couple of days back i watched 'City of Lakes' and was very impressed by what DSLR can do for you, their great work motivated me to try my lucky trying to tell a story shoot completely on DSLR too.

I don't own a canon eos 7d right now but planing to buy one very soon, i have limited experience shooting (with Canon XL2 and XHA1s) shoot couple of projects for friends, i am new to D-SLR video. in next couple of months i am planing to shoot a short film with help of few friends.

i know this might be a very basic (and a very newbie) question to a lot of you pro's here ... what lens/lenses should i buy to achieve a excellent film look?. i have seen some great videos on youtube made with 7D and i am hoping to come as close as possible to a great film look, i don't have as such a budget for the film , i am just spending out of my own pocket so please keep that in mind while making suggestion.

film would be an hour long about some students and their relationships in school and outside . so ill have indoor/outdoor, day night all kind of shoots.

the look i would love to have for my film! .... excellent work! ( City of Lakes: A Hybrid Production in India at DVInfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/canon-eos/city-of-lakes-a-hybrid-production-in-udaipur-india.html))

Try the search button. Everything you have asked has been answered a zillion times.

In the meantime, try these three affordable primes:

Canon 28mm f/1.8
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 85mm f/1.8

And add a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and you're good to go.

sorry i did try to search but didn't find any simple answer, most of the threads people talk about one specific lens and reading thru most of them i feel my self lost mostly so i thought ill ask....

thanks for the suggestions ill look into these

If you like the "City of Lakes", they've mentioned that the EF 24/1.4L is the main lens used.

The 24L is a fantastic lens, but you can buy all four of the lenses I suggested for the price of the 24L.

EF 24/1.4L is $1500 ....would it be worth spending this much .. ??? compared to other lenses which are around $400

EF 24/1.4L is $1500 ....would it be worth spending this much .. ??? compared to other lenses which are around $400

"Worth" is something only you can determine. That 24/1.4L lens costs about 1/20 what a top quality Cinema lens costs. Are those lenses worth it? Who knows.

I can absolutely guarantee you, that if you make a great movie, no one is going to care if you used a $400 lens or a $1500 lens. And by the time you take it through post, the difference will be very, very small.

I'm a big fan of the Canon 24-105 f4 L Series zoom. Its a good all-around lens for the 7D, and worth the $1100 price tag.

Keep in mind that good lenses help with that film look but good lighting will do even more to give the film look than lenses do. Using lighting properly in a scene to create shadows in the right places and light in the right places will create that film look. I've seen plenty of footage shot with A1 and other similar prosumer cameras that were amazing and you would never know they didn't have glass like a DSLR in video mode.

I have a 7D and I have gone the route of manual focus lenses. Those are old lenses from the film days that are available inexpensive and with a little digging you can find some great glass. You have to have inexpensive adaptors to make them fit and no auto functions work but in video mode they don't work anyway. I have a collection of 4 or 5 lenses for my normal wedding shooting. They all cost under $250 combined for all 4 lenses. The slowest in the group is a Vivitar 70-210 f3.5. All the others are 2.8 or faster so they work well in low light. You have to do lots of research to find the good ones but they are out there and reasonably easy to find. Lots of small film makers have been snatching them up over the past years because they work great and have a little different look than the digital glass. This site is a good source to start learning about them.

Canon EOS lens Adapters - Manual focus lenses on Canon EOS bodies (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html)

This site has some neat ways retro lenses are being used with digital.

The Retro Way: My Other Photography (http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/index.html)

Might be worth looking into if you are on a budget like I was. So far I love what I am getting from them.

In the meantime, try these three affordable primes:

Canon 28mm f/1.8
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 85mm f/1.8

And add a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and you're good to go.This is my exact shopping list!
The L's are nice but the money can be better spent elsewhere.

I'm a big fan of the Canon 24-105 f4 L Series zoom. Its a good all-around lens for the 7D, and worth the $1100 price tag.

I second that. If you're shooting with enough light, the F4 aperture helps you not to 'overdo' the shallow depth part of it. The IS also helps tremendously in my opinion. You'll want a wide and a normal lens as well tho. My ideal setup would be:

11-16mm Tokina F2.8
24-105mm Canon F4
30mm Sigma F1.4

With due respect to your opinions, more opinions.

I'm a big fan of the Canon 24-105 f4 L Series zoom. Its a good all-around lens for the 7D, and worth the $1100 price tag.

If I already had one, I would use it. I think it's a great lens for stills. But if I was able to choose any lens in that price range for video, it would not be an f/4 lens. That is just too limited.

I personally think anyone with that budget buying a lens similar to that for video would be better of with the 24-70 L f/2.8. When shooting video, the fact that it lets in double the light outweighs the missing IS and shorter range.

I second that. If you're shooting with enough light, the F4 aperture helps you not to 'overdo' the shallow depth part of it. The IS also helps tremendously in my opinion.

