Which Lenses that works with both 5D and T2i ?

[David St. Juskow]

so if I need a good wide lens for this camera, not a fisheye, but a nice wide lens, what's the

-widest
-sharpest
-fastest
-cheapest

(combo of all of the above) option there? The Tokina 11-16? Is there a decent wide prime lens for this camera, so that I could maybe get a wide prime and then a decent standard-to-telefoto zoom and cover my bases with those two (I can always rent lenses for more specific purposes)?

I say wide prime because I don't really need to zoom with a wide shot, so why add the extra glass and cost there? Seems smarter to let that be a prime and then use the zoom where it's truly useful...

[John Vincent]

Originally Posted by Fei Meng

Review of the lens: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens Review

Thank you Fei! Lot's of info - bottom line seems to be that's it a good bang for the buck...

john

[Andy Wilkinson]

David, If you look in the 7D section you'll see lots of recent discussion about wide angles for crop sensor Canons. Not all (hardly any) of the suggestions will fit a full frame like the 5D (as per the title of this thread).

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...ide-angle.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...ve-2-mind.html

[Kin Lau]

@David,

The Tokina 11-17 is pretty well the only lens that meets the description. Lots of wides, but few are fast, and then only one that's cheapish.

It's not the fastest, widest, cheapest or sharpest, but it's best combo of all four.

[Michael Ojjeh]

Originally Posted by David St. Juskow

(combo of all of the above) option there? The Tokina 11-16? .

Just keep in mind that the Yokina 11-16 only works on T2i-7D Not 5D(Full Frame sensors).

[John Vincent]

Originally Posted by Kin Lau

@David,

The Tokina 11-17 is pretty well the only lens that meets the description. Lots of wides, but few are fast, and then only one that's cheapish.

It's not the fastest, widest, cheapest or sharpest, but it's best combo of all four.

This lens, right?

Amazon.com: Tokina 11-16MM F/2.8 ATX 116 Lens for Canon EOS AF Digital - Tokina ATX116PRODXC: Electronics

 

Amazon.com: Tokina 11-16MM F/2.8 ATX 116 Lens for Canon EOS AF Digital - Tokina ATX116PRODXC: Electronics

...Wouldn't want to buy the wrong one....

john

[Fei Meng]

Originally Posted by Daniel von Euw

@Fei Meng:

For filming is a little bit different because of 16:9 image:

APS-C (like 7D, T2i): 25mm is normal
APS-H (like 1D IV): 31mm is normal
FF (like 5D II): 40mm is normal


Daniel

That's the first time that I've ever seen anyone make that claim. I think that it's irrelevant. There's a reason why I put "wide," "normal," etc. in quotation marks. Labels are practically arbitrary and a matter of convention/consensus.

The 16:9 mode crops the top and bottom. So the horizontal field of view remains unchanged. 50mm provides a "normal" horizontal FOV for FF, whether shooting in 3:2 (for stills) or 16:9.

[Kin Lau]

Originally Posted by John Vincent

This lens, right?
Amazon.com: Tokina 11-16MM F/2.8 ATX 116 Lens for Canon EOS AF Digital - Tokina ATX116PRODXC: Electronics

...Wouldn't want to buy the wrong one....

john

That's the right one. Just make sure that they actually have it in stock.

[Daniel von Euw]

Originally Posted by Fei Meng

The 16:9 mode crops the top and bottom. So the horizontal field of view remains unchanged. 50mm provides a "normal" horizontal FOV for FF, whether shooting in 3:2 (for stills) or 16:9.

For filming only the used height of the sensor / negativ is important for what is normal focal length - the format 3:2, 16:9 or 2,35:1 is only a art decission.

Normal focal lenght = double height of used sensor part.

From the sensor of the 7D / T2i is only 12,5 mm height used for filming = normal focal lenght is 25 mm.

If you shoot 2,35:1 format with the 7D / T2i without a anamorphic lense only 9,5 mm height is used = 19 mm normal focal lenght.


Daniel

[Emil Gustafsson Ryderup]

Ofc I posted this in the wrong topic -- hopefully this is more correct:

If I buy an Nikon series-E adapter, will pretty much every series-e lens work with the 550d withput problem? Or are there some things to consider, like for example not being able to use zoom-lenses or you have to have lenses that are no more than 100mm or something

Or is it a perfect match?

[Fei Meng]

Originally Posted by Daniel von Euw

For filming only the used height of the sensor / negativ is important for what is normal focal length - the format 3:2, 16:9 or 2,35:1 is only a art decission.

Normal focal lenght = double height of used sensor part.

From the sensor of the 7D / T2i is only 12,5 mm height used for filming = normal focal lenght is 25 mm.

If you shoot 2,35:1 format with the 7D / T2i without a anamorphic lense only 9,5 mm height is used = 19 mm normal focal lenght.


Daniel

I've never seen that definition. In still photography, the normal focal length is equivalent to the diagonal of the image format. In cinematography, the normal focal length is equivalent to twice the diagonal of the image format.

Thus, 50mm is considered the "normal" focal length in 35mm cinematography (22mm*16mm frame size). 25mm is "normal" in 16mm cinematography (10.3mm*7.5mm frame size). Just about every cinematography book says this, such as the popular

Kris Malkiewicz and David Mullen book

 

Kris Malkiewicz and David Mullen book

.

[Daniel von Euw]

I try to explain why using "the diagonal of the image format" make no real sense for filming - but my english is not very good.

Let us compare a FF sensor (36mm * 24mm) with an fictive 2,35:1 sensor with a size of 39,81mm * 16,94mm:

- Both sensors have the same diagonal but different image heights 24mm to 17mm.

