30mm or 50mm, do you use both?

Rick Burnett

Rick Burnett

Section Moderator
So I have a 30mm and a 50mm lens. The 30 is 1.4 whereas the 50 is 1.8. Most of the time when I am shooting, I use the 30mm almost always. I NEVER put on the 50mm. I can never seem to find a reason to use it.

I am thinking about getting an 85mm 1.4 as I can see using that. One of the problems with the 30mm is being up in the actors faces. If I force myself to use the 50 more, do you think that will help? I've never had actors complain, but I wondered and I seem to be too stubborn to switch as I love my 30mm.

Thoughts?

I'd really like to hear from someone who switches between 30 and 50 (or very close to those sizes) and why. I always notice there are lenses in cine sets that are this close and people do buy the whole sets.

Thanks!
 
There's no right answer- this is about how *you* work. Personally I love my 50mm- I think it's the perfect perspective and gives a sweet looking DOF. Though I have the 1.4, not the 1.8. YMMV.

Noah
 
I guess I have the opposite F stop issue so I can see where you are coming from... I have a 35 2.8 and a 50 1.4 so I am using the 50 more to get a few stops better light.

With your crop factor (guessing 1.6x) you are shooting pretty much with a 50mm (48) which is the most popular MM.
 
Yeah, this is shooting with the 7D.

I just wondered if others had switched between 30 and 50 being so close often. It seems most people shoot with one or the other.

I ended up more towards the 30 when working in tighter locations, and so it became my goto lens. I was thinking of picking up a 50mm 1.4 but then wondered if I would use it much.

I think what I really need to do is just use the 50 for a project and then evaluate how I feel about it compared to my 30.

I do a lot of shots on a blackbird stabilizer and the 30 works great. However, I might find some more freedom in moving a bit further from the object I am filming to give them some room when we are moving together in a tracked shot.

Is there a calculator online that I can compare say 30mm 50mm and 85mm and determine the distances where the FOV is the same? For instance, if I put on the 50mm and was using the 30mm, how many feet back do I need to step to get the same FOV. I've been searching for one but have not found one. That might help me understand what limitations/freedoms on different aspects of filming I would get on both.
 
I think the original scale went 25 to 50 to 75 and 100. So for you the choice between a 25 and 50 is actually more like a choice between a 50 and a 75, (given the crop factor) but that's only the frame size, since a 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens. If you like the way your 30mm looks there is no reason to bump up to 50mm. as the camera can be moved back - away from the subject to produce the same size frame on the 50 that you get on the 30, but the frame itself will look different as 50 is called a normal lens for a very good reason and a lot of people do not prefer the normal look.
 
True. Although I can say looking at footage between a 50 and a 30 I didn't see a huge difference in the (not sure the correct term) flattening of the image more in the 50 than the 30.

Mostly the 30 started from being in tight locations and needed to get a wider view being limited from moving backwards.
 
Since 2.8 is pretty lame... I am getting the 28mm 1.8 soon as its in the budget... I think with a 28 and a 50 I could cover all the bases for primes... then hopefully get a fixed 2.8 zoom soon...
 
Kind of an odd thread (to my way of thinking).

Questions that drive my lens selection - do I need more of a room in a shot? Do I want a wide (or subtle fisheye) effect, for a strange, comedic, off kilter, etc. feel? Or do I want a tighter, more telephoto feel? If the camera's moving, do I want more perspective shifts to enhance the movement (wide) or do I want those shifts subtle? If it's a crane shot, I'll often use an 18mm to really make it "swoop".

Often a location determines focal length more than anything else - if it's tight quarters you pick the lens that gets all the elements needed in the shot.

Want someone to look really beautiful, you really need (the 35mm equivalent) of 70-100mm, the longer the better. Even a normal focal length makes noses too big for my tastes.

I've used a Sigma 28-70 2.8 for a decade - it's in the shop now, but I'm guessing it will pretty much live on my rig when it's back. That and my 28 2.8 should be 99% of my video day.

I shoot Nikon on a Canon APS-size, so my 28mm 2.8 is more of a "normal lens" look - I try to use my 50 1.8 since it's such a gorgeous lens (and the small sensor gets me about a 75mm feel). I've got a fashion background, so a compressed look really blows my dress up. But it's not appropriate for everything.

I rarely, rarely shoot anything below 2.8, usually even f4 gives me a soft BG and sharp subject. Shoot 1.8 and someone in semi-profile only has one eye in focus. I have managed to collect an *ssload of lights over the years which gives me a little more control though, so my lens selection is rarely forced by f-stop.

In the nikon realm, the series-E manual prime lenses are great finds - seriously undervalued, and the 100 2.8 is one of those "makes the ladies really foxy" pieces of glass. For Canon or Nikon, they're a great way to go if you want a nice set of primes that are lightweight, small, and perform remarkably for the cost. The 80-200 2.8 AF - though it's a bear on a set of rails - it's just a luscious, magical lens when you need to go long, and you can get an early beater model for $500 or so. The 85 1.8 is a stellar lens for the money - $300-$400 on the used market - but that too is pretty long for small sensor stuff. On an APS sensor, 90% of my time is spent with (full frame) lenses from 18-50mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top