It's a black spot. I noticed that it's not the camera sensor cause I tried different lenses, and the black spot is only on the one lens. However, I've tried cleaning the lens back and front, over and over, and I cannot get the spot off. My guess is that it's on the inside somewhere, so how should I proceed then?

Not an expert but maybe a local camera/lens repair place? Sounds like it would need disassembly which is not something a layman should tackle. Be warned it might cost quite a bit to get that fixed.

Well I was planning on selling the lens and this was the last time I was going to use it most likely. So what should I do, risk fixing it? I don't want it to cost too much...

Something like this is a job for a lens technician. You may have to send it a company that specializes in such work, but if it's a lower priced stills lenses it may cost nearly as much as a new lens or a good percentage of the cost. I would ask for a ball park cost before sending it for repair.

It's a bit like a lower cost modern domestic appliance if something goes wrong. Strangely, an old, quality 1980s washing machine can still be worth fixing, because it's still likely to last longer than a lower cost new one.

Okay thanks, it's just that since I was planning on selling the lens, I don't want to risk damaging it any further either though, even if it's a technician, still seems risky, maybe?

It's the fly-by-wire lens I talked about before on here, and I was advised to get a mechanical focus one, since I was having trouble with the fly-by-wire. I was going to use it for this last project and then sell it after for a mechanical focus instead.

Lens technicians are used to repairing vastly more expensive glassware than your lens, so there isn't much risk in that regard. It could be more a matter of how repairable your lens is designed to be.

If selling it, you should inform the buyer of the fault, otherwise you may find it being returned if selling on eBay etc.

Yep that's true. I only noticed it now, when aiming at the blue sky, didn't notice it if there is a lot of scenery in the frame. I can ask lens repair specialists though, how much it would cost but do they know how much, just by looking at the image, without wanting to change the price later on?

You can ask them for a quote, since it seems to just involve cleaning the lens. Usually, they'd ask if you wish to proceed with working on any other faults they may find when the lens is stripped down. However, since it sounds like fairly new lens, that is unlikely.

You scare me sometimes! You cleaned it again and again? And probably removed most of the coating on the lenses! You hold the lens up to the light and look through it. This will reveal any internal flakes of paint or dust. You never scrub a lens, ever! You also never take one apart. You need tools that you won't have, dust free environment, and micrometers and teeny weeny little parts to remove and re-install. You need test benches to check you put it back together again, and if it's an electronic lens, there will be servos, foil and plastic membrane flexible tracks and connectors. I can disassemble most things and fix lots of faults, but only silly people take lenses apart - or Rolex watches.

Sell the lens as is. if it's an obvious fault, mention it and be truthful if that's your thing, but if it's hardly visible then caveat emptor.

If the cost of repair is pennies, do it. If dollars, sell it.

Oh well I cleaned just the outside with lens wipes and the lens cleaning fluid from a camera store. That's not so bad, is it?

No, but you actually said lens back and front, over and over,
That's what worried me ........

If this is the Canon EF 75-300 that you've mentioned before, then I am afraid to say it but the cost to repair will most likely exceed its value.

That lens is worth about $200. In my experience, most lens repairs start for around that price and go up from there. Camera body repairs are about the same -- usually involving $200 to $250 just to crack it open and diagnose.

That particular Canon lens is very much at the bottom of the food chain in terms of build quality and optical quality. It simply fills a need for an "inexpensive telephoto zoom." You get what you pay for.

I rarely say this to anybody, but this is one case where I think it's time for you to take a step up in the quality of your gear. Keep your Rebel T2i as a backup camera. I had a T2i myself once, it was great, but I've since moved on. So should you. For example you could stay within the Canon ecosystem if you like, with the Canon EOS 80D which is perfect for shooting video (Dual Pixel AF, headphone jack etc.). You can get it packaged as a Video Creator's Kit with the EF-S 18-135 nano USM and power zoom adapter, plus an on-board mic, for $1500.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485234-REG/canon_1263c103_kit_eos_80d_dslr_camera.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485234-REG/canon_1263c103_kit_eos_80d_dslr_camera.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801)

A much better telephoto zoom than the one you've got would be the Canon EF 70-300 IS II USM, which is superior to your 75-300 in every respect, and it's not too expensive at $500:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281379-REG/canon_0571c002aa_ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281379-REG/canon_0571c002aa_ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801)

What you have right now though is not worth the cost of service, and I am sorry to point that out.

