Anybody favour primes for event videography?

T

theprestige

Active member
I've got a dilemma.

With my budget and line of videography work that I do, I feel compelled to get a generic 28-70mm zoom and a 70-200mm zoom. The latter I would only really use at weddings, the former is for general events like parties and such. I already have an ultra wide angle lens, so I don't need anything wide in my budget.

Issue is. I'm not a fan of the 28-70mm. I can understand it's convenience, but I would rather work with primes for event videography. I managed to get away with using a prime for an art gallery event that I did for free many months ago. Just did it all on a tripod with a 50mm equivalent on a Nikon D3200.

I ended up doing the exact same thing again only this time it was paid work for a music gig! Used 50mm equivalent, though, there was a guy with a second camera shooting from another angle, hence why I just about got away with it. But that was very low light, on a Nikon with weak ISO like the D3200, I need as large aperture as I can get, really. Besides, it forced me to move and think about interesting angles.

Now, I understand that I wouldn't be able to get away with something that at a wedding or conference, but for general events, do you think I could do a strong prime and get away with it? Anybody have any experience of, say, covering an event with a decent prime?
 
If it were a made-up story, I would say, sure. More movies than you might guess were shot at a single focal length or a narrow range. You could definitely shoot a whole film with a normal lens, moderate wide, or moderate telephoto.

I myself prefer the normal lens. It is a chameleon lens that "can be made to mimic a slightly telephoto 'look' and also a slightly wide-angle look, depending on how the photographer 'sees' in any certain situation."

Here are three videos shot with a single prime, but you never would have guessed without someone telling you, because the focal length was normal:

https://vimeo.com/7118904
https://vimeo.com/38409739
https://vimeo.com/74573072
 
Whoa....event video with primes? Hmmmmm.....Nope. I wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole with a condom on it.

LOL! Seriously though - if you are in a relatively small single facility - like an art gallery - then YES, I would have no problem at all using just 1 or 2 primes because your distance to subject is only going to vary by a certain predictable amount.

But, almost all of my early video work was at events that were either outdoors, or in large auditoriums and big spaces like that. I would be using focal ranges from wide to SERIOUS zoom. In those environments you simply have to.

I don't know what camera you're shooting but that $2,000 Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 IS II is just a KILLER lens. PRIME quality from end to end and sharp and clean wide open.
Granted it IS a $2,000 lens. But there are VERY few lenses out that which can perform like that, so you're prejudice against zooms is fair, generally speaking.
 
combatentropy said:
If it were a made-up story, I would say, sure. More movies than you might guess were shot at a single focal length or a narrow range. You could definitely shoot a whole film with a normal lens, moderate wide, or moderate telephoto.

I myself prefer the normal lens. It is a chameleon lens that "can be made to mimic a slightly telephoto 'look' and also a slightly wide-angle look, depending on how the photographer 'sees' in any certain situation."

Here are three videos shot with a single prime, but you never would have guessed without someone telling you, because the focal length was normal:

https://vimeo.com/7118904
https://vimeo.com/38409739
https://vimeo.com/74573072
Click to expand...

Mate, did you film those videos? Just seen the first two, and very impressed with the 2nd one. Yeah, you're right, you would never have guessed that they were shot with one single lens due to the versatility of the normal focal length, you're right. Is it a 50mm used, yeah?
 
DPStewart said:
Whoa....event video with primes? Hmmmmm.....Nope. I wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole with a condom on it.

LOL! Seriously though - if you are in a relatively small single facility - like an art gallery - then YES, I would have no problem at all using just 1 or 2 primes because your distance to subject is only going to vary by a certain predictable amount.

But, almost all of my early video work was at events that were either outdoors, or in large auditoriums and big spaces like that. I would be using focal ranges from wide to SERIOUS zoom. In those environments you simply have to.

I don't know what camera you're shooting but that $2,000 Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 IS II is just a KILLER lens. PRIME quality from end to end and sharp and clean wide open.
Granted it IS a $2,000 lens. But there are VERY few lenses out that which can perform like that, so you're prejudice against zooms is fair, generally speaking.
Click to expand...


Hmm, I guess you are right, mate. I knew it deep down, I just wanted somebody to tell me to say primes all the way ):

No matter how hard I try to resist, I need zooms. I just don't know if I need a 28-70mm zoom if i'm going to be getting a 70-200mm and already have the Tokina 11-16mm.

I'm going to be using a Sony A7S in the near future for my work, but for now, i'm using a cheap Nikon D3200 with passable results. The Sony A7S is full frame but also has crop sensor mode so I can still use my Tokina 11-16mm should I need wide angle.

So based on what you say, you recommend something like having a 'serious' zoom (i'm guessing you mean a 70-200mm) on a tripod and using a wide angle zoom lens on another camera on a shoulder mount or steadicam thingy to get the most out of event videography?

Cant afford a £1,500 Canon zoom,mate. I'm going to have to get a Tamron 28-70 or something. Besides, i'm using a Nikon adapter for the A7S when I get it.
 
