How'd folks,

I am about to get my Canon 7D from B&H. The camera comes with a Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens.

I read the Steve Mims got excellent results in his movie 'HONORARIUM' with a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 lens that I believe must be exactly the same one as the one I found in B&H (Canon Telephoto EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens) for portraits.

If I get my 7D with a EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens, do I need or should I also get a Telephoto EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens?

I have no clue.
I am going to use it for portraits but also for short films as well.

I really look forward to read your advice!! It will save me a few hundred bucks if it is not necessary, but it will make me feel as if I did a great investment if it is well worth getting it. I do not mind expending the money tough but it is a hard earned money :)

Thanks very much!!!!

Ben Tolosa

That kit lens is good for outdoor or if you know how to light a scene, the 85mm on 7D comes out to 136mm so not a portrait lens anymore, you want something like a 50mm if you want portrait, Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a good lens to start with but some have problem with auto focus, if you rely mostly on auto focus then go with Canon 50mm 1.4 but all of my photographer friends does not like it, they all said it is soft wide open, they all use Canon 50mm F1.2

Why do you have to get the 'kit lens'? Why not buy the body only? Lenses last a very long time so invest more in them - you will stop using the kit lens the moment you put professional glass on the camera!
Just check ebay to see how many unused kit lenses are for sale because of this - they go really cheap. Also the body only has a rebate attached now from B&H.

But the big question is what you want to do? is this for private use or will you shoot professionally - this answers your question. And you know what the answer really is.

The lens 18-135 is an OK lens. It will be a good walk around or travel lens.
The fact that is is not super sharp does not matter all that much for video initially.
It will get you started. And it is a very good deal.

As you start to get a better Idea of what you need for your style of shooting you can expand your lens selection.

I would recommend the Canon 50 1.4 more than the 85, because of the 1.6 multiplier on the 7D, it is a really nice portrait lens. It is also good lens for low light and that is the biggest negative with the 18-135. It is also a good deal.

There is a good chance that you will eventually end up not using the kit lens much as/if you get into more advanced glass. But this will get you started.

You can spend a lot on primes or zooms, Canons L's or others. But I would start with the kit and a low light lens.

Later you may want lenses that are faster and have really nice background blur. It is easy to spend 3 to four times the cost of the 7D on lenses or even more. But it is really important just to start shooting.

I wish you good luck and I think you will love the 7D, I know I do.

I bought my 7d originally with the 18-135 kit lens. I didn't want it ( there were no bodies only back then), but have gotten some use out of it. It's not bad for outdoors, but if you're shooting video, you need an nd filter ( lots of posts on this.).

I used it recently on a one day music video shoot, along with my better lenses ( 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and Tokina 11-16 2.8) and I can defintely see some quality difference.
Bruce Yarock
Pembroke Pines Fl.

That kit lens is good for outdoor or if you know how to light a scene, the 85mm on 7D comes out to 136mm so not a portrait lens anymore, you want something like a 50mm if you want portrait, Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a good lens to start with but some have problem with auto focus, if you rely mostly on auto focus then go with Canon 50mm 1.4 but all of my photographer friends does not like it, they all said it is soft wide open, they all use Canon 50mm F1.2

Khoi,

Well, thank for your answer. I am looking at the 50mm 1.2 right now and perhaps will get just the body with that lens.

I really appreciate your advice. Great before I place my investment!

Regards!

Why do you have to get the 'kit lens'? Why not buy the body only? Lenses last a very long time so invest more in them - you will stop using the kit lens the moment you put professional glass on the camera!
Just check ebay to see how many unused kit lenses are for sale because of this - they go really cheap. Also the body only has a rebate attached now from B&H.

But the big question is what you want to do? is this for private use or will you shoot professionally - this answers your question. And you know what the answer really is.

Hi Jon,

First of all, let me thank you for you answer: THANK YOU.

You know, you gave me a nice idea. I am kind of starting in the filmmaking world. I was blown aways by the picture Steve Mims got in his movie, and he said he used a 85mm f/1.8. That is why I wanted one. Plus, I want to get into high quality portray pictures so I can get some nice head shots for my resume. I just rather learn how to fish rather than buy the fish. I know it is not easy, but getting professionally done acting head-shots you need to spend about 500 bucks for one hour session. Plus printings every time you need one. So, I thought to make an investment to help me achieve something similar to Mr. Mims, and to give me the head-shots I need. Cheaper photographers can achieve similar results of what I can achieve with enough knowledge and the right camera. I just rather invest those 500 buck on a camera I can use for my films and for my portraits, and why not some day doing it professionally. 'What a wo/man can do, another can do' right? And I just want to learn. But I think you have a good point and gave me a great idea. I am probably going to end up getting just the body and a 50mm f/1.2 to begin with.
Do you think that Canon 50mm f/1.2 will get similar or better results than the one Mr. Mims got?
Yes, I know he is a pro filmmaker. But I am just wondering about the lens quality in comparison of what he used.

