Christina Ava

Following up Andrew's comment. Has anyone got the Ef-s 18-135 mounted on a 5d4. How easy is it to "pop the cap off" the back of the rear element? Can you put it back if you do? 

Seeing as both are APS-C and designed for a roughly 1.6x crop... and the 5D's video is a 1.6x crop... I don't think the speed booster would do that much good (maybe you could squeeze 10% more FOV out of the Sigma).
I would be careful with the Canon. The rear element might bump up against the mirror and you will need to remove the EF-S tab just to get it to mount. Furthermore, its IS is not particularly good, not as good as in the current kit lenses by far. It's a nice lens though, despite that.

Canon 17-55mm F2.8 at least has stabiliser, so maybe for video that is more useful than F1.8...
Would be a nice lens on Speed Booster too if we ever persuade Christina out of her Canon love affair

@Christina Ava Can confirm this. Can also confirm this lens deserves all the praise it gets. Buy used for even more of a steal (although a small investment in the Sigma USB dock is recommended).
Suprised no-one mentions the very cheap Canon 10-18mm with IS. You gotta mod the EF-s mount, but that should be easy. See below.
 

Just put your thumb behind the cap and pull, it clicks off... And you can put it back on again.
Can't confirm if this works with all EF-S lenses but it does with this one and it's easy.

Recommended wide glass 

17mm and up wouldn't really be that wide, depends what you're after I guess.
I have Tokina 11-16, it's pretty average to be honest, I mean it's usable and the image is good enough but nothing about it is all that interesting.

Another vote for the 18-35mm (I'm selling mine if you're interested.... but I'm in the US). AMAZING lens. As sharp as many $40k cine zooms, faster than cine zooms, and par focal. Diffraction limited wide open in the center. Good rendering, too, feels apochromatic. Ridiculously good. But it's not that wide. It's as wide as I need to go and as wide as "classical" lenses go but for that John Woo/Terry Gilliam/Michael Bay look you gotta go wider and tackier.... This lens is a classic, though. A+.
The 14mm Samyang has too much distortion imo. It's okay but kind of gross for video. A lot less bad cropped than it is at FF, though. Also a lot less wide. C+
11-16mm Tokina is fine. Not exciting rendering and high flare and some CA but I find it to be quite good. Sharp. An okay look. Very low distortion. 11-20mm is a little better. Neither have a lot of character.  B
The 18-55mm kit lens is not horrible but you'd need to remove the EF-S tab. It's not that good... but it's really not that bad and for its price used it's a big winner. And it has very good IS. Too bad about the EF-S tab. It's a decent lens. I (incomplete)
 

+1 For the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 (but has not filter thread)
The 14mm f2.8 Samyang is great for the price ($300) but no filter thread either and it has a weird mustache distortion (noticable with 5Dmk4 crop in video ?)
The Tokina 11-16 is also a great lens with a 77mm filter thread, the V1 is very affordable but has a lot of CA. Built like a tank with a nice hard stop on manual focus at infinity (at least my version)
Sigma 20mm is wonderful as well but no filter thread.
Then there is the "native" EF 11-24 f4 is you really want to go wide. It has a back filter slot but the beauty is $3k...

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 would be my favourite.
The Samyang 14 and 11-16 not too great. Nikon 14mm F2.8 AF-D is much nicer.
Sigma 20mm F1.4 would also be superb, although not as wide as your 14's and 17's obviously.
You can also pop the cap off the Canon EF-S lenses like 17-50mm F2.8 and 18-135mm, and they will fit like a charm

Samyang 14mm

Tokina 11-16 is cheap. This guy tried it here: 
 

This guy shoots amazing stuff on an eos M with Magic Lantern & crop mode
 

The Canon 100D is £250 used and I have always had a bit of a soft spot for it, being the smallest and lightest Canon DSLR body.
I recently installed an experimental version of Magic Lantern on the 100D and am absolutely taken-aback by how good the image is!
It practically eliminates moire and softness. The 100D shoots continuous 1.7K RAW video in 25p and 24p to SD card.
Read the full article

to get the "film look" over video, try to use less grading and more in camera capturing of the light and color, so as your footage can look beautiful without hours of grading. Never say ill fix it in post...as for all these luts and things i think they tend to look all the same, you should try to create your own coloring look, and i think less is more, if the end footage looks ungraded for me its a win