Again, to me it's could be a great outdoor run and gun lens, and the IS would help for that. But I cannot see why anyone using DSLR's thinks that a limited maximum aperture is a good thing. If you're happy with slower glass, you are throwing away one of the advantages of these cameras, and lets face it there are plenty of disadvantages.

Again, to me it's could be a great outdoor run and gun lens, and the IS would help for that. But I cannot see why anyone using DSLR's thinks that a limited maximum aperture is a good thing. If you're happy with slower glass, you are throwing away one of the advantages of these cameras, and lets face it there are plenty of disadvantages.

Meanwhile, people paying $20k-$30k for primes are trying to get T1.2 or T1.4 glass.

F4 precludes shooting indoors in anything but excellent light. It cuts Golden Hour to a few golden minutes. It becomes F8 as soon as you add a polarizer outdoors. Goodness help you if you also want to add a black pro-mist or something.

Frankly, I can't think of a piece of glass I want to own that's slower than F2.8. And no primes slower than F2.5.

Just my opinion of course, but I gave up on slow glass decades ago.

FWIW I'm with James and Perrone in regards to slow glass, but to be fair the 24-105 f/4 is a very nice lens, though it is better suited to the 5D (as is the 24-70) . I shot a lot with it recently whilst on tour in Africa with Princes William and Harry. Had the 24-105m on the 5D and a 70-200 f/2.8 on the 7D and a couple of short primes in my pocket.

If I had to buy one zoom lens for the 7D it would be the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.

i recently bought the Canon 35m F2.0 lens as i am often shooting in tighter spaces, so the 50m would not quite be wide enough... and i read a really good review of it. have not had the chance yet to use it on a project, but am wondering if anyone else is using this lense, and what their experience has been?

No, but I have a Nikon 35mm F 2.0 that I use on my Canon T2i that serve quite well.

To the OP, if you are serious about doing cinema type films, you do not need to bury yourself in high priced lenses. Pentax and Nikon 35mm still lenses among other adapt well to these cameras and can be had for around $80 to $100 apiece, and you will not be using auto focus and auto aperature settings on your film shooting anyway.

"Worth" is something only you can determine. That 24/1.4L lens costs about 1/20 what a top quality Cinema lens costs. Are those lenses worth it? Who knows.

I can absolutely guarantee you, that if you make a great movie, no one is going to care if you used a $400 lens or a $1500 lens. And by the time you take it through post, the difference will be very, very small.

thanks for the great advice!

Keep in mind that good lenses help with that film look but good lighting will do even more to give the film look than lenses do. Using lighting properly in a scene to create shadows in the right places and light in the right places will create that film look. I've seen plenty of footage shot with A1 and other similar prosumer cameras that were amazing and you would never know they didn't have glass like a DSLR in video mode.

I have a 7D and I have gone the route of manual focus lenses. Those are old lenses from the film days that are available inexpensive and with a little digging you can find some great glass. You have to have inexpensive adaptors to make them fit and no auto functions work but in video mode they don't work anyway. I have a collection of 4 or 5 lenses for my normal wedding shooting. They all cost under $250 combined for all 4 lenses. The slowest in the group is a Vivitar 70-210 f3.5. All the others are 2.8 or faster so they work well in low light. You have to do lots of research to find the good ones but they are out there and reasonably easy to find. Lots of small film makers have been snatching them up over the past years because they work great and have a little different look than the digital glass. This site is a good source to start learning about them.

Canon EOS lens Adapters - Manual focus lenses on Canon EOS bodies (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html)

This site has some neat ways retro lenses are being used with digital.

The Retro Way: My Other Photography (http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/index.html)

Might be worth looking into if you are on a budget like I was. So far I love what I am getting from them.
thanks ! what lens do you use?

The lenses I have are the following. Some are better than others.

Hanimex 28mm f2.8 with an M42 mount. At 2.8 it's a little soft but at 3.5 it gets nice and crisp. I use this mostly for preps at a wedding and there is usually enough light around for 3.5 since I can bump the ISO to at least 800 with no visible issues. Got it for $10 off ebay plus $10 shipping.

Sears 50mm f1.7 with M42 mount. I know most Sears lenses are crapola but this particular model is pretty well built and I think it was made by Mamiya. Their 50mm series were the good ones. It is crisp even at f1.7. I found it at a buy/sell shop locally mounted on a Sears 35mm film camera. Paid $20 and threw the cam away. Don't use it much cause my 58mm is dreamy....see next lense description. For $20 though it was too good to pass up....I need to make another trip to the buy/sell shop to see if they have anything new. They have a whole warehouse of stuff that isn't out for sale yet.