I am also getting reflectors and a c stand I can also use with a boom mic.

Jon, once again thanks for you answer and for giving me such a great idea...

The lens 18-135 is an OK lens. It will be a good walk around or travel lens.
The fact that is is not super sharp does not matter all that much for video initially.
It will get you started. And it is a very good deal.

As you start to get a better Idea of what you need for your style of shooting you can expand your lens selection.

I would recommend the Canon 50 1.4 more than the 85, because of the 1.6 multiplier on the 7D, it is a really nice portrait lens. It is also good lens for low light and that is the biggest negative with the 18-135. It is also a good deal.

There is a good chance that you will eventually end up not using the kit lens much as/if you get into more advanced glass. But this will get you started.

You can spend a lot on primes or zooms, Canons L's or others. But I would start with the kit and a low light lens.

Later you may want lenses that are faster and have really nice background blur. It is easy to spend 3 to four times the cost of the 7D on lenses or even more. But it is really important just to start shooting.

I wish you good luck and I think you will love the 7D, I know I do.

Hi Olof,

Hey, thanks so much for your advice. I believe I am probably going to get just the body, as Jon suggested, and it has a rebate right now at B&H.

Then, I am still not 100% sure which lens. I am thinking, well I am saving on the body, so maybe I can get the Canon 50mm f/1.2, but I read some people have had problems with it. So, I am thinking about the 50mm f/1.4.

Could you explain me what you mean (or anybody) about the 1.6 multiplier on the 7D?

I am sure I will love it, most people do :)


Hey Olof, thank you very much!!

I bought my 7d originally with the 18-135 kit lens. I didn't want it ( there were no bodies only back then), but have gotten some use out of it. It's not bad for outdoors, but if you're shooting video, you need an nd filter ( lots of posts on this.).

I used it recently on a one day music video shoot, along with my better lenses ( 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and Tokina 11-16 2.8) and I can defintely see some quality difference.
Bruce Yarock
Pembroke Pines Fl.

Bruce,

As Jon also suggested, I believe I am going to go with a body and a nicer lens.

I your 50mm 1.4 form Canon? How does it works with video?

Thanks and have a great week!!

Ben,
The 50 1.4 is excellent with both video and photography. It saved my ass when I was shooting an informal party under a tent early evening, mo extra lights. The 2.8 coudn't cut it, whereas the 50 1.4 with about 800 iso did the trick.
Bruce Yarock

Ben,
The 50 1.4 is excellent with both video and photography. It saved my ass when I was shooting an informal party under a tent early evening, mo extra lights. The 2.8 coudn't cut it, whereas the 50 1.4 with about 800 iso did the trick.
Bruce Yarock



Wow, that is great to know. I am about to make the purchase, hopefully tonight before I go to bed. The 7D has a rebate price, so that will give me a few extra bucks. I am between the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.2.

Is it really worth it to go with the f/1.2?

I can make the extra effort and go with it, because it is an investment. Just wondering if it is REALLY worth it, you know what I mean?

I know it is a better built and better glass, but it is $1100 more!!

I'll kindly appreciate your input...

THANKS VERY MUCH

Ben,
I never had the luxury of owning or using a 1.2. I've seen nice footage that other guys have shot at night with that lens and it's great, but I can't afford one. You can't go wrong, however, with the 50 1.4, and you could always sell it later if you wanted to tale the 1.2 plunge.
I'm originally from Waterbury, by the way.
Bruce Yarock
P.S. Don't forget the adjustable nd filter ( fader nd). It's a must for out door shooting.

Everyone has their own preferences, I personally prefer using my 50mm 1.8 over a 1.4. I shoot mostly interviews/documentaries and the 1.4 has such an incredibly thin depth of field that it was tough to work with. In controlled narrative situations I can see it working better.

As it is the 1.8 is tough, but I find I can work with it whereas the 1.4 was kicking my butt. It's also about a third of the price, which is nice.

There's a great thread on lenses over in the T2i forum, the discussion is applicable to the 7D as well.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-rebel-t2i-eos-550d-hd/473955-if-you-could-only-use-3-lenses.html

Bryan, you can stop down...


To the OP, If you want a 50mm prime get the f/1.4 not the f/1.2. But I'd advise getting the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 as your first lens.

