Best bang for your buck lenses for a feature film

R

Revsta

Well-known member
I'm sifting through the Lens Thread on this sub forum for advice on lenses, but it's huge and I thought I'd ask for strictly video, what you guys recommend for decent lenses, fast, primes, without breaking the bank too hard.

I'll be shooting a good deal of hand held, was thinking of maybe a 35/50/85 or some combo of that, and am trying to avoid buying the 5D with the kit lens. Is there any reason to pick up the kit lens with the 5D for feature film use when I could just pick up some other primes and call it good? The kit lens seems decent, but expensive for what it does, especially considering at F4 it's useless for night interiors.
 
You really should consider the kit lens. The IS in the 24-105 works really well, and helps out considerably when shooting handheld, especially at the longer end where it's a virtual necessity. And if you've got a decent light kit, you can shoot night interiors just fine with it. I just shot a night interior scene with that lens (and two 650 fresnels) @ ISO 320, and had way more than enough light - in fact, I had too much and had to scrim them down. Also remember that anything under f4 on the 5d is going to give you an extremely narrow DOF to work with, made all the more difficult by shooting handheld.

That being said, the 50mm f1.8 would be a great supplement when you want really fantastic low-light ability & ultra shallow DOF, and it's only $100.
 
If you want prime lenses, then old manual focus lenses are by far the best bang for your buck. You can get an excellent 50mm f/1.4 lens, such as a Pentax Super Takumar, for half of the price of the "Nifty Fifty" (the Canon that cowpunk52 mentioned above). For video use, there is nothing that modern autofocus prime lenses offer that is worth any price premium. The build quality is inferior (except for expensive, weather-sealed L lenses) because of all of the plastic that's used nowadays, and focus mechanics are inferior because they're designed for autofocus rather than manual focus. And the only AF prime lenses that offer image stabilization are a few very long ones.

For zoom lenses, the best bang for your buck comes from 3rd party brands. One particularly popular model is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, which you can find for as low as $300. It doesn't have image stabilization, though. Only the comparable Canon L series model will offer that.
 
The old manuals are okay to pull focus on? I don't care about fancy schmancy, I just want good image quality and something I can put rings on and pull off.
 
Revsta said:
The old manuals are okay to pull focus on?
Click to expand...
They are better, by far, for pulling focus. Autofocus lenses are terrible for pulling focus for two main reasons:

1) The manual focus mechanism is tied to the autofocus mechanism, which means that's a compromised implementation. As a result, pulling focus on an AF lens just doesn't feel good.

2) AF lenses almost always have short focus throws, often as little as 60 degrees of rotation.

As I said, AF lenses are not designed for manual focusing. All serious photographers today use AF, and as a result, they don't care for a good manual focus mechanism and long focus throws.
 
ydgmdlu said:
They are better, by far, for pulling focus. Autofocus lenses are terrible for pulling focus for two main reasons:

1) The manual focus mechanism is tied to the autofocus mechanism, which means that's a compromised implementation. As a result, pulling focus on an AF lens just doesn't feel good.

2) AF lenses almost always have short focus throws, often as little as 60 degrees of rotation.

As I said, AF lenses are not designed for manual focusing. All serious photographers today use AF, and as a result, they don't care for a good manual focus mechanism and long focus throws.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I'm debated just skipping the kit lens. It has "stops" but they're not firm and are soft I could easily see someone pulling past them. Plus the kit lens is really a lot extra. Are all focal lengths of the old lenses pretty affordable?
 
Revsta said:
Are all focal lengths of the old lenses pretty affordable?
Click to expand...
They are ridiculously cheap compared to autofocus lenses. That's why I have mostly manual focus lenses. I have nine lenses in my bag. Only one is AF. None of my lenses cost over $300. $300 is the minimum price for a good AF prime lens that isn't 50mm (50mm is always the cheapest focal length, by far, for any brand or SLR system). You can buy three good lenses (e.g., 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2.8) for less than $300 total.
 
I actually use the 24-105mm lens a lot. I like it because of its versatility. I shoot a lot of documentary guerrilla type of stuff. I can switch from wide and telephoto without having to change lenses. The obvious down is the f4 which isn't great indoors.

If you have a tight budget I would suggest sigmas, tamrons, tokinas or other 3rd party manufacturers. rokinon is a korean brand that makes very cheap primes. They have an 85mm 1.4 manual focus for under 300. Samyang is another similar korean brand with similar lenses. I've read decent reviews about them.

