Which Lenses for Video - Canon 600D

[Skating101]

I have been recently bought a Canon 600D and am intending to buy an underwater housing for it (Nimar housing Nimar Underwater Housing for Canon EOS 550D with NI38C NI550DKC1) and I have been reviewing which lens to purchase, here is the lens short list-

Normal Zoom
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF)
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM

Wide Angle Zoom
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Tamron SP AF11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5
Tokina AT-X116 11-16mm F2.8 Autofocus
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AF Pro DX II
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM

Prime
Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro Large Aperture

I was used to shooting with a Canon point and shoot which had a 24mm equivalent wide angle lens which is a 15mm on a APS-C camera.

Basically im looking for a general lens that would perform similarly to the 24mm point and shoot in filming both wide angle medium distance and macro subjects.

With the point and shoot I could focus on objects only a few cms away in macro mode which made shooting close objects easy however all of these lens have a minimum focal distance of 24-30cms which is quite far to film most macro type creatures at 10-18mm focal length. This argument supports the following lenses:
Sigma 17-50mm, Sigma 17-70mm, Tamron 17-50mm, Canon 10-22mm, Canon 15-85mm, Sigma 24mm and the Tokina 12-24mm.

I understand that fast lens (wide aperture) would be best for underwater. This argument supports the following lenses:
Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and Sigma 10-22mm f3.5 and Sigma 24mm f1.8

I understand that most housing manufacturers don't have lens ports for Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 due to their size so thats those lens out.

So that only leaves the Sigma 10-22mm f3.5, Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4, Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 and Sigma 24mm f1.8 however the 24mm is not wide enough for general use.

Is it difficult to maintain focus using a wide aperture (f1.8-f2.8) and are the smaller aperture lens (f3.5-5.6) really too slow for underwater use?

Which of these lens' would you recommend?

 

[sinistar]

Last winter I did a week long dive trip with a Canon 5D2 and the 17-40 lens (crop equivalent needed would be 11-25). That lens has a minimum focus distance of 11" (28cm). And that is a f4 lens. So here's what I found:

1.) Even with that minimum focus distance and lens zoomed to 40mm (or 25mm on one of your lenses) there really wasn't any macro like capability. However, with the 5D2 you can crop forever and still have nice - pictures - but not macro video. So, I wouldn't go into this thinking any of those lenses will give you true macro. For macro video and your camera type (Rebel) get the wonderful EF-S 60mm lens (or one of the crop equivalents). But then you'll want a nice flat port and won't be able to shot wide angle on the same dive. And you'll most likely need a monopod or something or the shake in the macro video will look pretty rough.

2.) Aperture. For stills, you'll probably be using strobes and that will pretty much have you at f8 and ISO 100 so any lens from your list will work. But for video you're going to want deep depth of field so you'll almost always be stopped down - probably farther than you think - mainly because you will already have your shutter speed fixed at 1/50th which is letting in a lot of light. So I often found that I was shooting video around f8 and ISO's in the range of 320 to 800 - all which will be fine on your camera. So that means any lens from your list will be fine for video - w/r to aperture - unless you plan on doing a lot of diving in darker conditions than the 1st 80' of clear ocean water. About the only point where a fast aperture will play a role (w/r to video) will be if you use the camera's focusing system (not live view version) to quickly set focus. Here, a faster lens will open up more (during the AF operation) to let in more light to the focusing sensors. I really liked having that setup on my last trip. Just tap the rear AF button - the mirror drops - focus is immediately established and then live view comes right back on ready to go.

Is it difficult to maintain focus using a wide aperture (f1.8-f2.8)

Yes, if you always shoot it wide open. But you won't be in video mode. A major advantage of shooting the ultra wide angles underwater is to set it to f8 (or a bit more) and set the focus ring to the hyperfocal distance and you will not have to adjust focus much, if at all, during a dive!

and are the smaller aperture lens (f3.5-5.6) really too slow for underwater use?

