optimal lens for run and gun?

[Paul Curtis]

I'm giving serious thought to one of these too.

What's the noise of the stabiliser like though? I would imagine it would seriously interfere with the audio recording (and i'm talking about just picking up quick shots, not a full on shoot with separate recorder and people, more family snapshots)

I believe there's a rumour of a 24-70 2.8 L with IS going around, no idea whether it's true but would make a lot of sense...

cheers
paul

[Jon Fairhurst]

The two oldest Canon rumors seem to be the 1Ds Mark IV and the 24-70L IS. Both make a lot of sense, but there's still no announcement.

I would guess that if we don't see these by the end of October that Canon has applied it's resources in a less obvious direction.

[Brad Higerd]

Paul,

If someone else didn't write it, the Image Stabilizer on the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is very quiet. Granted, we're pulling audio from elsewhere, so it matters very little to us. But should the AGC issue on the T2i ever get fixed, you can bet I'll start looking to my MKE400 to do more than take up space in my camera bag.

The 17-55mm is an amazing lens, as I heard from pro photographers who've used it before I bought one. The footage it captures is beautiful. And for run and gun on a T2i (which, despite my aversion to "run and gun" video aquision, I've done with this lens), it's the ticket! If there's a better lens for your T2i for the style of shooting you're looking to do, I have no idea what lens that would be.

Brad

[Ian Holb]

Originally Posted by Brad Higerd

Paul,

If someone else didn't write it, the Image Stabilizer on the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is very quiet

I'll have to disagree. I think the IS on the 17-55 is quite noisy. You can definitely hear it click on and off during photo mode; in video mode, there is a grinding noise audible using the built-in mic. Contrast with the 18-55 kit lens' IS which is inaudible with the built-in mic, which should tell you that the 17-55 IS is quite loud in comparison.

[Paul Curtis]

Brad, Ian,

Thank you very much for your opinions. My main SLR lenses have been 30mm, 50mm and 85mm primes just because they always have been and i've been a prime snob. Recently i've been considering the flexibility of zooms and the 17-55 is the obvious candidate. I suspect i'll get one and perhaps get rid of the 30 and 50, neither of which are ideal for manual focus. (I have a 10-22 as well so i'm well covered up to 55 now, perhaps look for a 24-105 at a later stage too)

The noise could be an issue that's for sure, perhaps there is quite a variance from lens to lens?

From a manual focus perspective how much travel is there in the focus ring? How far from near to infinity?

thanks
paul

[Raul Rooma]

Aslo bought this lens for eos 550,Tryed Canons 17-55F2.8 too,sure its canon,but for me focus ring moves too much.Really reccommend tamrons 17-50 F2.8 for dslr video!Build quality ins't as canon but optically quiet good !

Canon 17-55 F2.8 is rated as almost good as L-series optics,only concern is it fits only cropped sensor body.I see canons better optics useful for serious photography,but if You already proffessional photograper
then i assume You use full sensor.

i found myself,no meaning to through money if using 550d for mostly videostuff,and Tamron is very well balanced performance vs price!
just my opinion;)

Regards

Raul

[Brad Higerd]

Paul, you couldn't be more correct! The focus response on the 17-55mm f/2.8 is WAY too fast. Fortunately, it allows me to pull focus with nothing more than a thumb (the only saving grace). The build is good, but like so much of what's currently available for the DSLR cameras, it feels wrong for video. But again, I'm sold on the images/footage that can be created with it, despite the poor video ergonomics.

Ian, as for the noise, you may have a louder copy? Mine is quiet, although you're right that the onboard mic picks up sounds from the IS (very slight to me). But I never use the onboard mic for anything more than syncing in post; as a result, the mic has become little more than a few holes on the camera I've learned to disregard. And as I posted previously, I'm not confident the MKE400 will give me what I want, so it's remained in my bag until it proves useful (backwards logic, I know).

Thinking future, I'm in the camp with those who believe our next offerings (likely 2011) will be considerably better at video acquisition. Until then, I'm happy with the footage I'm getting from the 17-55 (scrutinizing video as I do), and in the end, that's all that matters to me.

