an IS, a wider field of view and is cheaper.

As for the 70-200, would the f4 version (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_200mm_f_4l_is_usm) be okay or should I go with the f2.8 version (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_200mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm)?

Thanks for the info.

I have the 24-70 2.8 and I don't miss the IS at all. If I do any work off tripod it goes on my blackbird or shoulder mount.
I also have the 70-200 f4 and its great. MUCH lighter than the 2.8 or the IS version. And $650! Once again, I don't miss the IS at all even taking pics fully handheld.
I will add that most of my work is outdoor or controlled lighting. If you need those focal lengths for low light, there may be better solutions.

Okay, after some more research, here is what I have come up with.

Canon EOS 7D SLR Digital Camera (Body Only)

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens

Zoom H4n Handy Mobile 4-Track Recorder


I decided on the 70-200 f4 for the price and weight. The f4 will not degrade video quality that much will it? It will be mostly used for wildlife/outdoor photography and videography.

If you have any comments or suggestions, let me know.

I suggest swapping the Zoom with the similarly priced Tascam unit. The Zoom is nice and I don't know if it sounds any better or worse, but the TAscam has two distinct advantages: 1) separate leveling dials 2) way better (redundant) battery system. Zoom dies fast. Also, the Zoom says it has 4 channels, but you can't set them at different levels and it has the world's worst manual.

Mitch,

That sounds like a great kit.

You can always try other lenses later if you need them, but you may not. It gives you a lot of range, and f2.8 is good for low light work. There are faster alternatives, but it will get you started. And the 70-200 f4 is a great lens, at a reasonable price, and very light and well built.

You are very smart to go for the Zoom H4N.

Enjoy, the 7D is a fantastic camera, in my opinion. And the choice of lenses is almost endless. I find that shooting video with DSLRS has really recharged my creativity.

That 70-200 f4 is turning out to be a much better lens than I expected. And it's light enough so you can still mount the camera directly on the tripod. With the heavier f2.8 versions you have to mount the lens by its collar to a tripod. I use mostly old pre-AI Nikkor primes and a Zeiss ZE 50mm, but that Canon zoom hangs in very nicely with the other lenses. I doubt that anybody could tell the difference.

Bill,

Do you have the IS version? Do you think it's worth the extra money?

I have the work 70-200 F4 - superb lens and I prefer it the 2.8!

But unless you shoot only on a rock-solid tripod in a vacuum, I suggest IS. It makes that much of a difference.

I don't have the IS. For video you'll never use a lens that long hand held. If you want it mainly for stills, then IS might be useful.

I have the f/2.8 IS. The extra stop makes a big difference when using a doubler or shooting an interview indoors, plus the bokeh is pretty awesome.

Super Takumars are very nice though, they are prone to going off leading to a yellow tint. Also, they have such a distinct look that you may have problems creating a full set. But, if you want a vintage look on a budget they're tough to beat.

There is no general yellow tint or cast to Takumar lenses. The main 3 instances of the 50mm f/1.4 contain elements that are made using thorium, which is radioactive. The radiation from this causes the glue and coating to yellow over time, but this can be cured with a UV party light in 3 days. If you don't fix it, you will also be losing up to a stop of light.

I have 8 takumar lenses, and none of them (after I fixed my 50's) impart any kind of cast. In fact each one has superb colour saturation. The only aspect in which they impart a vintage look is the character of the flaring, which owing to the layered coating used throughout the range, is uniform, and rather nice if you like that sort of thing.

A good option for a bargain, and much overlooked is the SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8. Only today I saw one go for £25, and really, the are much like the sought after 50mm f/1.4s in many ways. Very sharp glass.

What filter size does it take? I'd rather not have to play all those game again. So if it 52mm or 58mm, we're good.

49mm. Get a £10 set of step up rings.

Complete cobblers.

Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss, Tamron and a bunch of others all make dedicated lenses that are fully compatible with Canon EOS. They work now. They'll work in the future. Don't get confused between a legal disclaimer and reality.