Answered above - probably not nearly as much as you think - especially in clear ocean water above 80'. When water visibility is lower or there is less overhead light due to time of day or overcast weather then you might want to open up the aperture a bit. But remember, for video you will most likely have the shutter pretty much fixed at 1/50th which is already letting in a lot of light.

Which of these lens' would you recommend?

Of your list above I would go with the Tokina 11-16 if it is within your budget. A awesome all around lens for your camera. You will use it topside even more (for video and stills). I owned the Canon 10-22 and thought it was a great lens too. I think the only downside to the Tokina might be that it is limited to 16mm on the far end (which is around 25mm equivalent). There were many times (but mainly for stills) where the 40mm (on full frame) was very nice to have if it was difficult getting closer to the subject.

Also, don't overlook the wider primes. A lot of the wonderful u/w video you are seeing is shot with ultra wide lenses. Also notice, not many underwater videos with shallow DoF (unless it is true macro). The UWA's will cut the amount of water between you and the subject. A Canon 14L would be ideal. Or perhaps the Canon 15mm fisheye. The Samyang 8mm (I believe it is a rectilinear fish eye) would be awesome with a Rebel / 7D style camera. The Samyang 14mm would be around 22mm on your camera, its wicked sharp and it's funky distortion wouldn't be on your camera. The Samyang are manual aperture but on my last experiment - a shallow dim lake water dive I preset one click slower than f8 and it was still enough light that I wasn't above iso1600. However, I'm not sure if they will fit your setup - I had to cut my lens hood off to get it to fit through the Ikelite port body - no big deal when I only paid $250 for the lens vs the quality of image.

I hope others chime in. This is only a hobby for me, so hopefully some of the veteran DSLR underwater shooters can give better advise based on more dives in more conditions.

Also, from a previous post someone posted a link to a vimeo channel of underwater videos shot with the DSLR's in nauticam housings. Looking through these might give you a better idea of which lenses from your list are working best in underwater video rigs.

 

[RMAdventure]

I use a Canon 15-85mm on my 60D on the surface and love it. It gives a great range for general photography and is built better than most of the EF-S lenses. However, it is also a larger lens than most of the EF-S lenses so you may have problems getting it to work with your housing.

 

[Blackwood]

Personally I'd ditch the wide zoom in favor of a nice ultra-wide prime (in the case of Canon's APS-C, ultra-wide is 15mm or wider). I'm guessing you'll have your focal length in set-and-forget mode anyway, especially if you take the above advise to stop down and aim for the hyper focal length.

Since you're underwater where there aren't a lot of straight lines, fish eye works. You can get Canon's 15mm fisheye for a little more than the sigma prime. You lose a stop and change, but probably won't be that wide anyway.

 

[Skating101]

Last winter I did a week long dive trip with a Canon 5D2 and the 17-40 lens (crop equivalent needed would be 11-25). That lens has a minimum focus distance of 11" (28cm). And that is a f4 lens. So here's what I found:

1.) Even with that minimum focus distance and lens zoomed to 40mm (or 25mm on one of your lenses) there really wasn't any macro like capability. However, with the 5D2 you can crop forever and still have nice - pictures - but not macro video. So, I wouldn't go into this thinking any of those lenses will give you true macro. For macro video and your camera type (Rebel) get the wonderful EF-S 60mm lens (or one of the crop equivalents). But then you'll want a nice flat port and won't be able to shot wide angle on the same dive. And you'll most likely need a monopod or something or the shake in the macro video will look pretty rough.

