Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anybody favour primes for event videography?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by ProfessorU View Post
    I have more than 30 EF-mount lenses, and there are still lenses I rent from time to time.
    We're planning an intervention ;)

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by theprestige View Post
      . . . I don't understand the notion of macro, though. Will the fact that these are macro lenses impact my videoography negatively??? I just need to point and shoot for the most part.
      The original macro lenses were prime lenses specially designed to provide a high quality image both for normal focusing distances, and when focused extremely close, so that a small object (ring, postage stamp, section of a document, etc.) would fill most of the frame. Non-macro lenses, when used with extension tubes or diopter lens to focus closely, would have optical problems such as lack of flatness of field. When I worked in a camera store many years ago, we started getting in zoom lenses with 'macro' features. Yes, you could focus closely with them, but almost all had very poor flatness of field while in 'macro' mode. For example, if the center of the frame was in focus for objects at 8", but further away from center of frame, objects would only be in focus at maybe 12" or more. I seem to recall some zooms also had poor contrast when in 'macro' mode.

      So, if you're getting a zoom with a 'macro' mode, and you hope to sometimes use if for macro cinematography, first see what the image quality is like while doing macro work. If I do macro work, I remove the zoom and put on my trusty old macro-focusing MicroNikor 55mm prime lens.
      Last edited by Ken Hull; 08-28-2015, 09:46 PM.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Ken Hull View Post
        The original macro lenses were prime lenses specially designed to provide a high quality image both for normal focusing distances, and when focused extremely close, so that a small object (ring, postage stamp, section of a document, etc.) would fill most of the frame. Non-macro lenses, when used with extension tubes or diopter lens to focus closely, would have optical problems such as lack of flatness of field. When I worked in a camera store many years ago, we started getting in zoom lenses with 'macro' features. Yes, you could focus closely with them, but almost all had very poor flatness of field while in 'macro' mode. For example, if the center of the frame was in focus for objects at 8", but further away from center of frame, objects would only be in focus at maybe 12" or more. I seem to recall some zooms also had poor contrast when in 'macro' mode.

        So, if you're getting a zoom with a 'macro' mode, and you hope to sometimes use if for macro cinematography, first see what the image quality is like while doing macro work. If I do macro work, I remove the zoom and put on my trusty old macro-focusing MicroNikor 55mm prime lens.
        One of the macro lenses i'm getting for video is the Tamron 28-75mm. So theres an option to remove this 'macro' should I choose to shoot with this camera?

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by theprestige View Post
          One of the macro lenses i'm getting for video is the Tamron 28-75mm. So theres an option to remove this 'macro' should I choose to shoot with this camera?
          The macro zoom lenses I experimented with back when I worked at a camera store all had to be 'switched' into macro mode, by rotating a ring or sliding a switch. But looking at the description of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens on the B&H website, it looks like continuous focus from infinity down to 1.08 feet. I prefer that over having to 'switch' into macro mode. I see that the 'throw' on the focus ring is only about 1/8 of a turn, not too good if you're planning to do a precise slip-focus effect. Looking at some of the many user-reviews, there's quite a variety of opinions regarding the optical quality. Many users said that the edges are fuzzy if the lens is used on a full-frame camera (24mmx36mm).

          I've never used this lens, so I can't really say if it will meet your needs. But if you're going to do weddings, a zoom of 2.8 or faster seems like a good idea. BTW, I've heard good things about the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens, which I would think would be great for weddings, although I don't think it would cover a full-frame format. And, of course you'd probably need a longer focal length lens too.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Ken Hull View Post
            The macro zoom lenses I experimented with back when I worked at a camera store all had to be 'switched' into macro mode, by rotating a ring or sliding a switch. But looking at the description of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens on the B&H website, it looks like continuous focus from infinity down to 1.08 feet. I prefer that over having to 'switch' into macro mode. I see that the 'throw' on the focus ring is only about 1/8 of a turn, not too good if you're planning to do a precise slip-focus effect. Looking at some of the many user-reviews, there's quite a variety of opinions regarding the optical quality. Many users said that the edges are fuzzy if the lens is used on a full-frame camera (24mmx36mm).

