Hi all,

I currently have:
-the kit lens
-55-250mm
-50mm 1.8

And am looking for one or two good overall lenses for video. I shoot at night, would like to do weddings and portraits and like to do closer shots, too. I feel the kit and 55-250 aren't that great for video. The 1.8 is serving me well but I imagine the 1.4 would be better.

I'm not a fan of changing the lens much so hope to pair the three down to 2 good lenses for overall situations.

Advice?

Lots of info and related posts in this forum. The first thing you need to figure out is your budget. But all in all, many people will suggest the Canon 17-55 f2.8 for a wide-mid zoom, and the 70-200 f2.8 for mid-long zoom.

Check out Sigma and Tamron's equivalents if you're on a tighter budget.

Other fast primes are pretty pricey but if you have the cash, get the 50 1.4 (I hate the focus ring on the 50 1.8) or 85 1.8 or Sigma 30 1.4. If you can't have it all, find out which focal length you need most after a few shoots.

Older manual focus prime lenses are also worth a look. Nikon, Pentax M42 mount and Olympus OM mount lenses are cracking quality and can be had for pretty good prices. Much better focus and aperture controls as well and the lack of AF isn't much of an issue in the video world.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Do it.

For weddings a 70-200mm f/2.8 is my favorite lens. I have the Tamron version and it cost me less than $600 in as-new condition.

You have a good start.

As stated above, these lenses will give you some quality results for the money!


Tamron 28-75 2.8 ($350 used, $310 on a good day!)

Tamron (or Sigma) 70-200 2.8 (Tamron is about $720 used, Sigma can be found for $600-$650 used)

Sigma also makes a nice 2x tele adaptor that works well ($60 used)

Is there anything from Sigma or Tameron that goes lower then 28?

The plan would be to sell off the kit lens and the 55-250mm for the better lenses and I like, at the moment, that the kit lens can at least get in there nice for macro'ish shots.

Also, does using lenses that are NOT Canon effect the camera abilities (ie: IS?)

Hang onto the 18-55mm "kit" lens, you won't get much for it. I just bought one literally brand new off another forum (to have something on my 60D for "grab 'n go") and I only had to pay $70 which included shipping.

As a lens that goes from usable wide angle to portrait perspective tele in on lightweight convenient package it's worth that and more.

The 55-250 can come in pretty handy in outdoor daylight.

You'll pay for them but my favorite lenses for video are the EF 24mm f2.8 (slightly wide normal perspective) and the EF 28mm f1.8 (normal perspective). The 24 is fair in low light, the 28 gives outstanding low light performance.

But you've had some other good suggestions here, also.

Is there anything from Sigma or Tameron that goes lower then 28?

The plan would be to sell off the kit lens and the 55-250mm for the better lenses and I like, at the moment, that the kit lens can at least get in there nice for macro'ish shots.

Also, does using lenses that are NOT Canon effect the camera abilities (ie: IS?)

In the Canon world, the mechanics of IS are purely in the lens. Many other manufacturers have an IS feature in the body (notable exception: Nikon).

f/2.8 is the fastest fixed aperture zoom you're going to find for your camera. Your only hope if you really need faster lenses is to get a set of fast primes. It is possible to fairly cheaply assemble a set of say, four vintage primes all at f/1.9 or below covering the range between 28mm and 135mm.

But shooting faster than f/2.8 means that the depth of field will be very shallow and hard to manage , and a set of primes that will compete with fixed f/2.8 zooms for price tend to need to be stopped down a notch or too to achieve an acceptable degree of sharpness.

I prefer primes, but it depends on the work you need to do.

So, I have been looking at both Tameron 28-75mm
and the 70-200mm (although a bit worried about some of the reviews on this one stating slow focus)

Here's a question:
For video, wouldn't prime lenses be what you want to go for in most instances? I seem to be shooting a lot of my stuff with the 50mm 1.8
(I guess it depends on what you are shooting, though, of course)

I could snag both 28-75mm and the 70-200mm or about $1000 where as ONE of those in the Canon brand would cost me $2500 CDN.

I would like something that does somewhat nice macro shots, though. Mainly, I was trying to avoid having to always change lenses on the fly and looking for that one, overall, good lens to keep on the camera the bulk of the time. Does it exist or am I just entering into the norm for photography...massive lens collecting? :p

I just think that its hard to find an all around lens. I think it just all depends on your situation. The reason I say is because I do weddings, music videos, promotional videos, etc. I need different lens for different situations.

