# lenses for my 7D - please help!



## snowcast (Jul 13, 2012)

I've just taken delivery of a new Canon 7D (body only) for work. I've been recommended three lenses by the supplier who know what I'm going to be using the camera for:

70-200mm F/2.8L 
50mm F/1.2L prime lens
15-85mm F/3.5-5.56

I'm going to be using it mostly for shooting videos in the mountains (in all weather types) in the UK, indoor/outdoor and under studio lights. I know that the lenses are just as important as the camera (or more important depending on what you have) but there seems to be a huge range in pricing for the range I've been recommended. 

Unfortunately, the company I work for has a tight budget, but I don't want to get something cheaper and then find it's not going to get the best results. 

I shoot a wide range of stuff, from a static shot of presenters in a podcast, to tracking someone skiing past me or with me skiing with them.

Could I ditch the prime lens and make do with the 70-200 and the 15-85?

Someone else recommended the Canon 50mm f1.8 which they said although a bit plasticy produced great results. Plus the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM as another option.

I haven't shot video with a DSLR before so please excuse my ignorance!

My budget is around £1500 (US$2300)

Thanks!


----------



## traveller (Jul 13, 2012)

You realise that your 7D will not track anything in video, it will be manual focus only? 

I can't help thinking that based upon your requirements and budget, that you have bought the wrong system. The 7D and 5D MkII / III are (or perhaps were) popular with indie film makers who lived with their limitations as video cameras to benefit from the shallow depth of field the larger sensors provided. Are you sure that your company's requirements match this user profile? 

Have you considered returning the 7D and purchasing the Panasonic GH2 + 14-140mm lens kit instead? This camera would give you autofocus tracking and would set you back less than the price of the 7D body only, which would leave you with more money for other lenses (should you find that you actually need them).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 13, 2012)

snowcast said:


> I've just taken delivery of a new Canon 7D (body only) for work. I've been recommended three lenses by the supplier who know what I'm going to be using the camera for:
> 
> 70-200mm F/2.8L
> 50mm F/1.2L prime lens
> ...


Of the Canon Cameras, only the T4i (so far) will autofocus for video and track motion. Its probably not going to work well for fast moving subjects, but far better than the 7D, which does not autofocus doing video ar all.
The T4 i also works with two lenses optimized for video. There are a few other f/2.8 lenses optimized for video as well.
I'd take the camera back and do some research before buying.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2012)

traveller said:


> You realise that your 7D will not track anything in video, it will be manual focus only?
> I can't help thinking that based upon your requirements and budget, that you have bought the wrong system.



+1 OP mentions:



snowcast said:


> ...to tracking someone skiing past me or with me skiing with them.



Honestly, a dSLR is the absolutely wrong choice for the application you have in mind... If your supplier knew that you planned to shoot action video with the 7D they recommended, they either lack knowledge or are intentionally shafting you.

In the studio, fine...but in general, dSLR video requires many additional accessories (tripod/fluid head, follow focus accessories, viewing accessories, external mics, etc.). The 7D is not a camcorder that you can just pick up. To that end, I'd really consider returning it, and getting the GH2 as suggested, or the Canon Vixia HF G10, which will be much easier to use for your stated applications. (Personally, I have the Canon Vixia HF M41, little brother to the more expensive HF G10 and uses the same image sensor in a smaller, lighter package - I have shot video with that while downhill skiing, something I'd definitely not attempt with a dSLR!)


----------



## snowcast (Jul 13, 2012)

Yes, I know it's manual-focus only, the skiing footage is the only time the camera will used for action though and this will only be very rarely. The camera will be in the UK (i.e not in the mountains) for 90% of its use. Plus I've heard that auto-focus video mode (in the Sony range) just knackers out the lenses?

Having been recommended the camera by a number of sources I won't be returning it but want to get the best lenses for the job.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 13, 2012)

Take a look at the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens. The IS will help with handheld video, it covers a good range, and is affordable.

The Tokina 11-16 is also supposed to be a good ultra wide option. I've never used it.

