Lens Setup help

S

Spiri7o

Active member
I use a 60D with a Tokina 11-16. I used this setup throughout the winter filming skiing. The wide angle was great all season. This summer I want to film a lot including, cliff jumping, tramp, summer setup, etc...

I'm looking to spend some money and invest in a lens or two. What are some good ones to have for a more complete setup, I was thinking a tele and maybe a 35?
 
Clearly this is what you need in life.

MEETO9r.png


sqs7yqu.jpg
 
35mm f2 or Sigma 30 f1.4.. maybe a 28 f1.8 or Sigma 24 or 28 f1.8.

Then a 70-200 or something.

..or just a 50 f1.8 like everyone and their mom
 
Or fuck that, get a 24-105 f4 is and get a bunch of primes. All the focal length you'd need in 2 zoom lenses.
 
12993306:DingoSean said:
35mm f2 or Sigma 30 f1.4.. maybe a 28 f1.8 or Sigma 24 or 28 f1.8.

Then a 70-200 or something.

..or just a 50 f1.8 like everyone and their mom
Click to expand...

if i were to get a 70-200 or 70-300. Would it be better to get a 35 or 50 1.8?
 
12994064:Snowflake222 said:
if i were to get a 70-200 or 70-300. Would it be better to get a 35 or 50 1.8?
Click to expand...

All the canon 70-200s are built far better than any 70-300, excluding the L one that's ridiculously expensive. That said, I'd recommend a sigma 70-200 f2.8 over an F4, they cost about the same used and with the F4 you can't recover that extra stop.

On a crop sensor I'd recommend the 35, because it has a 56mm equivalent focal length, but the 50/1.8 is obscenely cheap.
 
12994064:Snowflake222 said:
if i were to get a 70-200 or 70-300. Would it be better to get a 35 or 50 1.8?
Click to expand...

I really don't like 50's on a crop sensor. I'd go with the 35
 
Get both the 35 AND the 50.... I mean, they both weigh nothing and take up no space... and a used 50 costs as much as a tank of gas lol.
 
I would get a vintage nikon 70-200 if you are only doing video, canon 70-200L for photos. Personally, I don't see the benefit of IS for sports photography, because a high shutter speed/support will render it unnecessary. For other uses, there are benefits, but ultimately this is for you to decide (cost vs features).

For the mid-wide, something like a 24mm or 28mm, f2.8 or faster. Should give a roughly 35mm perspective, which is nice because it isn't aggressively wide, but not too tight to use for indoor/small group shots etc. You could go 35mm also for a 50mm equivalent, I had a 50 (equivalent) for a while and while I really liked it for most things, a 35mm can be better for indoor/group shots etc.

If you get a 70-200 f4L, then I would suggest you also pick up an 85mm f1.8 for a fast mid-tele. I would still suggest it regardless, but more so if you don't have a fast long lens. This will be great for portraits, head shots, and even shooting some features from a tripod.

Last one (though not in order of purchase/priority) would be a helios 44-2. I would almost suggest you get this one first. It is usually only $20 or less, and it has great character. It is full metal, the focus ring is great, and it is just a really cool lens. I would not suggest the canon 50mm f1.8. I can't stand this lens. It is made so cheaply that it feels like it will fall apart in your hands (worse than any kit lens I've seen). The focus ring is awful, very small, and the AF is also awful. I borrowed a friends and had it on a 1dmkii n and it simply can't focus in low light. So why pay 5x as much for a lens that is 10x worse than the helios?

So overall, Tokina 11-16, 24/28/35 f2.8 or faster (vintage or canon), helios 44-2 (58mm f2), canon 85mm f1.8, canon (or nikon for strictly video to save money) 70-200. This seems like a killer set of glass, and then later on you can add things like 300mm+ tele's, a fisheye, macro or tilt-shift lenses etc. Last thing I would suggest is a decent fluid head, especially for the long lenses for video, and don't forget about audio of course.
 
There's no such thing as a vintage Nikon 70-200. ;)

IS is very helpful in sports still photography, as much of the time you're moving the lens to follow a subject. Even if you're shooting at 1/500th, you're liable to blur your subject at times without it. It's useless for video, however.

If you have a 70-200 f4L, you don't really need an 85. Just back up further and zoom in. an 85 would be redundant in this case unless you just had an extra 350 to throw around on one (or 200 if you bought a vintage Nikkor). Unless you're already very familiar and comfortable shooting a 135 (which is what an 85 is equal to on a 60D) then it's really just throwing money in the wrong place.

*I'm assuming you're mostly doing video, so I'm throwing out Autofocus for this recommendation.

If you want a cheap, awesome vintage prime setup, pick up any 28 f2.8 (I really like the vintage Tokina in either OM-mount, F-mount or K-mount), a Pentax screwmount SMC 55 f1.8 (comes out to like a 90mm lens on a 60D), and a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f3.5 (110-325mm).*

Shouldn't cost you more than $100-150ish for the three, and the adapters will be cheap.

..if you do want AF, or want long zooms, get a 24-105 f4L IS, and either the 35 f2 or 28 f1.8. Will cost you 8-10 times as much, as the vintage recommendation, though.
 
12994718:DingoSean said:
There's no such thing as a vintage Nikon 70-200. ;)
Click to expand...

*70-210, my bad. At least I believe the 70-210 is the one that landis as well as a few others were very happy with for video
 
the E-series 70-210 isn't bad, no. They actually used the same optical formula in the first 70-210 f4 Nikkor AF lens in the mid-80's.

That said, for a bit cheaper, I think the Vivitar 70-210 f3.5 is a crazy nice option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top