Take for instance a wedding. If I am doing preceremony I may be in a hotel room, or a room in the church. In this case I need not only a fast lense of at least 2.8, I also need a wide angle because some of these spaces are small and congested. I try my best never to go over 1600 iso (i will if it means getting the shot altogether).

Ok now its time for the ceremony, depending on the ceremony and lighting i may can get away with the 18-135mm 3.5-5.6(In most cases not, because if i zoom, I'm sitting at 4.5 or higher f-stop), but if not I need the 70-200mm which I don't own, I would have to go and rent it. Also, I need mid zooms of at least 2.8 to get closeups on their faces because every venue is different and i don't know exactly how close I can get.

Now is the reception, which you never know what your going to get. Lately, most of my receptions have been intimate with subtle but colorful lighting. So now i need nothing but fast primes, because I can move as much as I need to but I need the open aperature for the lighting. Sometimes in these receptions, a 2.8 won't get it done at 1600 iso.

So as you can see, just for weddings I need at least 3 different lens and multiples of each. As of now I only own 2 kit lens and the cheap 50mm 1.8 and everything else I have to rent.

I havent even mentioned music vids or promos where having something like the tokina 11-16 f2.8 would be nice. Especially if your utilizing flycams, glidecams, or steadicams!

Trust me I will eventually buy the lens that I use the most but even deciding which one to buy first is a touch decision. So I understand what your going through. But as far as an all around lens, that maybe something you never actually find, because I think your situation dictates your lens and not the other way around!

So, I have been looking at both Tameron 28-75mm
and the 70-200mm (although a bit worried about some of the reviews on this one stating slow focus)

Here's a question:
For video, wouldn't prime lenses be what you want to go for in most instances? I seem to be shooting a lot of my stuff with the 50mm 1.8
(I guess it depends on what you are shooting, though, of course)

I have the Tamron 70-200 and I love it. For video you are not going to be using the AF anyway so the AF speed is not really an issue.

Prime lenses are great for pre-planned shots like interviews or narrative work, but zooms are much more efficient for live events such as weddings. You might never zoom during a shot, but it's much better being able to change your framing without also switching lenses. It all depends on what you are shooting.

The 28-75 on a crop sensor camera will give you a fairly tight perspective. You'd be much better off with a lens designed for APS-C camera's such as the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. From everything I've seen and read, this is one of the most popular lenses among HDSLR users, giving excellent value for money.

Okay, some more lens questions. Thanks for the advice, all, thus far.

1) Is there really a huge different between the Canon 1.8 and 1.4. The book I have been reading on the camera promites the 1.4 a lot.

2) It seems like good coverage for me would be:

17-70mm Sigma 2.8
70-200 Tamera 2.8

Here is the question: on B&H the 17-50 2.8 is MORE expensive. Not knowing anything about lenses, it seems to me that it would be cheaper because it doesn't zoom as far.

* * * *

So, yeah, I think what I am seeking is three good lenses to start off with that:
a) would be good for weddings
b) portraits
c) nature shots
d) video

A good range for me would be 17-200mm (although 20 would also be doable for me if there is better starting there) which would factor as two lenses, I deduce. I would either keep the 1.8 OR upgrade it to a 1.4 if need be to have one prime in the mid-range.

Thoughts and tips?

I think that the best choice for weddings would be, based on price to:

Tamron 70-200mm f2.8
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Sigma 30mm f1.4

This will cover your focal lenths that you wanted. They are also not expensive as the canon options.
The 70-200mm will give you coverage for long shots, the 17-50mm will give you wide and mid range zoom. And the 30mm 1.4 will be really fast and give you open aperature for low light situations. There is also a cheaper 50mm 1.8 from canon for $99, but with the crop factor it makes for a really tight shot. However, it is a cheap fast lens and I use it all the time!

If this were me and I had to get 3 lens, these would be my options. However, I would rather get the t3i for the digital zoom, then grab the 28-75mm. Then I could get the tokina 11-16.. 2,8. but thats just what I'm working on right now!

Robert, the difference in the 50 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2 is mainly build quality and function. I'm sure there are minor differences in image quality, but I think it's mainly form and function. I have the 50 1.4 and don't use it much. I don't really like the focal length and 1.4-2.0 is too shallow a dof to really use it unless you're trying to get trick shots. Fwiw... I have stayed away from third party lenses in lew of used L series lenses from 1 release back. I have the 17-35L 2.8, the 28-70L 2.8 and the 70-200L IS. I also have the AMAZING 24-105L IS and the 50 1.4 Use the 24-105 most of the day until it get's too dark. But these L lenses costed me about half of brand new and are in immaculate condition. If you can find them, they're certainly worth a look.
Bill

So, just when I thought Tameron was the way to go for my budget I read that they generally have focusing issues. I've heard of Sigma more then Tameron. Are they better, do you find?