As for the Tamron, I never tried it, but you have me thinking I should? (pondering...)

Brad

[Sam Tansey]

I had a hands on in a camera shop with the tamron the other day. It breaths quite considerably when rack focusing. I was considering buying it but imo its a deal breaker.

[Paul Curtis]

Originally Posted by Brad Higerd

Paul, you couldn't be more correct! The focus response on the 17-55mm f/2.8 is WAY too fast.

Brad, Raul,

Perhaps you could explain a bit more. Do you mean that the travel on the focus barrel is really short? How far from close to infinity for example?

Is this an issue with focusing on the fly and video?

many thanks!
paul

[Raul Rooma]

for my taste tamron focus ring quiet good.i can archieve focus more quicker than with my 28-135 canon.
with short travel i found focus very quick..another thing is smoothness,it isnt very smooth.of course if you want to track something or somebody,longer travel rings a better,my usual practise is ..to get proper focus and then hit record.with this price i guess tamron really good deal.

Best way is to try out this lens how it work for You!
For my luck i have opportunity to try mostly of all lenses what i can imagine..;)price vs performance - for me clear winner is tamron....within this 17-50 range..

Regards

Raul

[Ivan Gomez Villafane]

So it would seem the contest here is between the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 17-55... in a few days I'll be testing both, I'll tell you my opinion...

I was wondering, telephoto, the only option would be this one right?

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens 2044B002AA - B&H

Running and gunning it would be nice to have a long lens under my sleeve, just in case, even if it has aperture drawbacks... I wonder if the IS holds well handheld... I'll try that in a few days as well.

[Brian Amodeo]

How would the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens, and the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR fair for this type of shooting. Think of like an episode of 24.

[Michael Liebergot]

[quote]How would the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens, and the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR fair for this type of shooting. Think of like an episode of 24. [\quote]

Brian I woudl still take the Tamron 17-50 or the Canon 17-55 because they are constant aperture 2.8. With the Sigma 17-70 and Canon EF 17-85 your aperture will step down as you zoom.

For video I would must rather have constant aperture over Image Stabilization. For me the only exception to this rule might be for very long 200mm and the like zoom lenses.

I have a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS which does have IS, but is a variable aperture lens. this is fine for me as I tend to sue very long lenses in good light like outside, so the loss in aperture isn't a huge deal for me.

If I had the money though I would opt for a 70-200mm f4 or f2 IS lens form Canon. Although, Sigma has a new 70-200mm IS lens that just came out and is a little cheaper than the Canon.

Too bad Tamron hasn't made an offering for IS in their long lenses yet.

[Michael Liebergot]

Originally Posted by Ivan Gomez Villafane

So it would seem the contest here is between the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 17-55... in a few days I'll be testing both, I'll tell you my opinion...

I was wondering, telephoto, the only option would be this one right?

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens 2044B002AA - B&H

Running and gunning it would be nice to have a long lens under my sleeve, just in case, even if it has aperture drawbacks... I wonder if the IS holds well handheld... I'll try that in a few days as well.

While I don't have the EF-S Canon lens you references I do have a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS which does have IS. And the IS makes a HUGE difference when going hand held for video. For photo IS helps, but your picture will be a little softer than without IS. But for video IS is a must with a long lens for hand held work.

[Brad Higerd]

Paul,

The extremely sensitive focus response of the Canon 17-55mm is indeed an issue when shooting video. But like any tool, it's only as good as the operator. So excuses aside, the 17-55 run and gun with the aperture wide open will produce beautiful shallow depth of field, but it will not be easy to pull focus. Our camera operators are more inclined to stopping it down a bit to help with the issue. But should you be so lucky to have a static distance between you and your subject, I couldn't recommend a better zoom. It's just VERY sensitive to the least amount of movement on the focus ring.

And ditto on the constant aperture comment Michael wrote. If there were no zooms available with that feature, I'd only shoot video with primes.

Otherwise, the IS is very good and will indeed help with handheld work, so long as you watch your horizon. The see-saw look is a common problem with handheld DSLR footage (probably a result of bad ergonomics).

Hope that helps!

And sorry I'm generally unresponsive. I've got a lot going on right now.

Brad