# $1200 for Lens to shoot video



## spielberg (Apr 8, 2012)

Hey guys,
I'm going to be getting a 5D Mark II soon after breaking my old 500D, and will be getting some new lenses as well. About $2000 will be spent on the body so I have about $1200 for lenses. I mainly shoot video but still do photography when I'm travelling around. About 80% video and 20% photography. Right now I'm deciding on two options.

I could go with 3 primes. Canon 28mm 1.8, Canon 50mm 1.4 and Canon 85mm 1.8 which would cover most of the lengths that I'd shoot with. Or I could go with the Canon 24-70mm 2.8.

I'm not too sure which option would be best. Obviously the primes would have better DOF and more capable in low light conditions but I lose versatility. Also I'm not sure if those primes necessarily produce better quality images/video just because they are primes, than L lens glass.

My question is, given my situation, which option would be best?


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 8, 2012)

spielberg said:


> My question is, given my situation, which option would be best?



I'd choose neither option  - or are you always shooting video on a tripod an never need image stabilization? There is a reason Canon just released two primes with IS... and besides, travel and changing lenses might not connect nicely, and just as you wrote vanilla primes will have about the same iq as an good L zoom.

You might want to have a look at the new Tamron 24-70 with IS which is just in your price range, see Canon rumors main page.


----------



## spielberg (Apr 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I'd choose neither option  - or are you always shooting video on a tripod an never need image stabilization? There is a reason Canon just released two primes with IS... and besides, travel and changing lenses might not connect nicely, and just as you wrote vanilla primes will have about the same iq as an good L zoom.



I have a stabilisation rig so IS isn't a concern for me. My main question is whether these cheap primes will actually offer any significant advantage in terms of image/video quality over the 24-70 L lens. I know that people usually say primes will always be better than zooms but I'm comparing cheap primes to a relatively higher quality zoom. Will these primes offer anything apart from higher aperture?


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 8, 2012)

spielberg said:


> My main question is whether these cheap primes will actually offer any significant advantage in terms of image/video quality over the 24-70 L lens. I know that people usually say primes will always be better than zooms but I'm comparing cheap primes to a relatively higher quality zoom. Will these primes offer anything apart from higher aperture?



No, they won't, esp. not for video - you can see for yourself: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx


----------



## cinema-dslr (Apr 8, 2012)

for scripted filmlike shoots i would go for primes.
for run & gun docu style shoots the 24-70L is the way to go (you can always ad primes for special shots )


----------



## Ew (Apr 10, 2012)

Try the current Tamron 28-75 2.8. Focusing ring is not as nice (feels a bit short and not as smooth on pulls) as the 24-70, but IQ is quite good.

This will leave room in your budget for a 50 1.4.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 10, 2012)

For video, the 24-105 IS USM is a much better choice than the 24-70 because of the IS. We use that lens for wedding videos all the time. My recommendation is to use that lens to start, then add the Canon 24mm f/1.4 as your next high end video prime. These two make for an incredibly powerful and fairly inexpensive variety powerhouse for videography. We use these two all the time for wedding videos!


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 10, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> For video, the 24-105 IS USM is a much better choice than the 24-70 because of the IS. We use that lens for wedding videos all the time. My recommendation is to use that lens to start, then add the Canon 24mm f/1.4 as your next high end video prime. These two make for an incredibly powerful and fairly inexpensive variety powerhouse for videography. We use these two all the time for wedding videos!


i too would say go with the cheapest newest kit lens, the 24-105, but not because it has IS, because it has more range for a goto run and gun lens. besides, i would hope you turn the IS off for video! then with the money you saved, only spending 1k, spend the rest on one fast prime, either a 24mm or 50mm. then you'll have the best of both worlds.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 11, 2012)

jlev23 said:


> i would hope you turn the IS off for video!



Why would you ever want to turn IS OFF for video?!??! IS lenses with DSLR cameras is an incredibly powerful stabilization tool. Its a HUGE bonus for videos! Turning IS off would be foolish, and a total waste of great technology. Do some more research on IS and video before offering this kind of advice please.


----------



## Caps18 (Apr 11, 2012)

I think the only reason is that if you don't have an external microphone, that you might pick up the IS operating on the built-in mic? (I'm not sure about this, I think I heard it someplace)


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 11, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> I think the only reason is that if you don't have an external microphone, that you might pick up the IS operating on the built-in mic? (I'm not sure about this, I think I heard it someplace)



You would if you were using the camera's internal mic for audio. But I don't know any professional videographer that would use audio direct from the camera. The RODE video mic's float on rubber mounts, and cut out all the IS noise. And that would be the cheapest solution. We use wireless Sennheiser's and Zoom H1n's to capture audio. Crisp audio is every bit as important as good image quality. Either way, audio is rarely from an on camera source.

you can see what we use here:
http://www.brovadoweddings.com/blog/equipment/


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 11, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> jlev23 said:
> 
> 
> > i would hope you turn the IS off for video!
> ...


IS off is a requirement when we are shooting with L series lenses on professional projects , not only does it not hold a lock off, put when you are doing a pan or tilt it doesn't stop solid when you stop, it drifts. we have tried is on some handheld shots and it did help in some rough terrains, but the bottom line there is a difference in cinematic movement rather then trying to stabilize a lens to reduce motion blur on a still frame. IS off!
our cinema lenses are 50k+ and they don't have IS, there is a reason, so you do some research or maybe just get some experience before your telling someone to keep IS on when no one in the professional field uses it when shooting video.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 11, 2012)

jlev23 said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > jlev23 said:
> ...



