for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm? at DVinfo.net

Roberto Lanczos · January 22nd, 2012, 12:57 AM

Sold everything like a year ago.
Thought i could live without photo gear. So im starting over.

Im trying to make things different this time.

For $1640 i could do 11-16, 17-50 & 50-150.
For $1740 i could do 16-28, 28-75, 70-200.

In your opinion, what range would you choose for the price?

War.

Ted Ramasola · January 22nd, 2012, 10:57 AM

what are the f stops of those lenses?

Al Bergstein · January 23rd, 2012, 02:13 AM

With right f stops, it's easy. 11-150. Wider is better on 7d. More useful, but that range requires multiple lenses.

Kin Lau · January 25th, 2012, 04:44 PM

Looks like it's all f2.8 constant aperture.

I have pretty well both ranges covered, but I would suggested just getting the 17-50/2.8 first. Ultra-wide is great (I have the 11-16/2.8), but I find my 18-50/2.8 covers the wide end well enough most of the time.

Sareesh Sudhakaran · January 27th, 2012, 09:51 PM

In this order:
17-50 f2.8 first

11-16 f2.8 or/and 70-200 f2.8

It really depends on what you're shooting. If you're not that much into telephoto, you can even opt for the 70-300mm 3.5-6.3 Canon cheapo without IS.

Bernard Lau · February 15th, 2012, 08:24 PM

I'm guessing those lenses are third party manufactured?
I think you've covered most of the ranges that one needs with the two options.
You're better off in choosing fast lenses (F2.8) or primes if you plan on filming with natural lighting conditions.

The reach of a lens is less important, but that depends on what you're filming. I wouldn't film a pack of wolves with a 17-50mm ;-) or would I??

January 22nd, 2012, 12:57 AM	#1
Roberto Lanczos Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 113	for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm? Sold everything like a year ago. Thought i could live without photo gear. So im starting over. Im trying to make things different this time. For $1640 i could do 11-16, 17-50 & 50-150. For $1740 i could do 16-28, 28-75, 70-200. In your opinion, what range would you choose for the price? War.

January 22nd, 2012, 10:57 AM	#2
Ted Ramasola Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Allen, Texas U.S.A Posts: 1,117	Re: for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm? what are the f stops of those lenses? __________________ Ted Ramasola http://ramasolaproductions.com

January 23rd, 2012, 02:13 AM	#3
Al Bergstein Major Player Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Port Townsend, WA Posts: 456	Re: for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm? With right f stops, it's easy. 11-150. Wider is better on 7d. More useful, but that range requires multiple lenses. __________________ Al Upper left hand corner of the map

January 25th, 2012, 04:44 PM	#4
Kin Lau Major Player Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 385	Re: for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm? Looks like it's all f2.8 constant aperture. I have pretty well both ranges covered, but I would suggested just getting the 17-50/2.8 first. Ultra-wide is great (I have the 11-16/2.8), but I find my 18-50/2.8 covers the wide end well enough most of the time.

January 27th, 2012, 09:51 PM	#5
Sareesh Sudhakaran Trustee Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Mumbai, India Posts: 1,385	Re: for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm? In this order: 17-50 f2.8 first 11-16 f2.8 or/and 70-200 f2.8 It really depends on what you're shooting. If you're not that much into telephoto, you can even opt for the 70-300mm 3.5-6.3 Canon cheapo without IS. __________________ Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.

February 15th, 2012, 08:24 PM	#6
Bernard Lau Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 56	Re: for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm? I'm guessing those lenses are third party manufactured? I think you've covered most of the ranges that one needs with the two options. You're better off in choosing fast lenses (F2.8) or primes if you plan on filming with natural lighting conditions. The reach of a lens is less important, but that depends on what you're filming. I wouldn't film a pack of wolves with a 17-50mm ;-) or would I?? __________________ Facebook & Twitter me with "bernardlaufilms" www.bernardlau.com.au \| www.weddingvideosydney.org.au