Recently started doing some DSLR videos for a website.

For testing purposes I got a t5i with Sigma 50mm 1.4F lens. Most videos are in low-light settings.

I've been using a tripod and it's worked fine for my purposes, but I'm moving to a different approach. I want to use a shoulder rig, and the lack of IS I think will make the video a bit jittery when moving around.

Since there will be times I'll have a camera guy film me while I ask a person interview questions on the field, I expect the need of a wide angle lens, and zooming may help in certain scenarios.

I've been looking at lenses and the following have come up.

Canon Lens 24-105 4F IS L Lens
Canon Lens 24-70 2.8F IS L Lens
Sigma 17-70 lens 2.8F OS Lens
Tamron 24-70 2.8F VC Lens

The reviews I've been reading don't mention how their image stabilization compares to one another. Is one better than the other? I'm leaning towards the Sigma, only because I'm happy with the intial 1.4 I have. Videos reviews online all swear by the 24-105 Canon. Flash/lighting is not an option, think live bar music events. If I can get a good setup, I'll be updating the camera body to get cleaner high ISOs.

I'm not opposed to third party brands like Sigma, so if there's anything better than 2.8 with a nice zoom range, please point me in that direction.

Thanks for the directions in advance.

  • There is no Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 IS L lens. You either go with the non-stabilized EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II or the stabilized EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS. – Michael C Mar 15 '15 at 15:23
  • 1
    Rent the lenses you are considering and see which one works best for your usage. – Michael C Mar 15 '15 at 15:25
  • Does IS actually work on video, IIRC it often doesn't... – James Snell Mar 15 '15 at 18:33

If it's low-light work you're primarily intending to do then the f2.8 lenses are a better option as they are an f-stop brighter than the Canon 24-105 f4L. Image stablisation can only do so much and having a wider aperture will give you a head start in low-light environments, making IS less necessary.

Also bear in mind you're less likely to need IS at wider angles than telephoto so your choice of 24-70mm is good, but you may be better served by Canon's 16-35mm f2.8L if you need wide angle coverage. While it lacks IS it has a relatively large aperture and will give you a much wider view angle than the 24-70s. You're using a crop-sensor so the the 24mm setting which gives a nice wide view on 35mm and full-frame dSLRs, but on your camera it will have an effective length of 38.4mm - not so wide. the 16mm end of the 16-35mm would equal 25.6mm on your camera, considerably wider. The downside is it's an expensive lens, but as a premium item it will hold it's value so should be considered an investment - if you can stump up the cash for one.

Another much cheaper alternative to the 16-35mm is Canon's 17-40mm f4L. It hasn't got IS and it loses an f-stop compared to the others you mentioned, but again it would possibly be a good choice for wider angle shots.

A decent camera shop should let you try all of these before committing yourself to a purchase so give it a go and see what works for you.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.