Wide angle, telephoto or in-between

[SandRat]

When you are buying a multipurpose lens for yourself, what's the best overall choice?

I'm leaning towards a wide angle canon with a 2x extender (10x3.3). Would it be better to get something with a little more on the telephoto end or something in-between?

The main purpose is HD ENG, documentary, reality and some production (steadicam, jib, etc).

 

[Hiding Under Here]

The honest answer is that you need two lenses to cover the range of shooting objectives you will encounter over the course of a year. One lens simply won't get it done. The wide angle is great for hand-held work and some b-roll situations. You can also use it on some interviews. However, for compression shots and soft-focus backgrounds on most interviews, you will need a longer lens.

I have seen some people get by with only a wide angle lens and others use a longer lens almost exclusively. I don't know how they do it. I change lenses regularly, sometimes a dozen times (or more) in a day.

If I was to choose one lens to start, I would go with the wide angle lens. And I wouldn't compromise in terms of focal length. I'd get the wide lens and let it go at that. I'd also make sure it had a 2x extender. Also, I'd try and get a used lens to keep my cost down so that I could purchase a longer lens as soon as possible.

 

[freedom]

I'd do the opposite. I can usually make a 'wide enough' lens work in a pinch but there is nothing you can do if you don't have long reach when needed.

 

[Run&Gun]

I second the wide angle. My w/a has been my primary lens for over a year now and I need it's capabilities far more than I need that of a long lens. I'm not saying that you don't need a long lens, I'm buying a new one this year, but definetly for your list of productions, you need a w/a.

My philosophy on lenses, get the widest lens you can and get the longest lens you can, the 'tweeners like the 16x6.3(2/3") are useless in my book. Not wide enough and not enough reach, either. If you can't reach out from far away and fill the screen with eyeballs and nostrills, you might as well have a lens that will let you see the back of the camera. In-betweeners are wasted money... Get the wide angle now and save up for a 22x.

 

[netnews]

I firmly agree that you should have two lenses - one W/A (as wide as possible w/ 2X extender) and one longer zoom (18:1 or better w/ 2X extender).

If you are in a position that you currently can only swing one of the above I think it depends on the kind of work you do. If you do a lot of sports the W/A is obviously not the way to go as you'll need long focal lengths. On the other hand if you do a lot close-in B-roll shooting or architectural style shooting the W/A is the way to go.

A possible compromise might be the long lense with a W/A adapter. The adapter has no where near the capability of the W/A zoom but it does extend the functionality of the longer lense in many applications.

If you shoot on the network level having both lenses is required in the basic camera package. I shoot a lot of medical pieces that would be impossible without my super wide angle zoom.

 

[konman]

I shoot a lot hand-held, and it's not shaky with a wide lens, but some of the rental wide-angle lenses that I've been using recently didn't have macro. So I would say, go for the wide-angle lens WITH macro.