What do you mean by the Tamron's having focusing issues? Any of these lenses are going to be slow and awkward to auto-focus with for video - even Canon L-series lenses. Because in video mode they use the much slower contrast-detect AF rather than the phase-detect AF system they use for stills, all of them will perform pretty poorly in video mode. It is far better to learn how to manual focus properly.

The Sigma 17-70 is not a constant aperture zoom (it goes from f/2.8 at wide to f/4 when you zoom) which explains the cheaper price.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Do it.I just got one of these as a general purpose lens on my new Canon 600D. It's my first EF-S lens as until now I have been using 5DIIs with EF lenses. It's a quarter of the price of the Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 but seems quite decent. There are evidently two versions one with & the without image stabilisation (or Vibration Compensation as Tamron call it). I got the version with IS (or VC) as it was only about 10% more expensive but it is really noisy compared to any of my Canon lenses with IS.

Though I've only used the non-VC version, from all reports I've read the newer VC version is not as good optically. It's a shame - the optical quality of the non-VC version is equal to the Canon version, but unfortunately only the Canon one seems to put IS and IQ into the same package - albeit at a much higher price.

I just bought the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 and i am really happy with my 60d

stelios

John: I was reading reviews over at B&H saying that the 70-200 2.8 has some slow focus problems which make the lens a touch problematic.

Though I know IS or VC or whatever they call them (:p) isn't needed for video I DO plan on taking photos as well with the camera so want a lens that can function as both.

__________________

Hmmm, more to think about. I would want some form of IS on the lens that is competent. How much is sacrificed, I wonder, in that Tameron because I was leaning towards that because the Sigma changes ranges.

What sort of photos do you plan on taking? For anything other than really fast sports, the AF is fine. Portraits, weddings, even unpredictable children are pretty easy to shoot without any interference from the AF system. I've certainly never had any issues with the AF for stills, not even for surfing photos.

And for video, as I said before, it's a non-issue.

John: I'll be doing concerts. I took out the 55-250 this week and it was not so great though I did snag a few usable images.

The 50mm 1.8 did nicely though gave me pause on if I SHOULD pick up the 1.4.

I mean, hey, in an ideal world where money wasn't a factor I'd snag the Canon 70-200, 17-55 and 50 1.4 but that would be about $6000 :p

Personally I regretted buying the 50mm 1.8. I wish I'd just hung on and saved the cash for the 1.4 instead. Much nice focus ring and the wider apperture is really useful for events where you have no control over the light.

Just to report that I returned the Tamron SP AF 17-50 mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Lens & paid the extra to buy the Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 USM IS instead. The Tamron was unsuitable for video for many reasons. You need to turn the focus & zoom rings like a Nikon i.e. the wrong way round for a Canon. The image stabilisation was really noisy & the AF wasn't very fast. You get what you pay for & the Canon lens of course focuses the correct way but also the IS is quiet & AF is very fast.

I haven't really regreated the $112 I paid for the 1.8, to be honest. It's been the lens I've gone to the most and has held up very well in night-time shooting (see my SHOW YOUR WORK thread in that forum for examples). True, the focus ring bring right on the edge is a pain in the ass.

Again, how much of a dif is it to merit the extra $450?

* * *

As for the Tameron VC, I have opted against that one due to what others have posted and reviews I have read stating it worse then the none VC.

The none VC, though, is said to hold it's own against the much pricier Canon. Grrr...the choices..

My 2p worth:

I've gone for the following with my 60D and getting really good results with them:

Tokina 11-16 2.8
Canon 17-55 2.8
Sigma 70-200 2.8 (just as nice as the Canon when I did tests against a friend's Canon 70-200 2.8 - even with stills)

I'm looking forward to something along the lines of the 24-105, but faster than f4. I think that length range hits the sweet-spot for most of my filming needs - often I find the 17-55 not long enough and the 70-200 not wide enough, so end up changing lenses more than I'd like.

Ben.

The 3X crop feature on the 600D gives you the extra reach of the 70-200mm lens (longer in fact at 260mm) without changing lenses.

So, as a bit of an update:
I just snagged the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS.

