Which of these lenses is better for wide video?

[Corey Benoit]

which of these is a better lense for video? there in my price range, i want a sharp image like the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8....



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/622389-REG/Sigma_861101_18_50mm_f_2_8_4_5_DC_OS.html


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/519475-USA/Canon_2042B002_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html


also i just purchased a used tamron lense...heres the specs



tamron 185d

28-300mm

f/3.5-6.3

auto focus/ manual focus



there is no image stabilization so anything over 200mm is shaky in video and while taking pictures....whats the best way around this?


thanks


EDIT: will this lense be better than the non-image stabilized tamron 185d? and even tho the lense is 58mm does this mean anything considering my other lenses are 72mm?

http://www.adorama.com/CA55250AFSR.html

[Corey Benoit]

Also will follow focus make the video smoother with the tamron 185d lense that doesnt have image stabilization?

[Corey Benoit]

can video be shot on 300mm with no image stabilization?

also what is the sharpest wide angle lense for the 7d and the sharpest zoom-telephono?

[Nathan Wilcox]

I have and use the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non-IS version. I really like this lens and totally recommend it for its constant aperture and sharp optics. It's as wide as I'll ever want to go in a video setting. The issues you'll get with the lenses you've posted are mainly aperture changes throughout the zoom range. If you're just looking for a wide lens, then the Sigma would be my choice of the two for the faster glass. You'll get a hair more play with selective focus, and stopping down to the Canon lens you'll likely be sharper too.

As for the telephoto range -use a tripod. Even with IS, you're working with video and if you're trying to achieve a filmic look beyond voyeuristic or action styles, then you're gonna want to be locked down. I recently shot a film in a church where we had the dolly riding up the center isle, and being an old wooden-floor, the ground was slightly irregular. Even with a 28mm lens the slight motions could be seen in the video. Now when you're talking 300mm, this is going to magnify exponentially, and even the steadiest of hands is going to look like the 'quake of 1906.

[Peter Rhalter]

A good tripod is the best stabilizer of all. It allows me to use a 400mm lens for long shots and get perfectly smooth, solid video. There's a section for camera support here on DV Info with lots of information on the subject.

As for lenses, I picked up the 18-55 IS lens to use as a cheap wide angle. When I ran some tests on it I was shocked at how good the results are for contrast and sharpness through most of its range. It is slightly weaker at close distances, but from 10 feet or more out it is quite a nice optic. I consider it a terrific bargain. Oh yeah, it's light as a feather (almost), too.

[Peter Rhalter]

Originally Posted by Corey Benoit

also what is the sharpest wide angle lense for the 7d and the sharpest zoom-telephono?

How much do you want to spend and what focal lengths?

[Corey Benoit]

Originally Posted by Nathan Wilcox

I have and use the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non-IS version. I really like this lens and totally recommend it for its constant aperture and sharp optics. It's as wide as I'll ever want to go in a video setting. The issues you'll get with the lenses you've posted are mainly aperture changes throughout the zoom range. If you're just looking for a wide lens, then the Sigma would be my choice of the two for the faster glass. You'll get a hair more play with selective focus, and stopping down to the Canon lens you'll likely be sharper too.

As for the telephoto range -use a tripod. Even with IS, you're working with video and if you're trying to achieve a filmic look beyond voyeuristic or action styles, then you're gonna want to be locked down. I recently shot a film in a church where we had the dolly riding up the center isle, and being an old wooden-floor, the ground was slightly irregular. Even with a 28mm lens the slight motions could be seen in the video. Now when you're talking 300mm, this is going to magnify exponentially, and even the steadiest of hands is going to look like the 'quake of 1906.

so my non-IS tamron 28-300mm wont be good for video? what about a balanced shoulder mount and using follow focus?

alot of people say the tamron 185d ef 28-300mm is a great lense, i love how i can take the lense off and get a natural flare with it...it seems tack sharp to me...

is the tamron 185d similar to the 17-50mm as far as quality and sharp image?

[Peter Rhalter]

Originally Posted by Corey Benoit

so my non-IS tamron 28-300mm wont be good for video? what about a balanced shoulder mount and using follow focus?

I expect your Tamron 28-300mm will give satisfactory results for video if you use it like a large collection of primes in one package. It will probably be pretty poor for zooming, though. Very few still camera lenses zoom smoothly enough for video — they weren't designed for that and there's no motor to assist you, either.

[Nathan Wilcox]

Originally Posted by Corey Benoit

so my non-IS tamron 28-300mm wont be good for video? what about a balanced shoulder mount and using follow focus?

I don't have experience with that lens, but I never said it wouldn't be "good" for video. In my opinion, all lenses have a time and place, and it all depends on the look you are going for. In my case, sometimes a 60-year-old prime gives me what I want. Other times I'll need to use a modern, sharp telephoto. So yes, your Tamron will certainly enable your camera to capture images. The real question is, are you getting what *you* want out of it?

[Corey Benoit]

i just bought this lense due to the great price....however, its very wide but it has a weird focus ring...

the focus ring is on the tip of the lense and when i move it, it makes a gear noise...even when auto focus is off...

also this ring tip is 58mm, yet some of the 18mm lenses have 68mm wouldnt that affect quality? i mean smaller tip means less glass?

also this lense i bought says its only 1 layer aspherical whats that?

thanks

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/519475-USA/Canon_2042B002_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html

[Peter Rhalter]

The manual focus ring on the 18-55 IS is narrow, doesn't turn really smoothly and is in a weird location but it works. I can focus accurately with it using live view. BTW, DON'T use it when the lens is set to AF! Make sure the switch is on MF.

As far as optical quality goes, just try the lens out and see if you are happy with it. As far as I know, filter thread size may relate to maximum aperture but has nothing to do with optical quality.

[Roger Shealy]

Having great success with Tamron 17-50VC. Don't like the focus ring being slightly sticky and the VC is noisy on in-camera audio. I'm finding that I'm best with the 7D keeping focus pretty fixed whenever possible and doing pulls for effect. Other more talented operators may be able to manage focus reliably on their DSLR's, I'm not there yet so I reach for another camera when things get moving in unpredictable ways. Here's some info on the Tamron 17-50VC and Canon 17-55:

Tamron Lens: Zooms - Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical IF SP AF - SLRgear.com!

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/353/cat/11

You can always stress about which one is "right" or take it that you have two great choices! I've been very happy with the two Tamron 17-50 VC's I've purchased.

[Corey Benoit]

if there is a fast lense at 28mm f/2.8, iso 100.....that would be equal to a slower lense @ 28mm f/3.5, iso 400, correct?

i mean in the same light conditions it would be very similar, just way less noise with the faster lense right?

[Jon Fairhurst]

The larger aperture gives a shallower depth of field.

Also 100 ISO to 400 ISO gives two more stops of light. f/2.8 to f/5.6 would cut two stops of light. So f/2.8 @ 100 ISO would give the same exposure (more or less) as f/5.6 @ 400 ISO. The first would have a shallow DOF with lower noise. The second would give a deeper field of focus with higher noise.

[Corey Benoit]

so while in sunlight, whats the best way to reduce the heavy light, shutter?