Cobblers, yes. Complete cobblers, no. Sigma decided not to purchase a license from Canon at one point. Instead they decided to reverse engineer the spec to make compatible lenses. End result: there are some marvelous fixed f/2.8 zooms out there which no longer have aperture control on Canon DSLRs (on my one AF still works, sort of). Sigma had a stock pile of chips to retrofit these when Canon slightly changed the spec, and used to fit for free, but they've run out of chips now.

49mm. Get a £10 set of step up rings.


Yes, I'm familiar with the solution. Was just hoping not to have to buy 1 set of step up rings for Nikon to Canon, and another set of rings from these to Canon. And I don't really know how a 49mm to 58mm step up ring is going to work. Easier for me to just stick with Nikon glass to be honest. Especially since I have both Nikon and Canon bodies.

My filters are 77mm. I put stepup rings on every lens, and leave them on permanently. Fortunately, B&H also has 77mm threaded metal lens caps. And I got a 77mm collapsable lens hood, so only need to carry one hood for all the lenses now.

I use the Cokin style of holder and ND filters, so I have a 4x and 8x, I can stack these together as well and I can also use a polarizing filter, these are usually enough to get the shallow depth of field I'm looking for. Also there is a screw in variable ND filter which you turn like a polarizing filter to cut down.

Filming should be on full manual including focusing and iso etc, so you are "handcuffed" to a set shutter speed, which as someone has said is normally twice your frames per second, the only variables are ND filters, iso or aperture.

I seriously considered setting up around a DIY matte box with a Cokin filter attachment, but I was put off by talk of the ND filters having problems with colour balance.

What is your experience? Maybe there are 3rd party ND's available that are better? I am fed up with having a gazillion step up rings, filters and lens hoods.

Yes, I'm familiar with the solution. Was just hoping not to have to buy 1 set of step up rings for Nikon to Canon, and another set of rings from these to Canon. And I don't really know how a 49mm to 58mm step up ring is going to work. Easier for me to just stick with Nikon glass to be honest. Especially since I have both Nikon and Canon bodies.

The rings I have come in a set of 7 and to go from 49 to 58, you use 3 rings. It's very solid, and a very cheap solution.

C'mon Perrone, if you go out and buy some Takumar glass, I will take the plunge and buy a Nikkor. Always wanted to know what the fuss was about.

Will the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 need an adapter to fit on the 7D?

If any of you have experience with this lens, how does the manual focusing work for video? Some reviewers said that they returned the lens because of manual focusing issues.

C'mon Perrone, if you go out and buy some Takumar glass, I will take the plunge and buy a Nikkor. Always wanted to know what the fuss was about.

What mount am I looking for and what adapter?

So I just had a look through EBay at these lenses. I can't find any compelling reason to buy one. The only lens faster than F2.8 was the range of 50/55mm lenses and they were more expensive than the Nikons.

So the problem for me is this:

The lenses are slow. I can get Nikon glass at F2 or faster for the entire cinematic range.
They aren't any cheaper. This is what really surprised me.
I don't think the glass is any better.
I'd have to buy new adapters (both to Nikon and Canon).
I'd have to buy step up rings for my current filters.

I'm sorry, and I was curious. But I can't see how this would make any good economic sense for me. If I had an M42 body maybe...

So I just had a look through EBay at these lenses. I can't find any compelling reason to buy one. The only lens faster than F2.8 was the range of 50/55mm lenses and they were more expensive than the Nikons.


Agree about cost, not so sure about speed. 10 years ago, these lenses were peanuts. I built my collection a few years ago, and since then most or all of them have doubled in value. Expensive or not, they are a good investment.


So the problem for me is this:

The lenses are slow. I can get Nikon glass at F2 or faster for the entire cinematic range.


Wow, slow is a bit harsh. There is no 85mm f/1.4 to match the Nikon (I have my heart set on a Samyang), and there is a gap below 35mm for fast takumars (I have a nice Vivitar 28mm f/1.9 for that) but otherwise there are options.