The Canon just seemed overpriced and after agonizing over comparrisons and reviews there didn't seem to be a heap of difference. Sigma came with case, hood and a whopping 10-YEAR warranty!

Haven't really tested it out much yet. Will see if the weather clears today.

First thought: I kept seeing that the AF was "silent". I find it to be quite loud, actually.

Not had a problem with mine Nigel? What do ya mean the focus is the wrong way around? On my 60d don't know what you mean?

I'll tack my question on here because there's a lot of lens knowledge in all your heads. I'm talking stills now and I'm looking for a constant f/2.8 aperture..

The 80 - 200mm f/2.8 is a great portrait lens on a full-frame SLR, but what is there out there for my diddly-chipped Canon 60D? Is there an equivalent lens in the Canon / Tamron / Sigma / Tokina stable?

I've just been informed by Sigma UK that the Japanese tsunami has disrupted all supplies of the new IS 50 - 150 f/2.8 and they've no idea when they'll see their first one.

The other interesting lens looks to be the Tokina 50 - 135 ATX f/2.8 but that too seems to be almost non existent. Maybe the Tsunami again?

Maybe there are others?

tom.

Tom, the Tamron 70-200 has good reviews and I'm about to buy one as the canon is soooo expensive... Steve

Not had a problem with mine Nigel? What do ya mean the focus is the wrong way around? On my 60d don't know what you mean?You have to turn the focus & zoom rings the wrong way like using a Nikon. All my other lenses are from Canon so it would confuse the hell out of me to have the one lens that operated in the other direction.

I've had a lot of experience with the newest Canon 70-200, is2 flavor. The IS is amazing, and lets me shoot hand-held, fully zoomed in at 200mm, without any shakiness and retaining a sharp image. I don't / can't plunk $2500 for this lens, so I rent it- but I could really use a 70-200mm lens. Can anyone compare the other 70-200 brands to this, IS-wise? I'm sure the canon one is better, but HOW much better? Is handheld shooting even a possibility? That's really important when I'm shooting documentary.

And what's the widest-ranging, still-decent-quality lens out there for this camera? Something along the lines of what an EX-1 / EX-3 would have..?

The Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is not overpriced. It is L quality in every aspect other than build quality, and has the 77mm filter thread. Image quality and color are excellent.

First thought: I kept seeing that the AF was "silent". I find it to be quite loud, actually.

Robert, did you test it in both stills mode and video mode? I believe the different methods they use to achieve AF in stills mode (phase-detect) and Live View (contrast-detect) might account for the noisiness of the supposedly "silent" lens. A lot of features like USM/HSM, AF, IS, etc are much less effective in video mode.

If it is just as noisy in stills mode, perhaps you should make use of that excellent warranty and have it checked out!

I've had a lot of experience with the newest Canon 70-200, is2 flavor. The IS is amazing, and lets me shoot hand-held, fully zoomed in at 200mm, without any shakiness and retaining a sharp image. I don't / can't plunk $2500 for this lens, so I rent it- but I could really use a 70-200mm lens. Can anyone compare the other 70-200 brands to this, IS-wise? I'm sure the canon one is better, but HOW much better? Is handheld shooting even a possibility? That's really important when I'm shooting documentary.

And what's the widest-ranging, still-decent-quality lens out there for this camera? Something along the lines of what an EX-1 / EX-3 would have..?

Sigma and Tamron both make excellent version of this lens.

The Tamron is almost as good optically, and there is certainly nothing to tell them apart by in video mode, probably not in stills either without very careful scrutiny. The Tamron does have a slower, noisier, less accurate AF system though, but this is not a concern in video mode when you are manually focusing.

The Sigma version is just barely behind optically (again, you wouldn't notice in video mode) but has the advantage of HSM autofocus for stills and there is a version available with OS. I'm not sure if the Sigma OS is as good as Canon's IS though.

As for wide-range lenses, it's generally best to avoid them. Designing a full frame or APS-C lens equivelant to that on the EX3 would result in something weighing 50kg and costing more than your house (no, I'm not exaggerating - check out the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 for proof. And that lens only covers 1/3 of the zoom range that the EX3 does) It is generally accepted that practical photo zoom lenses reach the best balance of range vs quality at about 3x zoom. Many of the most popular zoom lenses stick to this range such as the 70-200 f/2.8, 17-50 f/2.8 & 24-70 f/2.8. Any more than this and you need to compromise - you'll lose sharpness, and will sacrifice wider & contstant apertures. The idea of a sinlge all purpose lens is nice, but if that's what you want, why bother with an interchangeable lens camera?