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film
What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.
How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.
Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.
The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!
Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..
my humble opinion..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film
What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.
How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.
Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.
The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!
Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..
my humble opinion..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film
What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.
How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.
Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.
The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!
Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..
my humble opinion..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film
What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.
How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.
Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.
The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!
Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..
my humble opinion..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film
What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.
How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.
Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.
The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!
Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..
my humble opinion..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film
What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.
How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.
Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.
The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!
Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..
my humble opinion..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film
What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.
How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.
Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.
The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!
Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..
my humble opinion..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film
What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.
How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.
Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.
The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!
Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..
my humble opinion..

to get the "film look" over video, try to use less grading and more in camera capturing of the light and color, so as your footage can look beautiful without hours of grading. Never say ill fix it in post...as for all these luts and things i think they tend to look all the same, you should try to create your own coloring look, and i think less is more, if the end footage looks ungraded for me its a win

I've been shooting drone for a long time. On a pure technical standpoint (I'm not going to enter in the legal aspect)
- Karma: the drone is big, takes forever to warm up, the gimbal has a lot of drift, the radio link is weak and it's not very cheap ($1200 with the GoPro). In other words this is not the best bang for your bucks, nothing dramatic but there is much better on the market. Just GoPro first shot at it. Perhaps after the recent recall, GoPro fixed some issue, we'll see...
- Phantom 3 : the Phantom 3 Pro films in 4K, the P3 Standard only in 1080. DJI recently stopped selling this drone but there is a lot of inventory and you can still buy a brand new unit for cheap. The IQ is enough for most internet stuff however the max bitrate at 60mbps is a little bit weak especially if you shoot in 4k.
- Phantom 4 and Phantom 4 PRO: the Phantom 4 is just an updated Phantom 3 with front sensor (collision avoidance). Nothing very different on the IQ compared to the P3Pro However the Phantom 4 PRO has a much larger sensor (one inch) so better DR, ISO and quality overall. The bitrate also max out at 100mbps which is good especially with the h265 codec (but a pain to edit right now), you can still record in h264 at 100mbps. It also does 4k60. It's the most expensive one ($1500)
- Mavic: nice and small portable drone, ok price at $1000 but hard to find at the moment (sold out). Offers collision avoidance (front) like the Phantom 4 and 4 Pro. On the con side the drone is a bit too light for windy days (jello and vibration issue) and the bitrate is back to 60mbps.
- A note about the focal (FF equivalent): the Phantom 3 Pro and P4 are 20mm, the Phantom 4 Pro is 24mm and the Mavic is 28mm. Keep that in mind depending of what you want to do.
- Other drones ? The Yuneec and Walkera make ok drones but DJI products are just better
- Is is hard to fly?  not really, these drones are full of automation, the flight is assisted by GPS, they will come back to the landing point if you press a button (RTH), they will also calculate your distance Vs battery and start flying back if the battery is too low based on the distance. Some have collision avoidance system. If you are a bit tech friendly and played video game in your life you won't have any issues. To give you and idea, once you start the drone and take off, the thing will stay in the air and hoover by itself until you move the command. It won't drift thanks to the GPS. Can't be easier than that !
Conclusion:
You could start with a Phantom 3 standard (1080 max) or P3Pro for $500-800 new or even find cheaper used unit (check the hundreds available on Craigslist and ebay). The IQ is good enough for most internet stuff (similar to gopro), you won't break the bank and/or cry too hard if you crash.
The Phantom 4, 4 Pro and Mavic have the front sensor for collision avoidance if you are a noob. Basically the drone will stop automatically on front of an obstacle.
The Phantom 4 Pro is definitely a step up in term of image quality but also the more expensive.
Last thing, if you buy a drone here is what YOU MUST do and understand before flying: 1. compass calibration, 2. IMU calibration, 3. return to home (set the correct altitude), 4. difference between the flight mode (ATTI and GPS). Check the thousand of tutorial available on internet. Nothing complicated but ignoring these simple things will lead to crash. Be smart, not like Casey Neistat.
 
Here is what I did with a Phantom 3 Pro a few years ago. Fair enough