Helios 58mm f2.0 with M42 mount. This is a cool Russian kit lens that is gorgeous and has a neat organic look to it. My favorite lens of all. They are available if you want to purchase from Russia for about $50 plus $40 shipping. It is worth it though. I got lucky and found some one stateside that had one and got it for $38 plus $10 shipping. Here's a screen grab from the lense....nothing spectacular for content as I was playing with it for the first time but it shows the cool blur from the old lens.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l94/frogmanproductions/7D%20tests/Still0509_00005.jpg

Vivitar 70-210 f3.5 with Nikon mount. Got this one for $58 plus $10 shipping on ebay. It was well used and seems a little loose and sticky on the zoom slider. They usually sell for about $100 so the $58 was a fair price. It is on my list to replace first when I get a chance. The footage from it is great. I have found it is plenty fast for most church settings. It does much better than my A1 does.

The adaptor rings for all the lenses are about $10 off ebay and work well except for the Nikon mount for my long zoom. I got the Nikon mount from Fotodiox and got the consumer version. It works pretty well but seems to have a small amount of play in it. Their pro level adaptor is over $50 but will probably be a little more secure. For now what I have will work fine. Once you setup a shot and let it roll there are no problems with it.

All total I think I have less than $250 in my lens set and they work pretty well for weddings. I'm only shooting one DSLR at a wedding. It is my b-roll cam and eye candy cam. It isn't being used all day. It's just to give me that extra pop for cutaways. I would like to add either an 85mm or 100mm prime to my collection for the first dance when the dance floor is big so I can get nice closeups. There is also a nice little Vivitar 28-90 2.8-3.5 and 28-105 2.8-3.8 floating around that is a nice versatile walk around video lens too. Those may also be on my list for some variety during preps.

Remember that these are all non-IS lenses and shake on DSLR footage is not real pretty so you will want to at least make sure you have a monopod and a steady hand if you aren't on a tripod or your footage will be a little jittery.

These lenses are very good. I have the 85mm.

Samyang 85mm f/1.4 MC lens for CANON 500D 1000D 5D 7D - eBay (item 110491955266 end time Sep-06-10 06:02:35 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/Samyang-85mm-f-1-4-MC-lens-CANON-500D-1000D-5D-7D-/110491955266?pt=Camera_Lenses)

You can also check out their 14mm rectilinear lens.

I hear they are coming out with a 35mm f1.4 by the end of the year, so if you can wait for it, I would see what they have to offer.

All their lenses are full manual, so you get hard focussing stops and manual aperture rings (you can de-click them) so they act just like cine-style movie lenses. The quality is surprisingly good for such low-cost lenses. I've been very pleased with my 85mm.

Hey Phil,

Great write up! I have to say that you would love the Vivitar 28-90 or the Vivitar 28-105. To me, that focal range really hits the sweet spot when it comes to documentary shooting. I'll let you play with my copy when we're at WEVA. It's easily one of the smarter lens buying decisions I've made. See you in a few days!

Looking forward to trying a few of yours out. I know these are relatively inexpensive in the grand scheme and will be one of my next acquisitions when my money flows again. That variable zoom really looks like a winner. You going to have the Jupiter along you had for sale or did someone snatch it up. I would like to try that one out.

Someone already snagged that one but I will be bringing along my Volna-3 (80mm f/2.8) that's a real gem. Not so great in low light obviously but the imagery is special and the bokeh has a nice textured look to it. It's one of my favorite lenses. I'll also be bringing along some of my favorite 50's with me like the Mamiya 55mm 1.4 that I'm selling as well as the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm 1.4 (which I'm definitely keeping).

Really glad to see some fans of old glass on this forum. Those retro lenses still kick ass.

Really glad to see some fans of old glass on this forum. Those retro lenses still kick ass.

Still? These things are just starting to really kick ass. Do you remember the film from back then? Print film was a JOKE compared to what we have now. If you wanted real imagery you shot Kodachrome 25, and looked at your images projected big onto a screen.

These lenses mounted on 15 or 18MP cameras are really showing their worth. I am going to shoot my first music video in a month or two and every frame of it will be captured on vintage lenses. It's a total eye-candy shoot with an opera singer, so that dreamy look, and creamy-soft bokeh is the look I want. I tend to prefer that look.

perrone...
could you recommend examples of a few retro primes that might still be available today? The issue is, if one finds a lens that 'meets' the specs, how do we know if it's really any good (especially if it's on ebay)? Where would one find adapters for these?

And at the prices you can snag retro lenses for I will continue to like the look for a long time. Just makes shooting fun for me. Yes you have to work the camera alot with these lenses but they can be beautiful.

perrone...
could you recommend examples of a few retro primes that might still be available today? The issue is, if one finds a lens that 'meets' the specs, how do we know if it's really any good (especially if it's on ebay)? Where would one find adapters for these?

I am preparing to buy a few lenses:

1. Nikon 105mm F/2.0
2. Pentax Super Takumar 50mm F/1.4
3. Pentax SMC Takumar 85mm F/1.8 (if I can afford it) If not, Yashica or Nikon.

The Nikons require a simple $15 adapter you can get on eBay easily. The Pentax and Yashica are made in what is called M42 Screwmount. You can get adapters for them on eBay or other sources, but they are a more pricey in some cases. This is of little consequence to me. I'll be buying these lenses over time, and hope to amass a full set of Yashica, a full set of Pentax, and a full set of Nikon AIS. This should let me lens my films or photoshoots and have more consistent looks.