            I've never used this lens, so I can't really say if it will meet your needs. But if you're going to do weddings, a zoom of 2.8 or faster seems like a good idea. BTW, I've heard good things about the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens, which I would think would be great for weddings, although I don't think it would cover a full-frame format. And, of course you'd probably need a longer focal length lens too.
            Hey dude. Thanks for sharing your experiences re macro lenses. Yeah, i've heard mixed results re Tamron optical quality. I've seen youtube vids, and, truth be told, given my budget and such, I can't really justify spending more than £200 on a midrange zoom with a £3550 video production budget. Specially when there doesn't seem to be a night and day difference between most of them.

            I love the idea of the sigma lens, but like i said, just too expensive and even in the A7S crop mode it's only going to be 27-52mm. Not bad, but it doesn't seem like it'll be long enough for me. I'd consider it if it was cheaper, but I can't justify it. Sounds like a wonderful lens, though. Definitely look for it in the future when I get more cash and just use the crop mode.

            Weddings won't be main feature of my videography career, but I do plan to do maybe 2 or 3 a year as they pay well.

            Here is my what i'm getting with my £3,550 budget:

            Sony A7S - £1250

            Sony to Nikon G adapter £100

            Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 macro - £200

            Tamron 70-200 2.8 - macro £440

            Nikon 50mm £70

            Rode Videomic Pro £130

            Zoom H4N £130

            Audio Technica ATR Lavalier 3350 microphone £20

            Mac computer for video editing £600

            £200 I owe my girlfriend for giving me the cash for the D3200 I currently own

            Website £300

            2TB Hardrive £50

            Shoulder Mount £35

            Transcend 128GB card £40

            Think that's it.

            I already have a tripod, flycam, 11-16mm and, and of course, the Nikon 3200 which i'll probably exchange for D5300.

            Think i've got it all figured out.

            Comment


              #21
              True macro lenses are capable of at least 1:1 reproduction ratio, they can project the object onto the imager at life size. Most still zoom lenses that are "macro" are really just capable of focusing very closely, but not in true macro territory.

              Comment


                #22
                Well, I just need good zooms that are very affordable, to be honest.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Ebrahim Saadawi View Post
                  . The Tamron one with VC is a super lens for event shooting giving prime look with zoom and IS.

                  Is the Tamron VC 24-70 zoom really THAT good? I mean, how does it compare to, say, a Nikon 35mm 1.8G in terms of optics? I know it's not as open an aperture, but general optical quality, how does it compare? If it's as good or better, I may reconsider my budget and put in this Tamron 24-70.

                  Think i've been confusing what I need with what I want. In a perfect world, i'd shoot all day with primes. However, as somebody else here said, zooms are convenient and more appropriate for events which is why I need to make sure i can get the best midrange zoom I can get. But an affordable one, not those absurdly priced Nikon/Canon zooms.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    How does this one look: Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens, $299. It has an average of 4.4/5 stars, with 374 reviews. I would think that the 28-135 focal range on a crop sensor would be more useful at a wedding.

                    For a crop sensor, I'm not sure you need something as long as 200mm. 135mm might be long enough, which is 4 times your crop sensor's normal focal length of around 32mm. That would be an angle of view of 11.25 degrees, compared to about 45 degrees from a normal lens. To get a feel for how far zoomed in 135mm is, imaging what your angle of view was with a normal-focal-length lens. Now cut the frame into 16 squares. Now zoom in to one of those squares.

                    I'm thinking a 35mm prime lens for the camera that can walk around at the ceremony, and certainly the reception. Here's a wedding that says it was shot with a Pocket with a 17.5mm (which is a normal lens on the Pocket) and to me it looks like all of the pre-ceremony and reception were shot with that prime. The ceremony definitely has some telephoto shots, and for that I think he used the Canon 60D that he mentions in the notes, with some sort of zoom. You just need some sort of zoom for the second camera at the back of the ceremony or maybe at conferences where you can't get close enough with a normal lens. And that's where I'm recommending the 28-135.

                    So here's your complete lens list:

                    - Nikon 35mm f/2.8 AI manual-focus prime
                    - Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
                    Last edited by combatentropy; 09-09-2015, 11:29 AM.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Hi combatentropy.

                      Thanks for the advice but...


                      1) The camera I will be using is a a Sony a7s. It has crop mode, but it is a full frame camera.

                      2) That's variable aperture. I can't be dealing with that for video. Maybe for pictures it's ok, but for video it's a no no in my book. Fixed aperture or nothing. I'm thinking about the Tamron 24-70 if it's a significantly better zoom than 28-75

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X