what lens to buy for excellent video 'film like' result on Canon EOS 7D

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

Perrone, just a reminder regarding our recent discussion, I was promoting the f/1.9 variant of the Takumar 85mm.

Reason being, it normally goes for around a third or less the price of the fabled f/1.8, yet I am fairly sure most would agree it is far better than one third as good.

I have the f/1.9, and as soon as time permits, I will upload some sample footage to demonstrate.

Im not certain when you last shopped for this lens, but current pricing that I can find shows the 1.9 going for $330-$350, and the 1.8 variant going for $40-$80 more. Hardly enough to warrant not buying the more desirable lens. I had hoped to get one next week, but with the price it's going to cost, and my need for a real piece of F/1.4 glass right now, I have to take it off the table for a bit. So I'll be going for a 50mm and a 105 first. I am hopinng to snag 3 primes for $200 or so, and I'll consider that a good haul for the month. Maybe I can find a 35mm, 50mm, and 105 or 135 for those prices, and then focus on the 85, 20, and 28 between now and christmas. I already have a 300, and I am in no real hurry to add a fast 180 or 200 at this point. Maybe in the spring.

I was hoping to stay within one manufacturer too for a consistent look, but that may not happen for a while either. But based on what I've seen, Pentax, Yashica, and Nikon seem to be my best bets.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

With due respect to your opinions, more opinions.

If I already had one, I would use it. I think it's a great lens for stills. But if I was able to choose any lens in that price range for video, it would not be an f/4 lens. That is just too limited.

You're shooting a camera that goes up to 25,000ISO and you think f4 is LIMITED?

Anyway, let's be serious... Neither the 24-105 nor the 24-70 are low light lenses... so you might as well buy the newer and vastly superior 24-105L, which has IS, more range, and is sharper to boot, and come to terms with the fact that you're going to need some f1.4 glass for low light shooting anyway.

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

You're shooting a camera that goes up to 25,000ISO and you think f4 is LIMITED?

Yes I do. I don't want to use ISO values that have 5 digits for serious work. I don't think I'm alone.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Anyway, let's be serious... Neither the 24-105 nor the 24-70 are low light lenses... so you might as well buy the newer and vastly superior 24-105L, which has IS, more range, and is sharper to boot, and come to terms with the fact that you're going to need some f1.4 glass for low light shooting anyway.

It seems we disagree. I would categorise f/2.8 zooms as low light, while I personally don't think f/4 zooms are in that category.

Surely there is a contradiction in what you say. First you seem to be saying that f/4 is fast enough because we have ISO headroom to compensate, then you seem to say that only f/1.4 is good enough.

It is my view that a consensus exists that f/2.8 fixed zooms are a good trade off between unmanageably small depth of field and low light potential. f/1.4 is nice to have when the light is challenging.

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Im not certain when you last shopped for this lens, but current pricing that I can find shows the 1.9 going for $330-$350, and the 1.8 variant going for $40-$80 more.

In a recent conversation with you, I posted two links to completed sales of the f/1.9 where the final prices were $136 and £107. This is how much you can get them for if you track the auctions.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...ml#post1559908

[Jon Braeley]

Most of the older lenses (and antique lenses) have very limited applications to me. The cheaper lenses on ebay from less well known makes, were cheap lenses when they were new.
While there are nice ones - the well known brands - that will give some nice results, the majority for me are soft and exhibit terrible color accuracy. For non-fiction work I think they are very risky unless its all B-roll stuff, 2nd cam, etc.
The sample pic of the candles to me looks poor - very soft - the candles should pop out, but it looks like mush. Maybe its the low-res.

[Liam Hall]

I agree Jon. If you want a retro/vintage look then get yourself some super-takumars. But buyer beware, old lenses can suffer from a whole host of issues, both mechanical and optical.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

In a recent conversation with you, I posted two links to completed sales of the f/1.9 where the final prices were $136 and £107. This is how much you can get them for if you track the auctions.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...ml#post1559908

I know, I saw them. The dilemma for me is that I don't have a chance to track the auctions right now. I've got a shoot to prep for in 2 weeks, and I need glass. I have to buy 2 lenses next week, and I have to pay going rate.

I've not found ANY other auctions of the Pentax lenses other than those you showed me for around that price.

In general, the nice 50mm lenses are about $90-120, the nice 85s are hovering around $225-$300, and the nice 105s are in the $125 range. These are fair prices to me, and will suit my needs just fine. But I am just not seeing the killer prices at the moment.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Jon Braeley

The sample pic of the candles to me looks poor - very soft - the candles should pop out, but it looks like mush. Maybe its the low-res.

It's not the low res, it's the glass. Which is why buying "off-brand" vintage lenses isn't the best idea unless that's what you want. But to be fair, the same thing is true today. While you don't generally see things this mushy even in current 3rd party lenses, they are certainly not up to the standards of the better glass.

The Pentax, Yashica, Zeiss, Nikon, and other glass from the late 60s to early 70s was generally quite good, though some was pretty soft wide open.

The troubling thing to me is that I see people talking about how modern glass is so sharp, and contrasty. And how desirable that is. And then they turn right around and wonder why their moire is so bad, and why their video looks so "video-like".

These sensors are resolving detail that seems quite equal to what film was like in the 70s. So to my mind, it makes sense to put the same kind of glass in front of it to get a similar look. When current filmmakers are after a vintage look, you'll see many of them looking to source older Cooke Panchros, or even older glass. It's an aesthetic.

Razor sharp glass will expose other weakness in your system, and for these HDSLRs, the MAJOR weakness is that CMOS sensor. Until that improves, I can see no reason to put $1500, razor sharp glass in front of it.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

Yes I do. I don't want to use ISO values that have 5 digits for serious work. I don't think I'm alone.

An f2.8 lens certainly isn't going to save you from going to 5 digit ISO if the f4 can't do it.
I don't think you're alone either, but that doesn't make you right.

It seems we disagree. I would categorise f/2.8 zooms as low light, while I personally don't think f/4 zooms are in that category.

Surely there is a contradiction in what you say. First you seem to be saying that f/4 is fast enough because we have ISO headroom to compensate, then you seem to say that only f/1.4 is good enough.

Let me clarify:
Neither f4 nor f2.8 will get you an ultra clean image in poor light conditions on the 7D.
Given that, and the fact that the bulk of shooters shoot in daylight where there is too much light, or own light kits... the 24-105L offers much more versitility in terms of reach, IS, sharpness and fast AF. It's a superb lens and probably the best in it's range, and shouldn't be dismissed just because you shoot in graveyards on cloudy nights.

[Chris Barcellos]

For the budget minded, the Nikon Series E F2.8 100mm is a neat little lens. I did a rough test with it and the 5D last year, when we were all trying out different combos. This will give you idea of what lens will produce:

Canon 5D Mark Ii 100mm Test on Vimeo

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

An f2.8 lens certainly isn't going to save you from going to 5 digit ISO if the f4 can't do it.

This is a factually incorrect statement. As I'm sure you will know, 1 stop equals double the light, or half the ISO. Clearly there are a multitude of situations where having f/2.8 will allow you to make a shot without 5 digit ISO.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Let me clarify:
Neither f4 nor f2.8 will get you an ultra clean image in poor light conditions on the 7D.

You are not really saying anything here. Define poor light conditions. Again, f/2.8 means double the light. If you take a real situation where there is enough light for 3200 ISO on an f/4 lens, this means f/2.8 will allow you to shoot at 1600 ISO. Despite what you say, this matters to film makers. A lot.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Given that, and the fact that the bulk of shooters shoot in daylight where there is too much light, or own light kits... the 24-105L offers much more versitility in terms of reach, IS, sharpness and fast AF. It's a superb lens and probably the best in it's range, and shouldn't be dismissed just because you shoot in graveyards on cloudy nights.

Low light potential and shallow DOF are two of the main selling points of DSLRs. The 'bulk of shooters' who don't care about maximising the light gathering potential of a camera use camcorders and bypass all the limitations of DSLR.

