5D Mark3
- Thread starter ATH
- Start date
Will you be shooting stills as well as vid? Why those three lenses specifically? Your choice of a 'prime, wide, and zoom' leads me to think that you're not really sure how lenses work.
Primes and zooms are types of lens construction - Primes have a fixed focal length, and a zoom can vary it's focal length. A common noob mistake is to confuse a zoom lens for a long (telephoto) lens.
'Wide', 'standard', or 'long' refers to the focal length. These can be either primes or zooms. I suggest googling for some photog tutorial and lens reviews/comparisons etc, as there's is so much to cover that I dont have time to type it all, and it has already been covered extensively in thousands of online tutorials.
The quick version -
You will need to have lenses that will cover all the desired focal lengths. In many cases a fast standard zoom will cover all of that range, but most end up with at least three lenses, each one being selected for different properties or visual characteristics.
You will likely need a wide lens, a normal lens, and a long (or tele) lens.
You might want to choose primes, or zooms, or a combination of both. Regardless, I wouldn't recommend anything slower than f2.8. The prime vs zoom thing has been done to death online, so get googling if you want to know more.
A quick answer to your 50mm question -
50mm f1.8 - Cheap build, slow AF, awsome IQ for the mony spent. One of the best value lenses in the world, but feels like a toy. Almost a disposable lens. (I personally dont like the bokeh and rendering on this one)
50mm f1.4 - Better build, better AF, good IQ for the money (I personlly dont like the colour tint on this one).
50mm f1.2 L - Best 50mm EF lens Canon do. Not worth the difference in money unless you want the absolute best. (I personally dont like the price on this one!)
The sigma 50mm f1.4 reportedly has the best bokeh and rendering for the money, around the £300 mark.
Thank you! I'm not an expert on lenses but I do know the difference between prime and zoom lenses. And I know I can get by with one type instead of both. But I do want to have both. These are the lenses I'm looking at:
EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Lens $269
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens $829
Canon EF EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS $649
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX Autofocus Lens for Canon APS-C DSLRs $499
Please give me opinions on these. I'm shooting my first feature BTW.
If you're going for a full frame camera (the 5D) then you can only use certain lenses. Lenses designed for apsc will severely vignette on the 5D.
Suitable ff lens ranges include - Canon EF, Sigma DG, Tamron Di, Tokina FX.
Unsuitable APSC lens ranges - Canon EF-S , Sigma DC, Tamron Di II, Tokina DX.
Suitable ff lens ranges include - Canon EF, Sigma DG, Tamron Di, Tokina FX.
Unsuitable APSC lens ranges - Canon EF-S , Sigma DC, Tamron Di II, Tokina DX.
Last edited:
How much have you got to spend on lenses?
What sort of things/scenes will you be shooting with them?
Will you need low-light capable lenses?
What camera rigs will you be using?
Have you budgeted for lighting and sound?
Will you be using the 5D for stills too? (if not then there are better video options for the money out there)
What sort of things/scenes will you be shooting with them?
Will you need low-light capable lenses?
What camera rigs will you be using?
Have you budgeted for lighting and sound?
Will you be using the 5D for stills too? (if not then there are better video options for the money out there)
Last edited:
I work with 6K, including the camera. I have some low budget lighting kit, worked well for me so far, a great fluidhead tripod, a RODE shotgun mic and lav mic. I'm looking to purchase Zoom H4n or equivalent, and boom pole. I do believe the glass are just as or more important than the camera that's why I want to be thorough in my search for lenses. I'm shooting my first feature, a drama to be more specific, so very likely to be shooting in low light. Though this project has nothing to do with stills but I'd like the idea of having 5D3 since I'm also into photography. I know when it comes to shoot I still have to rent some equipments, slider, ect.
I think that you would be better off with the 1.4 over the macro. The 50mm f1.8 has a stupidly thin focus ring that makes it less than desirable for film work.
I have this lens and almost never use it since I got the 70-200 f2.8L. I was not a fan of this lens even before I upgraded.
I haven't used this one yet. I would look for something a bit faster though.
Do you need to shoot this wide? If so, go for it. I rarely grab anything wider than 24mm on my 5Ds.
My thoughts are the same as Lucky's, except fro the comment about the 14mm... but then again I'm a sucker for UWA shots! 
50mm 1.4 is nice for the money. I would pick the siggy over the canon as it renders better.
I wouldn't buy the 70-300 or 17-40 as they're too slow. F2.8 minimum ftw.
50mm 1.4 is nice for the money. I would pick the siggy over the canon as it renders better.