The 35mm f/2 is a great lens, if not the best Takumar. The 85mm f/1.8 is very special. I have the 85mm f/1.9, and it is also a fine lens. As you said there are the 50mm varieties. The f/1.4 SMC is legendary, nuff said. Some say the 50mm f/1.2 is the finest, but it is super rare. Less rare is the 55mm f/1.8, which is a VERY underrated lens, believe me. Especially considering you can still get it for pennies.

Beyond f/2 you have the 135mm f/2.5, which is another GREAT lens. Finally the 105mm f/2.8 is worth a mention and has its uses.

They aren't any cheaper. This is what really surprised me.
I don't think the glass is any better.


Agree. Maybe worse. Depends on your preference, but I promise you Takumar images have a special character which is exciting. Also, although it doesn't necessarily make your video any better, the build quality and focus action of these lenses is a dream to work with.


I'd have to buy new adapters (both to Nikon and Canon).

I'd have to buy step up rings for my current filters.


Yes the best way is to shell out on adapters and rings for each lens, which does mount up. Saying that, M42 adapters open up other possibilities for yard sale finds. I have a 15 blade 'bokeh monster' 135mm f/2.8 Pentacon, which is just superb and cost £40.


I'm sorry, and I was curious. But I can't see how this would make any good economic sense for me. If I had an M42 body maybe...

You are of course correct, but I never let economic sense interfere with my lens buying addiction. I still plan to buy a Nikkor.

Wow, slow is a bit harsh. There is no 85mm f/1.4 to match the Nikon (I have my heart set on a Samyang), and there is a gap below 35mm for fast takumars (I have a nice Vivitar 28mm f/1.9 for that) but otherwise there are options.


My comment of them being slow should not be extrapolated to the entire series of lenses. My comments were ONLY directed at the lenses I found currently for sale on EBay. Nearly all of the lenses were F3.5, the only exceptions being a 105mm F2.8, and the fast(er) 50-55mm lenses. I have zero interest in F3.5 glass.


The 35mm f/2 is a great lens, if not the best Takumar. The 85mm f/1.8 is very special. I have the 85mm f/1.9, and it is also a fine lens. As you said there are the 50mm varieties. The f/1.4 SMC is legendary, nuff said. Some say the 50mm f/1.2 is the finest, but it is super rare. Less rare is the 55mm f/1.8, which is a VERY underrated lens, believe me. Especially considering you can still get it for pennies.


Much of this reads like Nikon's offerings. And I suspect that the lens designs of the day were all quite similar. However, I'd imagine that Nikon was outselling Pentax 10:1 or 20:1 at the time. I was shooting for the newspaper back then and I don't know a single photographer who had a Pentax. It wasn't until I was doing portrait work at University that I finally ran into a Pentax photographer and he had a 6x7 that I fell in love with.


Agree. Maybe worse. Depends on your preference, but I promise you Takumar images have a special character which is exciting. Also, although it doesn't necessarily make your video any better, the build quality and focus action of these lenses is a dream to work with.


I need to see some images from these lenses on a 7D or similar. I need a couple of portrait lenses (85mm, 105, and 135) and am interested in trying a few things out. But it looks like it will be a $300-$400 per lens experiment, and I am not willing to put forth that much cash without a VERY good reason. I KNOW what I am getting with the Nikon glass in those focal lengths. The Nikon 85mm and 105mm are world wide legends and are still used all over the world by 35mm portrait photographers.

CLEAN NIKON NIKKOR AI 85MM F/1.8 F1.8 LENS D300 D700 D1 - eBay (item 300454832122 end time Aug-17-10 19:58:34 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/CLEAN-NIKON-NIKKOR-AI-85MM-F-1-8-F1-8-LENS-D300-D700-D1-/300454832122?pt=Camera_Lenses)

MINT NIKON NIKKOR AI 105MM F/2.5 F2.5 LENS F F1 F2 F3 - eBay (item 300455273993 end time Aug-19-10 07:50:50 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/MINT-NIKON-NIKKOR-AI-105MM-F-2-5-F2-5-LENS-F-F1-F2-F3-/300455273993?pt=Camera_Lenses)

NIKON NIKKOR 135mm f/2 AI-S TELEPHOTO LENS #BR006 - eBay (item 170522702235 end time Sep-02-10 13:31:50 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-NIKKOR-135mm-f-2-AI-S-TELEPHOTO-LENS-BR006-/170522702235?pt=Camera_Lenses)



Yes the best way is to shell out on adapters and rings for each lens, which does mount up. Saying that, M42 adapters open up other possibilities for yard sale finds. I have a 15 blade 'bokeh monster' 135mm f/2.8 Pentacon, which is just superb and cost £40.