The 24-105mm is a great lens. Jeremy stated that the lens was a good all round choice for the 7D, and I thought it was worth pointing out that most people on this forum would not recommend this as the ideal choice to start a lens collection for the camera.

This is because there are other choices which will be more suited. Not only on the basis of the maximum aperture, but because 24mm is not really that wide on a cropped sensor. That does not mean I am dismissing the lens. As Liam has pointed out, it is a better choice if you own the 5d.

Like many people, I still use a camcorder in many situations. I use a DSLR because for my projects, I do not want the look created by a typical lighting set up. I need to be able to shoot in ambient light to achieve the look I am after. There are many many occasions where if I only had f/4, I simply would not have been able to make the shot, whereas f/2.8 has been sufficient.

I have never shot video in a graveyard on a cloudy night. In all honesty, I would be too scared.

[Dylan Couper]

This is a factually incorrect statement. As I'm sure you will know, 1 stop equals double the light, or half the ISO. Clearly there are a multitude of situations where having f/2.8 will allow you to make a shot without 5 digit ISO.

James, how many times can you say "double the light" in one thread?

Ok yes, you could shoot 6400 ISO f2.8 instead of 12,500 ISO, f4. But you'd still have a CF card full of garbage because neither lens is the right tool for the job.

You are not really saying anything here. Define poor light conditions. Again, f/2.8 means double the light. If you take a real situation where there is enough light for 3200 ISO on an f/4 lens, this means f/2.8 will allow you to shoot at 1600 ISO.

Let's be civil please (it might not looks like it, but I'm trying real hard)... If you are riding the noisy end of the ISO, you're going to get ugly footage with either lens. If you are riding the clean end, you are going to get clean footage with either lens. In either case the 24-105 is more versitile in every other aspect.

Despite what you say, this matters to film makers. A lot.

Where I come from, filmmakers use lights. Lighting matters to filmmakers... A lot.
Good filmmakers anyway. Just because you CAN shoot f2.8 6400ISO, and not light, doesn't mean you should.

The 'bulk of shooters' who don't care about maximising the light gathering potential of a camera use camcorders and bypass all the limitations of DSLR.

That's a factually incorrect generalization.

The 24-105mm is a great lens. Jeremy stated that the lens was a good all round choice for the 7D, and I thought it was worth pointing out that most people on this forum would not recommend this as the ideal choice to start a lens collection for the camera.

And I thought it was worth pointing out that you're speaking for an incredibly tiny niche of shooters. If you want to represent your niche, great... you are welcome to. But most of us here don't shoot no-light indie film in ambient light.

At this point I'll toss in a better choice, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS (the EFS equiv to the 24-70L).
If you shoot the 7D it offers the best of both lenses in a more usable focal range.

Like many people, I still use a camcorder in many situations. I use a DSLR because for my projects, I do not want the look created by a typical lighting set up. I need to be able to shoot in ambient light to achieve the look I am after. There are many many occasions where if I only had f/4, I simply would not have been able to make the shot, whereas f/2.8 has been sufficient.

You ARE one of the people who don't think they need to light a scene because they shoot 6400iso!

Anyway, I think that pretty much wraps up this discussion.
Sure, why not.... I'll agree... if you don't plan on EVER lighting anything and only ever shoot from a tripod, in low light... you might as well go for that extra stop from the 24-70 f2.8, or better the 17-55 f2.8 IS...
Or even better, (at least if you are serious about filmmaking) spend the same money on the 28mm, 50mm, 85mm set of prime lenses.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Where I come from, filmmakers use lights. Lighting matters to filmmakers... A lot.Good filmmakers anyway. Just because you CAN shoot f2.8 6400ISO, and not light, doesn't mean you should.

Agreed..

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Sure, why not.... I'll agree... if you don't plan on EVER lighting anything and only ever shoot from a tripod, in low light... you might as well go for that extra stop from the 24-70 f2.8, or better the 17-55 f2.8 IS...
Or even better, (at least if you are serious about filmmaking) spend the same money on the 28mm, 50mm, 85mm set of prime lenses.

