Suggestions for Canon 7D starter kit?

[Kaido]

Looking to pick up a 7D, primarily for video. Just planning on the stock lens for now. I've got a bunch of Nikon glass I can use with adapters for manual video shots. Have a bag, lens cleaning stuff, and a tripod. So far I was thinking:

1. 7D & 28-135mm kit lens

2. eBay battery kit (a few knockoff batteries, A/C charger, car adapter)

3. Two 32gb Kingston 133x CF cards

Any other must-have items? Or interesting goodies?

 

[shocksyde]

Is your "interesting goodies" budget $100 or $10,000?

 

[Kaido]

Is your "interesting goodies" budget $100 or $10,000?

Under $1,000 I guess. Selling off some of my old photo/cam equipment and wanted to consolidate with a 7D, mainly for video. We're keeping my wife's D90 and lenses and that's probably it.

 

[jpeyton]

The 28-135mm isn't really worth buying.

 

[shocksyde]

Well, since you're gonna use it mostly for video, I don't have many suggestions. Maybe an external mic?

 

[kyzen]

A local shop by me sold the 7D with the 18-135mm lens instead of the 28-135mm. They also included the hood, a filter, and a spare battery. According to them, it's a fancier bundle that Canon offers through smaller retailers (i.e., not Best Buy). Cost $100 more than the 28-135mm kit.

 

[Kaido]

Well, since you're gonna use it mostly for video, I don't have many suggestions. Maybe an external mic?

Yeah, already covered on the mic side of things. Actually going to be using an external standalone recording system due to the Automatic Gain Control on the 7D, then syncing in post.

 

[randay]

i was going to say external mic too. i think all that leaves is glass?

 

[cparker]

The 50mm 1.4 ef lens might be worthwhile. They go for a bit over $300 new usually, but you might be able to find one used in good shape for $200 or so. If you need wide get the efs 10-22. It will cost $650 or so new more or less but could get a good used one for $400-500 I think. And there's always the 85mm 1.8 ef for 380 or so, as I recall, new. Check the postings on Fredmiranda.com. In general, Canon glass is less expensive than Nikon equivalents. Also Canon gives out discount coupons twice a year that usually cover some if not all of these lenses. Fast primes would probably be better to be able to make use of dof effects that are an advantage with video on slr cameras. I'm very interested in anyone's experiences in using a 7D or 5D II for video myself. I have some Canon glass that I'd be interested in using for video one of these days using one of the Canon slrs that have video.

 

[foghorn67]

60 EF-S Macro or 85 1.8 USM. Both heavenly sent. 28-135 is worth getting with the kit, it's cheap that way, but can be sold for more individually. (Usually)
But who knows, for video purposes, op might find it okay if he deems it wide enough on the short end.

 

[Kaido]

i was going to say external mic too. i think all that leaves is glass?

I'm pretty impressed with the stock lens so far:

http://vimeo.com/7807905

Plus I'll be porting over my Nikon glass and my Zeiss glass (all manual, but no biggie for video), so no worries on lenses.

 

[alfa147x]

Kaido welcome to the (better) Canon side!

We need our own battle cry kinda like Horrah or QueRRAH!

 

[Kaido]

Kaido welcome to the (better) Canon side!

We need our own battle cry kinda like Horrah or QueRRAH!

How bout "Crappy ergonomics!" Er...

:awe:

 

[soydios]

G-type Nikon lenses can't be used manually, just keep that in mind.
Beyond that, primes are what you want for video, because zooming while filming is still difficult to accomplish without proper hardware. If Canon has a 28mm then you should look into that for your normal prime (Canon 1.6x requires a shorter normal lens than Nikon 1.5x).

 

[Kaido]

G-type Nikon lenses can't be used manually, just keep that in mind.
Beyond that, primes are what you want for video, because zooming while filming is still difficult to accomplish without proper hardware. If Canon has a 28mm then you should look into that for your normal prime (Canon 1.6x requires a shorter normal lens than Nikon 1.5x).

Yeah, got all the bases covered for lenses pretty much. The only zooming really would be with a follow focus, if I ever decide to upgrade to one. One question I did have: I may be using a box full of old Nikon glass (old as in 70's stuff), but really a really great mix of primes and some Tokinas in there. I've read that in order to use these with the newer Nikons, you have to get them specially-adapted (found a guy online who does them), but I'm wondering if a standard cheapo Nikon-to-Canon adapter ring would work on them, since they'll all be manual anyway. I'll see about getting some more details on the lenses themselves. It'd be nice to slap on a $12 adapter instead of spending $40 a lens to get the newer Nikon mount hacked on, THEN slapping on the $12 adapter haha.