2.) Aperture. For stills, you'll probably be using strobes and that will pretty much have you at f8 and ISO 100 so any lens from your list will work. But for video you're going to want deep depth of field so you'll almost always be stopped down - probably farther than you think - mainly because you will already have your shutter speed fixed at 1/50th which is letting in a lot of light. So I often found that I was shooting video around f8 and ISO's in the range of 320 to 800 - all which will be fine on your camera. So that means any lens from your list will be fine for video - w/r to aperture - unless you plan on doing a lot of diving in darker conditions than the 1st 80' of clear ocean water. About the only point where a fast aperture will play a role (w/r to video) will be if you use the camera's focusing system (not live view version) to quickly set focus. Here, a faster lens will open up more (during the AF operation) to let in more light to the focusing sensors. I really liked having that setup on my last trip. Just tap the rear AF button - the mirror drops - focus is immediately established and then live view comes right back on ready to go.


Yes, if you always shoot it wide open. But you won't be in video mode. A major advantage of shooting the ultra wide angles underwater is to set it to f8 (or a bit more) and set the focus ring to the hyperfocal distance and you will not have to adjust focus much, if at all, during a dive!


Answered above - probably not nearly as much as you think - especially in clear ocean water above 80'. When water visibility is lower or there is less overhead light due to time of day or overcast weather then you might want to open up the aperture a bit. But remember, for video you will most likely have the shutter pretty much fixed at 1/50th which is already letting in a lot of light.


Of your list above I would go with the Tokina 11-16 if it is within your budget. A awesome all around lens for your camera. You will use it topside even more (for video and stills). I owned the Canon 10-22 and thought it was a great lens too. I think the only downside to the Tokina might be that it is limited to 16mm on the far end (which is around 25mm equivalent). There were many times (but mainly for stills) where the 40mm (on full frame) was very nice to have if it was difficult getting closer to the subject.

Also, don't overlook the wider primes. A lot of the wonderful u/w video you are seeing is shot with ultra wide lenses. Also notice, not many underwater videos with shallow DoF (unless it is true macro). The UWA's will cut the amount of water between you and the subject. A Canon 14L would be ideal. Or perhaps the Canon 15mm fisheye. The Samyang 8mm (I believe it is a rectilinear fish eye) would be awesome with a Rebel / 7D style camera. The Samyang 14mm would be around 22mm on your camera, its wicked sharp and it's funky distortion wouldn't be on your camera. The Samyang are manual aperture but on my last experiment - a shallow dim lake water dive I preset one click slower than f8 and it was still enough light that I wasn't above iso1600. However, I'm not sure if they will fit your setup - I had to cut my lens hood off to get it to fit through the Ikelite port body - no big deal when I only paid $250 for the lens vs the quality of image.

I hope others chime in. This is only a hobby for me, so hopefully some of the veteran DSLR underwater shooters can give better advise based on more dives in more conditions.

Also, from a previous post someone posted a link to a vimeo channel of underwater videos shot with the DSLR's in nauticam housings. Looking through these might give you a better idea of which lenses from your list are working best in underwater video rigs.

Thanks for the incredible replies guys,

1. Perhaps not true macro capability but if I was trying to film a small shrimp then would you be able to get close enough to really film it with the Tokina 11-16 whereas with the Canon 15-85 you could zoom to 35mm and still have the wide angle capability?

2. We went to Malapascua recently to dive with the Thresher sharks and that was around dawn, the sun was just rising and it definitely didnt seem too dark to video. When we reviewed our video from the compact cameras the video was so noisy. Have you tried filming around dawn with f/8 and ISO 800, was it still well lit/minimal noise? With regards to the larger apertures lens, was the autofocus more accurate with the larger aperture lens or just quicker?

The Sigma 15mm prime is starting to seem like a really good lens but no zoom versatility, are there any 10-20 f2.8 lens being designed?

I use a Canon 15-85mm on my 60D on the surface and love it. It gives a great range for general photography and is built better than most of the EF-S lenses. However, it is also a larger lens than most of the EF-S lenses so you may have problems getting it to work with your housing.

Nimar have a port for the 15-85mm. ni36cac1 | B&H Photo Video

Does the 15-85mm have a really wide depth of field at 15mm f/8?