- Regarding the still photography definition "equivalent to the diagonal of the image format" on both sensors the normal focal lenght will be 43mm.


If you will understood why the defination "twice of the image height" make more sense and not the still photography definition let us make a medium long shot with both cameras.

If you shoot this medium long shoot from the same disatance with both cameras you must use a wider lense on the 2,35:1 sensor because this sensor is 7mm smaller in height than the FF sensor.

So if you use a 24mm objective on the camera with the FF sensor you must use a 17mm lense on the 2,35:1 sensor to make the same medium long shot from the same position.

The only difference between the 2 shots is that the image is wider - but this is only an art decission.


Daniel

[Daniel von Euw]

@Fei Meng:

Ok - i have found the problem.

The old cinematography definition "twice the diagonal of the image format" for a normal objectiv have nothing to do with a focal lenght that correspondent with normal vertical human viewing angel of 30 degree.

So you have right but for a cameraman is more usefull to knew what is the focal lenght that correspondent with the vertical human viewing angel - that is what i understood under normal focal lenght.


regards
Daniel

[Jon Fairhurst]

For me, I think the height is the critical item. Look at 16x9 TV shows that are also made for 4x3 TV viewing. Rather than letterbox for 4x3 or crop vertically to get 16x9, the 16x9 view gets more width. This makes a lot of sense, because the framing is mainly to get a certain amount of a person's face or body.

When shooting 2.35:1 I would definitely want wider lenses than for 4x3 or 16x9. It's all about how I want to frame the people vertically. The wider aspect simply gives more peripheral view.

[Fei Meng]

Originally Posted by Daniel von Euw

I try to explain why using "the diagonal of the image format" make no real sense for filming

Your "twice the height" definition makes no sense, and your comments suggest that you made-up this definition yourself, rather than getting it from professional cinematographers.

Here an implication of your definition: Consider two sensors. One has an active area of 13.3mm*10mm (1.33:1 aspect ratio, the original silent film AR). The other has an active area of 23.9mm*10mm (2.39:1 aspect ratio, which is the true AR of anamorphic productions these days). According to you, a "normal" lens for both sensors would be 20mm. So you're telling me that the same lens approximates human vision even though the second sensor provides a 1.8x wider horizontal field of view?

Regarding the still photography definition "equivalent to the diagonal of the image format" on both sensors the normal focal lenght will be 43mm.

Yes, and that's why 50mm is considered "normal" in the still photography world.

You cinematography definition "twice the diagonal of the image format" is nonsens because the normal focal lenght after this defination will be 86mm.

My definition is the one that professional cinematographers, working in such major industry venues as Hollywood, use. In fact, 86mm for "normal" is not nonsense. The reason why you don't see cinematographers using and talking about that number is because nobody shoots in VistaVision (which has the same frame size as full frame) anymore.

Your argument here is self-defeating because there's no such thing as 39.8mm*16.9mm image format.

Normal focal lenght for 16mm or 2/3" Video is 14mm/13mm not 25mm.

Who says this? The source that I cited is a book written by two professionals. One of them is a professor of film. The other is a major Hollywood cinematographer. Maybe conventions are different in Germany, but I have no way of knowing unless you cite your sources.

If you will understood why the defination "twice of the image height" make more sense and not the still photography definition let us make a medium long shot with both cameras.

If you shoot this medium long shoot from the same disatance with both cameras you must use a wider lense on the 2,35:1 sensor because this sensor is 7mm smaller in height than the FF sensor.

So if you use a 24mm objective on the camera with the FF sensor you must use a 17mm lense on the 2,35:1 sensor to make the same medium long shot from the same position.

You have a point here, but the problem is that when cinematographers compose an image, the horizontal FOV is more important than the vertical FOV. In the days before widescreen, when close-ups were used far more sparingly and shots were held for longer, cinematographers had to resort to medium shots just to be able to fit more actors into the frame at one time.

Directors in classical Hollywood cinema loved (and, I would say, preferred) to compose shots in which most or all of the key characters in every scene were in view most of the time. The aesthetic advantages of this approach are obvious: It allowed the director to better establish spacial relationships between characters and their environment and between each other. Those relationships were then used to express the themes or emotions that the director wished to convey in the scene.

I find that to be superior to the dominant conventions today, which favor more close-ups and shorter shot durations. These have the effect of isolating the characters from each other and from their environment, while bringing them closer to the audience. I believe that the proliferation of widescreen is partly to blame for this change in aesthetic, because directors and cinematographers realized that they could fit more information in a frame without losing the sense of intimacy that they wanted for the characters.

And perhaps everyone got used to tighter shots, to the point that tighter shots became preferred, which naturally led to faster cuts in order to allow the camera to show more of the space within a scene. That, combined with the popularization of shallow depth-of-field and flatter compositions, has ultimately resulted in the ironic development of a modern aesthetic in which the average shot conveys much less information than typical shots from classical Hollywood.

So in the end, when considering field of view and image format, what matters most to most cinematographers and directors is not what sort of shot (medium, long, close-up) they want, but rather what information they want to convey in the shot. And that's why you can't downplay the difference between two image formats by saying that one is only wider than the other. It's not "only an art decision"; it has major implications for storytelling.

By the way, legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins discusses the "normal lens" issue on his forum and his own idea of "normal" for 35mm cinematography is 32mm. (He considers 27mm to be "wide" due to the distortion in close-ups.) Really, the labels are more or less arbitrary for experienced shooters. But presenting good information is important for beginners, since they have no frame of reference. What's the use of telling them at 25mm is "normal" for an APS-C camera like T2i/550D when nobody else in the world uses that convention?