Best cheap stabilized lens for handheld video?

[Aereldor]

Greetings.

 

I currently shoot a lot of handheld video with my camcorder, and am looking to move to an interchangeable lens system - probably something like a Nikon D3300 or a Canon 1200D. My choice of system will be largely based on the lenses for that system.

 

I'm looking for a lens that has very good optical image stabilization. Since I'm on a budget, I can't afford an L lens, and am looking to get the best possible performance for handheld video without investing in something like a Canon 24-105 F4L. 

I'm also going to be using APS-C cameras, so it will be useful if the focal lengths match up. 24-70 is an awkward focal length on APS-C cameras, but 18-55 yields a much more usable equivalent focal length after accounting for the crop factor. A few lenses I've been thinking of are the Canon 18-55 IS STM and the Canon 18-135 IS STM, as well as the Tamrom 17-50 f2.8 VC. 

 

I'm reluctant to use cameras with in-body image stabilization due to the distracting distortion and jitter during horizontal panning.

 

Any recommendations will be greatly appreciated. @ALwin, @AkiraDaarkst; your recommendations in particular will be valuable.

 

Regards,

Aereldor.

[AkiraDaarkst]

12 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

I'm looking for a lens that has very good optical image stabilization. Since I'm on a budget, I can't afford an L lens, and am looking to get the best possible performance for handheld video without investing in something like a Canon 24-105 F4L. 

I'm also going to be using APS-C cameras, so it will be useful if the focal lengths match up. 24-70 is an awkward focal length on APS-C cameras, but 18-55 yields a much more usable equivalent focal length after accounting for the crop factor. A few lenses I've been thinking of are the Canon 18-55 IS STM and the Canon 18-135 IS STM, as well as the Tamrom 17-50 f2.8 VC. 

You'll have to test these yourself or look for reviews by people who have tested the image stabilization in the lenses you want.  And since you can't afford a Canon L glass or something higher end for Nikon, I don't know how good the cheap lenses are.

 

I consider image stabilization in photo lenses to be designed mainly for still images, not for video.  I use a motorized gimbal or mechanical steadicam to get smooth video.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Do you need a zoom? personally id get something like the canon 35 f2 is

 

 

Normally a basic should rig will help much more than is in the lens.

 

 

[Aereldor]

3 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Do you need a zoom? personally id get something like the canon 35 f2 is

 

 

Normally a basic should rig will help much more than is in the lens.

I'd prefer a prime for better image quality, but stabilized primes are expensive. That lens is $550-$600. I'm trying to keep it portable. I understand that a smaller mirrorless camera with IBIS is a better choice, but I can't get over the jittery panning.

 

5 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

You'll have to test these yourself or look for reviews by people who have tested the image stabilization in the lenses you want.  And since you can't afford a Canon L glass or something higher end for Nikon, I don't know how good the cheap lenses are.

 

I consider image stabilization in photo lenses to be designed mainly for still images, not for video.  I use a motorized gimbal or mechanical steadicam to get smooth video.

I'm trying to keep things compact. I'll see if I can try out the STM lenses I mentioned.

[AkiraDaarkst]

4 hours ago, Aereldor said:

I'd prefer a prime for better image quality, but stabilized primes are expensive. That lens is $550-$600. I'm trying to keep it portable. I understand that a smaller mirrorless camera with IBIS is a better choice, but I can't get over the jittery panning.

 

I'm trying to keep things compact. I'll see if I can try out the STM lenses I mentioned.

Here's a video DigitalRev made a few years ago that might give you some idea of how IS in a photo lens may perform for video use.

 

Have you considered buying a small steadicam style stabilizer or a motorized gimbal?  A camera like a DSLR is pretty lightweight, with a lens combo it will weigh no more than 2KG.  And an external stabilization system can be kept for use with future changes in camera systems as long as the weight is supported.

 

About $300

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234136-REG/glidecam_glxrpro_xr_pro_handheld_camera_stabilizer.html

 

 

Just to get a sense of how a photo camera's IS performed for video (at least on my A6500), I did a brief test and it seemed to perform reasonably well, compared to when IS was turned off. However the A6500 has inbody 5-axis IS, and the camera suffers from the jello effect due to rolling shutter.  The test I did was to keep the focus and composition centered on the studio monitors on my desk and took a few steps forward and backwards with the camera in my hands to see how IS handled the vibrations from my body movement, and I kept my hands steady as much as I could.  I very much doubt it will perform well if I ran with the camera to chase something.

