Canon Lenses

Hello Everyone!

Canon motion picture artists might find the blog below useful.

It's the first one and about the Canon 18-200 EF-S / f3.5-5.6 IS lens from Motion Picture aspect -NOT photographical point of view.More Canon lens articles will be coming.

http://www.boscorelli.net/2011/01/01/canon-ef-s-18-200f3-5-5-6-is-lens-review-from-motion-picture-point-of-view/


Which lens(es) do you use and/or prefer?

Great article. Thanks for writing and posting it.
I use all Canon prime lens (got away from zooms) except for a Russian fisheye I use from time to time.
My favorite is the canon 50mm 1.4 and use it most of the time.

There isn't a problem using canon glass for video as far as I can see, there has been some articles on Canon L glass compared to Zeiss. The problem isn't the glass or quality (somewhat) but the build quality.
Zeiss lens are made to be focus pulled and do it smoothly.
When I use my Canon lens with my follow focus and pull focus sometimes you can see the clunkiness. That has made for more than one re-take.

Anyway, if I could justify it (maybe this year) I would have a set of Zeiss primes.
http://www.abelcine.com/store/Zeiss-Compact-Prime-CP.2-3-Lens-Set/

Jake

Thanks for the feedback!

Here is another article which some members of this community might be interested in.

http://www.boscorelli.net/2011/01/20/using-nd-filter-for-motion-picture/

Thanks for the article, I appreciate it. I was wondering of the http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/373747-REG/Sigma_777101_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_DC_Lens.html would also be an option? The IS seems like a nice thing to have, but for video work I would seldom use it - as I don't go off the tripod when using DSLRs.

I think, the Sigma can be good for you if you don't use the IS (OS) frequently.
There is one thing you should check before you buy the Sigma. CA!
Canon 18-200 has some of it but I don't know any CA details regarding to the Sigma. If it gets acceptable photographical reviews on this matter, I think it works for you for video.
But in my opinion, Canon is Canon if you know what I mean :-)

I shoot lots with a Sigma (18-50/ 3.5 no IS +macro) and actually it is one of my favorites. It's smooth as vaseline on pulls, it's compact, light weight and simply very diverse. But I have come to the conclusion that one really doesn't need the highest quality glass as we are dealing with moving pictures. The minute we talk video, we can get away with lots more than with still photos, simply because the scene changes every 24th or 30th of a second, and the framing is so much smaller than what the typical lens is designed for anyway.

You are absolutely correct in your article about how lenses get rated for photography more so than for video. Perhaps there is a reason for that - one pretty obvious - these used to be cameras for photogs only. But the second not so obvious - I have run into many pro photogs that have 5DMii and have never ever even tried to shoot in video mode. I am amazed when I hear that. But perhaps shouldn't be - as they are photogs and not cinematographers. I have asked a few as to why not. It seems they actually sometimes are in fear of video as they blatantly state that they don't understand it. I thought about that for a bit - and yes, a transition of this nature may not be easy to swallow for some. Particularly for those that have been photogs for many years. They all know the functions exist - but simply refuse to "turn the dial" and give it a shot.

I have to agree with Andy on the quality of glass needed for video versus photos. Commercial grade photos definitely need a much higher quality glass than video. Even the camera makes a big difference on photos. If I'm shooting commercial grade photos I use my 5D MKII and not my 7D. For video either one is great except for low light where the 5D shines. I have several Canon L lenses and love all of them, I also shoot with a Sigma 24-70 EX DG which is very good although I do not think gives as good a photo as the Canon ones. After buying I've sent all of them back for factory calibration, both Canon and Sigma. That did make a difference on sharpness and focus accuracy. 1920x1080 is a small output from the new dslr cameras.

A new article about Canon 10-22 are up.Those who are interested in "wideworld" can find it useful:

http://www.boscorelli.net/2011/03/17/canon-ef-s-10-22f3-5-5-6-usm-from-motion-picture-aspect/

I owned both the Canon 70-300mm and Sigma 70-300mm and I found the image was much better with the Sigma. The Sigma was much sharper at 300mm than the Canon and it had a much prettier bokeh.

My primary lenses are a Pentax 50mm F/1.4 with an EOS adapter, a Nikon 35mm F/1.4 with an EOS adapter, a Super-Takumar 24mm F/2.8 with an EOS adapter, a Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS, a Canon 200mm F/2.8L, a Tamron 18-270mm VC, and a Vivatar 250-500 F/8.

Like Jake, most of the video I shoot is with the 50mm F/1.4, but I'm starting to shoot more with the Tamron 18-270mm zoom. It's sharp from end to end (in video mode), shoot a beautiful picture, has image stabilization for handheld use, and has a gorgeous bokeh.

And that's another thing to consider... I read a lot of reviews about zooms where they are not as sharp on the max zoom end, which I've found to be true on the Canon 70-300mm when shooting photos. But when shooting video, it was still very sharp even at 300mm because the camera shoots video differently than stills. So you need to take that into consideration when reading reviews about lens sharpness, as most reviewers will be still photographers.

Also, let me dispel a myth that you shouldn't/can't shoot handheld video with IS enabled on your lens... check out the difference using the stock Canon 18-55mm lens:



IS lens test

Vimeo embedding doesn't work on Pond5, so you'll have to click the link.