Hope that helps:)

Hi Ben, the 1.6 multiplier means that as the 7D has a smaller imager there is a cropping of the image from any given lens. The depth of field stays the same but your field of view is smaller. So in effect your 50mm lens will seem like a 80mm lens (that is a really good portrait size).

When you buy canon lenses, you can use full frame lenses EF lenses on any of Canons cameras, but you can not use EF-S lenses on a full frame camera like the 5DmkII.

Here is a link to a really good review of the Canon 50 f1.2 and the others as well.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)
I would spend some time on this site reading about the lenses, there are good comparisons and sample shots from all of them. Also great explanations of imager size and how the different lenses handle out of focus blur, this is where a more expensive lens really stands out.

You have to decide yourself what is most important to you, in lenses. There are many choices.

I personally have a 5DmkII and a 7D, as well as a couple EXcams and a few older cams as well. I really like both the 5DmkII and the 7D. I use them both for video and stills. I use the 5 for wide shots and the 7 when I need more telephoto.

These are the lenses I use for the Canons.

17-40 f4 L a really good wide especially for the 5DmkII and one of the best bargain L's, OK it is not so fast but it works very well for me.

24-70 f2.8 L, this is my most important video lens for the Canons. If I could only buy 1 lens for video this is it. I would then add a fast 50 and then a wider angle.

50mm f1.4, I would prefer the 1.2, but this is a very good lens, my compromise.

70-200 f2.8 L IS, I love this lens as well for video and it is my favorite portrait lens.

100mm f2.8 macro, a great for close work, really close that is.

100-400 f4-5.6 L, great for wild life remember it becomes a 160 to 640mm lens in the 7D (some people will argue my choice of language here, but the field of view is equivalent to a full frame 640 with a little more depth of field).

I also have the 2X tele extender
I also have some older Canon glass, and I had a Nikon 1.4 I gave away when the 5DmkII got full manual control, about a year ago.

I have been shooting with Canons since the 60's. I still have a few film bodies. Getting into DSLRs is just the beginning of a glass collection obsession for most people. I think I have about 20 lenses just kicking around.

But above I give you an idea of what I use for video. I hope this helps. And don't sweat the first few lenses to much. You have to figure out how you shoot and what is important to your style, and bank account.

Wow, that is great to know. I am about to make the purchase, hopefully tonight before I go to bed. The 7D has a rebate price, so that will give me a few extra bucks. I am between the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.2.

Is it really worth it to go with the f/1.2?

I can make the extra effort and go with it, because it is an investment. Just wondering if it is REALLY worth it, you know what I mean?

I know it is a better built and better glass, but it is $1100 more!!

I'll kindly appreciate your input...

THANKS VERY MUCH

I own both a 50mm f1.4 and a 50mm f1.2
The f1.2 is NOT worth the extra money to all but a very small niche. Get the 1.4 and use the leftover money for a fast 35mm and/or 28mm lens, both of which will be very important to your filmmaking, along with an 85mm f1.8

Bryan, you can stop down...


Thanks. ;)

But if I'd decided I'm hardly ever going to use 1.4 then the price difference becomes significant.

Everyone has different needs, I'm just pointing out where I've landed for the stuff I shoot.

Ben,
I never had the luxury of owning or using a 1.2. I've seen nice footage that other guys have shot at night with that lens and it's great, but I can't afford one. You can't go wrong, however, with the 50 1.4, and you could always sell it later if you wanted to tale the 1.2 plunge.
I'm originally from Waterbury, by the way.
Bruce Yarock
P.S. Don't forget the adjustable nd filter ( fader nd). It's a must for out door shooting.

Hi Bruce,

Waterbury, cool. I actually did rehears in Waterbury with Tom Stevens (Actor, Director) for a play about a month ago in that old white church over Main Street. Nice town and nice coffee from the old gas station...

I think and I am going to end up getting a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8 for now. And later on, I might consider a 24 1.4L for wide shoots. But I will need to save for several months for get there. I took me quite some time to gather 3k.


Once again, thanks very much for your advice, very much appreciated.

Everyone has their own preferences, I personally prefer using my 50mm 1.8 over a 1.4. I shoot mostly interviews/documentaries and the 1.4 has such an incredibly thin depth of field that it was tough to work with. In controlled narrative situations I can see it working better.

As it is the 1.8 is tough, but I find I can work with it whereas the 1.4 was kicking my butt. It's also about a third of the price, which is nice.