My next most used lens is a the Canon 50mm 1.4. It's fast, light, and has great brokeh for around $300USD used.
 
I mean if I have primes...that I can stop down, pull off, are faster than the kit lens, what's the point of spending all that cash on the kit?
 
Revsta said:
I mean if I have primes...that I can stop down, pull off, are faster than the kit lens, what's the point of spending all that cash on the kit?
Click to expand...

1. Image stabilization for handheld shooting (really a necessity for smooth handheld @ focal lengths longer than 50mm)
2. wider than any of the primes you mentioned
3. longer than any of the primes you mentioned
4. Move faster because you don't have to change lenses
5. The ability to zoom
6. Auto focus (i realize this isn't really usable while shooting, but it is handy for pulling a semi-quick and accurate focus before recording - def not a necessity, but can be useful)

If none of that is important or you don't need it, go for primes.
 
Last edited:
+1 for the 24-105, great for handheld, superior quality images from it and the stop less of light is rarely a problem, and still creates beautiful shallow DOF shots.

You can't go wrong with Canon's 50mm 1.4, or Nikon's older 50mm 1.4, and obviously Zeiss primes are the mecca for DSLR film making.

Only problem with buying older primes is that you have to shop around, and buying without trying (ebay, listings) isn't the greatest of ideas since you could get a dud without knowing until it's too late. The beauty of the kit lens (and most other new Canon lenses) is any decent store should have some lenses on rental/display that they'll let you try before buying. And finding decent vintage lenses in shops is very luck based - particularly Russian lenses like the Helios series lenses...
 
I received my ZE 50 mm 2.0 a few days ago and I am SO worried about pulling focus... I can't understand how anybody can do it unless you're at f. 8 . 90% of the ring is for 0.2 - 1 feet and then 10% is for 1 - 5 feet and infinity. Was it a mistake to get the Macro or is the 1.4 the same?

How can anybody pull focus like this?!
 
Calomile said:
Only problem with buying older primes is that you have to shop around, and buying without trying (ebay, listings) isn't the greatest of ideas since you could get a dud without knowing until it's too late.
Click to expand...
But the same could be said for any lens that you try to buy used online. Any lens could be a dud.

I do agree that for a zoom lens, the kit lens is probably the best way to go.
 
Best bang for your buck would be buying two lenses, three at max, and making sure you have a great DP and Camera Operator.


If the choice were to use a DSLR, without a PL mount/modification, then I would be shooting some type of Zeiss lens. Either the new Zeiss glass or old Contax lenses.

If I had three lenses to choose from, they would be an 18, 35 and an 85.

If I had to only use two then it would be a 24 and a 50.

Contrary to the votes for the kit lens, I would stay away from it. The image, to me, is very unappealing and there are much better options for zooms. Furthermore, you should probably be bulking the camera up-and-or-out so that you don't have to rely on Image Stabilization. That way you can utilize something like an older Contax Zeiss Zoom or Nikon Premiums (14-24, 17-25, 28-70, 80-200).
 
I don't think I want the kit lens. I'm doing a sub 10g feature. I'd probably want a 24/35/50/85 or something like that. F1.4 is nice and all that, but I probably won't use it that much. I just really need 2/2.8 I suppose.
 
Kholi said:
Contrary to the votes for the kit lens, I would stay away from it. The image, to me, is very unappealing and there are much better options for zooms.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what makes the image from the 24-105 L unappealing to you?
 
Kholi said:
Furthermore, you should probably be bulking the camera up-and-or-out so that you don't have to rely on Image Stabilization.
Click to expand...

This is something I often don't understand - why do people consistently want to make their DSLR larger and more cumbersome? For me, the form factor and small footprint of shooting [with the camera] as naked as possible is a huge feature of these DSLR's.

Image stabilization is something that makes staying small a viable possibility, especially considering the propensity these cameras have towards jello, so why avoid it? I can understand if your shots are all primarily locked off, IS won't be very important. But if you're mainly shooting handheld, you should consider using something with IS - the ratio of good camera takes to bad will greatly improve.
 
cowpunk52 said:
Just out of curiosity, what makes the image from the 24-105 L unappealing to you?
Click to expand...

It's not unappealing per-say, but I have a lot of stuff happening indoors in low light where I can't see F4 cutting it. I also like primes because it forces me to make creative decisions rather than just moving the zoom and getting the frame. Changing lenses so I know what to tell my DP. I also would rather spend money on a few nice primes than on the kit lens, which doesn't really have any advantages over primes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top