Here's what's in my arsenal-
1- Canon 17-55 f2.8 is
2- Tokina 11-16 f 2.8
3- Canon 50mm f 1.4
4- Canon 70-200 f2.8 is.

I also have a bunch of older Nikon primes with my Letus, and bought a couple of Nikon to Canon adapters. My favorite Nikon prime is the 105mm f2.8...beautifull lens. I also picked up a Tokina ( Nikon mount) 28-70 f2.8, manual and auto, for my letus. I've used it a few times on my 7d when I needed a little more zoom than the 17-55.
Bruce Yarock

image stabilization
 

great to see everyones opinions on lenses.

regarding image stabilization (IS, VC) how important/critical is this when shooting mostly video with tripod, jib and shoulder rig?

I'm trying to justify the added expense in stabilization lenes.

Thanks.

It uses up batteries, so on tripod I turn it off because it makes no difference.

Panning might look different with it on, depending on the lens. Some lenses have panning detection, some lenses have different IS modes to allow for it.

In general, for film making if there were 2 lenses the same price and one had IS while one had even slightly better glass, I would go for the better glass.

For hand holding IS really does help though.

James,

What are your thoughts on the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with or without stabilization?... the difference is 200 us dollars?

or in other words the lenses would be the same brand, length and f-stop with the only difference being the stabilization.

Thanks

I've been shooting for a while, trying out different lenses. Here's what I've decided (most of what I shoot is interviews and doc style material).

The lens that is on my camera 80% of the time (when not shooting interviews) is the Canon 24-70 2.8. It's a great lens and works well to be able to shoot somewhat wide but be able to have a zoom at the ready.

Next is the Canon 70-200 2.8. This is my go to for interviews. Creates a beautifully shallow image. If the interviewee isn't moving too much and the camera can remain stationary, this is a great lens for interviews. If I need to move the camera during the interview or if the person keeps moving in and out of focus I'll go back to the 24-70.

Finally the Canon 50mm 1.8. Great lens for lower light, or when you don't need a zoom (planned shots). I think it's about the best bang for the buck that I've found.

So right now those are the three that I have with me at all times.

Maybe this is crazy, but I've started shooting my TV show (two guys just talking about a movie they just saw) with the Canon 50mm 1.8.

It is great with no light outside a movie theater at night. And anyone around us are just a blur.

But my favorite lens right now is the Lensbaby 2.0. I just haven't figured out where I'm going to use it for my work. It was cheap on Amazon, so, I bought it last month.

I speculate that you could shoot handheld with it for several minutes and maintain follow focus pretty well within the sweet spot. I did this walking around the yard following my daughter and the video was very cool.

Anyone using the Lensbaby for video?

If you just look at the numbers then the VC looks like the only difference, however the general view is that the non-VC variant is sharper and generally a better performer.

The thing about stabilisation is that it becomes more necessary the greater the focal length of the lens, so on a wide to normal lens, it's not a must-have feature in my opinion.

Personally I would take the non VC and spend the money on another lens to fill a gap in your range, but that's just me.

4 lenses already!
 

I have recently purchased a Sigma 150mm maco at HK$4,500 (US$577). It is not just a maco lens for shooting little insects. It produces very sharp image and very good colour. It could be used to shoot portraits and performances. It is used to create a blurred background when I do not want to use the Canon 55-250mm

Tamron 17-50 VC
Canon 55-250mm IS
Canon 24mm f2.8 &
Sigma 150mm maco

Easy for me to chose 3, would want 2 others eventually though.

Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS
Canon 50mm f1.2
Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS mkii

I'm sure I could do almost everything I want with this set, well other than serious macro work.

If I have a choice I would buy most lens fixed/ prime.

Anyway, I now have a 17-50 Tamron, 70-200mm Tamron, 90mm Tamron, 24mm Nikkon and 30mm Sigma.

Out of all these lens, they all have different purpose. If you want three lens, I would suggest just getting one lens that will cover wide to zoom, the sigma 17-70 F2.8 sounds like a good choice. The reason is that it is really hard to just live on 3 lens.

I like the Tamaron 17-50mm but does it need to be VC for it to work with the T2i?

And since I already have a Nikon to Canon mount, can I use the Nikon mounted ones?

You can buy a Nikon to EF adapter from e bay, I bought mine through Kawaphoto, eBay My World - kawaphoto

The tokina 11-16mm 2.8 after checking the uk price i see its about the same price as the 550D body, can it realy be worth the the same..

Thanks! Thats exactly where I got my Nikon to Canon EOS adapter. I currently am using a 28mm f1.8 Nikkor lens. However I want to use the Tamaron 17-50mm but am wondering if since I have the Nikon to Canon mount, I could use the Nikon mounted version instead of the Canon. Reason being because I can find the Nikon versions substantially cheaper..

