Which of these lenses for video?

A friend's son is a freshman in college and has an interest in video making. He currently has a Canon SL1 w/ kit lens 18-55mm. He is looking to buy a new wide lens for video and asked about the 17-40mm. I know on a crop camera this translates to 27mm on the wide end. I mentioned possibly the 10-22mm as that would give him 16 on the wide end.

Full disclosure: I have cameras with video capability but they will never have this feature engaged so I can't vouch for what may be a good lens for video. I have owned both the 10-22 and 17-40 at times and found them good lenses for still photos.

For those who do video which would you recommend:

10-22mm
17-40mm
16-35mm

Keep in mind he is only a freshman in college with a VERY limited budget. So, unless he buys used even the 16-35mm v.1 would be stretching his pocketbook.

Thanks in advance. I am sure he will appreciate any information you (I) can pass on to him.

If go with an the 10-18mm stm lense instead of 10-22 the stm lenses are quite and quick focusing for video use.

My daughter spent 4 years at Temple Univ studying film and media arts and now works in the industry. So some things I learned and now rely on myself:

• Wider apertures are better. You can always stop down if you need more depth of field. You can't open up any more than the lens's maximum aperture.
  
• IS is highly recommended if shooting handheld.
  
• The benefits of STM are often unimportant:
  
  • In most cases you will be using manual focus
    
  • In all cases you will be using off-camera mics
    

I suggest installing Magic Lantern firmware on the SL1 to get a bunch of useful video-oriented tools like focus peaking, headphone monitoring, and bitrate controls. It mostly works for the SL1.

http://www.magiclanter​n.fm

As to the lens choice, I would look to old manual focus lenses for video use. You'll get a lot of quality optics for less money. An added benefit is that the manual focus rings are actually useable and allows for great control during recording. The samyang/rokinon line are pretty good for the money for fast manual primes (14mm, 24mm, 35mm, 85mm). They even have a line of cine lenses.

Thank you all for your responses. I will pass the information along.

Another piece of information as I did not list in my original post. He will be shooting handheld or on a monopod. Would this make any difference in any of your answers? Bumpintheroad I saw your comment about handheld - thanks!

Thanks again!

mak65 wrote in post #17969984
A friend's son is a freshman in college and has an interest in video making. He currently has a Canon SL1 w/ kit lens 18-55mm. He is looking to buy a new wide lens for video and asked about the 17-40mm. I know on a crop camera this translates to 27mm on the wide end. I mentioned possibly the 10-22mm as that would give him 16 on the wide end.

Full disclosure: I have cameras with video capability but they will never have this feature engaged so I can't vouch for what may be a good lens for video. I have owned both the 10-22 and 17-40 at times and found them good lenses for still photos.

For those who do video which would you recommend:

10-22mm
17-40mm
16-35mm

Keep in mind he is only a freshman in college with a VERY limited budget. So, unless he buys used even the 16-35mm v.1 would be stretching his pocketbook.

Thanks in advance. I am sure he will appreciate any information you (I) can pass on to him.

I bought a 10-22mm a few months ago for video and find it wonderful even at its amazing low price. Unless he's specializing in very low light videography, it's not too slow. Remember that in video, slow shutter speeds--1/15 to 1/90 are the rule, so slower lenses aren't really a hindrance--fast lenses are just for shallow depth of field effects. Higher ISO is very much more usable in video than in still photography, and the IS is extremely valuable in video.

I'd add the 17-55 f/2.8 IS as a necessary lens--get that one before the 10-22mm. Otherwise, wait to see what kind of work he actually wants to do before deciding on a longer lens.

While cheap prime lenses look good, they're not as useful for someone starting out and learning his "eye."

Another vote for the 17-55mm. I will pass that recommendation on, as well. Thanks!

mak65 wrote in post #17969984
A friend's son is a freshman in college and has an interest in video making. He currently has a Canon SL1 w/ kit lens 18-55mm. He is looking to buy a new wide lens for video and asked about the 17-40mm. I know on a crop camera this translates to 27mm on the wide end. I mentioned possibly the 10-22mm as that would give him 16 on the wide end.

Full disclosure: I have cameras with video capability but they will never have this feature engaged so I can't vouch for what may be a good lens for video. I have owned both the 10-22 and 17-40 at times and found them good lenses for still photos.

