Which Lenses for Video - Canon 600D

[Blackwood]

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.

Irrespective of price and quality, I'd go for the 11-16 for underwater use. Cameras need light to focus. AF at 2.8 will likely be snappier and more accurate than AF at 3.5 (note that unless you're using a lens with an aperture ring, your camera focuses wide open regardless of your exposure settings). Also, constant aperture zoom lenses are much nicer to use (drives me crazy when zooming affects exposure, though if you're always stopped down past the long end max aperture it's irrelevant).

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'm doubt there is an academic definition, but in general (photogs/camera publications) I see ultra wide defined as a focal length at least as wide as the short side of the film/sensor. For 135-format film or full frame/FX digital, it starts a 24mm; for Canon's APS-C, it starts at 15mm.

 

[ronscuba]

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?

I have DSLR and Tokina 11-16 for topside shooting. Have not brought it UW yet, but do have experience shooting UW macro with a camcorder.

For shrimps and small stuff, the 11-16 will not cut it. For DSLR a dedicated macro lens makes the most sense. However, macro video is not easy. You will need a tripod or lay your camera down on the sand/bottom. Camera shake will be a big problem without it.

Be prepared to see a wonderful macro subject but then be frustrated because there is no way to get close and keep the camera steady. I have tons of unusable macro footage because it is too shaky. Macro video is much more difficult than photo. For macro video, the camera needs to be rock steady for 10 seconds minimum.

 

[sinistar]

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.

I think for video - you will be pleased with a 10-20mm lens. Just make sure it isn't crazy distorted at 10mm or heavily vignetted. As Blackwood said, have a constant aperture zoom is nice and the Tokina being a f2.8 is the bonus to help use the AF assist in dim conditions. Also, the hyperfocal trick works great but I like to stop down another half stop if / when possible so maybe you should add in another half stop to your calculations just to play it safe.

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?

If you want National Geographic, win a contest type macro footage of a small critter I think a macro lens would be a must. But you'd need to hold it very still and would probably need to jab a monopod pole into the sand or carefully on the reef. Just remember, a true macro will have incredibly shallow DoF so even with a fixed mounting scheme the critter may go in and out of focus if it is swaying to swells. Also, to get the entire depth of a critter in focus you may need to use f-stops well above f8. So then you will start to starve for light or have high iso noise. However, macro begs for lighting (torch light) - but that is another $$$$ expense. Perhaps you can find a macro with decent image stabilization (the Canon 100L would be quite nice) but even with IS, I don't think you would get ideal video footage. Also, the 100L is pretty long on a crop body - but would give you nice distance from the subject.

Another way to get pseudo-macro for a critter along with regular shots on a dive would be to film everything but the searhorse in 720p. The shoot the critters in 1080p. Then crop that portion out when editing for a final 720p feature. But that sorta defeats the purpose of HD video if you ask me.

One other trick is to add a +diopter lens to the lens you select. This will only work if the front element of the lens you buy is flat (does not stick out past the filter threads). Add a +diopter lens should reduce the minimum focus distance. I tried that trick on my Canon 17-40L and it does work pretty good. It won't make it any wider angle but it helps the lens focus behind the dome port a bit better and might let you get that ultra wide angle zoom in a bit closer.

 

[Blackwood]

Has anyone ever used Canon's MP-E macro lens underwater? The one that allows 5X magnification?

It would probably be a bear to use, but you could get some spectacular critters with it.

Edit - never mind, it would be next to impossible. The magnification completely obliterates the aperture. Per the-digital-picture, the effective aperture = aperture setting + (aperture setting * magnification), so even at f/2.8, with 5X magnification you're at f/16.

 

[sinistar]

The Canon 180L would be a beast but would be almost 300mm on a crop body so some nice distance from timid small critters and more room for some light to get in there. But boy would that footage be terrible w/o being anchored to the bottom.

You could always try the simple solution - get something like a 28mm or 35mm or 50mm prime lens with a flat lens port and then add in a extension tube. It would mean pretty much only macro for the dive but they are good at increasing the maximum magnification of the lens. Just be sure that you get the kind that pass through the EOS electrical signals and make sure you get the right port body since the overall lens length will get longer. I've never seen anyone dive with these - but I bet its been done and is one the cheapest ways to increase lens magnification (ie macro).

For overall macro and wide angle on a single dive, the camcorders are still the way to go (provided you can find a way to zero out motion for the macro shots). Plus the imagers are generally smaller meaning more depth of field (which you will definitely want for macro).

Or you can try the age old approach. Dive with a macro setup - you will be almost guaranteed to have Sharks, Dolphins, Manta Rays, Whales and Sailfish all on one dive

 

[Skating101]

Thanks guys! So I understand that there is no one size fits all good wide to good macro lens and that the maximum magnification is the feature to check.

