If you could only use 3 lenses....

Aaron Jones · March 10th, 2010, 10:41 AM

Great to see so many posts on this thread. I received my 550D a couple of days ago along with a canon 50mm f1.4 and so far so good.

My main aim in starting this thread was primarily for those just starting out in the vDSLR territory (and like me this cam would have been their first purchase). For me the glass is more important that the body, so my money will probably be spent there. Thank you for everyone who has so far contributed to this thread, it is very insightful for me and hopefully others who are using this cam.

Kenneth Tong · March 10th, 2010, 08:45 PM

Dear Aaron,

Thank you for putting such a good topic for discussion. For hobby video like me there is no need to keep too many lenses. 2 - 3 lens will be enough.

Besides, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is also a very goods lens. I do not have it. It has low light capibility which may be better than my prievous choice of Canon 24mm f2.8.

Enjoy your new purchase!

Kenneth

Aaron Almquist · March 10th, 2010, 09:48 PM

As soon as i get my T2i I'll be purchasing the Canon 50mm 1.4. I shoot alot of weddings and i absoutly need a fast low light capable lens. I think we should all realize that fixed focal length lenses are the way to go. While we have more play with tele lenses i don't think its possible to get the same "look" you can get out of a fixed focal length lens. The less glass the better in other words.

David Chilson · March 10th, 2010, 11:26 PM

Ha! Three lenses? Who do you think you're kidding? The only reason to own three lenses is you haven't saved enough for four. Or you made that fatal mistake and have promised your wife/better half that with "just" three lenses you will be all set for life. Silly boy. You then find yourself hiding lenses because you are pretty sure she couldn't tell them apart but she CAN count to four. Hint: If you did that make sure one of your lens purchases is a white Canon lens because one day you WILL want one of those and you can bet your bottom dollar she knows the difference between white and black.

Red ring around the end of the lens could be problematic depending how close she inspects your stuff so you should probably get one of those too. Over the last couple of decades I have bought and sold dozens of lenses and at last count I have 11. Now I am looking at the new 70-200 2.8 to get me back to 12. I do have two ex wives and agree that three should be the limit, but not for lenses.

J. Chris Moore · March 10th, 2010, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sareesh Sudhakaran

First of all, let me thank you for the fantastic answer.

I personally like the wider lens (21-28mm - 35mm) range and feel. Somehow it seems more visceral. Your suggestions are spot on. I might go for the three zoom lenses in my kit and when required, hire/buy the prime lens/additional lens as required.

However, I'm seriously reconsidering DSLRs as a whole because of Barry Greens inputs regarding the low lines of resolution and poor blow-up to cinema screens.

Not sure who Barry Greens is but you should check out this article from Phillip Bloom about his trip to Skywalker Ranch.

The tale of Lucasfilm, Skywalker Ranch, Star Wars and Canon DSLRs on a 40 foot screen! | Philip Bloom

If George frickin Lucas and Quentin Tarantino are impressed with the capability of the 7d (and assumably the T2i) to hold up on the big screen, that's enough to convince me.

Brandon Paschal · March 13th, 2010, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron Jones

Great to see so many posts on this thread. I received my 550D a couple of days ago along with a canon 50mm f1.4 and so far so good.

My main aim in starting this thread was primarily for those just starting out in the vDSLR territory (and like me this cam would have been their first purchase). For me the glass is more important that the body, so my money will probably be spent there. Thank you for everyone who has so far contributed to this thread, it is very insightful for me and hopefully others who are using this cam.

I too just got into DSLR video and secondarily shoot stills. The videos I shoot are often in uncontrolled lighting situations and cover a variety of situations. I figured that Canon f2.8 17-55 would be best for me. After about 2 weeks (which is the amount of time I have to try it before no longer being able to return it to the 1 local store), I am returning it to try and see how I do with a few primes at the same price point. The 17-55 was great and I certainly love not having to swap lenses for different applications, but I've learned in my brief experience taking it beyond 800 and max 1600 ISO generates a bit of noise in some of the situations in which I find myself.