See this comes back to the problem for me. At F2.8, I can put a quality zoom lens on. For stills work, the prime would certainly be better, but for video work, the immediacy of the zoom essentially outweighs the slight resolution advantage of the prime. Now if that prime were F2, then we might have something to talk about.


You are of course correct, but I never let economic sense interfere with my lens buying addiction. I still plan to buy a Nikkor.

There are a great many good ones to choose from. Some tack sharp wides, to some creamy portraits, to some insane longer glass. I've got my eye on the 200mm F2 for some of my sports video this fall. Night video demands faster glass.

Nikon 200mm f/2 D ED 200 2 f2 Excellent + - eBay (item 300456023506 end time Aug-22-10 00:39:20 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-200mm-f-2-D-ED-200-2-f2-Excellent-/300456023506?pt=Camera_Lenses)

I seriously considered setting up around a DIY matte box with a Cokin filter attachment, but I was put off by talk of the ND filters having problems with colour balance.

What is your experience? Maybe there are 3rd party ND's available that are better? I am fed up with having a gazillion step up rings, filters and lens hoods.

I don't see color balance problems using the Cokins, lots of people are critical of them for being resin etc, but I have had good luck using them. I regularly use the 4x and 8x and polarizing filter stacked together, I have three filter holders each with a different filter thread so I can use the filters on my Nikkor lenses (52mm) and my Canon 50mm 58mm and Canon HV30 43mm.

I also notice on the 7D and my Nikon D300 that the sensor has a slight magenta color cast, which maybe a factor in color balance.

My comment of them being slow should not be extrapolated to the entire series of lenses. My comments were ONLY directed at the lenses I found currently for sale on EBay. Nearly all of the lenses were F3.5, the only exceptions being a 105mm F2.8, and the fast(er) 50-55mm lenses. I have zero interest in F3.5 glass.


Same.




Much of this reads like Nikon's offerings. And I suspect that the lens designs of the day were all quite similar. However, I'd imagine that Nikon was outselling Pentax 10:1 or 20:1 at the time. I was shooting for the newspaper back then and I don't know a single photographer who had a Pentax. It wasn't until I was doing portrait work at University that I finally ran into a Pentax photographer and he had a 6x7 that I fell in love with.


Pentax's heyday was late 60's to early 70's. After about 1975 the market share dwindled, but they innovated much of the SLR technology. Nearly all the classic Takumar glass is pre-1975.




I need to see some images from these lenses on a 7D or similar. I need a couple of portrait lenses (85mm, 105, and 135) and am interested in trying a few things out. But it looks like it will be a $300-$400 per lens experiment, and I am not willing to put forth that much cash without a VERY good reason. I KNOW what I am getting with the Nikon glass in those focal lengths. The Nikon 85mm and 105mm are world wide legends and are still used all over the world by 35mm portrait photographers.


Nah, ignore those prices. 'Buy now' and 'best offer' ads are worth ignoring in favour of auctions. There seems to be a fashion for listing Takumars at stupid prices these days, but dig deeper you will see their true price. The following links are to 'completed items' in order to show what they really go for.




