If you could only afford one lens...

[superamazing]

If you could only afford one lens, which one would you choose? What if your lens budget was $1000?

I'm not just speaking hypothetically, of course. I'm in the process of saving up for a t3i, and I am sick and tired of just sticking to those unfortunate stock lenses. My primary use will be filmmaking, but I'm interested in photography as well. I'd rather not buy an aps-c size-lens, either, since I see myself upgrading to a full frame sensor (5d mk III, anyone?!!) in the future.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I have to admit that this Zeiss glass is damn sexy. But then, the immediate problem is, I'd be stuck with a 80mm equivalent lens (and the stock lens), which is a bit limiting.

Another possibility (which I'm proud to have thought up) is to buy a wide angle lens, like this 17-40mm. That way, I can spam the x3 1080p digital zoom feature of the t3i, to get a practical zoom range of 27mm-192mm. But then, this lens is a f/4, which is hardly fast enough for run-and-gun shooting.

I'm curious if you guys can think of any better options than this! What would you buy, if I gave you $1000?

 

[Cracker Funk]

Do you come from a photography background? If not, then forget about the crop-factor; it is absolutely meaningless for anybody coming from a video background (except that you need to know that people from a photography background have to deal with it).

That 50mm would likely get a lot of use. But I do think you need something more wide. You said you're getting the kit lens? The 18-55? I suspect you'd end up using it just as much as your super sexy prime.

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

35mm adapter

 

[SinEater]

35mm adapter

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[chilipie]

If you could only afford one lens, which one would you choose? What if your lens budget was $1000?

I'm not just speaking hypothetically, of course. I'm in the process of saving up for a t3i, and I am sick and tired of just sticking to those unfortunate stock lenses. My primary use will be filmmaking, but I'm interested in photography as well. I'd rather not buy an aps-c size-lens, either, since I see myself upgrading to a full frame sensor (5d mk III, anyone?!!) in the future.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I have to admit that this Zeiss glass is damn sexy. But then, the immediate problem is, I'd be stuck with a 80mm equivalent lens (and the stock lens), which is a bit limiting.

Another possibility (which I'm proud to have thought up) is to buy a wide angle lens, like this 17-40mm. That way, I can spam the x3 1080p digital zoom feature of the t3i, to get a practical zoom range of 27mm-192mm. But then, this lens is a f/4, which is hardly fast enough for run-and-gun shooting.

I'm curious if you guys can think of any better options than this! What would you buy, if I gave you $1000?

I really like the 17-40mm on a full-frame camera, and if you could find a great deal then it might be worth it, but for the price you pay it doesn't really shine on a crop sensor. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is an EF-S lens, but it'll hold its value well and is a great all-rounder (and it has IS). That would be my first choice if I could have only one lens. Although the digital zoom will be useful for the odd shot, 40mm @ f/4 is never going to look like a real 192mm lens (deeper depth of field, much less image compression and lower IQ).

I've used the Zeiss ZFs (same glass, Nikon mount) and would definitely recommend them, but I'd find it hard to shoot everything on 50mm - probably doable on a FF camera, but not on the T3i. It might also be worth considering vintage glass, but the lack of autofocus may be too limiting when it comes to stills photography.

Do you come from a photography background? If not, then forget about the crop-factor; it is absolutely meaningless for anybody coming from a video background (except that you need to know that people from a photography background have to deal with it).

That 50mm would likely get a lot of use. But I do think you need something more wide. You said you're getting the kit lens? The 18-55? I suspect you'd end up using it just as much as your super sexy prime.

It doesn't really matter in terms of calculating equivalent focal lengths, but it's still good to know what's considered wide (for example).

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

I know...

 

[harmonica44]

I'd go with a 50mm 1.4. or one around 50mm, but I'm not as experienced in the lens department. Just what I'd want now if I could only have one.

 

[brianluce]

for a grand you could go anamorphic .

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

For $1000 you could easily buy a full set of vintage prime lenses 28, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200, 300

No way in hell I'd spend $1000 on a single lens for a DSLR for video purposes. It will look marginally better (at best) and in some cases worse than a $75 lens. For Photography where you can actually make use of the higher resolution and you need the super fast and accurate auto focus, ok. For video it's a complete waste of money.