Oh okay, thanks, but the Canon 70-300 is still fly-by-wire focus though, and I was told I should avoid that for the next one, if that's true?

That's why I wanted to sell the 75-300, to get one that is not fly-by-wire, unless fly-by-wire has any advantages?

I'm always good at giving advice, but for once (ha ha) the camera upgrade is out of my comfort zone. I never use DSLR for video, despite using one for stills.

I've thought about buying one of the black magic broadcast cameras so I can use the lenses I have and it sits on my shoulder. If I wanted to go down the 'cinema' route with primes and cleverness I'd probably think about the popular bigger cameras with real viewfinder rather than a DSLR solution.

Keeping in mind Ryans needs and Chris's comments - could somebody spare a few moments to detail why these are so good? My varifocal lenses just mean I cannot use the fixed viewfinder panel on the rear of my DLSR - I can't focus properly or read the writing!

Oh well the reason why I got a DSLR is back in 2011, other filmmakers advised me to, cause there were more lens options compared to videocameras for the same price range around back then. Not sure about now.

The reason why I haven't upgraded the camera is because for my own lately projects, I always get someone else to shoot it with their better gear so far.

It's just that the DPs and videographers I know, do not have telephoto lenses that go up to at least 300mm which is what I want for some shots, so I thought I would get one, for them to use with their cameras while helping me with my projects. I just still have the T2i as back up, and once in a while someone wants me to do shoot something for them, and I still use that one, cause I don't know if it's worth buying a new camera, when I get someone else to shoot my projects with their better ones usually.

What do you think?

Advice changes with time, but holding onto an existing DSLR depends on if it does what yon want regarding stills, however, the video side has moved on so much since 2011, it's not really suitable for more than videos for personal use.

If your projects are shot on other people's cameras, that's fine.

There's a whole thread on your varifocal zoom lens, so I'm not going there.

could somebody spare a few moments to detail why these are so good?

The primary appeal of *full-frame* DSLRs (such as the Canon 5D Mk. II which started this whole thing back in Oct. 2008), is the ability to achieve very shallow depth-of-field, which narrative filmmakers really seem to enjoy.

Crop-sensor DSLRs are also capable of very shallow depth of field when used with fast lenses, but I think it's the low cost factor which makes them so popular. For example the Canon EOS 80D + EF-S 18-135 nano USM + power zoom adapter can be had for $1,500 and it *somewhat* emulates a $2500 pro video camcorder (but with certain, severe limitations). It's compact, relatively easy to use, and of course does double-duty as a most capable stills camera.

other filmmakers advised me to, cause there were more lens options compared to videocameras for the same price range around back then.

Sorry but that's not entirely true. For several reasons.

First, there is no practical way to change focal length during a shot with a still photo lens (the one exception being the Canon EF-S 18-35 nano USM + power zoom adapter). There are work-arounds involving extra hardware (and extra cost) that will provide remote and / or motorized control for still photo lenses, but by the time you build this out, you'll be better off putting that expense into a proper pro video camcorder. There's just no substitution for a servo-controlled lens on a pro video camcorder, with a proper zoom rocker and ready provision for remote operation, such as lens controls mounted on the tripod pan handle, where they belong. Of course, if you don't change focal length during a shot then this is no issue.

Second, most all pro video camcorders will get you a telephoto focal length equivalent well beyond 300mm (in 35mm terms), built in. For example, the Canon XF300 has a lens that reaches nearly 600mm, and stops down to only f/2.8. You cannot buy a 35mm still photo lens at 600mm f/2.8 -- Canon has a 600mm f/4, and it costs more than $11,000!

