Lenses for Narrative Filmmaking

[Joshua Provost]

I'll try not to make this another favorite lens thread...

I'm having trouble choosing lenses for my new (used, but new to me) AF100. I'm trying to relate what I know of film production (not first hand, but through reading every issue of American Cinematographer for the last ten years) and apply it to my lens choices. I'm tossing out any comparison to full-frame 35mm and going just based on cinema shooting assuming that the AF100 sensor and Academy 1.85 are within 10% of each other (and within 20% of Super 1.85).

A couple perspectives:

Focal Length - If you survey the cinema prime sets on the market, the middle of the road lens is always around 35mm focal length, and most DPs I have talked to use a 40mm or 50mm as their standard lens, and consider other lenses wide or tele in relation to that starting point.

Lens Speed - Cinema primes are usually T2.1, but T1.6 is also common and faster lenses are available. I often read about DPs working to shoot no faster that F2.8 so they don't kill their focus puller, and lighting to get F4 or F5.6 in certain situations. You do read about shooting F2 or faster from time to time, but generally this is out of necessity to get a shot by low or candle light, and not an aesthetic choice per se.

Given all that, it would be nice to have a set of m4/3 primes that included around a 28mm (wide), 50mm (middle), and 85mm (tele) or a zoom lens that covers that range. I could get the Olympus 75mm and 45mm and the Panasonic 25mm and have a set pretty close to that and work down to F1.8 across all three lenses, but at around $1800.

Alternatively, there are the Panasonic zooms which are F2.8, but I'd almost have to buy the 12-35mm and the 35-100mm to really covers a normal range of shots, and that at a cost of $2500.

So, the question is for people with experience shooting narrative features or shorts with the AF100:

Is F2.8 really good enough for cinematic depth of field (comparisons above would indicate it is just fine)?
What do you consider wide, standard, tele?
What was your decision-making process in selecting the lenses you use?
What do I lose if I jump ship on the m4/3 lenses and get a Canon or Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 lens instead (which better covers what I would consider a normal range for filmmaking)?

 

[Adamsenoj]

Given all that, it would be nice to have a set of m4/3 primes that included around a 28mm (wide), 50mm (middle), and 85mm (tele) or a zoom lens that covers that range. I could get the Olympus 75mm and 45mm and the Panasonic 25mm and have a set pretty close to that and work down to F1.8 across all three lenses, but at around $1800.

Alternatively, there are the Panasonic zooms which are F2.8, but I'd almost have to buy the 12-35mm and the 35-100mm to really covers a normal range of shots, and that at a cost of $2500.

Check the Rockinon cine primes. Affordable, cine style mechanics and pretty good glass quality. All around T1.5 too, but the wider ones. T1.5 is very, very shallow on an AF100 for narrative and you better have a good focus puller.

So, the question is for people with experience shooting narrative features or shorts with the AF100:
Is F2.8 really good enough for cinematic depth of field (comparisons above would indicate it is just fine)?

In my opinion, 2.8 is really shallow enough on an AF100 specially on longer lenses. In narrative is really hard to shoot at razor thin DOF.

What do you consider wide, standard, tele?

in S35m, 18mm, 35mm, 85mm. For the AF100 that would be equivalent to 12.7mm, 24.7mm and 59.9mm. But I find that 14mm is plenty wide on M4/3.

What was your decision-making process in selecting the lenses you use?

Story. This is the only thing that should matter when deciding.

What do I lose if I jump ship on the m4/3 lenses and get a Canon or Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 lens instead (which better covers what I would consider a normal range for filmmaking)?

To use with the AF100? Well, basically you will have a FOV equivalent to using a 49.3-143.8mm lens on a full frame camera. 24mm is not really very wide on M4/3. Also, thing about getting a 2.8 lens to shoot at 2.8 (wide open) is that it will probably be soft. It's best to get at least a 2.0 lens if you want to shoot at 2.8. Most lenses with exception of expensive cine glass look better when stopped down a bit.

 

[MikeTexas]

My 24-70L is a workhorse on the AF100 for what it's worth.

 

[Mike Harvey]

My 24-70L is a workhorse on the AF100 for what it's worth.

As is my 24-85 f/2.8-f/4. The only reason I'm getting rid of it is because I have the 12-35mm X and my 35-100mm X comes tomorrow.

[EDIT] Of course, I don't do narrative... but it gets by far the most use.

 

[Erik Naso]

As is my 24-85 f/2.8-f/4. The only reason I'm getting rid of it is because I have the 12-35mm X and my 35-100mm X comes tomorrow.

[EDIT] Of course, I don't do narrative... but it gets by far the most use.

Ha! You bought both. Love it! Those two new Lumix lenses are great. Best purchase I have made in a long time. You will love them.