I wouldn't buy the 70-300 or 17-40 as they're too slow. F2.8 minimum ftw.
Thank you all! So this is what I'm looking at:
Canon 5D3 $2999
Sigma 50mm F1.4 $399
Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L $1299
Samyang 14mm $359
Glidecam HD2000 $494
Zoom H4n $270
It comes right under 6K as I budgeted. Please give some opinions! All my choices for lenses are from different makers, would that be obvious as far as looks?
Canon 5D3 $2999
Sigma 50mm F1.4 $399
Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L $1299
Samyang 14mm $359
Glidecam HD2000 $494
Zoom H4n $270
It comes right under 6K as I budgeted. Please give some opinions! All my choices for lenses are from different makers, would that be obvious as far as looks?
They're all very nice lenses. I personally would never invest in a non IS 70-200 though. It makes a huuuuge difference at longer focal lenghts. They're about £500 more expensive though. 
There is a big gap in the 14-50mm range too. There are more fast primes out there than zoom in this focal range, so keep looking. 14mm looks epic on ff, but will it be as useful to you as a 28 or 35mm workhorse?
If you're feeling like saving a chunk you can always DIY a glidecam. The 2000 appears to be a very basic gimbal and counterweight system. There's plenty of DIY builds out there online if you want to look into it.
I'm not familiar with the H4N, but a lot of people use them, although I have heard that the preamps aren't all that, and often fail to live up to requirements. I have read many accounts of them being a bit sub-par when teamed with the rode for example. I'm sure there are plenty of folks here that could help out with some better advice than I on this one.
Maybe DIY a glidecam (saving $400), look into a recorder with better preamps, and go for a 28-35mm fast prime instead of the 14mm? (The newer Sigma 35mm f.14 art is another gamechanger, and worth considering). Maybe wait until you've got a bit more put aside for the 70-200 IS?
More food for thought anyway.
Keep at it, you'll whittle it down eventually!
I personally would never invest in a non IS 70-200 though. It makes a huuuuge difference at longer focal lenghts. They're about £500 more expensive though. There is a big gap in the 14-50mm range too. There are more fast primes out there than zoom in this focal range, so keep looking. 14mm looks epic on ff, but will it be as useful to you as a 28 or 35mm workhorse?
If you're feeling like saving a chunk you can always DIY a glidecam. The 2000 appears to be a very basic gimbal and counterweight system. There's plenty of DIY builds out there online if you want to look into it.
I'm not familiar with the H4N, but a lot of people use them, although I have heard that the preamps aren't all that, and often fail to live up to requirements. I have read many accounts of them being a bit sub-par when teamed with the rode for example. I'm sure there are plenty of folks here that could help out with some better advice than I on this one.
Maybe DIY a glidecam (saving $400), look into a recorder with better preamps, and go for a 28-35mm fast prime instead of the 14mm? (The newer Sigma 35mm f.14 art is another gamechanger, and worth considering). Maybe wait until you've got a bit more put aside for the 70-200 IS?
More food for thought anyway.
Keep at it, you'll whittle it down eventually!
ATH - I was just mooching around online and noticed that the Tamron 24-70 2.8 Di VC USD can be had for around £6-700 now. Might be worth taking a look at the usual review and test sites. All the ones I've seen so far have been positive. For the money it covers a good range of focal lenghts so it will reduce the amount of lens purchases, and it's stabilised too (none of the other 24-70s feature this).
Thank you for the tips, AD! If I ultimately have to live with two lenses for this project, what would you recommend? I read up all the lenses mentioned in this thread and really like the Sigma 35mm. If I get that the Tamron 24-70 will overlap. I really like wide angle shots and closeups (and ECU) in my work, but I also realize medium shots will be practical and useful for narrative film. What to do with tight budget?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892851-REG/Tamron_20_200mm_F_2_8_DI_VC.html
and
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845339-REG/Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI.html
I have the 70-200 and can attest to the images it produces.
I think Lucky's suggestions are bang-on for an efficient 2 lens set-up for vid+stills. Both of them are superb performers for the money, with good benchmark test results and positive reviews all over the web. You can always add an UWA or some faster primes in the future if you need to, and both of the Tamron lenses will hold thier value well should you choose to sell them on at any point.
If you want to save a chunk of monies then Digital Rev have the 70-200 for $1219 and the 24-70 for $969, saving you around $600 from the BH price. With a combined price of just under $2200, it should leave you a nice chunk of dollars to put towards light/sound accessories, tripods, rigs or whatever.