If you want to delve into the world of manual focus, vintage lenses, take some time to educate yourself. There are dozens of resources available. If you don't trust the long term sellers on eBay, a place like KEH camera should fit the bill. You'll be paying prices about the same as eBay "buy it now" prices, but it's a known quantity from a quality reseller.

Putting together a full range of glass at about F2 or F1.8 is an undertaking to be sure, and you have to be patient. But the reward of bringing a case of lenses on a shoot is that you can open up that lens case, and lens anything indoors at F2 or F1.8 (or faster in some cases), and lens anything outdoors at F2 or F2.8. Night shoots cease to be an issue. Available light work becomes a reality.

I just found out this weekend I have to shoot a live event in a venue where the floor is reading less than 3 footcandles. I am going to NEED that F1.4 lens just to get a reasonable image at ISO800. That is why I am moving so rapidly toward faster glass.

Check out some of these resources:


Why I hope I can get this 85:
MFlenses.com - smc_takumar_85mm_f1_8_PK-006.jpg (http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/japenese/smc_pentax_m/takumar_85mm_f1_8_pk/smc_takumar_85mm_f1_8_PK-006.jpg.html?)

English (http://www.aohc.it/indexe.htm)

Cool site: heck the imagery form this 50mm.
http://www.retrocamera.net/review-of-auto-yashinon-dx-50mm17-m42-lens.html

I'm excitedly waiting for a MIR 24N 35mm f2 to arrive..

Images look amazing and 35mm on a 1.6 crop is a really natural and beautiful look I find.. I think that lens is going to end up spending a lot of time attached to my camera!

Perrone, just a reminder regarding our recent discussion, I was promoting the f/1.9 variant of the Takumar 85mm.

Reason being, it normally goes for around a third or less the price of the fabled f/1.8, yet I am fairly sure most would agree it is far better than one third as good.

I have the f/1.9, and as soon as time permits, I will upload some sample footage to demonstrate.

Putting together a full range of glass at about F2 or F1.8 is an undertaking to be sure, and you have to be patient.
]

Thank you for the links! Loved the Yashinon 50mm images and the colors. Great place to start searching. Thanks again!

Perrone, just a reminder regarding our recent discussion, I was promoting the f/1.9 variant of the Takumar 85mm.

Reason being, it normally goes for around a third or less the price of the fabled f/1.8, yet I am fairly sure most would agree it is far better than one third as good.

I have the f/1.9, and as soon as time permits, I will upload some sample footage to demonstrate.

Im not certain when you last shopped for this lens, but current pricing that I can find shows the 1.9 going for $330-$350, and the 1.8 variant going for $40-$80 more. Hardly enough to warrant not buying the more desirable lens. I had hoped to get one next week, but with the price it's going to cost, and my need for a real piece of F/1.4 glass right now, I have to take it off the table for a bit. So I'll be going for a 50mm and a 105 first. I am hopinng to snag 3 primes for $200 or so, and I'll consider that a good haul for the month. Maybe I can find a 35mm, 50mm, and 105 or 135 for those prices, and then focus on the 85, 20, and 28 between now and christmas. I already have a 300, and I am in no real hurry to add a fast 180 or 200 at this point. Maybe in the spring.

I was hoping to stay within one manufacturer too for a consistent look, but that may not happen for a while either. But based on what I've seen, Pentax, Yashica, and Nikon seem to be my best bets.

With due respect to your opinions, more opinions.

If I already had one, I would use it. I think it's a great lens for stills. But if I was able to choose any lens in that price range for video, it would not be an f/4 lens. That is just too limited.


You're shooting a camera that goes up to 25,000ISO and you think f4 is LIMITED?

Anyway, let's be serious... Neither the 24-105 nor the 24-70 are low light lenses... so you might as well buy the newer and vastly superior 24-105L, which has IS, more range, and is sharper to boot, and come to terms with the fact that you're going to need some f1.4 glass for low light shooting anyway.

You're shooting a camera that goes up to 25,000ISO and you think f4 is LIMITED?



Yes I do. I don't want to use ISO values that have 5 digits for serious work. I don't think I'm alone.




Anyway, let's be serious... Neither the 24-105 nor the 24-70 are low light lenses... so you might as well buy the newer and vastly superior 24-105L, which has IS, more range, and is sharper to boot, and come to terms with the fact that you're going to need some f1.4 glass for low light shooting anyway.

It seems we disagree. I would categorise f/2.8 zooms as low light, while I personally don't think f/4 zooms are in that category.

Surely there is a contradiction in what you say. First you seem to be saying that f/4 is fast enough because we have ISO headroom to compensate, then you seem to say that only f/1.4 is good enough.

It is my view that a consensus exists that f/2.8 fixed zooms are a good trade off between unmanageably small depth of field and low light potential. f/1.4 is nice to have when the light is challenging.