There's a great thread on lenses over in the T2i forum, the discussion is applicable to the 7D as well.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-rebel-t2i-eos-550d-hd/473955-if-you-could-only-use-3-lenses.html

Very nice thread. I did read it and was very helpful. I think the 1.4 will be a better option for me now, rather than the 1.2. Although the 1.2 is a nicer built. Does the glass in the 1.2 is the very same one as the 1.4? I am 'just' talking about the glass...

Thanks very much for the input!!

Bryan, you can stop down...


To the OP, If you want a 50mm prime get the f/1.4 not the f/1.2. But I'd advise getting the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 as your first lens.

Hope that helps:)

Hi Liam,

Yes, it does help. I was thinking about the 70-200mm but not sure if IS or not IS. Doubles the price...

Thanks very much!!

Maybe you should consider a 35mm? I find its the most useful and aesthetic everyday focal length for the 7d, (closest to the focal length of the human eye?).. much prefer it to a 24, 28 or 30mm.. but just my preference!

My new favourite lens is the MIR 24N 35mm f2, lovely sharp and bright colours with a 270 degree focus throw thats smoother than anything else i've used.

Hi Bruce,

Waterbury, cool. I actually did rehears in Waterbury with Tom Stevens (Actor, Director) for a play about a month ago in that old white church over Main Street. Nice town and nice coffee from the old gas station...

I think and I am going to end up getting a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8 for now. And later on, I might consider a 24 1.4L for wide shoots. But I will need to save for several months for get there. I took me quite some time to gather 3k.


Once again, thanks very much for your advice, very much appreciated.

Hi Ben, the 1.6 multiplier means that as the 7D has a smaller imager there is a cropping of the image from any given lens. The depth of field stays the same but your field of view is smaller. So in effect your 50mm lens will seem like a 80mm lens (that is a really good portrait size).

When you buy canon lenses, you can use full frame lenses EF lenses on any of Canons cameras, but you can not use EF-S lenses on a full frame camera like the 5DmkII.

Here is a link to a really good review of the Canon 50 f1.2 and the others as well.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)
I would spend some time on this site reading about the lenses, there are good comparisons and sample shots from all of them. Also great explanations of imager size and how the different lenses handle out of focus blur, this is where a more expensive lens really stands out.

You have to decide yourself what is most important to you, in lenses. There are many choices.

I personally have a 5DmkII and a 7D, as well as a couple EXcams and a few older cams as well. I really like both the 5DmkII and the 7D. I use them both for video and stills. I use the 5 for wide shots and the 7 when I need more telephoto.

These are the lenses I use for the Canons.

17-40 f4 L a really good wide especially for the 5DmkII and one of the best bargain L's, OK it is not so fast but it works very well for me.

24-70 f2.8 L, this is my most important video lens for the Canons. If I could only buy 1 lens for video this is it. I would then add a fast 50 and then a wider angle.

50mm f1.4, I would prefer the 1.2, but this is a very good lens, my compromise.

70-200 f2.8 L IS, I love this lens as well for video and it is my favorite portrait lens.

100mm f2.8 macro, a great for close work, really close that is.

100-400 f4-5.6 L, great for wild life remember it becomes a 160 to 640mm lens in the 7D (some people will argue my choice of language here, but the field of view is equivalent to a full frame 640 with a little more depth of field).

I also have the 2X tele extender
I also have some older Canon glass, and I had a Nikon 1.4 I gave away when the 5DmkII got full manual control, about a year ago.

I have been shooting with Canons since the 60's. I still have a few film bodies. Getting into DSLRs is just the beginning of a glass collection obsession for most people. I think I have about 20 lenses just kicking around.

But above I give you an idea of what I use for video. I hope this helps. And don't sweat the first few lenses to much. You have to figure out how you shoot and what is important to your style, and bank account.


Dear Olof,

Hey, thanks again for all of this very valuable input. My budget is about 3k. So, I believe I am going to go with the 7D body, the 50mm f/1.4 and the 70-200mm f/4L... (what do you think?)

Then, later on this or next year, I might grab the 85mm f/1.8 and either the 24mm f/1.4L II or the 35mm f/1.4L...

I believe that will start me good with film and portraits :)

But hey thank you for all of this information that was crucial for me to make a decision.

You have a fantastic weekend!!

I own both a 50mm f1.4 and a 50mm f1.2
The f1.2 is NOT worth the extra money to all but a very small niche. Get the 1.4 and use the leftover money for a fast 35mm and/or 28mm lens, both of which will be very important to your filmmaking, along with an 85mm f1.8

Dylan,

Hey thanks very much for sharing your experience with me and with us. I get your point and I am getting the 50mm f/1.4 and the 70-200mm f/4L IS...