Third, the only focal length range you'll have a hard time covering with the built-in lens of a pro video camcorder is ultra-wide angle. In this instance, a DSLR may be a better choice, but even then you have the option with a pro video camcorder to add a wide-angle adapter (for less money than a DSLR plus an ultra-wide angle lens).

Fourth, macro capability is built right in to some pro video zoom lenses. I don't know about other manufacturers, but I do know the Canon line. On all Canon XF, XA and VIXIA series camcorders, you can remove the lens hood, zoom out to full wide, and focus right on the front objective. It's one of my favorite demonstrations when I show these camcorders at trade shows. The minimum object distance is practically zero. They'll focus closer than most any still photo macro lens.

Finally, video zooms lenses are mostly par-focal with minimum breathing. You can zoom in, get critical focus, zoom back out, and focus will hold. You can't do that with most still photo lenses.

I hope I have shown here how the built-in zoom lens on a pro video camcorder is actually more capable than most any still photo lens. I am open to rebuttal on this topic, of course.

The other advantages of a pro video camcorder over a DSLR are the ability to do dual recording, relay recording, better control of audio, better control of image (ND filters, etc.) and no 30-minute shot length limit, among other factors.

Hope this helps,

Oh okay, well as far as zoom lenses, go, I think primes look better than zooms for some shots, and a lot of people prefer primes, unless zooms are better in many cases? I just haven't found myself needed to zoom during the footage a lot accept for maybe a few specific shots. Some have told me before that the zoom looks unnatural or dated and to try to avoid it though.

There was one project so far where I wanted to do a fast zoom during the shot, but the DP I had in mind, had a videocamera with a zoom lens, but the motor could not move the zoom fast enough. Do most videocameras have this problem, where they can only zoom from slow to medium speeds?

But as for zoom lenses vs. prime, people choose prime because of more shallow DOF options. However, if a built in lens on a camera, that is a zoom lens, can open up to f2.8, will that have just as much shallow DOF as a prime at f2.8?

I just haven't found myself needed to zoom during the footage a lot accept for maybe a few specific shots.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with *not* changing focal length during a shot.


Do most videocameras have this problem, where they can only zoom from slow to medium speeds?

It depends entirely on the make and model of the camcorder. Some of them actually are capable of performing very fast snap zooms via servo. In any case, you can always switch to manual and perform a snap zoom by hand. In fact, it's the only type of zoom that is practical to do by hand.


However, if a built in lens on a camera, that is a zoom lens, can open up to f2.8, will that have just as much shallow DOF as a prime at f2.8?

If the image size, focal length and aperture value are the same between a given prime lens and a zoom lens, then yes the depths of field will be identical.

Oh okay thanks! The DP told me before he couldn't go into manual zoom with his camera cause if he tried to zoom that fast manually it could damage the motor, or at least put more wear and tear on it. But that was probably his type of camera then.

Well I could invest in a better camera and lens, but since I usually get a cinematographer or DP to shoot my projects, is it worth it, as back up?

The only reason I pulled out the old T2i and zoom lens, is that someone I know wanted me to do a corporate video for them but they wanted me only and no one else to help, so I used my own for it. But is there any reason to upgrade the gear if most of my projects, I usually get someone else to shoot them?

I thought maybe the lens could use an upgrade since I don't know any DPs with lenses that go up to 300 so far and then they could just use mine. But what do you think about a camera upgrade, if I plan on using separate DPs or videographers?

The DP told me before he couldn't go into manual zoom with his camera cause if he tried to zoom that fast manually it could damage the motor, or at least put more wear and tear on it. But that was probably his type of camera then.

Yes, that's probably true for his particular camcorder. It's not true of *all* camcorders, though.

Well I could invest in a better camera and lens, but since I usually get a cinematographer or DP to shoot my projects, is it worth it, as back up?

In your case, probably not.

But is there any reason to upgrade the gear if most of my projects, I usually get someone else to shoot them?

Not really. If you usually get someone else to shoot them, then there's only two things you really need:

1. a business card
2. a phone number

-- you can make an entire career for yourself in the film industry with just those two items.