Im not certain when you last shopped for this lens, but current pricing that I can find shows the 1.9 going for $330-$350, and the 1.8 variant going for $40-$80 more.

In a recent conversation with you, I posted two links to completed sales of the f/1.9 where the final prices were $136 and £107. This is how much you can get them for if you track the auctions.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-7d-hd/483339-buying-7d-4.html#post1559908

Most of the older lenses (and antique lenses) have very limited applications to me. The cheaper lenses on ebay from less well known makes, were cheap lenses when they were new.
While there are nice ones - the well known brands - that will give some nice results, the majority for me are soft and exhibit terrible color accuracy. For non-fiction work I think they are very risky unless its all B-roll stuff, 2nd cam, etc.
The sample pic of the candles to me looks poor - very soft - the candles should pop out, but it looks like mush. Maybe its the low-res.

I agree Jon. If you want a retro/vintage look then get yourself some super-takumars. But buyer beware, old lenses can suffer from a whole host of issues, both mechanical and optical.

In a recent conversation with you, I posted two links to completed sales of the f/1.9 where the final prices were $136 and £107. This is how much you can get them for if you track the auctions.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-7d-hd/483339-buying-7d-4.html#post1559908

I know, I saw them. The dilemma for me is that I don't have a chance to track the auctions right now. I've got a shoot to prep for in 2 weeks, and I need glass. I have to buy 2 lenses next week, and I have to pay going rate.

I've not found ANY other auctions of the Pentax lenses other than those you showed me for around that price.

In general, the nice 50mm lenses are about $90-120, the nice 85s are hovering around $225-$300, and the nice 105s are in the $125 range. These are fair prices to me, and will suit my needs just fine. But I am just not seeing the killer prices at the moment.

The sample pic of the candles to me looks poor - very soft - the candles should pop out, but it looks like mush. Maybe its the low-res.

It's not the low res, it's the glass. Which is why buying "off-brand" vintage lenses isn't the best idea unless that's what you want. But to be fair, the same thing is true today. While you don't generally see things this mushy even in current 3rd party lenses, they are certainly not up to the standards of the better glass.

The Pentax, Yashica, Zeiss, Nikon, and other glass from the late 60s to early 70s was generally quite good, though some was pretty soft wide open.

The troubling thing to me is that I see people talking about how modern glass is so sharp, and contrasty. And how desirable that is. And then they turn right around and wonder why their moire is so bad, and why their video looks so "video-like".

These sensors are resolving detail that seems quite equal to what film was like in the 70s. So to my mind, it makes sense to put the same kind of glass in front of it to get a similar look. When current filmmakers are after a vintage look, you'll see many of them looking to source older Cooke Panchros, or even older glass. It's an aesthetic.

Razor sharp glass will expose other weakness in your system, and for these HDSLRs, the MAJOR weakness is that CMOS sensor. Until that improves, I can see no reason to put $1500, razor sharp glass in front of it.

Yes I do. I don't want to use ISO values that have 5 digits for serious work. I don't think I'm alone.

An f2.8 lens certainly isn't going to save you from going to 5 digit ISO if the f4 can't do it.
I don't think you're alone either, but that doesn't make you right.

It seems we disagree. I would categorise f/2.8 zooms as low light, while I personally don't think f/4 zooms are in that category.

Surely there is a contradiction in what you say. First you seem to be saying that f/4 is fast enough because we have ISO headroom to compensate, then you seem to say that only f/1.4 is good enough.

Let me clarify:
Neither f4 nor f2.8 will get you an ultra clean image in poor light conditions on the 7D.
Given that, and the fact that the bulk of shooters shoot in daylight where there is too much light, or own light kits... the 24-105L offers much more versitility in terms of reach, IS, sharpness and fast AF. It's a superb lens and probably the best in it's range, and shouldn't be dismissed just because you shoot in graveyards on cloudy nights.

For the budget minded, the Nikon Series E F2.8 100mm is a neat little lens. I did a rough test with it and the 5D last year, when we were all trying out different combos. This will give you idea of what lens will produce:

Canon 5D Mark Ii 100mm Test on Vimeo

An f2.8 lens certainly isn't going to save you from going to 5 digit ISO if the f4 can't do it.



This is a factually incorrect statement. As I'm sure you will know, 1 stop equals double the light, or half the ISO. Clearly there are a multitude of situations where having f/2.8 will allow you to make a shot without 5 digit ISO.





Let me clarify:
Neither f4 nor f2.8 will get you an ultra clean image in poor light conditions on the 7D.



You are not really saying anything here. Define poor light conditions. Again, f/2.8 means double the light. If you take a real situation where there is enough light for 3200 ISO on an f/4 lens, this means f/2.8 will allow you to shoot at 1600 ISO. Despite what you say, this matters to film makers. A lot.