So ... I am targeting picking up the Canon f1.4 50mm [ to see how that goes. I then plan on either for a wider (Tokina 11-17 2.8) or longer fast prime (Canon 1.8 85mm, Canon 2 100mm). It's tough to know what I want given I'm not sure exactly what I'll be shooting; but if nothing else I'll get some more practice with the primes and have a bit of variety. Apparently knowing your style and applications are direct inputs for this whole decision thing.

Canon 17-55mm 2.8 = ~$1000
Canon 50mm f1.4 = ~400
Canon 85mm f1.8 = ~450
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 =~ 600

I'm definitely interested in others' thoughts between the zooms and the primes!! (I too appreciate the discussion)

Gabe Hoeffken · March 16th, 2010, 02:27 PM

After much deliberation and hours reading posts / reviews here and elsewhere I have ordered 3 lenses.

Sigma 30mm 1.4 (APS-C)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (APS-C)

I was originally going to get the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC, (I think it was around $650) but after reading how the focus control was short and touchy as well as that is was focus motor was loud I began looking at the Canon version ($1060). Frustrated that I would be spending over a grand on a APS-C specific lens I began looking at the Canon L 2.8 wide angle zoom which was around $1500 w/ no image stabilizatoin.

I eventually decided against getting a fast wide zoom for now as I do not have enough experience to know what lenses will be best suited to me.

I instead picked up the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS which is a good still photo lens (same range as the Nikon lens which lives on my D80) and has the range of 2 or 3 fast (2.8) zooms.

I will post more when all my gear arrives later this week.

Gabe

Brandon Paschal · March 16th, 2010, 07:01 PM

Gabe,

I feel your pain on the cost of the lens, but after moving to the prime (Canon 1.4 50mm), I miss the flexibility the 2.8 17-55mm provided. So ... I have officially gone 180 and am considering the 17-55 and the 24-70. I can attest to the 1.4 50mm being very good - but the ring can be a bit noisy in my opinion. For what it's worth, I've gone back and forth on this thing for a bit and have decided that I need both the fast zoom and the 50mm prime.

With that whole zoom decision, I never know if i might upgrade, so I'm strongly considering the L-series lens - just to future proof it (as best I can).

Hope that might provide a bit of insight from someone sharing in the same decision-making process!!

Craig Irving · March 17th, 2010, 09:33 AM

I've noticed a lot of people are choosing to double-down on the 50mm focal length. They seem to cover it as part of their zoom range, and yet they also get the Canon 1.8 or 1.4 prime. I do understand that the Canon is a terrific bargain, and it's faster than most zooms.

But I guess my question is, should I be considering that as my next lens, or should I opt for a Tokina 11-16mm. I just bought the Tamron 17-50mm so far and it so far it seems great. Is there any reason to get the Canon 50mm if the Tamron is already covers that length and is a 2.8mm?

What I was REALLY hoping was that the Tamron (since designed for EF-S style mounts) already took into consideration the crop factor (like the Tokina is rumoured to have done) and that it was actually 17-50mm, while the Canon would be around 70mm after crop factor. But I've been told that that's untrue and that aside from the light issue, the Canon 50mm will have the exact same focal length as my Tamron at max telephoto. I suppose there may be a sharpness advantage though?

If Tokina already took into consideration the range, it must be a BIG difference between 16mm Tokina and 17mm Tamron, am I understanding that correctly?

Stan Chase · March 17th, 2010, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Irving

But I guess my question is, should I be considering that as my next lens, or should I opt for a Tokina 11-16mm. I just bought the Tamron 17-50mm so far and it so far it seems great. Is there any reason to get the Canon 50mm if the Tamron is already covers that length and is a 2.8mm?

As far as getting another 50mm, I think it depends on how much low available light shooting you plan on doing. I haven't had a problem so far with my 17-55mm f2.8 at 50mm, but I don't shoot inside museums, churches, etc.

My next lens will be either a f4L or f2.8L 70-200mm IS. If I can find a great deal on a f2.8 from an owner who's upgrading to the II version, I'll get that.

This will give me a two lens 17-200mm at f2.8 with IS and L quality glass. Canon's EF-S consumer superzoom lens is an 18-200mm, but with a variable aperture of f3.5-5.6. This range seems to be the most popular for covering most everything.