Then since you are primarily shooting video, you can look into buying old manual focus lenses and using adapters to EF mount.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 13, 2012)

snowcast said:


> I've just taken delivery of a new Canon 7D (body only) for work. I've been recommended three lenses by the supplier who know what I'm going to be using the camera for:
> 
> 70-200mm F/2.8L
> 50mm F/1.2L prime lens
> ...



The 50L is a superb lens but its overkill for video. Its meant for high speed stills but you wont notice the difference in video. Get the 50mm 1.4 canon

The 17-55 2.8 has IS which will help with handheld shooting and is fast.

Get a good tripod with a fluid head and you'll be all right. Thecinecity.com has good quality equpiment for less $$$ btw.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 13, 2012)

If you are shooting mostly outdoors with the telephoto, you can save about half the cost with the f4 L instead of the f 2.8. 

Although the 15-85mm is somewhat slow, I prefer its range to that of the 17-55 2.8. It just depends on which is more important: speed or range. I find the extra 2mm at the wide end very important (essentially the difference between a 24mm and a 28mm wide angle).

I have no opinion on the 50mm, but my gut tells me that it is a lot of money for not a big advantage on your budget.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 13, 2012)

unfocused said:


> If you are shooting mostly outdoors with the telephoto, you can save about half the cost with the f4 L instead of the f 2.8.
> 
> Although the 15-85mm is somewhat slow, I prefer its range to that of the 17-55 2.8. It just depends on which is more important: speed or range. I find the extra 2mm at the wide end very important (essentially the difference between a 24mm and a 28mm wide angle).
> 
> I have no opinion on the 50mm, but my gut tells me that it is a lot of money for not a big advantage on your budget.



Variable Aperture is a no-no for video.


----------



## Deleted member 32755 (Jul 13, 2012)

I own a 7D and used it for video a lot (mostly weddings,events etc.)
As far as your lens questions I would suggest the 17-55 2.8 (which I own too).
It's a great lens for both video and photo, it's susceptible to zoom creep after a little time of use and it doesn't have the sealing of the L series (though the optics are right up to L quality thus the price)
Keep in mind that it's a crop sensor only and if you upgrade to FF it will be useless to you.

The Tokina 11-16 2.8 (that I 've used extensively) is a great wide lens with very little distortion and a robust construction, but it's a crop sensor only lens too.

For your tele, the 70-200 2.8 (non IS) isn't as well weather sealed as the IS version (even the f/4 IS has better sealing).I think the 70-200 f/4 IS would be a good choice for video.It's lighter, quite sharp and has Image stabilization (critical for video especially at the long end).

The 50 1.2 is overkill for your needs and will only eliminate your budget!
The 24-105 f.4 is great but I've only tested it on a 5DMkII where it delivered the goods and then some!

In general, a Canon DSLR for video (with the exception of the new 650d maybe in conjuction with the new STM lenses for autofocusing) needs to be treated and used as a typical cinematic camera.Lots of accessories as the other fellows said, but that doesn't mean that you can't "run & gun" It's just more difficult and requires a certain level of experience with the system.

Lastly, I haven't seen the 650D up close but the 7D's weather sealing is exceptional.Mine has taken a bucket load of water recently and didn't even blink 8)


----------



## Pieces Of E (Jul 13, 2012)

I don't understand why people are buying still cameras to shoot video. Do they think it's vogue? Who here would want to ski down a mountain slope with a 7D pasted to their face or clumsily clunking at their chest when there are sooo many well worth camcorders out there that will fit in one's pocket and create stunning HD video at clip sizes up to hours on end(not at the 12 or 24 minute limit as the 7D), have mulitiple video scene choices, settings, and auto focus to choose from. Wow, snowcast, good luck. How about sharing your experiences with the rest of us when you return? Cheers!  ps - stock up on compact flash cards too


----------



## mbiedermann (Jul 13, 2012)

For shooting video only I would definitely return the 7D and get a Hero video camera.

http://www.amazon.com/GoPro-HD-HERO2-Outdoor-Edition/dp/B005WY3TI4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342208480&sr=8-1&keywords=hero+camera

Cheers


----------



## Halfrack (Jul 13, 2012)

There are 3 things you need to focus on - weather sealing, stability, and insurance coverage.