Given that, and the fact that the bulk of shooters shoot in daylight where there is too much light, or own light kits... the 24-105L offers much more versitility in terms of reach, IS, sharpness and fast AF. It's a superb lens and probably the best in it's range, and shouldn't be dismissed just because you shoot in graveyards on cloudy nights.

Low light potential and shallow DOF are two of the main selling points of DSLRs. The 'bulk of shooters' who don't care about maximising the light gathering potential of a camera use camcorders and bypass all the limitations of DSLR.

The 24-105mm is a great lens. Jeremy stated that the lens was a good all round choice for the 7D, and I thought it was worth pointing out that most people on this forum would not recommend this as the ideal choice to start a lens collection for the camera.

This is because there are other choices which will be more suited. Not only on the basis of the maximum aperture, but because 24mm is not really that wide on a cropped sensor. That does not mean I am dismissing the lens. As Liam has pointed out, it is a better choice if you own the 5d.

Like many people, I still use a camcorder in many situations. I use a DSLR because for my projects, I do not want the look created by a typical lighting set up. I need to be able to shoot in ambient light to achieve the look I am after. There are many many occasions where if I only had f/4, I simply would not have been able to make the shot, whereas f/2.8 has been sufficient.

I have never shot video in a graveyard on a cloudy night. In all honesty, I would be too scared.

This is a factually incorrect statement. As I'm sure you will know, 1 stop equals double the light, or half the ISO. Clearly there are a multitude of situations where having f/2.8 will allow you to make a shot without 5 digit ISO.

James, how many times can you say "double the light" in one thread?

Ok yes, you could shoot 6400 ISO f2.8 instead of 12,500 ISO, f4. But you'd still have a CF card full of garbage because neither lens is the right tool for the job.

You are not really saying anything here. Define poor light conditions. Again, f/2.8 means double the light. If you take a real situation where there is enough light for 3200 ISO on an f/4 lens, this means f/2.8 will allow you to shoot at 1600 ISO.

Let's be civil please (it might not looks like it, but I'm trying real hard)... If you are riding the noisy end of the ISO, you're going to get ugly footage with either lens. If you are riding the clean end, you are going to get clean footage with either lens. In either case the 24-105 is more versitile in every other aspect.

Despite what you say, this matters to film makers. A lot.

Where I come from, filmmakers use lights. Lighting matters to filmmakers... A lot.
Good filmmakers anyway. Just because you CAN shoot f2.8 6400ISO, and not light, doesn't mean you should.

The 'bulk of shooters' who don't care about maximising the light gathering potential of a camera use camcorders and bypass all the limitations of DSLR.

That's a factually incorrect generalization.

The 24-105mm is a great lens. Jeremy stated that the lens was a good all round choice for the 7D, and I thought it was worth pointing out that most people on this forum would not recommend this as the ideal choice to start a lens collection for the camera.

And I thought it was worth pointing out that you're speaking for an incredibly tiny niche of shooters. If you want to represent your niche, great... you are welcome to. But most of us here don't shoot no-light indie film in ambient light.

At this point I'll toss in a better choice, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS (the EFS equiv to the 24-70L).
If you shoot the 7D it offers the best of both lenses in a more usable focal range.

Like many people, I still use a camcorder in many situations. I use a DSLR because for my projects, I do not want the look created by a typical lighting set up. I need to be able to shoot in ambient light to achieve the look I am after. There are many many occasions where if I only had f/4, I simply would not have been able to make the shot, whereas f/2.8 has been sufficient.

You ARE one of the people who don't think they need to light a scene because they shoot 6400iso!

Anyway, I think that pretty much wraps up this discussion.
Sure, why not.... I'll agree... if you don't plan on EVER lighting anything and only ever shoot from a tripod, in low light... you might as well go for that extra stop from the 24-70 f2.8, or better the 17-55 f2.8 IS...
Or even better, (at least if you are serious about filmmaking) spend the same money on the 28mm, 50mm, 85mm set of prime lenses.

Where I come from, filmmakers use lights. Lighting matters to filmmakers... A lot.Good filmmakers anyway. Just because you CAN shoot f2.8 6400ISO, and not light, doesn't mean you should.


Agreed..


Sure, why not.... I'll agree... if you don't plan on EVER lighting anything and only ever shoot from a tripod, in low light... you might as well go for that extra stop from the 24-70 f2.8, or better the 17-55 f2.8 IS...
Or even better, (at least if you are serious about filmmaking) spend the same money on the 28mm, 50mm, 85mm set of prime lenses.

Dylan, you seem like an intelligent fellow. Given that, I think it's important to note that there are probably more event shooters on this forum than indie filmmakers. At least based on my observations during my time here. In a large proportion of cases, event guys cannot light. Just can't. I constantly go back and forth between the two worlds. I shoot event work at my job, and indie film for my hobby. I light everything I can.

