Lens advice

[Steve Bleasdale]

Tom, the Tamron 70-200 has good reviews and I'm about to buy one as the canon is soooo expensive... Steve

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Steve Bleasdale

Not had a problem with mine Nigel? What do ya mean the focus is the wrong way around? On my 60d don't know what you mean?

You have to turn the focus & zoom rings the wrong way like using a Nikon. All my other lenses are from Canon so it would confuse the hell out of me to have the one lens that operated in the other direction.

[David St. Juskow]

I've had a lot of experience with the newest Canon 70-200, is2 flavor. The IS is amazing, and lets me shoot hand-held, fully zoomed in at 200mm, without any shakiness and retaining a sharp image. I don't / can't plunk $2500 for this lens, so I rent it- but I could really use a 70-200mm lens. Can anyone compare the other 70-200 brands to this, IS-wise? I'm sure the canon one is better, but HOW much better? Is handheld shooting even a possibility? That's really important when I'm shooting documentary.

And what's the widest-ranging, still-decent-quality lens out there for this camera? Something along the lines of what an EX-1 / EX-3 would have..?

[Richard D. George]

The Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is not overpriced. It is L quality in every aspect other than build quality, and has the 77mm filter thread. Image quality and color are excellent.

[John Wiley]

Originally Posted by Robert James

First thought: I kept seeing that the AF was "silent". I find it to be quite loud, actually.

Robert, did you test it in both stills mode and video mode? I believe the different methods they use to achieve AF in stills mode (phase-detect) and Live View (contrast-detect) might account for the noisiness of the supposedly "silent" lens. A lot of features like USM/HSM, AF, IS, etc are much less effective in video mode.

If it is just as noisy in stills mode, perhaps you should make use of that excellent warranty and have it checked out!

[John Wiley]

Originally Posted by David St. Juskow

I've had a lot of experience with the newest Canon 70-200, is2 flavor. The IS is amazing, and lets me shoot hand-held, fully zoomed in at 200mm, without any shakiness and retaining a sharp image. I don't / can't plunk $2500 for this lens, so I rent it- but I could really use a 70-200mm lens. Can anyone compare the other 70-200 brands to this, IS-wise? I'm sure the canon one is better, but HOW much better? Is handheld shooting even a possibility? That's really important when I'm shooting documentary.

And what's the widest-ranging, still-decent-quality lens out there for this camera? Something along the lines of what an EX-1 / EX-3 would have..?

Sigma and Tamron both make excellent version of this lens.

The Tamron is almost as good optically, and there is certainly nothing to tell them apart by in video mode, probably not in stills either without very careful scrutiny. The Tamron does have a slower, noisier, less accurate AF system though, but this is not a concern in video mode when you are manually focusing.

The Sigma version is just barely behind optically (again, you wouldn't notice in video mode) but has the advantage of HSM autofocus for stills and there is a version available with OS. I'm not sure if the Sigma OS is as good as Canon's IS though.

As for wide-range lenses, it's generally best to avoid them. Designing a full frame or APS-C lens equivelant to that on the EX3 would result in something weighing 50kg and costing more than your house (no, I'm not exaggerating - check out the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 for proof. And that lens only covers 1/3 of the zoom range that the EX3 does) It is generally accepted that practical photo zoom lenses reach the best balance of range vs quality at about 3x zoom. Many of the most popular zoom lenses stick to this range such as the 70-200 f/2.8, 17-50 f/2.8 & 24-70 f/2.8. Any more than this and you need to compromise - you'll lose sharpness, and will sacrifice wider & contstant apertures. The idea of a sinlge all purpose lens is nice, but if that's what you want, why bother with an interchangeable lens camera?

[David St. Juskow]

I only ask about a wide-ranging lens because there are times when it really does come in handy to have such a range. I realize this is the trade-off for getting a $900 camera that looks like a million bucks, but there are times when swapping lenses isn't practical (any kind of a live shoot where time is of essence.) Of course, there are other ways to get that extra reach if you really need it- like with the T3i 's 3x HD crop zoom. That would work for me in a pinch.