[Aereldor]

17 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I don't think I can be more helpful on this topic.  Here's a video DigitalRev made a few years ago that might give you some idea of how IS in a photo lens may perform for video use.

 

Have you considered buying a small steadicam style stabilizer or a motorized gimbal?  A camera like a DSLR is pretty lightweight, with a lens combo it will weigh no more than 2KG.  And an external stabilization system can be kept for use with future changes in camera systems as long as the weight is supported.

 

About $300

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234136-REG/glidecam_glxrpro_xr_pro_handheld_camera_stabilizer.html

 

 

I have a steadicam for my camcorder, and I feel it just makes using it more unwieldy.

This video and Kai's recent review of the 24-105 f4L Mark II is what led to me mentioning the lens in the post. The new lens has exceptional image stabilization.

I'm debating whether to hold off on buying a camera entirely- possibly for another year; or just picking up a really cheap used 550D and used L glass on eBay. 

[cc143]

You should be able to get  a 60D in a relevantly close price to the 550D and a 24-105L, another option is the 28-135 3.5-5.6 Is, which I have and can say it has a good image quality , especially given its £160 used VS circa £450 for the 24-105L Other options are the EF-S 17-55 IS, which is quite expensive, although it is also at f 2.8 and covers a better focal range on APS-C. 

 

What is your total budget?

 

I wouldn't recommend the 1200D over the d3300, its way worse, which is why I say for for an older used camera instead. I don't know if there is a lens on the nikon side that would cut it.  

[AkiraDaarkst]

17 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

I have a steadicam for my camcorder, and I feel it just makes using it more unwieldy.

This video and Kai's recent review of the 24-105 f4L Mark II is what led to me mentioning the lens in the post. The new lens has exceptional image stabilization.

I'm debating whether to hold off on buying a camera entirely- possibly for another year; or just picking up a really cheap used 550D and used L glass on eBay. 

I think waiting might be a good idea, unless you urgently need the camera.

 

 

7 minutes ago, cc143 said:

You should be able to get  a 60D in a relevantly close price to the 550D and a 24-105L, another option is the 28-135 3.5-5.6 Is, which I have and can say it has a good image quality , especially given its £160 used VS circa £450 for the 24-105L Other options are the EF-S 17-55 IS, which is quite expensive, although it is also at f 2.8 and covers a better focal range on APS-C. 

 

What is your total budget?

 

I wouldn't recommend the 1200D over the d3300, its way worse, which is why I say for for an older used camera instead. I don't know if there is a lens on the nikon side that would cut it.  

I agree about the 1200D, the D3300 is better.  But about the lens, while the 24-105 from Canon is a wonderful lens, on a cropped sensor body the field of view is narrower and the OP might have issues with that.  And also the OP most likely wants a lens with image stabilization to assist in getting smoother handheld shots without the use of bulky external rigs.

[cc143]

1 minute ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I think waiting might be a good idea, unless you urgently need the camera.

 

 

I agree about the 1200D, the D3300 is better.  But about the lens, while the 24-105 from Canon is a wonderful lens, on a cropped sensor body the field of view is narrower and the OP might have issues with that.  And also the OP most likely wants a lens with image stabilization to assist in getting smoother handheld shots without the use of bulky external rigs.

Oh I agree, I was just saying the 28-135mm is a good cheaper alternative, and the 60D would be a better option than the 550D OP said they intended to get with a 24-105L. In fact I believe the best thing for an IS lens woyld be the 17-55mm instead, I just find it expensive for an EF-S lens is all. 

 

FOV on the 24 or 28 mm end is too tele, I know, in fact I would rather use the 17-40 on APS-C instead, but still, no IS. 

[Aereldor]

14 hours ago, cc143 said:

You should be able to get  a 60D in a relevantly close price to the 550D and a 24-105L, another option is the 28-135 3.5-5.6 Is, which I have and can say it has a good image quality , especially given its £160 used VS circa £450 for the 24-105L Other options are the EF-S 17-55 IS, which is quite expensive, although it is also at f 2.8 and covers a better focal range on APS-C. 

I was considering something with an f2.8 constant aperture, like Tamron's 17-50mm f2.8 VC. Christopher Frost incorporates that in a comparison of fast zoom lenses here, and the Tamron actually has the best image stabilization of the lot.

 

 

Do you mean the 18-135 IS STM? That's the 'pro' kit lens that ships with Canon's APS-C bodies, and is apparently better than the 18-55mm STM lens, even though it doesn't have a wide constant aperture. It also gives me a wider field of view at the lower end, and isn't very expensive to buy new.