I'll offer a couple of real-world examples. As part of what I do, I volunteer with my local roller derby team. They use one venue for practice, and a different one for their games (bouts). When I film for them at bout time, they are in a fairly well lit venue. It seats about 1000 people, has overhead fluorescent lightnig as well as large bay windows at one end of the space. I find that with the EX1 set to about 320 ISO, I can shoot at F4 until the sun begins to set, and then I am at F2.8 to F2.0. I can't get critical focus at that stop but it's "good enough for purpose". We are talking an area about the size of a basketball court.

When I shoot them at their practice venue it's less than 4 footcandles on the floor. I am two stops under shooting F1.9 at 640 ISO. It's a public venue. I have no way to light it. Even if I could afford the 10 5K lights I'd need, I couldn't hang them anywhere. I was told last week that they'd be holding the season ending bout in this venue. So I am sourcing an F1.4 lens and I'll have to shoot on the T2i because I just cannot get decent exposure with the EX1.

Similarly, a few years ago, I had to shoot a weekend conference for work. It was to be 2, 8 hour days and 1 4hr day. I was shooting with the EX1. When I got there, I found that I needed to be placed about 40ft from the stage. My job was to film speakers at the podium. When you zoom in the EX1 lens, it stops down to about F/2.8. When I metered the podium position it read 1.3FC. Essentially, the equivalent of a candle. I asked if they had lights, and they said yes, they would provide lights. Some time later, about an hour before the show was to start, they brought out the "lights". Essentially 2 750s that would be placed about 30ft each from the stage. Once they turned them on, I read 13FC at the podium. About what you'd have in a bedroom in the evening. I was 40ft away, and this was the best they could do.

Wedding videographers, press videographers, and other people doing event work face this challenge daily. There is no opportunity to light properly, and you have to do the best you can with what you have. Had I been in a position where I only had an F4 lens, I would not have been able to capture anything. As it stands now, I have 4 pieces of glass that fit my T2i and none is faster than F3.5. Consequently, I don't use it indoors much. It might be more fair to say that F2.8 is a better place to start because it opens possibilities to shoot indoors in more poor lighting conditions. But in the spaces some of these folks need to work (dimly lit churches, or dance halls), An F/2.0 lens is the ragged edge, and F/1.4 is really where they need to be. Even with all it's problems.

So while I feel you two are talking across purposes here, I think some understanding and tolerance for the guys who simply cannot light for various reasons is warranted.

The concept of not lighting night exteriors is a whole new choice--no, it's not an excuse for not being able to light them if you needed to, but it is an opportunity to experiment and break some "rules".

After being involved with "Reverie" and a subsequent job in NYC with Vincent Laforet, I decided I had to get a 1DMKIV. Shortly thereafter I was up to shoot a music video with a well-established director; frames I showed him from the NYC job got him excited enough that I won the gig. Cut to: standing in a graveyard on a cloudy night (seriously!), shooting the lovely young lead singer as she strode half-dressed through the mud. It wasn't all available light--had a ring light on the camera, and four to six road flares carefully placed in the background of each setup, but the results were still amazing at 3200 ASA (this was just before we learned about the good and bad ISO settings). Had we had to hot-light the background, it would have required a ton more gear and crew and rigging and time, none of which we had; the road flares did an admirable job. The director loved it and I've done several more jobs for him.

Moral of story: shooting in ambient light at high ISO's is a great new weapon--but agreed, it's not the be-all and end-all.

(wish I could show you even a frame grab of this job that was shot months and months ago, but the legal department of the label has been wrestling with it and it may never see the light of day)

James, how many times can you say "double the light" in one thread?



I think it's an important point. Maybe even informative to some people reading the thread.



Ok yes, you could shoot 6400 ISO f2.8 instead of 12,500 ISO, f4. But you'd still have a CF card full of garbage because neither lens is the right tool for the job.



Whatever ISO were quoted in my example (not the ones you used), the very simple point of my statement is that being able to half your ISO in any given situation is without debate an important thing. But it was just an example!


Let's be civil please (it might not looks like it, but I'm trying real hard)... If you are riding the noisy end of the ISO, you're going to get ugly footage with either lens. If you are riding the clean end, you are going to get clean footage with either lens. In either case the 24-105 is more versitile in every other aspect.


I am not advocating 'riding the noisy end' of ISO. Again, you seem to be suggesting that the lenses are as good as each other in low light. The reason I am partaking in this debate is to emphasise the point that 1 stop does make a tremendous difference in the real world, not to irritate anyone, so I apologise if I have appeared to lower my standard of civility to you, it was not my intention.


Where I come from, filmmakers use lights. Lighting matters to filmmakers... A lot.
Good filmmakers anyway. Just because you CAN shoot f2.8 6400ISO, and not light, doesn't mean you should.



I regard myself as a film maker, and I sometimes even use lights, so I agree with you. In my example I used the figure of 1600 ISO, not 6400 or 12800 ISO because in my experience, 1600 has been the absolute maximum level required to produce a usable shot. Of course, ideally it should be as low as possible.

I don't advocate shooting above 1600, I don't deny lights are used almost universally, and I don't shoot in graveyards. Let's not take what is offered as examples to type cast each other.