I only ask about a wide-ranging lens because there are times when it really does come in handy to have such a range. I realize this is the trade-off for getting a $900 camera that looks like a million bucks, but there are times when swapping lenses isn't practical (any kind of a live shoot where time is of essence.) Of course, there are other ways to get that extra reach if you really need it- like with the T3i 's 3x HD crop zoom. That would work for me in a pinch.

As for your descriptions of other 70-200mm lenses, I was mostly wondering about the stability issue. If you're shooting hand-held, the optical quality of the glass is meaningless when the whole picture is so jittery it's unusable. That's where the Canon IS 2 blew me away, and I'm not sure anything comes close to it- but I don't have first-hand experience with the Sigma and Tamron models in that regard. Does anyone?

The T3i/600D's 3x HD crop zoom is fab. Using the excellent Canon 17-55mm F/2.8L at the long end it gives you the field of view of a full frame equivalent lens of about 260mm. Stabilisation is good & you don't get moire or aliasing. What's not to like?:-)

I mean, hey, in an ideal world where money wasn't a factor I'd snag the Canon 70-200, 17-55 and 50 1.4 but that would be about $6000 :p

Yeah, but when you sell it, the Canon glass will appreciate, the others might not. Think of it as an investment.

You have to turn the focus & zoom rings the wrong way like using a Nikon. All my other lenses are from Canon so it would confuse the hell out of me to have the one lens that operated in the other direction.

I just bought my first Nikon adapter lens, so I wonder if this is going to confuse me mixed in with my Canon glass. I've heard it's more intuitive as when pulling focus, towards you is moving focus towards you and away, focuses away. (on a follow focus)

Can anyone compare the other 70-200 brands to this, IS-wise? I'm sure the canon one is better, but HOW much better? Is handheld shooting even a possibility?

From what I've read on the photography forums, people are now comfortable going down to 1/30 compared to the usual 1/60 with the mark II lens. The IS is definitely better, but I don't know how that translates to video. I've got the mark I and I can't imagine holding that thing very long. I have used my buddies 100mm IS on gigs and its a lot of fun.

The Tokina 11-16mm I've just purchased. I got it in the Nikon mount and bought adapters (with aperture control) for both my gh1 and t2i.

David, considering you live in the city, why not take a field trip to B&H and try it out.

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, 50-135mm f2.8 with a 60D

Love these lenses....

(Watch in its true form in 1080p)

YouTube - ‪TVP San Antonio‬‏ (http://youtu.be/2KUpUdp8Gxw)

The Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is a great lens (other than the build quality) but on a crop body it is not that wide.

For wide you will want either the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (constant aperature) or the Canon EF-S 10-22. I have both, and tend to use the former for video and the latter for stills.

How wide you go depends on what you shoot.

The 17-55 will be wide enough for general action. You will be able to pan around on a tripod and "get a lot in" without looking like an effects shot. When you go wider, you need to take care. Panning on a tripod will show perspective distortion. Unless you really stop down, everything will be in focus except the ground in front of the camera, which can look like you have a crummy lens, rather than like sweet, shallow DOF footage.

On the other hand, you can do pushes and jib moves with a wider lens. You can push the lens right up to an object to give it attitude. You can film from odd angles for a good effect.

My rule of thumb is this: if you tend to shoot from a tripod at eye height, you don't need a wider lens. If you frame while laying on the ground or from the top corner of an elevator, you do. ;)

My rule of thumb is this: if you tend to shoot from a tripod at eye height, you don't need a wider lens. If you frame while laying on the ground or from the top corner of an elevator, you do. ;)

That's a good rule (or a good thumb!)

Just buy and use the lens you can afford. There will always some regrets and surprises. I use Tamron 17-50 (image stablization), Samyang fisheye and a Canon 55-250 for family video. Quite good picture quality, lightweight and yet covers a wide range.

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, 50-135mm f2.8 with a 60D

Love these lenses....

(Watch in its true form in 1080p)

YouTube - ‪TVP San Antonio‬‏ (http://youtu.be/2KUpUdp8Gxw)

Hey Edward in the video you linked on the lens flares effect how did you do that? Is it a simple key framing?? steve

Hey Edward - I ended up with exactly the same two lenses for my 60D - the Tokina 11- 16 and 50 - 135, both f.2.8. Love them, but there's a bit of a gap between 16 and 50 that I fill with my Signa 15 -30 f/3.5 - 4.5.