CLEAN NIKON NIKKOR AI 85MM F/1.8 F1.8 LENS D300 D700 D1 - eBay (item 300454832122 end time Aug-17-10 19:58:34 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/CLEAN-NIKON-NIKKOR-AI-85MM-F-1-8-F1-8-LENS-D300-D700-D1-/300454832122?pt=Camera_Lenses)



Super Takumar 1.9/85mm - eBay (item 270615983950 end time Aug-08-10 01:46:26 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/Super-Takumar-1-9-85mm-/270615983950?pt=Film_Cameras)

Pentax Super Takumar 85mm f1.9 M42 lens on eBay (end time 04-Aug-10 21:47:29 BST) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Pentax-Super-Takumar-85mm-f1-9-M42-lens-/260642492779?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN)




MINT NIKON NIKKOR AI 105MM F/2.5 F2.5 LENS F F1 F2 F3 - eBay (item 300455273993 end time Aug-19-10 07:50:50 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/MINT-NIKON-NIKKOR-AI-105MM-F-2-5-F2-5-LENS-F-F1-F2-F3-/300455273993?pt=Camera_Lenses)



Asahi/Pentax Super-Takumar 1:2.8 105mm Lens - eBay (item 220647125713 end time Aug-08-10 16:27:10 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/Asahi-Pentax-Super-Takumar-1-2-8-105mm-Lens-/220647125713?pt=Camera_Lenses)

PENTAX SUPER TAKUMAR 105MM f/2.8 LENS - eBay (item 130417712048 end time Aug-11-10 15:44:50 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/PENTAX-SUPER-TAKUMAR-105MM-f-2-8-LENS-/130417712048?pt=Camera_Lenses)



NIKON NIKKOR 135mm f/2 AI-S TELEPHOTO LENS #BR006 - eBay (item 170522702235 end time Sep-02-10 13:31:50 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-NIKKOR-135mm-f-2-AI-S-TELEPHOTO-LENS-BR006-/170522702235?pt=Camera_Lenses)



Asahi Opt. Co. Japan s m c TAKUMAR 135mm f/2.5 Lens scr - eBay (item 350384196344 end time Aug-16-10 19:25:20 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/Asahi-Opt-Co-Japan-s-m-c-TAKUMAR-135mm-f-2-5-Lens-scr-/350384196344?pt=Camera_Lenses)

ASAHI PENTAX SMC TAKUMAR 135mm ?/2.5 + M42toEOS adapter - eBay (item 220652021094 end time Aug-15-10 11:34:12 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/ASAHI-PENTAX-SMC-TAKUMAR-135mm-2-5-M42toEOS-adapter-/220652021094?pt=Camera_Lenses)


By the way, in no way am I comparing these to the Nikons you list, which are without doubt more desirable than the examples I offer, but in my opinion, the difference in desirability is not reflected in the difference in price. Takumars are still a bargain and are great for video.



See this comes back to the problem for me. At F2.8, I can put a quality zoom lens on. For stills work, the prime would certainly be better, but for video work, the immediacy of the zoom essentially outweighs the slight resolution advantage of the prime. Now if that prime were F2, then we might have something to talk about.



Agreed. If I had the money, it would be L series zooms all the way, especially on a professional shoot. But I would still keep my Takumars for creative purposes. They are just different. Modern lenses are optically superior in a technical sense, but sometimes that L lens might be too clinical and contrasty for what you want, or perhaps you are looking for a particular character of flare. Of course, you can do most things in post, but it's not quite the same, and it's not as much fun.

Thank you for this post! At thos prices, I'm willing to take a risk on one of these pieces of glass. I'll try to see what pops up in the next couple weeks, and buy something. A 50 if nothing else, because those are very inexpensive.

I am used to looking at the buy it now prices because the Nikons usually bid right up to that. If I can start snagging some of these faster primes at around $100 a piece, and they look good, I am on board.

For the stuff I shoot, I prefer the lenses that have a bit more character to them. Keeps me from having to attach diffusion in front of the lens, or soften things after the fact. I love the character of the Nikon glass pre- 1975. My 300mm Nikon from 1972 is one of the prettier pieces of glass I've used, but has very limited use for me because it's somewhat slow.

And "L" glass doesn't hold much for me. Never has. But I've never been an autofocus fan. And I abandoned Canon after my first EOS cameras... long before digital hit the scene.

Thanks again for this. I'll update in a few weeks with what I bought and how it's working. I've got some model photography to do next month and one of these 85s is going to be perfect.