Andy Wilkinson · March 17th, 2010, 11:53 AM

Stan, regarding your comment ...

"On the ultrawides, I've read reports of problems with moire on the Tokina for video and that the Canon 10-22mm does better in this regard."

I personally think this is a red herring (= incorrect information) and I have posted about this on that other forum where the comment appeared on (you may well have seen it elsewhere, I don't know). However, I don't believe the originators of those comments, wherever they are posted, understand some of the limitations of the DSLR technology that they are using and how best to use ultra-wide angles with these limitations in mind.

I just don't want false information circulating on DVinfo (but I'm willing to be proved wrong if someone can show us EVIDENCE that the Tokina 11-16 has more moire problems than the Canon 10-22). For the record I own the latter (and a 7D).

OK, let's hopefully see the thread return to it's great main subject!!!

Robert Turchick · March 17th, 2010, 12:36 PM

As I have posted a few times already, I'm afraid I have changed my mind again!
This is the problem with having to shoot a lot of different styles.

My 50mm 1.4 is on the camera 90% of the time. Just love the look and with the z-finder I'm starting to nail rack focus effects!

I have the 70-200 f4L and it's wonderful too but for a very different use and on tripod only.

Last...ok NEXT lens (assuming they are going to make enough of them) will be the 11-16 Tokina. A buddy of mine has one and raves about it.

And then there's the 24-70 f2.8 L from Canon.
And then the 100mm f2.8 L Macro
And then the Tamron 200-500
And then...
And then...
And then...

(sorry for the Dude, Where's my Car reference!)

Brandon Paschal · March 17th, 2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Irving

I've noticed a lot of people are choosing to double-down on the 50mm focal length. They seem to cover it as part of their zoom range, and yet they also get the Canon 1.8 or 1.4 prime. I do understand that the Canon is a terrific bargain, and it's faster than most zooms.

But I guess my question is, should I be considering that as my next lens, or should I opt for a Tokina 11-16mm. I just bought the Tamron 17-50mm so far and it so far it seems great. Is there any reason to get the Canon 50mm if the Tamron is already covers that length and is a 2.8mm?

This is a good point - and I struggled with the potential "duplicate focal length," but I've learned that with the unpredictability of the lighting - the speed of the 1.4 is ideal ...

... which brings me to my next question. Any thoughts on the EF-S f2.8 17-55 vs EF 24-70 (L series). Is the extra with at the wide end worth it? vs the "L-series" extra $300.

Thoughts?!?

Stan Chase · March 17th, 2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Wilkinson

Stan, regarding your comment ..."On the ultrawides, I've read reports of problems with moire on the Tokina for video and that the Canon 10-22mm does better in this regard."I personally think this is a red herring (= incorrect information) and I have posted about this on that other forum where the comment appeared on (you may well have seen it elsewhere, I don't know).

Andy, I've removed the comment from my post. I certainly don't want incorrect info spread. Thanks, Stan

G. Lee Gordon · March 17th, 2010, 10:39 PM

OK Guys and Gals... New to the HDSLR scene so I've been doing my home work and I have a question for you folks. Everywhere I've researched they all say the same, Canon 50mm1.8, 1.4 if you can afford it, the Tokina's, the Sigma's, Tamron's etc, etc. Pretty much verbatim of what has been mentioned in this thread. And, this is agreed upon, accross the board thoughout several forums and indie circles. I have even seen awesome footage!

I was ready to purchase my new lens, until I came across one blog that completely changed my perspective. I researched what he said and tend to lean toward his advice. Basically he mentioned the lenses that we all want and said that if you want to shoot for the big screen, none of them can hold thier weight. The Canon 50mm1.4 comes close but still doesn't look sharp(he used that word a lot) on the big screen.

For internet indie work, broadcast TV, they are fine, but according to him for the big screen you need to get into Zeiss or Leica. The only lens that came close to the ones we mention are the older Nikon lenses.

I'm apologizing beforehand because , for the life of me, I can't find that blog. But, was wondering what you good folks felt about that. And let me narrow my question to people who have successfully shot a film for the big screen or who's focus is cinematography.