 

I know I could get a better body, but I won't have much to invest in a lens afterwards.

 

14 hours ago, cc143 said:

What is your total budget?

 

I wouldn't recommend the 1200D over the d3300, its way worse, which is why I say for for an older used camera instead. I don't know if there is a lens on the nikon side that would cut it.  

 

14 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I think waiting might be a good idea, unless you urgently need the camera.

 

 

I agree about the 1200D, the D3300 is better.  But about the lens, while the 24-105 from Canon is a wonderful lens, on a cropped sensor body the field of view is narrower and the OP might have issues with that.  And also the OP most likely wants a lens with image stabilization to assist in getting smoother handheld shots without the use of bulky external rigs.

 

I suppose I'm willing to spend up to $550. I am aware of how much better the D3300 is, but the autofocus noise is worse than the D3100 and D5100, to the point where even a shotgun microphone will pick up a fair amount. It's pretty terrible. (It's the same as the D3200 in this video).

 

 

Both the D3300 and the 1200D are really cheap where I come from about $375 and $340 respectively with the kit lenses. The 550D and the 600D are good camera bodies that I find aren't so different from the modern 700D and 750D, which are almost identical to the new 800D. I might consider going with the GX85 anyway for the 5-axis IBIS and 4k video, but only if I find a way to circumvent the horrible distortion and jerky horizontal panning with the software stabilization.

Edit: That seems to vary based on the used case-

 

 

[cc143]

7 hours ago, Aereldor said:

I was considering something with an f2.8 constant aperture, like Tamron's 17-50mm f2.8 VC. Christopher Frost incorporates that in a comparison of fast zoom lenses here, and the Tamron actually has the best image stabilization of the lot.

 

Do you mean the 18-135 IS STM? That's the 'pro' kit lens that ships with Canon's APS-C bodies, and is apparently better than the 18-55mm STM lens, even though it doesn't have a wide constant aperture. It also gives me a wider field of view at the lower end, and isn't very expensive to buy new.

 

I know I could get a better body, but I won't have much to invest in a lens afterwards.

I suppose I'm willing to spend up to $550. I am aware of how much better the D3300 is, but the autofocus noise is worse than the D3100 and D5100, to the point where even a shotgun microphone will pick up a fair amount. It's pretty terrible. (It's the same as the D3200 in this video).

 

Both the D3300 and the 1200D are really cheap where I come from about $375 and $340 respectively with the kit lenses. The 550D and the 600D are good camera bodies that I find aren't so different from the modern 700D and 750D, which are almost identical to the new 800D. I might consider going with the GX85 anyway for the 5-axis IBIS and 4k video, but only if I find a way to circumvent the horrible distortion and jerky horizontal panning with the software stabilization.

Edit: That seems to vary based on the used case-

 

 

I'm not sure I wouldn't go with the Canon at that point, as long as the IS isn't completely crap, image quality should be a higher a priority and I believe the Canon is the best of the bunch in that respect. 

 

No I meant the EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 USM, I used it for years on my 50D as an all purpose, the wide end was too long yes, but the image quality is good given the price and it has IS, so its a good enough alternative to the 24-105L. 

 

I can't speak as to how the gx85 performs, however I can definitely say that the 550D is too old at this point and it shows, the 600D is imo when Canon started to stagnate a bit. although the 750d is actually quite compelling. 

[Aereldor]

3 minutes ago, cc143 said:

I'm not sure I wouldn't go with the Canon at that point, as long as the IS isn't completely crap, image quality should be a higher a priority and I believe the Canon is the best of the bunch in that respect. 

 

No I meant the EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 USM, I used it for years on my 50D as an all purpose, the wide end was too long yes, but the image quality is good given the price and it has IS, so its a good enough alternative to the 24-105L. 

 

I can't speak as to how the gx85 performs, however I can definitely say that the 550D is too old at this point and it shows, the 600D is imo when Canon started to stagnate a bit. although the 750d is actually quite compelling. 

I mean, sure, it HAS IS, but is it anywhere near as good as the 24-105L mark II? 

Kai says in his review of the aforementioned lens that it 'now comes with 4 stops of IS power', suggesting superiority over the older version in some regard. I was wondering if lenses can be ranked in terms of how good their IS functionality is, and how far I can go on a budget.

Yeah, I'd get a 600D if I could for the articulating screen and more autofocus points, but the 550D seems cheaper on the used market, and justifiably so; it isn't as good.