Comments on: 5 Killer Canon Lenses for Video (SMAPP)

By: Brendan O'Hara

Brendan O'Hara — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:19:00 +0000

The 24-105 is a humdrum lens for stills, but the IS is quite useful for video (if shooting from the shoulder on a rig, etc). Lens sharpness goes out the window because Canon DSLR’s aren’t even putting out real 1080p. Any EF lens is sufficient. The 100-400 is probably the second most useful of the lot.

Primes are beautiful and all, but they’re worthless if you’re trying to sequence in real time. If you’re shooting cinematics, then sure – go for the primes and get whatever depth of field you want. But if you’re trying to produce professional quality sequences by yourself in as little time as possible, then stick with the zooms. Otherwise, you’ll be switching glass every 10 seconds.

By: hexum

hexum — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:06:00 +0000

hexum

By: Heri

Heri — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:25:00 +0000

I recommend getting either the Canon 50mm f1.4 or the Samyang 35mm f1.4 for video. They are prime lenses, sharp, and very affordable. There’s no need to bring a 135mm f2 lens or the 100-400mm lens unless you are doing highly specialized videos. And instead of the 14mm f2.8, it’s better to get either the Canon 24mm f1.4 or the Samyang 24mm f1.4.

The Canon 24-105mm IS is a good choice but I’d recommend waiting though for the 24-70mm mk2

By: dbean

dbean — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 02:45:00 +0000

The 24-70 is a much, much better lens. Especially around the edges when wide.

By: dbean

dbean — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 02:09:00 +0000

A couple of those lenses are horrible for video. The 24-105 and the 100-400 in particular.

The best lenses for video are prime lenses, both for color quality and optics.

And if you were going to use a zoom the 24-70 is wayyyy better than the 24-105 and the 70-200 is wayyyy better than the 100-400.

Why would you even want a 400mm lens for video anyway. That thing would be so shaky it you couldn’t hold a good shot.

Also, most pro’s don’t zoom in ever on video, but instead move the camera in and out.

By: Jan Jílek

Jan Jílek — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:00:00 +0000

24-105 is killer even for the price. If you don’t need f/2.8, than this is perfect. I use it for travel all the time because it gives me great performance and thanks to IS I don’t have to worry about my shutter speed, I just focus on the image. For work purposes I go with 24-70 f/2.8 because that 2.8 aperture.

And that 135 is legendary, one of the sharpest lenses I’ve ever shot with, right after 200 f/2 ;)

By: Chad Andreo-Photo

Chad Andreo-Photo — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:28:00 +0000

I think the 24-105 is great for wedding photography and cinematography. Its sharp, covers a great range and has IS.

By: Arpit

Arpit — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:15:00 +0000

how is the 24-105 for photographs? I am shooting videos and looking for something under 50 that can take wedding shots.

By: Arpit

Arpit — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:15:00 +0000

50mm*

By: Ben V

Ben V — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:55:00 +0000

“Under $1,000″ or “Under $500″ version with 3rd party lenses included?