Jump to content

brian_wallace5

Members
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by brian_wallace5

  1. <p>It's not so much the shutter speed but the ISO setting that impacts the video quality. Using f2.8 and a frame rate of 30 or 40 fps you can keep your ISO setting lower, which reduces the noise factor as well as the graininess of the video. <br>

    I actually have only used Tamron's VC so I can't speak for the Canon or Sigma for sure - but VC helps stabilize the shot and even when you're panning right to left it keeps the up and down movement under control. </p>

  2. <p>This is helpful - you're making me think things through a bit. Really this is a "convenience" lens I know that either of my two options aren't as good as other ones I have. <br>

    Would the EF-S 18-85, albeit shorter on the far end, be a better option? It tends to get better reviews. </p>

  3. <p>Daniel - you're suggestion of the 28-135 IS USM is a good one but 28mm is too narrow a field of view. I originally had the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and ended up selling it to get the 17-50 f/2.8 because I was having to step back so often and when I took video it was even worse. <br>

    As for changing bodies? I'd love to.... but the ole budget doesn't think it's a good idea. </p>

  4. <p>Brett - believed me I've wrestled with that question. The problem is that none of the ones I own meet my criteria. The 17-50 doesn't go far enough (as much as I love it) and the 28-105 isn't wide enough. I do a lot of DSLR video of my kids and that turns a 28mm into 52mm (28*1.6*1.17) lens and I just can't get back that far from small children playing. <br>

    Indoors isn't the issue - my 17-50 is perfect for that - its outside on the playground, family vacations, etc. I guess I'm less worried about image quality because being outside I can stop it down to f/8 or f/11.</p>

  5. <p>I know similar questions have been asked numerous times but each situation is different - so I come to you looking for help and promise you I have read past posts. Here goes...<br>

    I have five lenses which pretty much have me covered for what I shoot (indoor sports, outdoor sports, toddlers, DSLR video) except for one category - outdoor toddlers :-) I own the <strong>Canon T2i</strong> Those little buggers are cute as anything but simply not conducive to any lens I have right now which are...</p>

    <ul>

    <li>Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC</li>

    <li>Tamron 28-105 f/2.8</li>

    <li>Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM</li>

    <li>Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM</li>

    <li>Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 VC USD</li>

    </ul>

    <p>The ground rules for my last lens are as follows</p>

    <ul>

    <li>Must be purchased from eBay (I have a $40 coupon)</li>

    <li>Would prefer it to be new with a warranty</li>

    <li>Must have 18mm as a minimum focal length</li>

    <li>Must go to at least 135mm</li>

    <li>Does not need to be "fast" - this lens will be used exclusively outside. </li>

    <li>Less than $300</li>

    <li>I have no problem with 3rd party lenses OR EF-S/Di II lenses as I won't own a full frame anytime soon. </li>

    </ul>

    <p>The two that I've come down to are the Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 or the Canon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6. Both of them get decent reviews. Here's what I see as the pros and cons to each<br>

    Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3</p>

    <ul>

    <li>Cheaper ($209)</li>

    <li>Comes with longer warranty (6 years)</li>

    <li>Comes with hood</li>

    </ul>

    <p>Canon 18-135 f/3.5-6.3</p>

    <ul>

    <li>More expensive ($280)</li>

    <li>Shorter warranty (1 year)</li>

    <li>No hood</li>

    <li>AF is reportedly accurate and relatively fast - although not USM</li>

    <li>Has image stabilization. </li>

    </ul>

    <p><strong>Basically is a shorter warranty, no hood, but better autofocus and IS worth $70?</strong></p>

  6. <p>For video I find IS/VC/OS to be quite helpful but not a replacement for a fast aperture (which I think is the most important criteria for a good video lens). <br>

    Originally I purchased the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which I liked - but 28mm just wasn't wide enough and given that video introduces another crop factor (of about 1.2 on top of the 1.6 from the sensor) I was constantly having to back up. I ended up selling it and getting a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC and it's fantastic for video. I bought mine new on eBay with a 6 year warranty, UV filter, and free shipping for 504.99. </p>

×
×
  • Create New...