 

[PaulGriffith]

If I had to buy one at $1000, I'd shop for a deal on a 24-70mm 2.8.

But yeah, $1000 to spend I'd buy several primes for sure.

 

[cameronchapman]

For $1000 you could easily buy a full set of vintage prime lenses 28, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200, 300

No way in hell I'd spend $1000 on a single lens for a DSLR for video purposes. It will look marginally better (at best) and in some cases worse than a $75 lens. For Photography where you can actually make use of the higher resolution and you need the super fast and accurate auto focus, ok. For video it's a complete waste of money.

Agreed. My favorite lens is my Helios 44-2 that I picked up for less than $60 with shipping (and a vintage Soviet-era SLR that I may try out one of these days). My other favorite is my 28mm JCPenney lens (which was around $25). You can find vintage Zeiss glass, too, for a lot less than the new one you linked to (most are around $100-$150, and then you'll need an adapter).

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Agreed. My favorite lens is my Helios 44-2 that I picked up for less than $60 with shipping (and a vintage Soviet-era SLR that I may try out one of these days). My other favorite is my 28mm JCPenney lens (which was around $25). You can find vintage Zeiss glass, too, for a lot less than the new one you linked to (most are around $100-$150, and then you'll need an adapter).

Not to mention that most people shooting DSLR films are using Canon L glass either rented or owned. It tends to give them all a similar look that I don't find especially appealing.

 

[Cracker Funk]

It doesn't really matter in terms of calculating equivalent focal lengths, but it's still good to know what's considered wide (for example).

I agree, definitely. I only meant to assure the OP that it's not this giant issue that they need to lose sleep over. When I first crossed-over to DSLR, coming from a DV background, everyone kept telling me, "don't forget about the crop-factor". Honestly, it confused the crap out of me. They kept telling me that a 50mm would really look like an 80mm, and I was like, "damn, what the hell are you talking about?"

A 50mm only looks like an 80mm if you come from a photography background. To me, 50mm looks like 50mm.

 

[David.rhsc]

For $1000 you could easily buy a full set of vintage prime lenses 28, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200, 300

No way in hell I'd spend $1000 on a single lens for a DSLR for video purposes. It will look marginally better (at best) and in some cases worse than a $75 lens. For Photography where you can actually make use of the higher resolution and you need the super fast and accurate auto focus, ok. For video it's a complete waste of money.

This.

 

[escher]

No way in hell I'd spend $1000 on a single lens for a DSLR for video purposes. It will look marginally better (at best) and in some cases worse than a $75 lens. For Photography where you can actually make use of the higher resolution and you need the super fast and accurate auto focus, ok. For video it's a complete waste of money.

As an owner of several L-lenses, I completely disagree. Prosumer lenses aren't just less sharp, they're less contrasty, or "muddier". Colors aren't nearly as good and the images tend to look like mush compared to the L-series lenses. The L lenses also give you wider maximum apertures for shallow DOF or good low-light capabilities and waaaay less flanging and color aberrations in the longer focal lengths.

There are exceptions, of course. My non-L 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f2.0 are both gorgeous and sharp and contrasty and colorful. My old Tameron 90mm, 50mm f2.8 macro, and 70-300 IS, however, looked so bad in comparison I wound up selling them so I could get some more of that happy L glass.

You can find vintage Zeiss glass, too, for a lot less than the new one you linked to (most are around $100-$150, and then you'll need an adapter).

Zeiss makes some lenses for Canon now and man are they pretty. I only have an 18mm Zeiss at the moment, but will be getting some of the other focal lengths. There's a particular character to them that's hard to describe, but it's quality character -- not that "bad image" character you find in cheaper lenses. As a bonus, the manual focus mechanism on those lenses are a wonder of engineering and a joy to use.

Not to mention that most people shooting DSLR films are using Canon L glass either rented or owned. It tends to give them all a similar look that I don't find especially appealing.