I thought maybe the lens could use an upgrade since I don't know any DPs with lenses that go up to 300 so far and then they could just use mine. But what do you think about a camera upgrade, if I plan on using separate DPs or videographers?

As far as lenses go, you really should just rent them as you need them.

And no, you really don't need a camera upgrade in your case. Forget I even mentioned it. Your plan to use separate DPs or videographers is actually quite solid. Just be sure to let them do their jobs, and let them make the decisions about technical matters. That's what they're there for.

Oh okay thanks. It's just the ones I work with so far, do not have a telephoto lens which is what I want. But the rental stores are often booked up in advance, and shoot dates change a lot so I thought it would be better to just have the telephoto lens ready to go for the DP for any shoot date change, which is why I was thinking of selling this one to buy a better one.

Just be aware that your EF 75-300 is really not a very good lens and therefore does not have much resale value. It's worth about $20 as a trade-n at B&H:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/trade-in.jsp/view/item/id/1564/BI/2855/KBID/3801 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/trade-in.jsp/view/item/id/1564/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801)

You could put it on Ebay and maybe get $100 if you're lucky. My point is, you're going to have a hard time getting any money for it. It may be worth more to you to keep it as a back-up, or give it away to a friend or family member.

If you want to buy a better telephoto lens, several excellent suggestions have already been made to you so that you can make a good purchase decision. No matter how much or how little you want to spend, any change would be an improvement.

Okay thanks. Well some of the suggestions were more costly, and I want a lens that is on the sharper side, since this lens is quite soft when maximized to it's long length. What about the Tamron-100-400? Is that one sharp at the long end, since people have been saying mine is too soft looking zoomed in all the way?

Or maybe, the lens isn't as soft as some make it out to be to the point of unacceptable, maybe soft is okay?

What about these shots, zoomed in at 300mm, are they too soft?


Birds - YouTube

teal and orange test footage - YouTube

Ryan - I don't do DSLR video, but I've just popped my quite nice but modestly priced Sigma 70-300mm zoom on my DSLR. hopefully this will give you something compare against yours.

Opened a window, sat the thing on the edge and shot some flowers about 3m away, and then refocussed across the road - so both ends of the focus range. Hope it helps as a comparison. 1080 .avi original straight from the camera.
300mm Sigma stills zoom test on DSLR on Vimeo
IMGP0547 on Vimeo

Your footage seems to be a little sharper than mine on the glass maybe... What do you think?

I'm not sure. As I never take video, I was a bit surprised how narrow the DoF actually was. Focusing on those flowers was ridiculously hard on the screen. Through the lens for stills it's easy. Those stems on the flowers are inches apart, yet making one sharp was quite difficult, so in your clips, is the softness just that the focus point is slightly off? I'll try it again today with my normal video camera and see if the difference is obvious, quality wise at the long focal length.

Very short, but here is the 300mm sigma lens on my DSLR fully zoomed in against my 1/3" JVC wit Canon KT14x4.1 lens,

statue test on Vimeo

Didn't do any tweaking, but probably should have checked the colour temp - but the sharpness of the lens and small sensor on the JVC camcorder knock spots off the DSLR and average lens - AND I had to use 1/16 ND filter too!


EDIT
nice day today, so I went into the store and gathered up all the cameras I could find power cables for, and thought I'd have a play. Oldest a Betacam with a really nice lens with 2X capability. Then a JVC 5100 - 4:3 SD, then a small consumer HD handicam plush DSLR and the JVC 750. I strung them together. I had grief getting SD in - the picture on the monitor in composite was clean on the two old-ons, but got some strange noise patterns int he transfer. I also expanded the SD images to fill the HD frame. Not sure it proves anything apart from the 2 X extender works damn well.

MIXED CAMS on Vimeo

Oh okay. I don't think mine was out of focus, I was just told by another filmmaker that non-cine lenses are too soft if zoomed in all the way to 300mm if that's true, especially Canon ones he said. But it looks that soft in all my footage so far, so I don't think it's a slightly out of focus issue.

I was just told by another filmmaker that non-cine lenses are too soft if zoomed in all the way to 300mm

Actually that's a highly misleading statement which is not necessarily true.