The 7D is an amazing camera, and yes, it can do video, but it's not an all weather video camera. You'll need to build a rig to mount things like a mic, a follow focus system, maybe a monitor, lights, plus coverage for snow/rainand a tripod mount. The reason you were told to get the 70-200 2.8 non-is is because the lens doesn't breathe - aka chance focus as you zoom - but it has zero weather sealing ...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/photo-lenses-for-video-there-is-no-free-lunch
http://blog.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/photo-lenses-for-video

Read both of those bits, and reconsider the purchase. Contour and Hero make inexpensive cameras that do HD video in sealed containers and are more inline with the budget.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Jul 13, 2012)

I have done a lot of sports shooting with video cameras (mainly the always reliable Sony VX1000) but I also own a 7D for stills and some video work but if you're planning on shooting someone skiing, however short amount of footage you're going to be getting, I would definitely *not* recommend you use a 7D - doesn't matter how good you are the footage will look amateurish and pretty bad as you attempt to manual focus on a subject moving that fast.

a dedicated video camera is what you need (as basically everyone else here has said so). You'll find your job so much easier.


----------



## n0iZe (Jul 14, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The 50L is a superb lens but its overkill for video. Its meant for high speed stills but you wont notice the difference in video. Get the 50mm 1.4 canon



+1
You really won't need the 50L, it's a great lens, sure. But that single step won't make difference. Also, if you would've ever tried to focus even with the 50mm f/1.4 USM at wide open aperture, you'd realize how insane f/1.2 would be. And for video even worse!
I would also consider the 50mm f/1.8, although it's made out of plastic, optically it's superb! Some do even say that the f/1.8 is superior to the f/1.4. I don't think so, but they're really close together in points of IQ and sharpness.


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 15, 2012)

Why is everyone saying the 50L isn't good for video? Of course none of the DSLR lenses are technically good for video (except Zeiss stuff), but I've gotten some absolutely stunning footage with my 50L. I rarely shoot below f/2 with it, but it's sharpness, contrast, and bokeh look friggin amazing on stills or video, if you can say it's not good for video you're saying it's not good for stills. 

But OP I agree with some of the others that the 7D may not be the ideal camera for what you're trying to do, it suffers from rolling shutter artifacts pretty badly and if you're going to be doing whip pans of skiers passing by you're going to end up with a whole bunch of unusable footage, and there isn't really any way around that. There are plenty of other alternatives out there nowadays, I'd seriously consider something else before dumping anymore money into it. DSLR's are great for some stuff, like shooting in a fixed studio environment, but for what you're describing I think they are a poor choice.

If you do insist on sticking with a DSLR, I think the 70-200mm will feel much too long on a 7D, no way you'll be able to get steady footage outside of shooting on a tripod. I think the 35L would be a better choice if going with primes, as even 50mm is pretty long on a 7D. 

I think you need an ultra-wide for sure, you can get lots of great landscape shots and some dramatic closeups of skiers. For $2300 I'd suggest:
- Tokina 11-16mm- around $600 and super wide on a 7D
- Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS - $800-900 used
-Canon 70-200 f/4 - $700

You'd have a long range covered and be able to do quite a bit of stuff with those lenses. I think if you're constantly shooting outside you probably don't want to have to deal with primes and switching lenses all the time, these lenses will give you some flexibility. 

Now I don't know if that budget was supposed to include accessories too, but you're going to need some other stuff outside of lenses. A shoulder rig of some sort, possible a steadicam for shooting while skiing, tripod, monitor or evf, etc.