Dylan, you seem like an intelligent fellow. Given that, I think it's important to note that there are probably more event shooters on this forum than indie filmmakers. At least based on my observations during my time here. In a large proportion of cases, event guys cannot light. Just can't. I constantly go back and forth between the two worlds. I shoot event work at my job, and indie film for my hobby. I light everything I can.

I'll offer a couple of real-world examples. As part of what I do, I volunteer with my local roller derby team. They use one venue for practice, and a different one for their games (bouts). When I film for them at bout time, they are in a fairly well lit venue. It seats about 1000 people, has overhead fluorescent lightnig as well as large bay windows at one end of the space. I find that with the EX1 set to about 320 ISO, I can shoot at F4 until the sun begins to set, and then I am at F2.8 to F2.0. I can't get critical focus at that stop but it's "good enough for purpose". We are talking an area about the size of a basketball court.

When I shoot them at their practice venue it's less than 4 footcandles on the floor. I am two stops under shooting F1.9 at 640 ISO. It's a public venue. I have no way to light it. Even if I could afford the 10 5K lights I'd need, I couldn't hang them anywhere. I was told last week that they'd be holding the season ending bout in this venue. So I am sourcing an F1.4 lens and I'll have to shoot on the T2i because I just cannot get decent exposure with the EX1.

Similarly, a few years ago, I had to shoot a weekend conference for work. It was to be 2, 8 hour days and 1 4hr day. I was shooting with the EX1. When I got there, I found that I needed to be placed about 40ft from the stage. My job was to film speakers at the podium. When you zoom in the EX1 lens, it stops down to about F/2.8. When I metered the podium position it read 1.3FC. Essentially, the equivalent of a candle. I asked if they had lights, and they said yes, they would provide lights. Some time later, about an hour before the show was to start, they brought out the "lights". Essentially 2 750s that would be placed about 30ft each from the stage. Once they turned them on, I read 13FC at the podium. About what you'd have in a bedroom in the evening. I was 40ft away, and this was the best they could do.

Wedding videographers, press videographers, and other people doing event work face this challenge daily. There is no opportunity to light properly, and you have to do the best you can with what you have. Had I been in a position where I only had an F4 lens, I would not have been able to capture anything. As it stands now, I have 4 pieces of glass that fit my T2i and none is faster than F3.5. Consequently, I don't use it indoors much. It might be more fair to say that F2.8 is a better place to start because it opens possibilities to shoot indoors in more poor lighting conditions. But in the spaces some of these folks need to work (dimly lit churches, or dance halls), An F/2.0 lens is the ragged edge, and F/1.4 is really where they need to be. Even with all it's problems.

So while I feel you two are talking across purposes here, I think some understanding and tolerance for the guys who simply cannot light for various reasons is warranted.

[Charles Papert]

The concept of not lighting night exteriors is a whole new choice--no, it's not an excuse for not being able to light them if you needed to, but it is an opportunity to experiment and break some "rules".

After being involved with "Reverie" and a subsequent job in NYC with Vincent Laforet, I decided I had to get a 1DMKIV. Shortly thereafter I was up to shoot a music video with a well-established director; frames I showed him from the NYC job got him excited enough that I won the gig. Cut to: standing in a graveyard on a cloudy night (seriously!), shooting the lovely young lead singer as she strode half-dressed through the mud. It wasn't all available light--had a ring light on the camera, and four to six road flares carefully placed in the background of each setup, but the results were still amazing at 3200 ASA (this was just before we learned about the good and bad ISO settings). Had we had to hot-light the background, it would have required a ton more gear and crew and rigging and time, none of which we had; the road flares did an admirable job. The director loved it and I've done several more jobs for him.

Moral of story: shooting in ambient light at high ISO's is a great new weapon--but agreed, it's not the be-all and end-all.

(wish I could show you even a frame grab of this job that was shot months and months ago, but the legal department of the label has been wrestling with it and it may never see the light of day)

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

James, how many times can you say "double the light" in one thread?