 

[Ken Hull]

Joshua,
The focal lengths that will work best for you depends a lot on WHERE you're shooting. If you're shooting interiors on location, you'll probably need very wide angle lenses, since you won't be able to back up very far. I've found the Lumix 12-35mm is perfect for that. The 35mm end is long enough for medium close-ups. But have a 50mm f/1.4 for tighter close-ups and shallow DOF shots.
If you're doing green screen shots in a studio, then very wide angle lenses are not of much use.
BTW, on some forum, I read that Roger Deakins said if he could only use one lens, it would be a 32mm.
-- Ken

P.S. -- I just received the Lumix 35-100mm today. Now my 12-35mm has company! And I'm a happy camper.

 

[Erik Naso]

I'll try not to make this another favorite lens thread...

I'm having trouble choosing lenses for my new (used, but new to me) AF100. I'm trying to relate what I know of film production (not first hand, but through reading every issue of American Cinematographer for the last ten years) and apply it to my lens choices. I'm tossing out any comparison to full-frame 35mm and going just based on cinema shooting assuming that the AF100 sensor and Academy 1.85 are within 10% of each other (and within 20% of Super 1.85).

A couple perspectives:

Focal Length - If you survey the cinema prime sets on the market, the middle of the road lens is always around 35mm focal length, and most DPs I have talked to use a 40mm or 50mm as their standard lens, and consider other lenses wide or tele in relation to that starting point.

Lens Speed - Cinema primes are usually T2.1, but T1.6 is also common and faster lenses are available. I often read about DPs working to shoot no faster that F2.8 so they don't kill their focus puller, and lighting to get F4 or F5.6 in certain situations. You do read about shooting F2 or faster from time to time, but generally this is out of necessity to get a shot by low or candle light, and not an aesthetic choice per se.

Given all that, it would be nice to have a set of m4/3 primes that included around a 28mm (wide), 50mm (middle), and 85mm (tele) or a zoom lens that covers that range. I could get the Olympus 75mm and 45mm and the Panasonic 25mm and have a set pretty close to that and work down to F1.8 across all three lenses, but at around $1800.

Alternatively, there are the Panasonic zooms which are F2.8, but I'd almost have to buy the 12-35mm and the 35-100mm to really covers a normal range of shots, and that at a cost of $2500.

So, the question is for people with experience shooting narrative features or shorts with the AF100:

Is F2.8 really good enough for cinematic depth of field (comparisons above would indicate it is just fine)?
What do you consider wide, standard, tele?
What was your decision-making process in selecting the lenses you use?
What do I lose if I jump ship on the m4/3 lenses and get a Canon or Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 lens instead (which better covers what I would consider a normal range for filmmaking)?

I dont shoot narrative but I would think you want manual lenses that work with a follow focus. The Lumix lenses are electronic and the focus isn't repeatable so a follow focus wont work very well.
Your budget will dictate what lenses you will get. If you have the cash and want cine then the Zeiss CP.2 line is a good choice. Great lens and the mount can be changed if you get a different camera in the future. CP.2's are the least expensive of the big boy cine lenses.

The Rokinon's are looking good. In fact I'm thinking about getting the 85mm and doing a comparison with my Zeiss CP.2. The Rokinon's are the least expensive cine lenses that I know of today. No 50mm yet. That's kind of a drag if your looking for a set.

Manual Nikon is the old fateful. Add gears or get them modded from Duclos (declicking and gears) and your good to go. These pop up from time to time in marketplace. Lots of AF-100 users go with Nikon.

Your focal range choices are good, and f2.8 is fine. Never hurts to have a fast lens for special shots.

 

[Ken Hull]

I dont shoot narrative but I would think you want manual lenses that work with a follow focus. The Lumix lenses are electronic and the focus isn't repeatable so a follow focus wont work very well...

I thought I could use the momentary auto-focus capability (when using my 12-35mm) of the PUSH AUTO button to do a "slip focus". An initial test seemed to work, but I'll need further testing to see how reliable that is.

-- Ken

 

[Bern Caughey]

A "Normal" lens on the AF100 is a 25mm. While some photographers may have personal preferences for slightly shorter or longer focal lengths, I couldn't imagine working without a bog standard "Normal".

The next two lenses to look for is one twice as wide (~12mm) as the normal, & another twice as long (~50mm). With those three lengths you should be able to do most anything (though I often carry focal lengths from 7-300mm when filming documentary).

While I use 12mm lenses on the AF100, I generally prefer a slightly longer 14mm wideangle, especially when panning, & slightly shorter telephoto as a "Portrait" lens (35-45mm range). When I shoot S35 I typically order PL(s) between 18-50mm, which in m4/3 translates roughly to 14-35mm.