March 10th, 2010, 08:45 PM	#32
Kenneth Tong Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 71	Good topic Dear Aaron, Thank you for putting such a good topic for discussion. For hobby video like me there is no need to keep too many lenses. 2 - 3 lens will be enough. Besides, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is also a very goods lens. I do not have it. It has low light capibility which may be better than my prievous choice of Canon 24mm f2.8. Enjoy your new purchase! Kenneth

March 10th, 2010, 11:26 PM	#34
David Chilson Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Walworth, NY Posts: 292	Wives, not lenses. Ha! Three lenses? Who do you think you're kidding? The only reason to own three lenses is you haven't saved enough for four. Or you made that fatal mistake and have promised your wife/better half that with "just" three lenses you will be all set for life. Silly boy. You then find yourself hiding lenses because you are pretty sure she couldn't tell them apart but she CAN count to four. Hint: If you did that make sure one of your lens purchases is a white Canon lens because one day you WILL want one of those and you can bet your bottom dollar she knows the difference between white and black. Red ring around the end of the lens could be problematic depending how close she inspects your stuff so you should probably get one of those too. Over the last couple of decades I have bought and sold dozens of lenses and at last count I have 11. Now I am looking at the new 70-200 2.8 to get me back to 12. I do have two ex wives and agree that three should be the limit, but not for lenses. __________________ Dave Chilson www.loc.org

March 16th, 2010, 02:27 PM	#37
Gabe Hoeffken New Boot Join Date: May 2005 Location: Maui, Hawaii USA Posts: 23	What I have ordered After much deliberation and hours reading posts / reviews here and elsewhere I have ordered 3 lenses. Sigma 30mm 1.4 (APS-C) Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (APS-C) I was originally going to get the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC, (I think it was around $650) but after reading how the focus control was short and touchy as well as that is was focus motor was loud I began looking at the Canon version ($1060). Frustrated that I would be spending over a grand on a APS-C specific lens I began looking at the Canon L 2.8 wide angle zoom which was around $1500 w/ no image stabilizatoin. I eventually decided against getting a fast wide zoom for now as I do not have enough experience to know what lenses will be best suited to me. I instead picked up the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS which is a good still photo lens (same range as the Nikon lens which lives on my D80) and has the range of 2 or 3 fast (2.8) zooms. I will post more when all my gear arrives later this week. Gabe

March 16th, 2010, 07:01 PM	#38
Brandon Paschal Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 77	The final verdict ... both! Gabe, I feel your pain on the cost of the lens, but after moving to the prime (Canon 1.4 50mm), I miss the flexibility the 2.8 17-55mm provided. So ... I have officially gone 180 and am considering the 17-55 and the 24-70. I can attest to the 1.4 50mm being very good - but the ring can be a bit noisy in my opinion. For what it's worth, I've gone back and forth on this thing for a bit and have decided that I need both the fast zoom and the 50mm prime. With that whole zoom decision, I never know if i might upgrade, so I'm strongly considering the L-series lens - just to future proof it (as best I can). Hope that might provide a bit of insight from someone sharing in the same decision-making process!! __________________ p-films.com. Canon T2i f2.8 17-55, f1.4 50mm, Cool Lights LEDs

March 17th, 2010, 11:53 AM	#41
Andy Wilkinson Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Cambridge UK Posts: 2,853	Stan, regarding your comment ... "On the ultrawides, I've read reports of problems with moire on the Tokina for video and that the Canon 10-22mm does better in this regard." I personally think this is a red herring (= incorrect information) and I have posted about this on that other forum where the comment appeared on (you may well have seen it elsewhere, I don't know). However, I don't believe the originators of those comments, wherever they are posted, understand some of the limitations of the DSLR technology that they are using and how best to use ultra-wide angles with these limitations in mind. I just don't want false information circulating on DVinfo (but I'm willing to be proved wrong if someone can show us EVIDENCE that the Tokina 11-16 has more moire problems than the Canon 10-22). For the record I own the latter (and a 7D). OK, let's hopefully see the thread return to it's great main subject!!! __________________ Andy K Wilkinson - https://www.shootingimage.co.uk Cambridge (UK) Corporate Video Production

March 10th, 2010, 10:41 AM	#31
Aaron Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 88	Great to see so many posts on this thread. I received my 550D a couple of days ago along with a canon 50mm f1.4 and so far so good. My main aim in starting this thread was primarily for those just starting out in the vDSLR territory (and like me this cam would have been their first purchase). For me the glass is more important that the body, so my money will probably be spent there. Thank you for everyone who has so far contributed to this thread, it is very insightful for me and hopefully others who are using this cam.