The 85mm f/1.8, the 24mm f/1.4L II and the 35mm f/1.4L will most likely be my future investment.

Really thanks very much for your input, which was a big influence on my decision on taking the 1.4

Have a great weekend Dylan :)

Maybe you should consider a 35mm? I find its the most useful and aesthetic everyday focal length for the 7d, (closest to the focal length of the human eye?).. much prefer it to a 24, 28 or 30mm.. but just my preference!

My new favourite lens is the MIR 24N 35mm f2, lovely sharp and bright colours with a 270 degree focus throw thats smoother than anything else i've used.

Hi Manus,

Definetely will considerate for the near future (need to start saving again). I am about to get the 50mm f/1.4 and the 70-200mm f/4L IS...

I appreciate your suggestion and have a wonderful weekend as well!!

Hi Liam,

Yes, it does help. I was thinking about the 70-200mm but not sure if IS or not IS. Doubles the price...

Thanks very much!!



Ben,
Get the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM....that's the way to go. The IS really does help, IMHO. Its a great lens in every way.

Ben,
Get the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM....that's the way to go. The IS really does help, IMHO. Its a great lens in every way.


Hi Steve,

Yes, that is the one I want actually. But, it is 650+ more than the f/4L IS ...

I've got this video from another thread in this forums:

IS Or Not on Vimeo

That video convinced me very clearly of the IS need. Specially on my case...

Is there is a considerable difference between the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L IS?


Thanks for the suggestion Steve!!

The f/2.8L IS is seriously heavy - the f4L is half the weight but you give up a lot of speed difference.

It depends on what you shoot. I just shot an interview on the f4 in a fairly dimly lit wooded scene and I was at 5.6 and the ISO 320 and I just made it - but it is pin sharp!
For most daylight stuff its perfect.
If you do hand-held work the 2.8 will tire you out fast.

Dear Olof,

Hey, thanks again for all of this very valuable input. My budget is about 3k. So, I believe I am going to go with the 7D body, the 50mm f/1.4 and the 70-200mm f/4L... (what do you think?)

Then, later on this or next year, I might grab the 85mm f/1.8 and either the 24mm f/1.4L II or the 35mm f/1.4L...

I believe that will start me good with film and portraits :)

But hey thank you for all of this information that was crucial for me to make a decision.

You have a fantastic weekend!!

That sounds like a good start. The 50 is really a good deal and so is the 70-200 f4 IS. The 70-200 is also a lot lighter than the f2.8 version. And the IS is justas good on the slower lens.

A wide angle will fill out that collection nicely when your pocket allows for it.

Just remember to think about how you are going to get really good audio. You may not need it right away, but you will at some point. I have the Microtrack II and it is pretty good, the zoom is very popular as well.

Good luck, if you ever get over to the Mt. Washington Valley, North Conway area. Give me a call and visit my studio, and you can try out my lenses and shoulder rig with follow focus etc. ( I am testing several prototypes), and maybe have lunch or whatever. Info and #'s on my website.

The f/2.8L IS is seriously heavy - the f4L is half the weight but you give up a lot of speed difference.

It depends on what you shoot. I just shot an interview on the f4 in a fairly dimly lit wooded scene and I was at 5.6 and the ISO 320 and I just made it - but it is pin sharp!
For most daylight stuff its perfect.
If you do hand-held work the 2.8 will tire you out fast.

Thanks very much Jon, last night I bought the f/4L IS finally...

Thanks, your post also helped me decide...

That sounds like a good start. The 50 is really a good deal and so is the 70-200 f4 IS. The 70-200 is also a lot lighter than the f2.8 version. And the IS is justas good on the slower lens.

A wide angle will fill out that collection nicely when your pocket allows for it.

Just remember to think about how you are going to get really good audio. You may not need it right away, but you will at some point. I have the Microtrack II and it is pretty good, the zoom is very popular as well.

Good luck, if you ever get over to the Mt. Washington Valley, North Conway area. Give me a call and visit my studio, and you can try out my lenses and shoulder rig with follow focus etc. ( I am testing several prototypes), and maybe have lunch or whatever. Info and #'s on my website.

Hey, well thank you very much for the invitation!

I will someday ride to Mt. Washington, hopefully on my Harley. I will definitely let you know and will love to check out your studio. I checked your website and it shows lots of love :)


Last night I bought the 7D, the 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200mm f/4 IS. My next step (when I have money again, maybe couple of months or next year) I will get the sound equipment. Just need to decide which shotgun mic. Anything cheaper than the 416 but better than the AT875...

Read you soon and I might meet you someday :)

Kind Regards and thanks very much for all the advice!