While I own (far too) many electronic m4/3 lenses, I primarily use them for documentary (where their tiny size is an asset, especially when traveling) & agree with Erik about using manual lenses for narrative as focus pulling is just unrepeatable with non-linear fly-by-wire m4/3 Lumix(s) & Zuiko(s). It's really a shame Panasonic cannot offer a linear option as it's all just electronics.

Some of the 4/3 lenses have better manual focus response then the autofocus m4/3(s), but none nearly as good as all manual designs. Before the release of the 12-35/2.8 the 14-35/2.0 was my workhorse, & if I had to put a follow focus on a electronic 4/3 lens it would be on that beast.

 

[John B.]

Keep in mind that -- while the electronic lenses slip focus as marked on a follow focus disk -- you should be able to do repeatable follow focus on these lenses by using the footage readout on the LCD screen.

Has anyone had any accuracy issues with that method?

 

[Joshua Provost]

Awesome responses all.

Check the Rokinon cine primes. Affordable, cine style mechanics and pretty good glass quality. All around T1.5 too, but the wider ones.

I had not seen the Rokinon's. Ha, this only gives me more to think about.

I dont shoot narrative but I would think you want manual lenses that work with a follow focus. The Lumix lenses are electronic and the focus isn't repeatable so a follow focus wont work very well.

I hadn't considered how the m4/3 lenses would fare with follow focus. I need to give that some thought.

 

[David W. Jones]

I own a boatload of lenses, but only one of them is native M4/3. I would really hate to be tied down to the M4/3 format exclusively do to my lens kit.

 

[bengiles]

Not much mention of OIS - image stabilisation.

Probably the single most important factor for me when I chose to eventually go just with MFT native electronic lenses on the AF100.

If you're locked off on solid legs in a "narrative" stylie, it's possibly less of an issue.

But as soon as you want to pick that baby up and handhold it, I think you need IS on anything over 20mm (with MFT EFOV)

I really like my new 12-35 and I'll probably order the 35-100 shortly - even though I know I'm stuck further up Panasonic's rear as a result. I guess I'm gambling on their development roadmap with future MFT-compatible offerings (and maybe Blackmagic's.)

By the way, my confidence with the AF turned quite a corner this last week - quite the smell of burning rubber.

It's all down to going back to shooting purely with tungsten light sources. My white balance issues - my biggest gripe with the AF100 - are evaporating...

Ben.

 

[XSVpro]

My own personal lens set is fairly budget orientated as I could always rent PL if needed.

In Nikon mount via the Novaflex adapter for declicked aperture I have;

Tamron 17-50 F2.8 £300ish, m43 wise this is a 34-100mm F2.8

Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 £700ish, m43 wise this is a 140-400 F2.8

Both great lenses and cover a huge range, I used the 17-50 on two shorts last year and loved using the lens, the glass is in the $4500 Red 17-50 PL zoom and is tack sharp, I found the 70-200 to be even better and used that for a live broadcast and for a few interviews. Both have hard focus stops.

Primes, I have;

Samyang 24mm T1.5 cine and the 35mm. Great lenses giving you a view of 48 and 70mm (most requested from me in narrative), I am so impressed with these that I will be adding the 14, 85 and the eventual 50mm. Cost is from around £250-550, great deal!

Combine all of the above with the eventual metabones speedbooster and you have a huge flexible declicked set of primes and zooms.

I own a load of Olympus OM glass that I adore for build and function but not so for flare, contrast and sharpness, they are just a different kettle of fish, affordable, effortless to use. I think mounted to to the Nikon mount Speedbooster could give these a new lease of life but at the moment they are just an obsession if mine, have owned most of the exotics, even the 300 F4 and 600mm rack and pinion f6.5.

In m43 mount I also own the 14mm 2.5, 20mm 1.7, 45mm 1.8 and the 7-14mm f4 zoom. Great glass for auto focus work, very sharp and quick to use sometimes but I mostly use these on the GH2 with a stedicam. I have owned the 14-140 but found it too slow and hated the non constant aperture and the 75mm 1.8, the 75mm was gorgeous, just beautiful but I couldn't justify the £650 cost that could of been a 25mm f0.95 Slr magic/voightlander or other buy so sent it back and bought my first Samyangs and I am very glad I did, hard focus stops are hard to beat!

 

[Mike Harvey]

Ha! You bought both. Love it! Those two new Lumix lenses are great. Best purchase I have made in a long time. You will love them.

I've had the 35-100 for twenty minutes and I already have a HUGE gripe about it... that Panasonic didn't release it sooner. Seriously, if this, the 12-35, and 45-175 zoom had been released somewhere near the launch of the AF100, I bet a lot more folks would be singing it's praises. Holy crap, I already love this lens.

 

[Adamsenoj]

Awesome responses all.