There are plenty of still-photo zoom lenses that are just as sharp as cine zooms. In fact, some cine zooms are simply re-housed still-photo zooms that have lens control rings and other "cine" features added to them.

What's really happening here is something that I've tried to explain to you before, but you just don't seem to get it.

Your particular lens -- that Canon EF 75-300 -- is at the *bottom* of the optical quality food chain. It performs poorly at either end of its zoom range, but most noticeably at full telephoto.

Once again: your lens is very poor. *Any change* would be an improvement. You could stay within the Canon brand and get excellent results, without having to resort to the exorbitant cost of a cine zoom.

Look, Ryan, right now you have the worst telephoto zoom you could possibly own. You made a mistake when you bought that thing. Most likely you were lured in by its very low price. Hopefully now you realize that you get what you pay for.

At the opposite end of the lens spectrum is the Canon CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L S cine zoom. You can read more about it in my Cinema EOS buyer's guide located here (https://www.dvinfo.net/article/buyers_guides/buyers-guide-canon-cinema-eos-lenses.html#cinezoom). It costs $45,000. It's definitely out of my budget, and probably out of yours, too.

In between are a *wide variety* of Canon lenses that reach 300mm (or more) that can be had for less than $2,000. Other DVi members have already pointed out some of them. I mentioned one that's very good and only costs $500, but you didn't like it because it's "fly by wire." Well, sure it is. You know what else it is? It's infinitely preferable to the cheap lens you're using right now.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here, but I'll mention it anyway: there's also a super-telephoto Canon L-series prime that will do exactly what you want, and it's compatible with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, and it's about as sharp as you can get at 300mm for well under $1500:

Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Super Telephoto Prime (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/129188-USA/Canon_2530A004_Telephoto_EF_300mm_f_4_0L.html)

Hope this helps,

The Canon series of telephoto lenses for stills cameras, the 300mm f2.8 and upwards, have be converted for use as cine lenses pretty much since they first came out. This involved changing the mount to the ones used on 16 and 35mm film cameras and are still found on high end digital cinema cameras.

The Canon 150-600mm zoom lens is also used.

The Canon 150-600mm zoom lens is also used.

Actually that's a Tamron or Sigma brand with an EF mount.

Canon doesn't make an EF 150-600.

Okay thanks. How is the Sigma for constant aperture or focusing while zooming though, not very good I'm guessing?

As for the lens I have now with the spot on, I am in the middle of shooting a documentary project with it and need to continue with it now. But what should I do about the spot? The store doesn't have any 300mm to rent for these telephoto shots. I suppose I could buy one, and then return it, since the store lets you try it out..

Or I could use the one I have, but I will have to go through every frame and try to cover up the spot later though.

Do not do anything that requires to try to fix a problem frame by frame. After a second's worth of footage you will want to jump off a building.

Well I've done it before with a different camera once, where there was a spot on the sensor that I had to remove from someone face for quite a few frames. That's why when it comes to frame by frame work, I prefer to shoot at 24 fps, as it's the least amount of frames... What can I do then?

Yes but that's "a few frames." Really think about what going through minutes of footage having to do that would be like.

Yeah I just don't know what else to do cause I need a long lens to capture the animals and cannot get another one in time on their budget.

I mean ultimately it's up to you. I don't know how long final product is supposed to be or how much of it will be animal footage but just be warned it will be awful doing that correction. Maybe you can motion track or maybe you'll have a bunch of static shots so the spot doesn't move and you apply the effect to clips instead of having to keyframe it frame by frame.

Some of the shots, it's hidden if there is a lot of detail around, but the ones of clear blue sky, it's noticeable. I can see what they say as well.

I still might want a better quality lens for future projects though, one that is acceptably sharp while fully zoomed in. The Sigma 150-600 is a bit steep for me in price and not sure if I would need a lens that zooms all the way to 600mm. What about the Tamron 100-400. Is it sharp in it's full zoomed in form?

