I returned the 50mm f/1.4 Sigma. I am going to try 17-50mm f/2.8 Sigma IS first. If it does not have sharp image quality, then I am going to try Canon version 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Shooting video and handheld I must have IS. otherwise it just to shaky for my liking.
Hey! Please quote me entirely and not pretend I didn't know it's impractical.Originally Posted by Janke
Camera should be stationary and the talents should move.
You're right it's typically not an issue, however with a less interesting interview I'll start looking around, especially if the there are no changes of perspective (visually). At such a moment those situations will show. But again, I do think it's not the worst thing of all, yet I'm wondering if anybody does factor it in to possibly opt for primes.I've not has a single instance where the inherent lens distortion has caused any problems. (Perspective distortion, yes, but not barrel/pincushion...)
You tend to ignore such small distortions in a moving picture. In a still, you have time to look for them...
I have the 17-50 2.8 OS Sigma and i love it. It's def my go to lens for video. The OS is fantastic and it's very sharp.
Last edited by lobstaman; 2012 March 6th at 15:49.
I think people choose primes for other reasons - small size, sharpness, and low light shooting.
Can you guys recommand me a filter for outdoor shoot? (Video) I like to stay under $100.
After much researching, I took your adviced, I ordered Light Craft 77mm Fader ND Mark II filter. It should arrive by next week.
I might check for these when I'll upgrade my tools (mattebox + filters). It'd be great when using the T2i outside with a prime lens. So far I have a CPL and ND8 filter attached on a Cokin-P holder. Works fine, but would be great to have something better!
77mm Fader ND filter came yesterday. I screw it onto the lens and did some video/photo testing indoor and bright sunny out door. The results I really like it... But I can no longer use my lens hood, which is sucks, because the larger front glass of the fader filter. I can't slide the lens hood over. Fader ND filter users> NO lens hood? It would be nice after I dialed in my ND F # and then slide in the lens hood.
Look like I need a 82mm lens hood for the 77mm Fader ND filter. Can you guys recommend me a good 82mm lens hood.
Depending what's you're after, there's several models with different pros&cons.
Usually, for stills, the flower lens hood is generally well liked.
I would personally try this one for the price (recomended seller as well). But as you'll be using a DSLR to shoot video, I'm personally looking to get a "real" mattebox with filters holder as well as flags in order to use with prime lenses. This one seems to be the most versatile and complete one I've found so far. I don't know yet if I'll try to build one or get that one for ~250$.
Double post.
There's also the Cokin P system that's affordable and works well with filters.
I went with this for a Cokin compatible filter holder along with some step-down rings:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-day-auctio...item1c2531d70d
And I went for this Matte Box:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/260919080605...84.m1423.l2649
I'm thinking about gluing the filter holder to the matte box.
The Matte Box is plastic, but it's fairly solid and worth getting as an interim until you can afford a better one.
For video....if you're on a budget, I don't think you should be looking at the best lenses from Canon. You could wait for the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, should be released very soon ($900-1000?), seems like a good all around lens.
I think the lack of image stabilization in fast top Canon lenses makes them too expensive for videographers. If you're going to spend a lot in a lens for video, it should have IS.
I'd get something similar to this set, there are other options but most have slower apertures.
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4
I think this should cover most of your shots, maybe get a telephoto later.[URL="http://sarahmcdonnell.co.uk/"]
UK Wedding Photographers
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote