Your choices for filmmaking, covering from 24/28mm to 200mm, with 1.5k at DVinfo.net

Roberto Lanczos · September 29th, 2009, 03:47 PM

I gotta be honest, i haven't pre ordered my 7D yet.

some would say it's kind of stupid to be stucked in the 1.6x CROP factor dilemma,
and i should just go for it. But it's true, i just can get out of the hole with 1.5k.
mostly because i would like to go as fast as possible with my budget.

about the (Which lenses for video) thread,
there's very useful information, and some definitive candidats on a budget,
but i feel like there's still something missing for narrative.

It's very likely that i end up with the tamron 17-50 in my list.
that would cover 27-80, right?

but still i would love to hear some opinions.
thank you very much.

I hope deep in my heart i'm not contaminating the 7D forum with this question

Bill Pryor · September 29th, 2009, 04:07 PM

Best thing to do, I think, is to try to quit translating lenses from 35mm still camera negative size into APS-C size. A 17mm is a fairly wide angle in this world. It's like going metric in the U.S.--easy when you quit translating. Do motion picture cameramen translate, or is a 30-ish mm lens thought of as "normal."

Anyway, that Tamron lens looks pretty good to me. Are you talking about the current one or the more expensive model that has IS (they call it VC instead of IS)? I think it's about $200 more. At the moment it's only available for the Nikon, but it's supposed to be here any day for the Canon. Only disadvantage I can see, which really isn't much of a disadvantage, is that it won't work on a bigger chip camera should you ever want to use it that way. Personally, I think that because the APS-C size chip is very close to Academy standard 4-perf motion picture negative size, the 7D might be overall more pleasant to use for video than a non-crop chip. Maybe somebody will start making more affordable cine lenses. Then you wouldn't have to think about the crop factor at all.

September 29th, 2009, 03:47 PM	#1
Roberto Lanczos Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 113	Your choices for filmmaking, covering from 24/28mm to 200mm, with 1.5k I gotta be honest, i haven't pre ordered my 7D yet. some would say it's kind of stupid to be stucked in the 1.6x CROP factor dilemma, and i should just go for it. But it's true, i just can get out of the hole with 1.5k. mostly because i would like to go as fast as possible with my budget. about the (Which lenses for video) thread, there's very useful information, and some definitive candidats on a budget, but i feel like there's still something missing for narrative. It's very likely that i end up with the tamron 17-50 in my list. that would cover 27-80, right? but still i would love to hear some opinions. thank you very much. I hope deep in my heart i'm not contaminating the 7D forum with this question

September 29th, 2009, 04:07 PM	#2
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Best thing to do, I think, is to try to quit translating lenses from 35mm still camera negative size into APS-C size. A 17mm is a fairly wide angle in this world. It's like going metric in the U.S.--easy when you quit translating. Do motion picture cameramen translate, or is a 30-ish mm lens thought of as "normal." Anyway, that Tamron lens looks pretty good to me. Are you talking about the current one or the more expensive model that has IS (they call it VC instead of IS)? I think it's about $200 more. At the moment it's only available for the Nikon, but it's supposed to be here any day for the Canon. Only disadvantage I can see, which really isn't much of a disadvantage, is that it won't work on a bigger chip camera should you ever want to use it that way. Personally, I think that because the APS-C size chip is very close to Academy standard 4-perf motion picture negative size, the 7D might be overall more pleasant to use for video than a non-crop chip. Maybe somebody will start making more affordable cine lenses. Then you wouldn't have to think about the crop factor at all.