How about the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM with the max magnification of 1:2.7 and optical stabilisation? It nowhere near as generally wide as an 11-16 but 17mm is probably wide enough for general filming and at f4 it would have a focus range of 1 to 11 metres obviously its not a true macro so its not going to win any competitions but its still a decent option.

With regards to dedicated macro the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is the perfect option isnt it?

 

[Blackwood]

Thanks guys! So I understand that there is no one size fits all good wide to good macro lens and that the maximum magnification is the feature to check.

In general, jacks of all trade (the most popular likely being Nikon's 18-200) are generally pretty good in the middle, but compromise at the extremes.

I see you have the Tokina 11-16mm and 12-24mm on your list but not the 10-17 (which sinistar mentioned). I don't know anyone who has that lens with the canon mount, but my friend (Rainer here on the boards) has it with a nikon mount, and it's pretty nice.

My Scubaboard profile picture is cropped from a video still he shot with it.

So is my avatar for that matter.

To see the uncropped width on a cropped sensor (D7000), here's a link to the video: http://vimeo.com/36954193
[vimeo]36954193[/vimeo]

 

[ronscuba]

With regards to dedicated macro the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is the perfect option isnt it?

Macro is a specialty and lenses can be expensive. I suggest shooting a little macro video topside and then imagine what it will be like UW. Most likely your subject will be moving. Maybe not much, but usually a little. Depth of field might be an issue as well.

On the crop camera I think a 60mm is a more versatile option. Especially for UW video.

I like to shoot macro video with my camcorder, but it is really tough. Not sure I could do it with a DSLR. Do you have a lot of macro opportunities where you normally dive ?

 

[sinistar]

Thanks guys! So I understand that there is no one size fits all good wide to good macro lens and that the maximum magnification is the feature to check.

Yep, the closer to 1:1 the better for macro work.

How about the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM with the max magnification of 1:2.7 and optical stabilisation? It nowhere near as generally wide as an 11-16 but 17mm is probably wide enough for general filming and at f4 it would have a focus range of 1 to 11 metres obviously its not a true macro so its not going to win any competitions but its still a decent option.

that one sounds like a nice overall solution as long as it will work in your system. I think you'll be at f8 a lot for video so I think you'll probably have a bit more depth of field than you listed. However I have a hunch there will be times (more than you expect) where you'll wish you had something wider - especially in lower visibility conditions where you can be a lot closer with a UWA lens. But this lens wouldn't be too far off your previous setup. and The IS will be nice - hopefully enough for video when zoomed to 70mm.

With regards to dedicated macro the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is the perfect option isnt it?

actually, I think the more popular macro for the crop body canon is the EF-S 60mm. But he 100L would be sweet! However it wil probably be a bit long and I don't think the IS (for the low shutter speed video) will be strong enough to match that of image stabilized camcorder video - which still isn't that good for macro video.

 

[Blackwood]

Here's a new option: Tamron -Tamron announces the redesign of their legendary 90mm Macro lens, equipped with VC (Vibration Compensation) and USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive) - SP 90mm F/2.8 Di MACRO 1:1 VC USD (Model F004)Tamron SP 90mm F/2.8 Di MACRO 1:1 VC USD
September 13, 2012, Saitama, Japan—Tamron Co., Ltd. (President and CEO: Morio Ono / Headquarters: Saitama City), a leading manufacturer of optical equipment, announced the development of a next generation 90mm Macro lens for full-size SLR cameras. The lens features completely redesigned optics, a proprietary VC (Vibration Compensation)*1, and USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive)*2.

Tamron has updated their legendary 90mm Macro lens with a new, state-of-the-art optical design. The lens, reborn for the age of digital photography, offers VC (Vibration Compensation) and USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive).

• Adopting a state-of-the-art optical design and a rounded diaphragm, this lens carries on the long tradition of Tamron’s 90mm Macro lens in delivering spectacular blur effects. Two XLD (Extra Low Dispersion) glasses and one LD (Low Dispersion) element reduce chromatic aberrations, yielding sharp images and outstanding resolution.
• Tamron’s newly developed eBAND (Extended Bandwidth & Angular-Dependency) Coating*6 delivers a dramatic improvement in antireflection performance—significantly reducing flare and ghosting for clearer, crisper images.
• The VC (Vibration Compensation) image stabilization mechanism reduces camera shake to deliver sharp images.
• Features USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive) to power a speedy AF drive together with a continuous manual focus mechanism.
• Incorporates IF (Internal Focus) system, which focuses by moving only the internal lens group, rather than the front lens elements. The overall length of the lens therefore does not change when focusing, thus ensuring a broad working distance.
• Moisture-resistant construction helps prevent moisture from penetrating the lens.