40mm vs 50mm for s35

combatentropy said:
This is really good for me to hear. I have been waiting for this to happen. I advocated for this in a thread two years ago that nedcam started with this quote:



And my reply:



I remember watching The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965, 70mm) and thinking, "This is all wide shots!"
Click to expand...

CU and ECU are just part of the language. Problem is the past few years, everyone keeps speaking the same phrase over and over again, "CU with great Bokeh". Ugh, it's become a cliche. Thank you 5D MKII!
Just look at the greats, Kubrick didn't shoot everything long lens with a narrow FOV. He loved wides. Orson Welles, the same, wides with deep focus and wide FOV.
 
puredrifting said:
Just look at the greats, Kubrick didn't shoot everything long lens with a narrow FOV. He loved wides. Orson Welles, the same, wides with deep focus and wide FOV.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they had something to show in their wide shots. As opposed to the zero budget set design folks shooting wides.
 
David W. Jones said:
Yes, but they had something to show in their wide shots. As opposed to the zero budget set design folks shooting wides.
Click to expand...

True. I have done a LOT of furniture and prop hauling into ugly white walled boxes. To me, on documentary and corporate shoots, lighting and composition are easy, it's trying to dress up an ugly or featureless room/area with the materials at hand that can actually be very frustrating, but fun and challenging, if your client or subject will give you the time to go on a treasure hunt to see what you can drag into the shooting area to make it look like "something".
 
puredrifting said:
CU and ECU are just part of the language. Problem is the past few years, everyone keeps speaking the same phrase over and over again, "CU with great Bokeh". Ugh, it's become a cliche. Thank you 5D MKII!
Just look at the greats, Kubrick didn't shoot everything long lens with a narrow FOV. He loved wides. Orson Welles, the same, wides with deep focus and wide FOV.
Click to expand...

And sorta on the flip side, I hate the wide shot with everything out of focus. I used to see this a few years ago in interview situations with your “normal” medium/tight shots on the subject, but then the wide/wider “environmental” shot that looked like probably a 24 shot at 1.2/1.3 and nothing but the subject was in focus. It would look like the Apple Portrait/Fake Bokeh mode on iPhone cameras.
 
50mm all day! I was shooting in Tel Aviv in December and my gaffer called the 40mm a 'hipster lens' lol, that turned me off even more. Interesting side note, we did pop it on just to have a look and these were cooke primes I believe S4i's on the amira and/or mini and there was a touch of vignetting with the 40! WTF!!! hahaha. We couldn't figure it out, but it wasn't working anyway so it didn't matter.

I would say I reach for the 50 more than any other lens all thing being equal.
 
With large high resolution sensors, there is little use in agonizing between subtle lens shifts, aka 32-35 or something,
And the idea of a magic focal length is rather annoying, unless you are a sales man first.

If what you want is a 50mm, then a 40mm will look awful, and vice versa.

On s35, the fifty nicely distances the camera from the subject and features become nicely regulated, more options in dof, more framing isolation, just to name a few. So, the fifty is kind of like a get-out-of-jail card. However, those same attributes can also make a fifty predictable, create distance between the viewer and characters, and even feel clausterphobic. So, depending on the intended use, they can enhance or detract. The 40mm is a nice option for closeups that feel very open without any warping of the face. How often the benefits help a scene compared to the 35 and 50 is probably small. Add to the fact that cameras often have oversized sensors now, and the topic becomes slightly irrelavent at times.
 
A quick update. I've decided I like the look of the 50 mm focal length the best (on s35), but will probably buy a zoom lens that covers the 40-50 mm range.
 
I find 40mm a bit awkward on S35mm for the working distances I tend towards. 32-35mm works a treat, and 50mm works a treat. But 40mm seems to put me in a weird halfway space that I'm never quite comfortable with.

But that's just me. It's totally a question of personal preference, and the working distance and angle of view that will suit your needs best.
 
James0b57 said:
Congrats!

What made you like the 50?
Click to expand...

The 50 puts more emphasis on the far actor in an OTS shot. Also, the 50 gives more of a portrait look for singles. I originally asked about the 40 vs. 50 because I was seeing 40mm lenses when watching BTS of major picture releases.
 
Kevin Kelly said:
The 50 puts more emphasis on the far actor in an OTS shot. Also, the 50 gives more of a portrait look for singles. I originally asked about the 40 vs. 50 because I was seeing 40mm lenses when watching BTS of major picture releases.
Click to expand...

Well, digital sensors can often times be bigger than film. I think the ‘God Father’ used some 40mm, but the frame was smaller than today’s standards, so the equivalent field of view was closer to a 50mm, if i recall correctly.

I enjoy 40mm and 32mm in theory, but if i am hooting on. a Red, i actually end up with a 35 and a 50, as the frame is larger than apsc or s35. Can depend on the aspect ratio, as well.

But the OTS perspective thing, makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top