 

[angry hampster]

Can a 7D autofocus in video mode? I don't understand why you'd want a DSLR for primary video

 

[Kaido]

Can a 7D autofocus in video mode? I don't understand why you'd want a DSLR for primary video

Not really. It uses some sort of crappy contrast detection to autofocus.

As far as primary video usage goes, the 7D isn't a film-your-kids type of camcorder (which of course it can be!), it's more of an indi-movie camcorder where you'd actually setup shots and stuff. It has amazing crispness, depth-of-field, and manual control over what you capture. It has plenty of drawbacks - auto-gain control on the audio input, lack of real autofocus, 12-minutes max per clip, etc., but it also does stellar video. Some sample clips:

http://vimeo.com/6496808

http://vimeo.com/7886413

http://vimeo.com/6475938

 

[extra]

A local shop by me sold the 7D with the 18-135mm lens instead of the 28-135mm. They also included the hood, a filter, and a spare battery. According to them, it's a fancier bundle that Canon offers through smaller retailers (i.e., not Best Buy). Cost $100 more than the 28-135mm kit.

The 18-135mm isn't worth getting either imho lol. I mean, you can get the kit and then sell the lens though.

If you want good *cheap* glass:
1. The 18-55mm IS is sharp and very very cheap, you can get one for around $100. Yeah, it's sharper than the much more expensive 18-135 and 28-135 because of it's much more modest zoom range. If someone tries to convince you otherwise *RUN AWAY*.
2. The 55-250mm IS can be had for around $200. It's very sharp, has low CA, and the IS is great.

The downside of these two lenses: slow apertures and no USM. Also, no weather sealing.

Other things to consider:
1. I don't like the 50mm f1.4. You might. However, I'd stay away from it, imho it's kind of a POS that likes to have its AF die. No, it's not real ring USM. The 50mm f1.8 also kind of sucks HOWEVER you can buy one for $50 on craigslist so why the hell not? Stopped down it's very sharp.
2. The 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.0 do NOT suck. In fact, they rock. Hard. Real ring USM. The build quality of the 85mm f1.8 is so much better than the 50mm f1.4 as to be in another league entirely. It's solid. It focuses almost instantly. It's sharp wide open. It's a gem. Only downside is some purple fringing but meh. Well worth getting one of those lenses.
3. Sigma 30mm f1.4. I've never played with one, but it's supposed to be great.
4. Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for your wide angle. There aren't even really any downsides to this thing. It's so good I don't even know where to start. Oh, I guess no USM is a downside but honestly meh. It focuses fast and the clutch operated MF/AF switch is a joy to use. Built like a Canon L series as well. The Canon 10-22mm is also great, but I like the Tokina better. Can't go wrong though. Oh, I just thought of the one downside I guess: yeah, you need to use the included lens hood otherwise you can get some pretty bad flare. Meh.

 

[soydios]

Yeah, got all the bases covered for lenses pretty much. The only zooming really would be with a follow focus, if I ever decide to upgrade to one. One question I did have: I may be using a box full of old Nikon glass (old as in 70's stuff), but really a really great mix of primes and some Tokinas in there. I've read that in order to use these with the newer Nikons, you have to get them specially-adapted (found a guy online who does them), but I'm wondering if a standard cheapo Nikon-to-Canon adapter ring would work on them, since they'll all be manual anyway. I'll see about getting some more details on the lenses themselves. It'd be nice to slap on a $12 adapter instead of spending $40 a lens to get the newer Nikon mount hacked on, THEN slapping on the $12 adapter haha.

They only require adapting to AI-s if you want them to meter with a D200+ body. The do not require adapting to mount and be used manually, except in the rare cases where the rear element of a 6mm fisheye sticks so far into the body that it requires full-time mirror lockup, which no current bodies have.

And to the people who are going to come in and point to KenRockwell.com and Nikon.com about saying that this isn't possible: mount the lens to your camera, take a picture, and find out for yourself that it does work totally fine!

 

[Kaido]

The 18-135mm isn't worth getting either imho lol. I mean, you can get the kit and then sell the lens though.

If you want good *cheap* glass:
1. The 18-55mm IS is sharp and very very cheap, you can get one for around $100. Yeah, it's sharper than the much more expensive 18-135 and 28-135 because of it's much more modest zoom range. If someone tries to convince you otherwise *RUN AWAY*.
2. The 55-250mm IS can be had for around $200. It's very sharp, has low CA, and the IS is great.