Do you have any examples of this? I'm hard-pressed to think of a scenario where lower-quality lenses would be an aesthetic improvement (unless you're shooting some kind of highly-stylistic story with a look that's hard to replicate in post -- like maybe a gritty zombie/post-apocolyptic movie or b/w noir?).

The more I shoot, the more I've come to believe that it's best to always start out with the most pristine image you can get. This gives you the highest amount of flexibility in post to get the precise look you need.

 

[escher]

I guess I should weigh in on the original question, though...

If you can afford only one lens, get one that covers the widest range of focal lengths (from wide to zoom) while not being too heavy. Don't worry about L-lenses that over-paid software-developer pixel-squinters like myself covet. Focus on storytelling first, and then start building up a collection of fancy glass.

Important note: The wider the range of focal lengths a zoom lens has, the more distortion you'll see compared to a prime lens at any given focal length. This isn't too big of a deal for stationary shots, but can become a real issue at wider focal lengths if you're panning around.

I know you don't want to get an EF-S lens, but the 18-200mm will probably give you the most flexibility for the cost, covering very wide to very zoomed-in. And you're going to want the 200mm capability from time to time.

The downside to the lower-end lenses is that you usually get a maximum aperture of 3.5, which isn't going to do well in low light.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"As an owner of several L-lenses, I completely disagree. Prosumer lenses aren't just less sharp, they're less contrasty, or "muddier". Colors aren't nearly as good and the images tend to look like mush compared to the L-series lenses. The L lenses also give you wider maximum apertures for shallow DOF or good low-light capabilities and waaaay less flanging and color aberrations in the longer focal lengths."

Not talking about using non-L Canon lenses. Talking about using high quality glass for other mounts. For video you have no need for auto focus which removes really the only reason to use Canon glass. Vintage Pentax, vintage Nikon, vintage Leica, vintage Zeiss, etc... there are GREAT lenses in obsolete mounts out there which can be had for a tiny fraction of the cost of L glass. I have a couple of crappy EF mount zooms and a 50mm 1.4, but I ONLY use them for shooting stills the kid's school play, that kind of thing.

I had an free offer of a full set of L glass for my last movie and I chose to shoot it on my Pentax Takumars.

 

[escher]

Not talking about using non-L Canon lenses. Talking about using high quality glass for other mounts. For video you have no need for auto focus which removes really the only reason to use Canon glass. Vintage Pentax, vintage Nikon, vintage Leica, vintage Zeiss, etc... there are GREAT lenses in obsolete mounts out there which can be had for a tiny fraction of the cost of L glass. I have a couple of crappy EF mount zooms and a 50mm 1.4, but I ONLY use them for shooting stills the kid's school play, that kind of thing.

I had an free offer of a full set of L glass for my last movie and I chose to shoot it on my Pentax Takumars.

Ah! I misinterpreted your post. I don't agree with your dislike of L lenses for video but I do agree that there are non-canon manual-focus lenses that are very, very good.

Your knowledge in this area is a lot more comprehensive than mine, though. Can you recommend to me any lenses and adapter mounts for Canon? I'm always on the lookout for good manual focus primes.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

I don't dislike L lenses. I just think they give a certain look that you see a LOT as a lot of people shoot on them and I prefer something different. They are awesome lenses, just VERY expensive for a use for video where a lot of what makes up that price (the fast auto focus the ability to resolve, etc...) are things that you can't take advantage of in video mode. Their super crispness actually creates issue with moire and aliasing you don't have as much of with a lens that is naturally a little softer. If I was a pro still photographer, especially commercial, I'd be all over L glass.

 

[escher]

I don't dislike L lenses. I just think they give a certain look that you see a LOT as a lot of people shoot on them and I prefer something different. They are awesome lenses, just VERY expensive for a use for video where a lot of what makes up that price (the fast auto focus the ability to resolve, etc...) are things that you can't take advantage of in video mode. Their super crispness actually creates issue with moire and aliasing you don't have as much of with a lens that is naturally a little softer. If I was a pro still photographer, especially commercial, I'd be all over L glass.

I probably should have mentioned I'm also a stills photographer.