Personally I'd ditch the wide zoom in favor of a nice ultra-wide prime (in the case of Canon's APS-C, ultra-wide is 15mm or wider). I'm guessing you'll have your focal length in set-and-forget mode anyway, especially if you take the above advise to stop down and aim for the hyper focal length.

Since you're underwater where there aren't a lot of straight lines, fish eye works. You can get Canon's 15mm fisheye for a little more than the sigma prime. You lose a stop and change, but probably won't be that wide anyway.

So if you are trying to film something relatively small and all you have if your 15mm, could you do it? Any reason why you would choose the Canon prime over the Sigma prime?

 

[Blackwood]

Depends on how close you are.

I merely suggested the canon prime because it's wider than any sigma prime and I was trying to replace two lenses on your list with one. I was however being video-centric (somehow I read te thread in that mindset). For stills, the zoom certainly offers flexibility.

FWIW, I don't hesitate to recommend sigma. I own the APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM (alphabet soup), and it's quite good considering how much cheaper it is than Canon's EF 70-200 2.8L IS. My next long lens will likely also be a sigma.

 

[Skating101]

Depends on how close you are.

I merely suggested the canon prime because it's wider than any sigma prime and I was trying to replace two lenses on your list with one. I was however being video-centric (somehow I read te thread in that mindset). For stills, the zoom certainly offers flexibility.

FWIW, I don't hesitate to recommend sigma. I own the APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM (alphabet soup), and it's quite good considering how much cheaper it is than Canon's EF 70-200 2.8L IS. My next long lens will likely also be a sigma.

Sorry I just reread what I wrote and it sounded very snarky, not my intention. Is there a reason why you would favour say a 15mm prime vs a 10-20mm zoom besides the wider aperture? They are similar price.

 

[Blackwood]

(I didn't detect any snarkieness; no worries)

Wider aperture and likely better quality due to fewer optics in a prime vs a zoom.

Wide angle lenses are notoriously hard to build. Preventing distortion is difficult. Adding zoom capability complicates it.

I've not used any of the lenses, nor do I use an SLR under water, so take my comments with a grain or block of salt

 

[sinistar]

Trying to film something small at ultra wide focal lengths will not result in a very large subject w/r field of view. Ironically, with a minimum focus distance of around 12" the dome will almost be touching the subject. So, yes having more focal length will help to a degree however, if the minimum focus distance is longer then the best magnification ratio may still be relatively small so you still may not get what you want. The 15-85 shows a max magnification of 1:5 @ 85mm. So the largest your subject could be in the frame is about 1/5 of the frame height. Also, I wonder how well the 85mm end of the zoom will be behind a dome vs flat port - should be good but not nearly as sharp as a 60mm macro behind a flat port.

You asked about a 10-20 f2.8. That's actually why the Tokina 11-16 is such a nice lens. There aren't many like it (although there is a 10-17).

Regarding the dawn / dusk diving conditions. I didn't get any video during those times. But I suspect that 1/50 x f8 x iso800 might not be quite enough for decent exposure at those times. Perhaps you would need to stop down to f5.6 and bump iso up a few notches. However, I think as long as the aperture can open up to f4 or better, the rebel should be able to lock focus with the center af point if needed.

I agree with another poster about ultra wide. I just don't think 15mm on a 1.6x crop is really all that wide. I see Nikon has a 10mm f2.8 - perhaps it could be adapted but you would have lock aperture before the dive and manually focus.

Regarding the dof for 15mm at f8, depends on what focus distance. Using dofmaster.com for your camera and those settings you get less than 1/2 foot around minimum focus distance. But focused to 5 feet, everything from about 2.5ft to infinity should be in focus - there's the advantage of going wide. Now compare to a lens set to 11mm on your same camera. If you set the focus to the same distance you can be at f4 and pretty much get the same dof. Being able to be at f4 vs f8 buys you a lot of latitude when it comes to iso.

I can't give much feedback on the canon vs sigma 15mm primes. As long as they both rectilinear fish eyes they're both probably decent. I have heard that the canon 15mm is great for UW use. But I think it has been discontinued so maybe a bit hard to get repaired.