If you have a big enough crew you can do it, but your primary operator needs to be able to capture the right shot at the right time, no matter where he or she happens to be standing. The question is why. Realistically, a decent zoom next to a decent prime on a modern camera, to my eyes, has a negligible difference at best.
 
Agafilm said:
If you have a big enough crew you can do it, but your primary operator needs to be able to capture the right shot at the right time, no matter where he or she happens to be standing. The question is why. Realistically, a decent zoom next to a decent prime on a modern camera, to my eyes, has a negligible difference at best.
Click to expand...

I'm a one man crew most of the time, Agafilm. Except when it comes to big events like Weddings and such where I will hire an extra camera man, but otherwise, it's just me ):
 
One man ''covering'' and event with a prime lens? Please don't for your sake :D

It's unfortunate but zooms are a necessary evil. Primes look better and have a 3D rendition and shallow depth of field, but you need to compromise and shoot on a general purpose zoom for an event.

Constant aperture bright zooms are the best balance, they give the Prime look but with the convenience of zoom. Like the 24-70mm F/2.8 ones. The Tamron one with VC is a super lens for event shooting giving prime look with zoom and IS. If you need less than F/2 look, with a convenient zoom rangr, sorry none, that's the closest you'll get (24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8)
 
It depends on so many things. If you're shooting a wedding, well, a zoom is virtually mandatory.
If it's a corporate thing where there is no big moment, just a bunch of coverage, a prime set can be better. Especially where you're free to move around.

I had a client that had me shooting a lot of events and parties. I was able to do laps around the event. I'd usually start with a long lens, then normal, then wide. Spending 10 or 15 minutes on each. It was a fun way to work the event, as opposed to the classic "wide, medium, close" of each B-roll shot. This only worked because it was open format events, not anything structured or on a rigid timeline.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
One man ''covering'' and event with a prime lens? Please don't for your sake :D

It's unfortunate but zooms are a necessary evil. Primes look better and have a 3D rendition and shallow depth of field, but you need to compromise and shoot on a general purpose zoom for an event.

Constant aperture bright zooms are the best balance, they give the Prime look but with the convenience of zoom. Like the 24-70mm F/2.8 ones. The Tamron one with VC is a super lens for event shooting giving prime look with zoom and IS. If you need less than F/2 look, with a convenient zoom rangr, sorry none, that's the closest you'll get (24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8)
Click to expand...

With the Sony A7s, 2.8 should be low enough light for me. So you recommend the Tamron lenses, yeah Ebrahim? Both the 24-70mm and 70-200mm? Or should I get one of them and make the rest up with primes?

Also, not sure how IS will benefit me if I have a shoulder mount and tripod. If I were just using my hands, I can see how they'd be useful, but I won't, i'll be using stabilising gear.


If you're saying that quality wise they match up with primes i will definitely get the Tamron lenses.
 
ProfessorU said:
It depends on so many things. If you're shooting a wedding, well, a zoom is virtually mandatory.
If it's a corporate thing where there is no big moment, just a bunch of coverage, a prime set can be better. Especially where you're free to move around.

I had a client that had me shooting a lot of events and parties. I was able to do laps around the event. I'd usually start with a long lens, then normal, then wide. Spending 10 or 15 minutes on each. It was a fun way to work the event, as opposed to the classic "wide, medium, close" of each B-roll shot. This only worked because it was open format events, not anything structured or on a rigid timeline.
Click to expand...


That sounds like a great idea, ProfessorX.

I think you're right, it depends on the event and even I don't think I can risk shooting a wedding with a prime lens. I'm looking into this Tamron VC thing for weddings. I think if I had to get one zoom, the 70-200mm is the safest bet, specially if its optics are comparable to that of a prime. Dunno about getting a 24-70 though, but it IS versatile and if i'm in one of those events where I need to capture a moment, it could be worth having. But I love you idea of spending 15 mins each with different focal length primes. Genius idea, really.
 
I have two Canon 70-200 F/2.8L IS lenses and use them all the time. The IS/VC is virtually mandatory for DSLR/mirrorless handheld shooting.

If you only get one lens, you really need it to be one that covers the "normal" range, though. There's not much more awkward than the client coming up to you at an event and saying "hey, get a shot of the six of us together" and you've got a 70-200 on the camera.

Cutting together wide lens and long lens shots always looks good and is easiest to cut. The bummer with a midrange zoom is that you've got so much of the middle covered, and the middle tends to be the most "boring" option.

Buy the lens you're likely to use all the time. Rent a lens when you need something different. I have more than 30 EF-mount lenses, and there are still lenses I rent from time to time. It doesn't make sense to keep them all.
 
Yeah but renting lenses can get pricey within itself, mostly because of postage fees and such. I've worked out a way to get two zooms that will get me a long way for videography on my A7S though - the Tamron 28-75 macro is like no more than £200 and the Sigma 70-200mm macro is like £400-450 in most circles, so, in theory, I can get a range of between 28-200mm for like £650, which isn't bad.

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.
 
theprestige said:
. . . 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.
Click to expand...
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.:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Ken Hull said:
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.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

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?
 
theprestige said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ken Hull said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top