As for your descriptions of other 70-200mm lenses, I was mostly wondering about the stability issue. If you're shooting hand-held, the optical quality of the glass is meaningless when the whole picture is so jittery it's unusable. That's where the Canon IS 2 blew me away, and I'm not sure anything comes close to it- but I don't have first-hand experience with the Sigma and Tamron models in that regard. Does anyone?

[Nigel Barker]

The T3i/600D's 3x HD crop zoom is fab. Using the excellent Canon 17-55mm F/2.8L at the long end it gives you the field of view of a full frame equivalent lens of about 260mm. Stabilisation is good & you don't get moire or aliasing. What's not to like?:-)

[Greg Fiske]

Originally Posted by Robert James

I mean, hey, in an ideal world where money wasn't a factor I'd snag the Canon 70-200, 17-55 and 50 1.4 but that would be about $6000 :p

Yeah, but when you sell it, the Canon glass will appreciate, the others might not. Think of it as an investment.

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

You have to turn the focus & zoom rings the wrong way like using a Nikon. All my other lenses are from Canon so it would confuse the hell out of me to have the one lens that operated in the other direction.

I just bought my first Nikon adapter lens, so I wonder if this is going to confuse me mixed in with my Canon glass. I've heard it's more intuitive as when pulling focus, towards you is moving focus towards you and away, focuses away. (on a follow focus)

Originally Posted by David St. Juskow

Can anyone compare the other 70-200 brands to this, IS-wise? I'm sure the canon one is better, but HOW much better? Is handheld shooting even a possibility?

From what I've read on the photography forums, people are now comfortable going down to 1/30 compared to the usual 1/60 with the mark II lens. The IS is definitely better, but I don't know how that translates to video. I've got the mark I and I can't imagine holding that thing very long. I have used my buddies 100mm IS on gigs and its a lot of fun.

The Tokina 11-16mm I've just purchased. I got it in the Nikon mount and bought adapters (with aperture control) for both my gh1 and t2i.

[Rob Morse]

David, considering you live in the city, why not take a field trip to B&H and try it out.

[Edward Mendoza]

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, 50-135mm f2.8 with a 60D

Love these lenses....

(Watch in its true form in 1080p)

YouTube - ‪TVP San Antonio‬‏

[Richard D. George]

The Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is a great lens (other than the build quality) but on a crop body it is not that wide.

For wide you will want either the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (constant aperature) or the Canon EF-S 10-22. I have both, and tend to use the former for video and the latter for stills.

[Jon Fairhurst]

How wide you go depends on what you shoot.

The 17-55 will be wide enough for general action. You will be able to pan around on a tripod and "get a lot in" without looking like an effects shot. When you go wider, you need to take care. Panning on a tripod will show perspective distortion. Unless you really stop down, everything will be in focus except the ground in front of the camera, which can look like you have a crummy lens, rather than like sweet, shallow DOF footage.

On the other hand, you can do pushes and jib moves with a wider lens. You can push the lens right up to an object to give it attitude. You can film from odd angles for a good effect.

My rule of thumb is this: if you tend to shoot from a tripod at eye height, you don't need a wider lens. If you frame while laying on the ground or from the top corner of an elevator, you do. ;)

[Nick Gordon]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

My rule of thumb is this: if you tend to shoot from a tripod at eye height, you don't need a wider lens. If you frame while laying on the ground or from the top corner of an elevator, you do. ;)

That's a good rule (or a good thumb!)

[Kenneth Tong]

Just buy and use the lens you can afford. There will always some regrets and surprises. I use Tamron 17-50 (image stablization), Samyang fisheye and a Canon 55-250 for family video. Quite good picture quality, lightweight and yet covers a wide range.