For those who do video which would you recommend:

10-22mm
17-40mm
16-35mm

Keep in mind he is only a freshman in college with a VERY limited budget. So, unless he buys used even the 16-35mm v.1 would be stretching his pocketbook.

Thanks in advance. I am sure he will appreciate any information you (I) can pass on to him.

One thing I will note about the above three lenses, only the first could really be considered as a wideangle lens to use in conjunction with the kit lens. The other two are much closer to being replacements for the kit lens, that offer a wider short end, at the expense of the long end. At the wider end of the range the 2mm advantage of the 16-35 is significant compared to the 18-55, but the loss at the long end is of about three times more significant. 11% wider at the short end, 36% wider at the long end. If I were looking for a better standard zoom I would personally be more inclined to think about a better quality lens designed for APS-C sized sensors, rather than Ultra wideangle 35mm format lenses, simply because they have a red ring. Lenses designed for use as standard zooms for APS-C format tend to have a more suitable focal length range for that job. I think most of the 17/18 to 55 f/2.8 lenses would fall into the same price bracket as either of the two L lenses.

If it were for video on a budget, then I would be looking at the 10-18 STM IS, and if the lit lens isn't the STM version, then upgrading to that. These seem to be the most widely suggested lenses for video, short of moving to a C300 and Canon Cinema lenses . If I were looking to build a range of Canon lenses mainly for video use I would be looking at the STM lenses. They also seem pretty good for stills use too.

Alan

mak65 wrote in post #17970997
Another vote for the 17-55mm. I will pass that recommendation on, as well. Thanks!

Let me hedge a bit here.

My recommendation regarding the 17-55/2.8 IS is based on the expressed desire for the 17-40/4L. IMHO, the 17-55/2.8 offers the same sharpness as the 17-40/4L, an extra stop of aperture and IS for essentially the same price. The disadvantages are it is for crop bodies only and is not weather and dust sealed, (and is missing the pretty red ring). But this would be a replacement for the kit lens.

However, if your friend's son is content with what he's getting out of his 18-55 kit lens and is looking to supplement, rather than replace, that lens, then I would look at either the 10-18 STM, 10-22 or one of the Tokina 11-XX zooms that provide f/2.8.

Agreeing with Bump.

I do use the 17-55mm f/2.8, it is a *friggin' fantastic* lens. Yes, it is an upgrade of the kit lens. It is a true wide-angle to moderate telephoto. For video use, that means it goes as wide as you want without significant wide-angle distortion, and can pick up a head & shoulders shot at a reasonable shooting distance.

I was turned on to the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 by a pro video shooter, it's a great ultra-wide-angle, meaning that you accept some distortion for the very nice view. Wider than that goes to something like a manual Rokinon/Samyang 8mm semi-fisheye.

In my experience, 55 is just barely long enough for picking up people at reasonable working distances. Many times I've wished for something longer to pick up an extreme closeup (part of a face, for example). I bought a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 for that, *beautiful* lens, but it doesn't come out much.

Other factors: They're all f/2.8, 77mm filter size. Since you tend to lock down ISO & shutter speed for video, having a max aperture that doesn't change with focal length is valuable.

These are three very fine lenses for video. No IS on the Tokina... But the Canon & Sigma have it.

As of the 70D +, we're now getting to the point where autofocus (finally!) has some use for video. The combination of face detection, focus point tracking, and touchscreen selection actually works in practice. I hear face detection works better with STM, but... I do want to try the 18-135 STM, even though it's a slow lens with non-constant max iris.

I have access to a set of Zeiss primes for video. They're really only useful for cinematography-style shooting when you're in control of the set. The 17-55mm lives on the camera... Because it gets the most use!

Thanks everyone. Last I heard he is leaning toward the Canon 10-18mm.

Gumby1220 wrote in post #17970086
If go with an the 10-18mm stm lense instead of 10-22 the stm lenses are quite and quick focusing for video use.

For video, my 10-18mm STM is permanently attached. I love shooting wide with video.

And, the 10-18 has IS. the 10-22 does not...

In the 9 months since this thread started, the 10-18 has gotten a *lot* of good notice. One of these days I gotta' try it. People are loving the IS and the IQ, not to mention STM for video.