I think it's an important point. Maybe even informative to some people reading the thread.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Ok yes, you could shoot 6400 ISO f2.8 instead of 12,500 ISO, f4. But you'd still have a CF card full of garbage because neither lens is the right tool for the job.

Whatever ISO were quoted in my example (not the ones you used), the very simple point of my statement is that being able to half your ISO in any given situation is without debate an important thing. But it was just an example!

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Let's be civil please (it might not looks like it, but I'm trying real hard)... If you are riding the noisy end of the ISO, you're going to get ugly footage with either lens. If you are riding the clean end, you are going to get clean footage with either lens. In either case the 24-105 is more versitile in every other aspect.

I am not advocating 'riding the noisy end' of ISO. Again, you seem to be suggesting that the lenses are as good as each other in low light. The reason I am partaking in this debate is to emphasise the point that 1 stop does make a tremendous difference in the real world, not to irritate anyone, so I apologise if I have appeared to lower my standard of civility to you, it was not my intention.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Where I come from, filmmakers use lights. Lighting matters to filmmakers... A lot.
Good filmmakers anyway. Just because you CAN shoot f2.8 6400ISO, and not light, doesn't mean you should.

I regard myself as a film maker, and I sometimes even use lights, so I agree with you. In my example I used the figure of 1600 ISO, not 6400 or 12800 ISO because in my experience, 1600 has been the absolute maximum level required to produce a usable shot. Of course, ideally it should be as low as possible.

I don't advocate shooting above 1600, I don't deny lights are used almost universally, and I don't shoot in graveyards. Let's not take what is offered as examples to type cast each other.

For certain types of project, often I need a look or a shot that precludes lighting, or I want a super shallow depth of field. That's it. My whole entire point. I am not a hard bitten anti-light high ISO fan I seem to be becoming here.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

That's a factually incorrect generalization.

And I thought it was worth pointing out that you're speaking for an incredibly tiny niche of shooters. If you want to represent your niche, great... you are welcome to.

I don't think so. I think the vast majority of people on this forum regard that extra stop to be important, and are also confronted with situations where frequently lighting is not possible or desirable. I am not in a tiny niche.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

But most of us here don't shoot no-light indie film in ambient light.

Just because I say I use a certain method for a certain project, it doesn't mean I use it all the time. I also shoot interviews and other standard stuff.

I occasionally shot a film with no lighting at all, but rarely. I have never shot a film where every scene is lit. I don't think that's so unusual.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

At this point I'll toss in a better choice, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS (the EFS equiv to the 24-70L).
If you shoot the 7D it offers the best of both lenses in a more usable focal range.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

You ARE one of the people who don't think they need to light a scene because they shoot 6400iso!

Eh? I really have no clue where you got that idea. It is not something I have ever stated because it is ridiculously far from the truth. I am the same as anyone else, I try to minimise the ISO, and light if I want to or have to.

Let me throw in a quote from earlier in the conversation here, as thing seem be rather absurdly becoming reversed:

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

You're shooting a camera that goes up to 25,000ISO and you think f4 is LIMITED?

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

Yes I do. I don't want to use ISO values that have 5 digits for serious work. I don't think I'm alone.

Back to your last post...

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Anyway, I think that pretty much wraps up this discussion.
Sure, why not.... I'll agree... if you don't plan on EVER lighting anything and only ever shoot from a tripod, in low light... you might as well go for that extra stop from the 24-70 f2.8, or better the 17-55 f2.8 IS...

Even if you do plan to light, those f/2.8 zooms are still a better choice as all round DSLR videographers lenses.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Or even better, (at least if you are serious about filmmaking) spend the same money on the 28mm, 50mm, 85mm set of prime lenses.

I agree with your range of primes. I personally only use primes for my films. I really enjoy the experience of shooting with them. I use a 28mm f/1.9, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 85mm f/1.9, and I really appreciate the speed of these lenses, among other qualities. I would consider adding the Tokina 11-16mm, and I am awaiting delivery of a 135mm f/1.8, but I doubt I will use it much.