For reference, look at sites like photozone.de or the-digital-picture and select the lens of interest under the 1.6x category and look more closely at how much barrel distortion they have at the wide end (fisheyes excluded of course) and their edge sharpness from wide open to f8.

For video, correcting crazy barrel distortion would not be fun. And if the lens is not sharp at the edges or vignettes heavily you also will not be happy. Thats what's nice about finding a wider angle full frame lens - on your rebel it will use the sweet spot of the lens! The canon 14L would be nice!!!

If you are going with a zoom, perhaps image stabilization will still work inside the enclosure - then perhaps shooting zoomed at 85m while at 1/50th will still give you stable video and would be and advantage.

Isn't this fun

 

[Skating101]

Trying to film something small at ultra wide focal lengths will not result in a very large subject w/r field of view. Ironically, with a minimum focus distance of around 12" the dome will almost be touching the subject. So, yes having more focal length will help to a degree however, if the minimum focus distance is longer then the best magnification ratio may still be relatively small so you still may not get what you want. The 15-85 shows a max magnification of 1:5 @ 85mm. So the largest your subject could be in the frame is about 1/5 of the frame height. Also, I wonder how well the 85mm end of the zoom will be behind a dome vs flat port - should be good but not nearly as sharp as a 60mm macro behind a flat port.

You asked about a 10-20 f2.8. That's actually why the Tokina 11-16 is such a nice lens. There aren't many like it (although there is a 10-17).

Regarding the dawn / dusk diving conditions. I didn't get any video during those times. But I suspect that 1/50 x f8 x iso800 might not be quite enough for decent exposure at those times. Perhaps you would need to stop down to f5.6 and bump iso up a few notches. However, I think as long as the aperture can open up to f4 or better, the rebel should be able to lock focus with the center af point if needed.

I agree with another poster about ultra wide. I just don't think 15mm on a 1.6x crop is really all that wide. I see Nikon has a 10mm f2.8 - perhaps it could be adapted but you would have lock aperture before the dive and manually focus.

Regarding the dof for 15mm at f8, depends on what focus distance. Using dofmaster.com for your camera and those settings you get less than 1/2 foot around minimum focus distance. But focused to 5 feet, everything from about 2.5ft to infinity should be in focus - there's the advantage of going wide. Now compare to a lens set to 11mm on your same camera. If you set the focus to the same distance you can be at f4 and pretty much get the same dof. Being able to be at f4 vs f8 buys you a lot of latitude when it comes to iso.

I can't give much feedback on the canon vs sigma 15mm primes. As long as they both rectilinear fish eyes they're both probably decent. I have heard that the canon 15mm is great for UW use. But I think it has been discontinued so maybe a bit hard to get repaired.

For reference, look at sites like photozone.de or the-digital-picture and select the lens of interest under the 1.6x category and look more closely at how much barrel distortion they have at the wide end (fisheyes excluded of course) and their edge sharpness from wide open to f8.

For video, correcting crazy barrel distortion would not be fun. And if the lens is not sharp at the edges or vignettes heavily you also will not be happy. Thats what's nice about finding a wider angle full frame lens - on your rebel it will use the sweet spot of the lens! The canon 14L would be nice!!!

If you are going with a zoom, perhaps image stabilization will still work inside the enclosure - then perhaps shooting zoomed at 85m while at 1/50th will still give you stable video and would be and advantage.

Isn't this fun

Thanks sinistar that made alot of sense, so the 11-16 would allow wider apertures with the same depth of field. How about using a 10-22mm which would have a minimum focus distance to infinity of 1m at 10mm f4 and a minimum focus distance of 1.5m at 20mm f8.

How would you film a shrimp or small critter? Would you use a macro lens? Could you use the 11-16? Is there any general wide and general zoom lens which obviously would not be as good as the dedicated wide or macro lenses but which would still do a good job?