For certain types of project, often I need a look or a shot that precludes lighting, or I want a super shallow depth of field. That's it. My whole entire point. I am not a hard bitten anti-light high ISO fan I seem to be becoming here.


That's a factually incorrect generalization.

And I thought it was worth pointing out that you're speaking for an incredibly tiny niche of shooters. If you want to represent your niche, great... you are welcome to.



I don't think so. I think the vast majority of people on this forum regard that extra stop to be important, and are also confronted with situations where frequently lighting is not possible or desirable. I am not in a tiny niche.



But most of us here don't shoot no-light indie film in ambient light.



Just because I say I use a certain method for a certain project, it doesn't mean I use it all the time. I also shoot interviews and other standard stuff.

I occasionally shot a film with no lighting at all, but rarely. I have never shot a film where every scene is lit. I don't think that's so unusual.



At this point I'll toss in a better choice, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS (the EFS equiv to the 24-70L).
If you shoot the 7D it offers the best of both lenses in a more usable focal range.



I agree.


You ARE one of the people who don't think they need to light a scene because they shoot 6400iso!



Eh? I really have no clue where you got that idea. It is not something I have ever stated because it is ridiculously far from the truth. I am the same as anyone else, I try to minimise the ISO, and light if I want to or have to.

Let me throw in a quote from earlier in the conversation here, as thing seem be rather absurdly becoming reversed:



You're shooting a camera that goes up to 25,000ISO and you think f4 is LIMITED?


Yes I do. I don't want to use ISO values that have 5 digits for serious work. I don't think I'm alone.


Back to your last post...



Anyway, I think that pretty much wraps up this discussion.
Sure, why not.... I'll agree... if you don't plan on EVER lighting anything and only ever shoot from a tripod, in low light... you might as well go for that extra stop from the 24-70 f2.8, or better the 17-55 f2.8 IS...



Even if you do plan to light, those f/2.8 zooms are still a better choice as all round DSLR videographers lenses.



Or even better, (at least if you are serious about filmmaking) spend the same money on the 28mm, 50mm, 85mm set of prime lenses.

I agree with your range of primes. I personally only use primes for my films. I really enjoy the experience of shooting with them. I use a 28mm f/1.9, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 85mm f/1.9, and I really appreciate the speed of these lenses, among other qualities. I would consider adding the Tokina 11-16mm, and I am awaiting delivery of a 135mm f/1.8, but I doubt I will use it much.

James, could you post a link to some of your work?

I think it would be helpful to many people, particularly newbies, to "judge the source".

I'm all for long winded arguments, technical or creative, but I think this community is best served when we know who each other is.

Cheers,

James, could you post a link to some of your work?

I think it would be helpful to many people, particularly newbies, to "judge the source".

I'm all for long winded arguments, technical or creative, but I think this community is best served when we know who each other is.

Cheers,

I am more than happy to allow my statements to be evaluated without being backed up by evidence of my work. In my opinion, the points I make are obvious, and not rocket science, and stand up without any need for source to judge. If anyone feels that somehow they are less valid because of this, I will have to just say so be it.

For the record, I am not short of experience, having started as a runner for a video editing suite in Poland Street in 1991, and progressed in to editing, telecine and camera work from there. My father was a television and film actor, and I have been lucky enough to have spent some time on various sets and getting to know some knowledgeable people. I understand the technical and creative processes very well.

These days I am not in the industry. Instead, I am in the software business, which allows me to focus on film making as a hobby, and contribute freely to local community projects.

Well, so be it:)

In 1991, hmm. I'll take a guess at Palace Video or Dubs?

Agreed..
Dylan, you seem like an intelligent fellow.

No, but i play one on TV.

Given that, I think it's important to note that there are probably more event shooters on this forum than indie filmmakers. At least based on my observations during my time here. In a large proportion of cases, event guys cannot light. Just can't. I constantly go back and forth between the two worlds. I shoot event work at my job, and indie film for my hobby. I light everything I can.

There's more everything here than indie filmmakers! :)
So... Event shooters can be broken up into several different categories. yes, wedding shooters shooting low light receptions is a great example of where an extra stop would be helpful. On the other hand, there are a greater number of event shooters who shoot full time in full light, who would suffer from the limitations of this lens because... the 24-70 is a really bad event lens in the first place! Especially on a 7D... Short reaches, too little DOF, no IS for on the fly.. the 24-105L IS is a much better tool for the job in most people\s cases.

Plus when you look at the other people shooting here, corporate video, commercial video, industrial video, etc... which represent a major demographic on top of the indie film scene who can light (whether they *cough* choose to or not), then the extra stop of the 2.8 is barely relevant.

My point is that it is ridiculous for James to completely dismiss the 24-105L for the 24-70L for everyone in this forum, just because he represents a small niche.

Both of you are making valid points, from differing perspectives. But I think the points are both understood by those who need them. So I vote shake hands and let it go...