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f/MTAwMDMyMw_A_A
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f/MTAwMjIxNA_A_A
All DR's lenses come with a 12mth warranty for peice of mind, and free express delivery (everything I've ordered from them has taken 2-3 days max).
I'm not from the US so I don't know about how any import tax works there, but for the UK at least, they cover import duty too. If you're considering ordering from them, I'd chuck them an email to confirm if there's any additional US import charges, just in case.
There's also the Sigma 70-200 OS too, which can be picked up for about $2-300 less than the Tamron. The IQ is poorer than it's Tamron and Canon counterparts though, and especially noticable if you're a pixel peeper or want to make large prints.
There is no real alternative to the Tam 24-70 at the mo due to it being the only one with image stabilising.
If you want to save a chunk of monies then Digital Rev have the 70-200 for $1219 and the 24-70 for $969, saving you around $600 from the BH price. With a combined price of just under $2200, it should leave you a nice chunk of dollars to put towards light/sound accessories, tripods, rigs or whatever.
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f/MTAwMDMyMw_A_A
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f/MTAwMjIxNA_A_A
All DR's lenses come with a 12mth warranty for peice of mind, and free express delivery (everything I've ordered from them has taken 2-3 days max).
I'm not from the US so I don't know about how any import tax works there, but for the UK at least, they cover import duty too. If you're considering ordering from them, I'd chuck them an email to confirm if there's any additional US import charges, just in case.
There's also the Sigma 70-200 OS too, which can be picked up for about $2-300 less than the Tamron. The IQ is poorer than it's Tamron and Canon counterparts though, and especially noticable if you're a pixel peeper or want to make large prints.
There is no real alternative to the Tam 24-70 at the mo due to it being the only one with image stabilising.
Thank you Lucky and AD. The two lenses (24-70 and 70-200) will cost me over 2 grand, that's a bit more than I budget for but it makes sense to have all focal lengths cover in two lenses. I might go with Blackmagic camera instead of 5D3 to save me 1 grand for other stuff. Need to do more reading about Blackmagic.
I'm not convinced that a €3200 + another €1000 in accessories + another €500 to get 4k + cost for a recorder (probably another €2000) is going to give blackmagic a problem.
Competing against the BMPC for $4000 + cost of an SSD is going to be difficult, if the market is largely indie filmmakers. Maybe the more expensive stuff like the C100 and Scarlet will take a beating, though. It's way over the cost over the BMPC!
The interchangeable mounts are definitely cool though!
I directed a vid which was DOP'd by the outstanding Salacious on here and there are elements you will not learn about by reading. Specifically, you will need to spend a heap of money on the BMCC because of all the bits and the raw. Specifically:
- SSD cards. You need at least 3 240 gig cards. Ideally, a few 512 gig cards would be a good place to start. After 3 takes, a 240 gig card is full.
- Computing power: You need lots and lots. I mean just tons of the stuff. On a set, we needed two, MacBook Pros transferring data to external hard drives as one is inadequate.
- Expect a huge amount of hassle transferring data. Every 3 takes (and this was a 3 minute 30 second music vid) we had to transfer.
- Batteries: Start with 5 externals and this will be a start. We had five externals and that just about did the trick.
- External monitor: Couldn't see a d"mn thing so start with $500 USD for a half-decent one.
- Fluid head needs to be a 501 minimum, not a 701. It is heavier than a DSLR. With the additional monitor etc..., you will need a heavy-duty tripod.
- For anything approaching handheld, you will need a cage or similar.
- Remember the crop factor and factor in the additional lens prices.
- A Glidecam 2000 is useless with a BMCC and you will need a minimum of a pilot. With monitor you will probably need a Scout so you are beginning to look at $5,000 USD just for this element.
And then aside from the money, you need to manage a raw workflow which is incredibly time consuming. Just take whatever you are doing and multiply the time factor by five.
Don't get me wrong, a BMCC makes DSLRs feel like toys but the amount of money and effort you need to throw at it is a lot more than you have in your budget. It is very much a low-end pro tool and pro tools start to cost real money.
So it depends what you want it for...
Last edited:
Not sure if it was mentioned or not,you can hack 5D 3 and shoot Raw. You will need to get all the storage cards/drives which is a hassle,but if you shoot narrative and have enough storage to provide minimal downtime it is worth it.
Are you going to shoot stills? Do you need a lightweight camera? Are you shooting gigs or interviews? Can you handle raw post workflow? Do you mind the artefacts etc. etc.
Are you going to shoot stills? Do you need a lightweight camera? Are you shooting gigs or interviews? Can you handle raw post workflow? Do you mind the artefacts etc. etc.