Lens for APS-C Video lens "walkarround" & Lens for portraits

Good morning all,
*
I have an EOS 650D and need your help to buy a SET lens.
*
I wanted a lens that would allow me something "Walkarround" can be zoom or prime, wanted something with good quality, and that allowed me to make videos with family and children. (until to 800€ max)
*
*
Also wanted a lens that would allow me to do portrait, with a good background and blur. (Up to € 400-500 max).
*
I really appreciate your help.
*
Thansk you!
*
Joel

17-55 2.8, or 17-50 2.8 VC from Tamron

17-55/2.8IS and 85/1.8. the 17-55 would cover general walkaround and full body to 1/2 portraits, and the 85 covers tighter portraits

timbop wrote in post #16958892
17-55/2.8IS and 85/1.8. the 17-55 would cover general walkaround and full body to 1/2 portraits, and the 85 covers tighter portraits

Thanks for the answer.

Which is better 17-55 Cânon or tamron 17-50?

24-70 sigma isnt a good option for crop?

Jenr wrote in post #16959069
Thanks for the answer.

Which is better 17-55 Cânon or tamron 17-50?

24-70 sigma isnt a good option for crop?

I've had both, and the canon is definitely the better lens. I've also owned the canon 24-70, and in my opinion it wasn't a good focal length match for a crop camera - you still need a wider lens. I actually think the 17-55 is the better general purpose lens on a crop, compared to the 24-70 or 24-105 on a full frame (5d series). I actually kept my 7d longer than I planned so I could hold on to the 17-55 - I liked it that much.

I wouldn't get the Tamron VC. The older non VC version is sharper but might not be the best for video since it's not stabilized. The Canon 17-55 is probably the best overall but is the most expensive. The Sigma 17-50 costs less but gives up full time manual focusing. The Sigma is slightly sharper in the center than the Canon, but the Canon is sharper in the corners.

Owned both canon 17-55 2.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 (both vc and non) Hands down the canon is the best from my pov. I use it as my main lens when shooting most of the time, then switch to some of my others 85 , 200 when I want some more range. If you have the $, go with the Canon 17-55, if not and you don't have an urgent need for a wide angle zoom, save you bucks until you can get the Canon.

I have the 18-55 IS II (kit lens), but for video lens is not good ...

Comparing the Kit lens 18-55 IS II with Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS there are an increase in quality to justify the big price difference?

I also have the EF 40 f2.8 STM (excellent lens) very sharp ... but the video sistem focus is neither good nor fast nor silent ...

The big question that I put here and ask anyone who has experience with these lenses mentioned, if I buy the Canon 17-55 IS F2.8 I will have a good quality of video and optical quality in photography? comparing with kit lens and ef 40 f2.8??

Many thanks

Your lens needs to have image stabilization for video. I suggest the Canon 15-85IS. It will not, however, provide good background blur for portraiture; it is only f/5.6 at the long end. But I am not sure it would fit within your budget. (I don't know prices in Euros.)

Someone else has already suggested the 17-55/2.8 and the 18/1.8 combo. This is a very good suggestion. An alternative might be the kit 18-55STM or 18-135STM, combined with the 85/1.8 or 50/1.8.

Jenr wrote in post #16958710
Good morning all,
*
I have an EOS 650D and need your help to buy a SET lens.
*
I wanted a lens that would allow me something "Walkarround" can be zoom or prime, wanted something with good quality, and that allowed me to make videos with family and children. (until to 800€ max)
*
*
Also wanted a lens that would allow me to do portrait, with a good background and blur. (Up to € 400-500 max).
*
I really appreciate your help.
*
Thansk you!
*
Joel

Heya,

EF-S 18-135 STM would be a great "all around" lens for what you're looking to do here. It's fine for portraits (just use the 50~85mm range, or more, and it's solid for it).

Very best,

Jenr wrote in post #16959625
I have the 18-55 IS II (kit lens), but for video lens is not good ...

Comparing the Kit lens 18-55 IS II with Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS there are an increase in quality to justify the big price difference?

I also have the EF 40 f2.8 STM (excellent lens) very sharp ... but the video sistem focus is neither good nor fast nor silent ...

The big question that I put here and ask anyone who has experience with these lenses mentioned, if I buy the Canon 17-55 IS F2.8 I will have a good quality of video and optical quality in photography? comparing with kit lens and ef 40 f2.8??

Many thanks

The 18-55 is an OK lens; the 17-55 is an excellent lens. I don't really do video, but for stills the 17-55/2.8 IS has fast and accurate AF.

timbop wrote in post #16959666
The 18-55 is an OK lens; the 17-55 is an excellent lens. I don't really do video, but for stills the 17-55/2.8 IS has fast and accurate AF.

Thanks for the answer,

To photograph children outside in a garden or babies indoor, the 85mm f1.8 lens makes a good background blur?

Many thanks for the help
Joel

Yes the 85/1.8 can indeed make a very blurred background, but there is more to it than just the lens itself. Increasing the distance from background to subject and decreasing distance from subject to camera increases the background blur. Opening up the aperture (going to a smaller f/number) also increases the background blur. Using a longer focal length also increases the background blur. However, decreasing the distance from camera to subject and using a longer focal length mean that you are getting less of your subject in the picture, so most photogs first go for wider aperture and then longer focal length

If you're serious about video, 18-135 STM & 50 f/1.4 and a 70D replacing the 650D. In the US, you could pick up that kit for around 1600$ on a good sale, not sure what the EU prices are for it.

I'm recommending the 70D over your 650D as the live view AF is just that much better. I'd only recommend this if you're serious about doing a decent amount of video though. If you're just going to shoot 2 videos a year, it's not worth it.

I think the 17-55 (or 17-50) is a better lens for stills in the 17-55 range than the 18-135, no question. However the 18-135 will be much better if you're serious about video. The AF on the 17-55 will be loud on the video, and if it's your only zoom lens, the added reach will be helpful, especially as it's 2.7X longer than the 17-50.

If you want to do a lot of indoor shooting, I'd recommend investing in a flash, not a fast zoom. Pictures with poor lighting don't look good. While sometimes it's necessary to not use a flash, whenever possible, a simple bounced flash will make your pictures look a million times better.

In general, I'd probably recommend the 85 f/1.8 over the 50 f/1.4 for portraits. However, when looking at only a single prime, I think the 50 is more versatile, as it's short enough to still be useful indoors, while the 85 is really a bit long to be used indoors. I think the added flexibility merits the shorter lens given they're very close in terms of background blur.

To final decision:

In terms of color quality, sharpness, quality focus, video, bokeh:

Set1:

- Keep my EF40 f2.8 + buy EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS USM + buy EF 85 F1.8

or

Set2:

- Keep my lens KIT 18-55 IS II + keep EF40 f2.8 + buy an ef 50f1.4 + buy an 85 f1.8

Many Thanks.