Forgot to say the other day. In your clip the other day, the thing that I noticed was not the slight softness, which after all could be probably improved if you close the aperture a bit, or open it, as definition is related to the iris - but the wobble and jerks. The absolutely critical thing is pans and tilts. At long focal lengths you MUST resist the temptation to move if you have a poor pan and tilt head. People would rather see less creature and more smoothness. Going in close requires a very good camera support. Have you sorted this before collecting too much material?

Actually that's a Tamron or Sigma brand with an EF mount.

Canon doesn't make an EF 150-600.

This may be an old lens, I got this from the Panavision rental catalogue, so it may be well Panavised over the years.

I recall a Canon zoom lens with the same range that Optex in the UK used to modify when they they were in business. They converted the whole range of Canon telephoto lenses with the Universal mount system, so that you could switch to which ever camera mount you needed - there were a lot more mounts on film cameras in the past not just PL or PV.

After dragging all my old cameras out, I thought I'd have a bit of a comparison with all the lenses. I've come to the conclusion that every one is well matched to the lens supplied with it, but less good on each others. The 750, for example has the same mount as the 200 and 100 series but the sense from the 750 is less sharp on the 100+200 series, which have lower maximum definition. Their lenses are softer on the 750. I repeated this with the older cameras in SD. The 5100 I have performs worse on the lens on the older 500, yet it's lens is less good then the 5100's. I've never noticed this before and assume that the kit lenses are designed to bring out the best in each one.

Ryan's post has caused me to spend some money and buy an adaptor for the JVC ⅓" mount so I can attach the B4 lenses I still have from older broadcast cameras to it. They'll be soft, of course, not being HD glass, but the magnification from the smaller sensor, plus the 2X adaptor should give me some very long lenses. The adaptor is purely a limo of alloy - so I'm going to lose definition due to the glass but also because of the small sensor. I wonder how bad it will be? A colleague with one says it is not good, BUT, he also refused to sell his adaptor to me as he uses it all the time - so it's worth a punt!

Your fault, Ryan - you owe me £125!

Ah. Its all coming together now. Ryan is some sort of freelance marketing shill. Well done, various corporations.

This may be an old lens, I got this from the Panavision rental catalogue, so it may be well Panavised over the years.

Indeed, long ago there was a Canon 150-600 in FD mount:

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/nfd258.html

Looks like it's been a previous topic of discussion here on DVi:

https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/under-water-over-land/523690-canon-fd-150-600-worth-go-manual.html

Forgot to say the other day. In your clip the other day, the thing that I noticed was not the slight softness, which after all could be probably improved if you close the aperture a bit, or open it, as definition is related to the iris - but the wobble and jerks. The absolutely critical thing is pans and tilts. At long focal lengths you MUST resist the temptation to move if you have a poor pan and tilt head. People would rather see less creature and more smoothness. Going in close requires a very good camera support. Have you sorted this before collecting too much material?

Yeah I only moved the camera to adjust to the animals. However, I figured I would use the good parts of the video where it doesn't jerk so much. I have a fluid head pan and tilt tripod, and I've been able to move the lens successfully with planned actors so far, but when the animals are unpredictable, it's been hard to move with them in parts. But so far I've just been using the sections where it doesn't jerk so much.

As for the aperture, I've been keeping it more closed to get a deeper DOF, so the animals have more room to move around in focus, if that's okay. At 300mm you need quite a closed aperture, since the DOF is so shallow, if you don't, of course.

You probably need a head that will cost a sizeable amount of money for long lens work. Just touching the pan handle moves the image quite a bit with even a very delicate touch.

Don't know if your camera has stabilization but I have gotten good results with my GH5 using 75-300 (600mm effective) with e-stabilization "on" mounted on a $300 tripod and tracking subject with continuous auto-focus on.

GH5 Firmware 2.4 Test (4K) on Vimeo

Oh ok. I dont think the camera has stabilization but tthe lens does.

Does stabilisation work for video? I thought it was only for stills?

On Ryan's lens, IS should be switched *off* when shooting from a tripod.

Otherwise it'll fight the pan. Okay to have it on when handheld, though.

Mark's in-body stab. is designed to work with a tripod. That's the difference.