Fast (low-light) zoom lenses?

[izzypizzy]

Hi, I need some advice from someone more knowledgable than I am..

I am planning on getting the EOS 20D when it comes out, and am currently trying to figure out what lenses to get with it. I will be using the camera to shoot on movie sets, where flash will not be usable, and the light will be very low..

What I was thinking of getting is the 10-22 f3.5-4.5, and the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 or the 28-105 f3.5-4.5

However, im concerned that these lenses will not perform as well in low light, as some of the more expensive lenses might ie: 24-70 f2.8

As you can tell from my lens selection, I want coverage from ultra wide to medium telephoto, and if I could achieve that in 2 lenses, it would be ideal.

Thanks in advance,

isaac

[dds]

All those lenses are "slowish" (just invented the term!!). :wink:
Possibly: EF 16-35 2.8
Tamron 28-75 2.8

Just a possibility.

DDS

[Olegis]

For very low light situation you'll have to use fast (f/1.8 or so) primes. For portraits (headshots) I would use the 85mm f/1.8 and for torso / full body shots I recommend the 50mm f/1.8 MkII.
The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is very capable lens, but it's not the sharpest lens ever at f/2.8, in order to produce sharp results you'll have to step down to f/4 or even further. The Canon 24-70 f/2.8L will perform much better wide open, but at 3 times the price. Will it perform 3 times better ? No, but the differences will be visible.

[izzypizzy]

Thanks for the reply.. what are your thoughts on the tamron 28-105 f/2.8?


btw i really like both of your pictures on your sites

[Olegis]

You mean Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 ?
Great lens. I have posted about it before in this forum, you can search for my posts or look within my galleries for pictures I made with 28-75 f/2.8.

[izzypizzy]

actually was curious about this one
http://www.adorama.com/TM28105EOS.html[/code]

[Cadwell]

actually was curious about this one
http://www.adorama.com/TM28105EOS.html

No personal experience but it's rated as a bit of a dog here....

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

The results there are usualy representative.

[izzypizzy]

thanks a lot cadwell! thats a nice little site

[DocFrankenstein]

I've been on the sets as extra, usually the lighting is decent if you have shutter speeds of 2.8 and above

I've seen 2 different photogs using some film body with 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 Wasn't close enough to see if it's IS. One guy with D30 and 17-40

Also a few nikon ones. Don't know bodies. Lenses looked like mid range zoom. 28-140 maybe?

If I were shooting there, I'd buy 70-200/2.8 and 24-70 L Usually you stay behind the camera anyways, so you don't need wide angle that much.

Hope this babble helps

[jgbeam]

Definitely the 24-70 f2.8 L as your main lens. Add a fast prime for your second lens. 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 or 135 f/2, depending on how tight you want to be.

Jim

[ejwebb]

I have the 28-105 lens which is the least used of my lenses - to the point that I am considering leaving it on my film SLR and taking it out of my DSLR bag. While the quality of the lens is good, it is the focal length with the crop factor that is the issue - it is not wide enough at the short end or long enough at the long end for most of my needs - and it's not very fast for low light situations and it doesn't have IS. The 28-135 adds IS and a little length but is still not quite there for what I need.

Given my other lenses, I would much prefer the 85mm f1.8 to the 28-105 lens, especially for low light. None of my lenses (except the 50mm) are fast enough to shoot low light situations comfortably. Although, the 20D is supposed to provide very usable pictures up to ISO 1600 which will make a couple of stops difference if true.

You might also want to consider the new 18-85 f/4-5.6 IS Canon lens (I think I got it right) - check to see if reviews are out yet. That lens with its IS funtionality and the 20d's high ISO capability might be just the ticket.

Probably just confused you more - just that IMHO there are better choices for what you want than the 28-105 - because of its range with the crop factor.

[izzypizzy]

Thanks for all the useful info, I'm new to photography, but I've always been interested in it, my dad is an indie director (independant films), on his last film I did the behind the scenes footage with a canon GL2, but I much more enjoyed snapping photos with its still function. And my dad is always looking for a good set photographer, so I'm hoping I'll be able to fill those shoes. It's a good alternative to acting, which I have no interest in!

I'm very glad I found this forum, everyone is so helpful. Idealistically I would love to have the 16-35 2.8L, the 24-70 2.4L, and then maybe a tighter prime like 100m, but for now, hopefully I'll be getting the 24-70, and perhaps more later on.

My friend is trying to convince me to get the Nikon D70, but I can't understand why anyone would prefer it to the 20D, providing that you can afford the extra $.

[MediaMagic]

Hi Izzy,

if you don't have the bucks to splurge on the 24-70 2.8L, you may want to check out this possibility as a starter set.

Canon 50mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.8

These are both primes, not the telephoto zoom you are wanting, but I can tell you that for the money, this combo is pretty awesome.

The 50 1.4 starts getting *very* sharp at about 2.0. If you bump the ISO up to 400 or even 800, you'll be *amazed* at the sharpness and performance of this lens in low light, and you'll be able to either use faster shutter, or close down slightly (the 50mm 1.8 II is a fantastic lens for the money, but it really can't compete with the 1.4 in larger aperture sharpness.. though once you get down to about 4.0, the difference, if any, is arguable).

The 85 1.8 on either the 10D\300D\20D is a nice telephoto for getting in closer for head shots, or you could even consider the 100 f2 to get closer still.

If you can afford the 24-70L, you're still looking at 2.8 wide open (and therefore softest), so you have to think about the ambient lighting you are most likely to encounter. I'm not sure though, why would the light be so low on movie sets? I thought the object of the set lighting was to be nice and bright for the movie cameras? If the light really is 'low', you might not be as pleased with the 24-70L as you might think. I have all of the lenses I've mentioned in this post, and if it's a low ambient light condition, I don't even consider the 24-70L unless I absolutely have to have the wide end. I reach for one of those primes first.

Anyway, good luck with your new camera, it looks to be excellent.

[izzypizzy]

thx mediamagic, I'll consider it. To answer your question about lighting on sets.. if you've ever seen old film noir films, you'd understand. The lighting my dad uses is very stylized and shadowed, not like you'd see in an Adam Sandler film, which is why it's important for me to have fast lenses, unfortunately..

if you, or anybody has some indoor shots with the 24-70L i'd love to see em.

thx