March 10th, 2010, 09:48 PM	#33
Aaron Almquist Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Silverton Oregon Posts: 93	As soon as i get my T2i I'll be purchasing the Canon 50mm 1.4. I shoot alot of weddings and i absoutly need a fast low light capable lens. I think we should all realize that fixed focal length lenses are the way to go. While we have more play with tele lenses i don't think its possible to get the same "look" you can get out of a fixed focal length lens. The less glass the better in other words.

March 17th, 2010, 09:33 AM	#39
Craig Irving Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 539	I've noticed a lot of people are choosing to double-down on the 50mm focal length. They seem to cover it as part of their zoom range, and yet they also get the Canon 1.8 or 1.4 prime. I do understand that the Canon is a terrific bargain, and it's faster than most zooms. But I guess my question is, should I be considering that as my next lens, or should I opt for a Tokina 11-16mm. I just bought the Tamron 17-50mm so far and it so far it seems great. Is there any reason to get the Canon 50mm if the Tamron is already covers that length and is a 2.8mm? What I was REALLY hoping was that the Tamron (since designed for EF-S style mounts) already took into consideration the crop factor (like the Tokina is rumoured to have done) and that it was actually 17-50mm, while the Canon would be around 70mm after crop factor. But I've been told that that's untrue and that aside from the light issue, the Canon 50mm will have the exact same focal length as my Tamron at max telephoto. I suppose there may be a sharpness advantage though? If Tokina already took into consideration the range, it must be a BIG difference between 16mm Tokina and 17mm Tamron, am I understanding that correctly?

March 17th, 2010, 12:36 PM	#42
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	As I have posted a few times already, I'm afraid I have changed my mind again! This is the problem with having to shoot a lot of different styles. My 50mm 1.4 is on the camera 90% of the time. Just love the look and with the z-finder I'm starting to nail rack focus effects! I have the 70-200 f4L and it's wonderful too but for a very different use and on tripod only. Last...ok NEXT lens (assuming they are going to make enough of them) will be the 11-16 Tokina. A buddy of mine has one and raves about it. And then there's the 24-70 f2.8 L from Canon. And then the 100mm f2.8 L Macro And then the Tamron 200-500 And then... And then... And then... (sorry for the Dude, Where's my Car reference!) __________________ The older I get, the better I was!

March 17th, 2010, 10:39 PM	#45
G. Lee Gordon Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 431	OK Guys and Gals... New to the HDSLR scene so I've been doing my home work and I have a question for you folks. Everywhere I've researched they all say the same, Canon 50mm1.8, 1.4 if you can afford it, the Tokina's, the Sigma's, Tamron's etc, etc. Pretty much verbatim of what has been mentioned in this thread. And, this is agreed upon, accross the board thoughout several forums and indie circles. I have even seen awesome footage! I was ready to purchase my new lens, until I came across one blog that completely changed my perspective. I researched what he said and tend to lean toward his advice. Basically he mentioned the lenses that we all want and said that if you want to shoot for the big screen, none of them can hold thier weight. The Canon 50mm1.4 comes close but still doesn't look sharp(he used that word a lot) on the big screen. For internet indie work, broadcast TV, they are fine, but according to him for the big screen you need to get into Zeiss or Leica. The only lens that came close to the ones we mention are the older Nikon lenses. I'm apologizing beforehand because , for the life of me, I can't find that blog. But, was wondering what you good folks felt about that. And let me narrow my question to people who have successfully shot a film for the big screen or who's focus is cinematography. __________________ "Get Er Done!!!"