The downside of these two lenses: slow apertures and no USM. Also, no weather sealing.

Other things to consider:
1. I don't like the 50mm f1.4. You might. However, I'd stay away from it, imho it's kind of a POS that likes to have its AF die. No, it's not real ring USM. The 50mm f1.8 also kind of sucks HOWEVER you can buy one for $50 on craigslist so why the hell not? Stopped down it's very sharp.
2. The 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.0 do NOT suck. In fact, they rock. Hard. Real ring USM. The build quality of the 85mm f1.8 is so much better than the 50mm f1.4 as to be in another league entirely. It's solid. It focuses almost instantly. It's sharp wide open. It's a gem. Only downside is some purple fringing but meh. Well worth getting one of those lenses.
3. Sigma 30mm f1.4. I've never played with one, but it's supposed to be great.
4. Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for your wide angle. There aren't even really any downsides to this thing. It's so good I don't even know where to start. Oh, I guess no USM is a downside but honestly meh. It focuses fast and the clutch operated MF/AF switch is a joy to use. Built like a Canon L series as well. The Canon 10-22mm is also great, but I like the Tokina better. Can't go wrong though. Oh, I just thought of the one downside I guess: yeah, you need to use the included lens hood otherwise you can get some pretty bad flare. Meh.

Yeah, that's the thing - I've got plenty of Nikon/Tokina/Zeiss glass, 18-55, 50mm, etc. etc. So the stock Canon lens actually looks...pretty good haha. It's not the best of course, but for video on the 7D's sensor (plus autofocus), it looks really good for a go-anywhere, do-anything kind of video lens. I've been saving up for a 35mm adapter for my camcorder (HV20) for awhile, but for the price of a full 35mm setup vs. just getting a 7D, it's pretty much a wash, plus I can use the 7D or HV20 as a B-cam. And I'm really not keen on strapping the 7D to my car for ride-along shots, although some people are more brave than I am

I'm also thinking of going with a QuickstreamHDV first, which is a Firewire HDD recorder for MiniDV cams. I've truly grown to loathe importing tapes 1:1 lol. All this digital stuff where all you have to do is transcode the footage has really spoiled me. Too bad my bank account doesn't feel the same way

 

[arrfep]

Dude, pick up an M42 to EOS mount converter for like $10. Then use the remaining $990 to buy a multitude of awesome M42 mount lenses, since you're not going to be autofocusing anyway. In the short time I owned a T1i I got a converter because I had a couple M42 Mount lenses around...

Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f2.4 HOLY BOKEH, backgrounds better than my 35L. Can be had for pretty cheap on eBay.

There's tons of well-renowned M42 mount glass available for pretty cheap, Pentax, Zeiss, Voigtlander, etc.

 

[ElFenix]

G-type Nikon lenses can't be used manually, just keep that in mind.
Beyond that, primes are what you want for video, because zooming while filming is still difficult to accomplish without proper hardware. If Canon has a 28mm then you should look into that for your normal prime (Canon 1.6x requires a shorter normal lens than Nikon 1.5x).

not quite right

 

[Kaido]

Dude, pick up an M42 to EOS mount converter for like $10. Then use the remaining $990 to buy a multitude of awesome M42 mount lenses, since you're not going to be autofocusing anyway. In the short time I owned a T1i I got a converter because I had a couple M42 Mount lenses around...

Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f2.4 HOLY BOKEH, backgrounds better than my 35L. Can be had for pretty cheap on eBay.

There's tons of well-renowned M42 mount glass available for pretty cheap, Pentax, Zeiss, Voigtlander, etc.

^ Just got my 35mm Flektogon from eBay about 2 weeks ago actually. Been using it on my wife's D90, fab-u-lous :awe:

 

[arrfep]

^ Just got my 35mm Flektogon from eBay about 2 weeks ago actually. Been using it on my wife's D90, fab-u-lous :awe:

My grandpa gave it to me a few years back, along with a couple other M42 mount lenses...a Vivitar tele and a couple Pentax 50's. After initially figuring out what mount they were, I didn't do much more research, and let 'em sit in a drawer figuring one day I'd ebay them and get 10 or 15 bucks a piece.
When I bought the T1i this summer, I grabbed the mount converter on a whim so I could have a way to have manual aperture while filming. It was cool and all, but a pain in the ass to do and I ended up selling the camera anyway. By chance I threw the Flek onto my 5D and . I just wish I could manually focus worth a damn.