If the lens has IS, it improves image quality with video in almost every scenario. This is obviously NOT the case when using on a tri-pod or monopod for panning/tilting shots. I am talking about Glidecam/motion/rig shots of all kind. Thats where IS is a real winner. All the pro's out there will tell you the same.


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 11, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> jlev23 said:
> 
> 
> > prestonpalmer said:
> ...


almost every scenario you are on a glidecam? id say 90 percent of the time I'm on a tripod or a dolly. well, i have "b camera" on a steadicam tomorrow so ill ask him what he prefers, he has shot a 5d on his rig over 100 times, about 10 times for me personally and we never mentioned having IS on, but its been a while ill ask him. i wonder why they haven't put any cinema lenses out, ever, that have IS. it seems if canon can do it, so can Angenieux.


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 11, 2012)

oh and speilberg, since you are trying to save money with going with a 4 year old camera, rather then the MK3, then just find a used kit lens from someone that bought the MK3 kit and didn't need the lens. two of my friends found and picked them up cheap, $800. its still a great lens, 24-105mm and has your IS for photos(and glidecam). then get one nice fast prime for those low light conditions, something like a 50mm 1.4. i actually use an old nikkor set of f1.8 lenses for those emergencies and are great for video, especially because you are all manual at that point anyway.
good luck!


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 11, 2012)

oh heres others talking about not using IS on video.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?225753-Canon-Image-Stabilization-(IS)-necessary-for-video

as well, for your one fast prime, and if you shoot mostly video, check out the new zeiss lenses.
get a kit lens and one nice zeiss!


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 11, 2012)

jlev23 said:


> id say 90 percent of the time I'm on a tripod or a dolly. well, i have "b camera" on a steadicam tomorrow so ill ask him what he prefers, he has shot a 5d on his rig over 100 times, about 10 times for me personally and we never mentioned having IS on, but its been a while ill ask him. i wonder why they haven't put any cinema lenses out, ever, that have IS. it seems if canon can do it, so can Angenieux.



We are on glide cams/ rigs 90% of the time. Probably 10% tripod, monopod or track.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 11, 2012)

jlev23 said:


> oh and speilberg, since you are trying to save money with going with a 4 year old camera, rather then the MK3, then just find a used kit lens from someone that bought the MK3 kit and didn't need the lens. two of my friends found and picked them up cheap, $800. its still a great lens, 24-105mm and has your IS for photos(and glidecam). then get one nice fast prime for those low light conditions, something like a 50mm 1.4. i actually use an old nikkor set of f1.8 lenses for those emergencies and are great for video, especially because you are all manual at that point anyway.
> good luck!



I think that you're forgetting that the 5d2 has Magic Lantern (hopefully the unified is released for it soon!), which has a ton more functionality on the video side than the 5d3. Granted, the 5d3 does have a better sensor/ISO, and generally better encoding + timecode, but things like focus peaking & other great controls? 5d3 sure doesn't! 

I'm mostly a stills guy, but dabble in video helping out some friends. I have the 5d2 & 5d3, and from a video perspective, it's not really much of an upgrade over the 5d2. Honestly Canon, you couldn't give some better controls, add in some focus peaking? Hell, partner up with Magic Lantern and get them to do all that wonderful functionality you don't feel like putting into the stock firmware!


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 11, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> No, they won't, esp. not for video - you can see for yourself: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx



Uhhh what about the extra stops for low-light situations? Or the increased sharpness and improved bokeh? Don't get me wrong the 24-70 is a great lens, but for video I always use primes.


----------



## raptor3x (Apr 11, 2012)

spielberg said:


> Hey guys,
> I'm going to be getting a 5D Mark II soon after breaking my old 500D, and will be getting some new lenses as well. About $2000 will be spent on the body so I have about $1200 for lenses. I mainly shoot video but still do photography when I'm travelling around. About 80% video and 20% photography. Right now I'm deciding on two options.
> 
> I could go with 3 primes. Canon 28mm 1.8, Canon 50mm 1.4 and Canon 85mm 1.8 which would cover most of the lengths that I'd shoot with. Or I could go with the Canon 24-70mm 2.8.
> ...



You should be able to get a used 24-105 for around ~$800 and a Rokinon/Samyang 35/1.4 for ~$400.


----------



## spielberg (Apr 12, 2012)

Thanks for the advice guys. The kit lens with a good prime sounds good. I'm actually still deciding whether to go for the Canon or the Panasonic GH2 which I've been recommended by a friend who's been shooting films a lot longer than I have.


----------



## preppyak (Apr 12, 2012)

spielberg said:


> Thanks for the advice guys. The kit lens with a good prime sounds good. I'm actually still deciding whether to go for the Canon or the Panasonic GH2 which I've been recommended by a friend who's been shooting films a lot longer than I have.


Part of it depends on your work. You'll probably get a more cinematic look with the 5D, but, the GH2 (hacked) has much better resolution and sharpness. If you're doing narrative work, its one thing (go 5D). If you're doing event shooting and some corporate stuff, the GH2 might be the way to go. Plus, you'll save $1000 on the body and you can use it to get even nicer lenses (Zeiss, Nikon AI-s, etc).

I ultimately went with my 60D over the GH2 because I use it for stills as much as video, and the GH2 is not as well reviewed on the stills end. But if I was doing 90% video, I'd have a GH2 with a Nikon adapter and a bunch of the older Nikkor glass


----------