I had not seen the Rokinon's. Ha, this only gives me more to think about.

Best bang for the buck if you want cine style lenses.

I hadn't considered how the m4/3 lenses would fare with follow focus. I need to give that some thought.

I would stay away from the Panasonic, Olympus and other auto lenses. Your best bet if you can't spring for Rockinons is to go Nikon. Get some fully manual Nikon primes. They are cheap and good quality. You don't want to mess with flimsy pancake lenses and auto zooms in narrative. Make sure your lenses are not slower than f2.8 but the faster the better. You don't need many if you're on a budget. Three lenses will do the job fine till you can get more. You could even shoot with a single lens if you want.

Another advantage of the nikons over the native M4/3 stuff is that they look much more cinematic. Many of the native lenses add artificial sharpening and then what you get is that over sharpened, artificial, super ultra clear video look. Unless that's what you like. If you're a fan of the HD look then go for them. But they will still piss you off on set because of the mechanics.

 

[Joshua Provost]

After much consideration, I am going to go with the Rokinon Cine lenses, starting with 14mm, 35mm, and 85mm. Later, if it make sense, I can fill in with 24mm and the upcoming 50mm, and they even have the 8mm fisheye. Overall, it seems like the best thought out range of lenses of available and the spacing of the focal lengths makes a lot of sense. Seems nice to be able to get a consistent set of lenses from a single manufacturer.

Regarding other lenses, I just can't make sense of the Panasonic and Olympus m43 prime lineups. Just a strange assortment of focal length with too large obvious gaps. I looked into the SLR Magic lenses as well and it seemed like a crap shoot between their web site and their eBay presence not really aligning, they seem a bit unpredictable.

Now to check out the scores of rod systems and follow focuses available...

My notes, if it's helpful to anyone:

Rokinon (Nikon F)
14mm T3.1 $450
24mm T1.5 $750
35mm T1.5 $500
50mm T1.5 2013
85mm T1.5 $350

SLR Magic (m4/3)
12mm T1.6 $550
35mm T1.4 $300
50mm F0.95 $1000

PANASONIC (m4/3)
14mm F2.5 - $300
20mm F1.7 - $350
25mm F1.4 - $500

OLYMPUS (m4/3)
12mm F2.0 - $800
17mm F1.8 - $500
45mm F1.8 - $400
75mm F1.8 - $900

 

[Lpowell]

Those interested in using manual-focus lenses on the AF100 may want to consider the upcoming Metabones Speed Adapter. This lens converter adapts Nikon or Canon EF lenses to MFT mount, while making them both 1.4x wider and 1.4x faster. Here's a link to thread on this adapter that includes a list of compatible video-friendly lenses:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...lens-buying-habit&p=1986272463#post1986272463

 

[MichaelTiemann]

Keep in mind that -- while the electronic lenses slip focus as marked on a follow focus disk -- you should be able to do repeatable follow focus on these lenses by using the footage readout on the LCD screen.

Has anyone had any accuracy issues with that method?

I have found the electronic focus fiddly enough that I expect an attempt to return to a previous focus location will overshoot or undershoot. This is especially bad with the 7-14mm lens, which, like the Broadway Express in Manhattan, will pass through many defined focusing distances before stopping where it wants to stop.

I second the comments that if you are shooting indoors, things tend to sit on the wide side of things, and 12-35 (or 14-35) really defines the sweet spot, whereas shooting outdoors, a 24-70 might be a wonderful thing. I also second the comments that if you want less depth of field, using a longer lens at a greater working distance is often more effective than trying to get shallow depth of field from a wideangle lens. That said, I do own a 17mm f0.95, but if I were on a tighter budget, I'd figure out how to make a 35mm work at f2.8.

 

[mcbob]

Those interested in using manual-focus lenses on the AF100 may want to consider the upcoming Metabones Speed Adapter.

Absolutely. The prospect of turning a relatively inexpensive yet mechanically/optically swell trio like the Tokina 11-16/2.8, Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC, and Sigma 50-150/2.8 (or their close counterparts) into an only slightly more expensive 8-12/2, 12-35/2, and 35-105/2 is rather darned attractive... assuming it works well with DX lenses.

That said, in the immediate now, there's still a lot to be said for the trinity of the Olympus 4/3 SHG 14-35/2 and 35-100/2 with either of the Voigtlander 0.95 lenses (17.5 or 25) for super-speed situations. These lenses easily rival most primes, and if you use the zooms as "variable primes," it gives you a nicely matched set (with no missing focal range gaps whatsoever) and less lost time from lens changes. The Oly zooms are even moving into reasonable used prices now. IIRC, they're 3 of 4 lenses used on that Logan/Bloom GH3 narrative film example from a few months back.