Terry, I've a Tammy 17-50mm, but it is a EF mount.

My suggestion is that if your main camera is a nikon and "ONLY" use the T2i for filming, sure.

But if your main camera is T2i, and want to save a little money by using the nikon mount, it doesn't seems logical to me. As you will lose the AF function for still image on the T2i.

Another suggestion, buy a used one on Ebay, I bought a 90mm on Ebay before and it works perfectly.

The T2i is my main filming camera as of now and hardly used for photography so as you suggested the Tamron would work for this application. I just wanted to make sure that the choice of Nikon mount instead of Canon mount would work for film..but you do bring up a good point about the AF which might be a good thing to have if I wanted to do some photography...which is likely.

Thanks for your time!

I gotta add another vote for the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII. Last 3 music videos and the zombie flick i keep spamming were done mostly on those two lenses.

For lens #3? i'm undecided. Probably a 50mm 1.4. 1.8 is probably bright enough, but the focus ring sucks.

I think the 24-70 F2.8L is a must-have lens, it is a little expensive but the quality of the glass and the image that it produce worth every single penny.

I know it does not have IS, but it really doesn't need it if you use it on a monopod or a tripod which you have to do anyway when you're shooting video with DSLR.

Hey Andrew, LOVED the interactive zombie film..

However I wasn't feeling the bokeh for either of those lenses...I thought it looked a bit smeary..

i was just wondering... as i have a canon 50mm 1.4... how does the tamron 17-50 2.8 compare to it in low light? if i just set the canon to 2.8 i'll get a precise idea?

i'm going to shoot a feature film with lots of night street scenes, available light... i would hate to get them with only one focal length!

i'm going to get the tamron anyway, but i'm thinking if i should or shouldn't add a sigma 30mm 1.4 for the night street scenes...

With both at maximum aperture, in theory the Tamron lets in one quarter the light of the Canon. Two stops is a lot.

Not really. A rough idea exposure wise at best.

It's always hard to get a clean image at night with only available light, even with a f/1.4 lens. You need all the light you can get for best results

Depends how important the results. If you don't mind higher ISO's you might get by with a f/2.8 zoom.

The problem your going to have shooting at 1.4 is that very little of your frame will actually be in focus. 1.4 with a 50mm lens will give you a sliver dof that is pretty much unusable except for cool little detail shots. I've noticed tons of people trying to shoot this way and having an overly out of focus image just isn't appealing. To be honest it looks pretty amateurish to me.

BTW to all... don't know if anyone noticed that sigma released a 17-50mm with image stabilation (OS) a couple months ago. I prefer sigm to tamron for build quality so I would give that one a look if you're in the market. Unfortunately it doesn't have full time manual which the expensive canon does.

You're right Scott. There is a lot of stuff out there that demonstrates the fashion for out of focus DLSR shots.

Your point about shooting at f/1.4 is correct, but let's look at the numbers. Taking a 50mm lens, a subject at 10 feet from the lens at f/1.4 has a depth of field of 0.69 feet. Stepping up to f/2.8, you have 1.29 feet, roughly double.

Both depths of fields are difficult to manage without looking, as you say, amateurish. However, working with half the depth of field yields quadruple the light, which looks like a good trade off. At least you have the option of splitting the difference and shooting at f/2.

The point being, you can never have too fast glass, especially for the stated goal of shooting at night using available light. Also worth bearing in mind that typically, lenses start to become sharper when stopped down a couple of clicks. In other words, if you do decide to shoot at f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens will typically be sharper than the native f/2.8 lens.

Interesting insights... the thing with high iso is that it gets very color noisy! Not nice...

Found a review on the Sigma, not favored when compared to the Tamron!

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens Review

That's interesting... I wonder if the reviewer got a crap copy of the sigma... It seems I've rarely read a review where a tamron has siginifigantly outperformed a sigma... good info though...

Hey James,

Would love to know where I can learn that math...calculating dof based on aperture and lens would be a great thing to know... Does your calculation take into account the sensor size? My understanding is that the same lens used at the same aperture and focal length on a t2i and 5d will yield a shallower dof on the 5d due to the 5ds enormous sensor. Is this correct?

Yes sensor size is part of the calculation. As you say, the bigger the sensor the shallower the DOF, other things being equal.

I don't think the maths is that hard to learn, but why bother when you can get a computer to do the work? Here are two useful online calculators that will enable you to pose as a ninja photo nerd:

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Field Of View Calculator

you... rule...

What do you think about getting "the three Canon low-light primes"?

I mean...

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8

... and maybe cheat in a Tokina 11-16 for ulta wide shots.

Do you think that set would work?