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 15, 2012)

Pieces Of E said:


> I don't understand why people are buying still cameras to shoot video. Do they think it's vogue? Who here would want to ski down a mountain slope with a 7D pasted to their face or clumsily clunking at their chest when there are sooo many well worth camcorders out there that will fit in one's pocket and create stunning HD video at clip sizes up to hours on end(not at the 12 or 24 minute limit as the 7D), have mulitiple video scene choices, settings, and auto focus to choose from. Wow, snowcast, good luck. How about sharing your experiences with the rest of us when you return? Cheers!  ps - stock up on compact flash cards too



Vogue? Seriously? Large sensors and crazy low-light capabilities for a ridiculously low price (relatively). Plus delicious bokeh. Plus the versatility of interchangeable lenses. When the 5DII came out the only other way you could get shallow DOF like that was with the RED One, which cost about 10x as much. It has that cinematic look/feel for $2500 (plus one of the largest sensors in the world), that was a huge thing at the time. Granted they have come out with camcorder alternatives since then, but they are still pretty damn expensive. Traditional camcorders have tiny chips that are a fraction of the size of APS-C or FF sensors, that's why everything is always in focus even stuff far in the background. It's a compromise, they aren't perfect for everything, but they look damn good for what they are. I've been shooting videos with DSLRs for going on 3 years and it's been a pain here and there, but the image quality is worth it. I mean they used them on House and 24, why wouldn't consumers follow suit? If they are good enough for network TV they are good enough for anyone.

Now I agree with you that for this guy's situation they aren't the ideal choice, but outside of this there are plenty of situations that they work very well in.


----------



## Pieces Of E (Jul 16, 2012)

Well, that's what this thread was about - shooting downhill skiing with a 7D, not shooting tv shows like House or 24 OR comparing dslr's to RED video cameras. 'Delicious bokeh' means nothing to sports video shooting.


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 16, 2012)

Pieces Of E said:


> Well, that's what this thread was about - shooting downhill skiing with a 7D, not shooting tv shows like House or 24 OR comparing dslr's to RED video cameras. 'Delicious bokeh' means nothing to sports video shooting.



The guy said "I don't know why people are buying still cameras to shoot video." Then he said "do they think it's vogue?" "People" and "they" would imply that he was directing that at everyone shooting video with DSLRs, then using this guy as an example. I was explaining why people use DSLR's for video in general (which you were aware of based on your response), but you wanted to unleash as much negativity as possible, so you acted like I was talking about sports shooting and made condescending comments even though you knew that wasn't what I was talking about. Pick one dude, you can't have it both ways. I responded to the OP's question in detail in the post prior to that, stop being a troll. Are you that angry that I said delicious bokeh? I was being sarcastic, it's the main thing all the noobs are attracted to. 

I'm sure this guys reasons aren't any different than anyone else's, he wants the image quality/shallow DOF (why the heck would he want to deal with dslrs otherwise?). Are you saying you've never seen a sports video with shallow DOF? Come on man it's like the most overused thing in video right now, everyone uses it even if it's totally uncalled for. That's the whole reason people use these things in the first place and are willing to make all the sacrifices necessary to make these things shoot video comfortably, because of the IQ relative to camcorders.


----------



## Pieces Of E (Jul 16, 2012)

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings expressing my opinions and views. I wish him and you all the best with your video endeavours using your your Canon dslr's.


----------



## syder (Jul 16, 2012)

n0iZe said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 50L is a superb lens but its overkill for video. Its meant for high speed stills but you wont notice the difference in video. Get the 50mm 1.4 canon
> ...



Focussing with the 50/f1.4 wide open is fine... Just get a z-finder/lcdvf so that you can see what you're doing.

Focussing with the 50/f1.8 wide open is horrible. The miniscule tensionless focus ring with minimal travel is a nightmare for accurate focus pulling. It really isn't an appropriate lens for video unless you absolutely cannot afford the 50/1.4

The 50/1.2 is nice, but overkill for your needs. The 1/2 stop is actually quite a big difference in extreme low light, but that isn't what you're doing.

As everyone else has said though, based on what you've suggested your usage is, a dedicated camcorder would be a better choice. 

People haven't mentioned extras, which are a must for DSLR cinematography - Z-finder, variable ND filters, external mic, external sound recorder, some kind of support rig etc - with something like a sony Z7/panasonic HVX200 the only one of those you'd need to consider would be a shotgun mic (and even then the sound that comes with those cameras is miles ahead of what you get out of a dslr).


----------

