Best bang for your buck lenses for a feature film

Mike Brent said:
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?!
Click to expand...

The ZE 50 1.4 has way more travel on the barrel, well over 200 degrees it's pretty easy to pull off of when fitted with a lens gear.
 
The Canon 1.4 has about 180º travel. Which is considerably better than some other DSLR lenses I've used.

Out of curiosity, does the Zeiss have a hard stop at the end of it's travel?
 
Calomile said:
The Canon 1.4 has about 180º travel. Which is considerably better than some other DSLR lenses I've used.

Out of curiosity, does the Zeiss have a hard stop at the end of it's travel?
Click to expand...

Of course wider lenses have less travel, but the Ziess 50mm is about 250 and 85mm at 270.

Yes, Zeiss do have a hard stop at the start and end of the focal range.
 
But the question is not only how much rotation is there but how it's distributed. The 50mm 2.0 has large rotation but only 10% of it is usable for video so whats the point?!?! I don't understand why I was recommended this lens. Is the distribution on the 1.4 different (is it even along the ring) or its all more or less the same?
 
If you're going to use a camera like this then use it to it's full potential.... don't fark around with slow lenses. Get something fast so you can take advantage of available light, DOF for intimacy when you want, etc. etc.

You can probably shoot 50% of the movie with a tiny 50mm 1.4. Just move backwards or forwards, it's not like you're lugging around an arriflex. The only gizmo I would say to get is the 2.5x Zacuto finder, because it's *!&#$ hard to focus at 1.4 especially in the dark. If you have a few small lenses you won't need a huge rig, the camera will stabilize well against your eye with the finder. I like your attitude about not wasting money on a rig, but then don't get a heavy zoom.

Get a tripod though, and practice (or make your DP practice) focussing 10 hours a day for at least two weeks with the lenses you do get.
 
steventimothy said:
If you're going to use a camera like this then use it to it's full potential.... don't fark around with slow lenses. Get something fast so you can take advantage of available light, DOF for intimacy when you want, etc. etc.

You can probably shoot 50% of the movie with a tiny 50mm 1.4. Just move backwards or forwards, it's not like you're lugging around an arriflex. The only gizmo I would say to get is the 2.5x Zacuto finder, because it's *!&#$ hard to focus at 1.4 especially in the dark. If you have a few small lenses you won't need a huge rig, the camera will stabilize well against your eye with the finder. I like your attitude about not wasting money on a rig, but then don't get a heavy zoom.

Get a tripod though, and practice (or make your DP practice) focussing 10 hours a day for at least two weeks with the lenses you do get.
Click to expand...

This was kind of my thought. I would like something a tad wider. I was thinking 24/50/85. I have some small places I want to get the camera into.
 
Very, very good idea. Should do you perfectly. There's no end of options depending on your budget.

The 50 and 85 can be had for as little as $200-300 for both of them. The 24 not so much, depending on speed, but still a used Nikon 24mm f2.0 could be had for about $400 or so. You'll be out of there for under a grand, easily, anyway, with a nice light, versatile kit of fast prime lenses.
 
Mike Brent said:
I see here that it is:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/7849807-md.jpg

I can't believe people recommend the 2.0 over 1.4.... idiots.
Click to expand...

From what I hear it's a tad bit sharper... and of course it's a macro... so I don't think they're idiots. the 1.4 is only about $500 though which is really quite a steal IMO.

And bang for buck would be C/Y Zeiss's though getting them in ZF mount is probably a better investment long term if you want to be able to stay brand agnostic like me.
 
So the 50/1.4 everyone is talking about, can someone link me? I have asked all the local photo stores and none of them have a clue what I'm talking about.
 
Where did you get the idea that there was only one 50mm f/1.4 lens that people were mentioning? I looked back through the thread, I see a few different ones.

If you're interested in Zeiss, then there are two options. There are new models available in the ZF (Nikon mount) and ZE (Canon mount) series. According to a quick search of Google Shopping, you won't find one for cheaper than about $600. The other option is old Contax Zeiss lenses, which you can only find used. I didn't search the popular used lens markets, but you could probably find one for $300-400.

A brand new Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 costs about $350. I didn't see any other 50/1.4 lenses mentioned more than once. But it doesn't matter. I don't see the point of buying a Zeiss or a Canon EF unless your other lenses are going to be the same brand. The truth is that all 50/1.4 lenses perform about the same (and every test confirms this), because the design of such lenses hasn't changed in decades, and they're all based on the same formula (originally invented by Zeiss). I will reiterate that you can easily get a used Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 for about $50. Ask anyone who's familiar with the lens, and they'll tell you that it's one of the absolute best lenses ever made by anyone.
 
ydgmdlu said:
I will reiterate that you can easily get a used Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 for about $50. Ask anyone who's familiar with the lens, and they'll tell you that it's one of the absolute best lenses ever made by anyone.
Click to expand...
That lens barely leaves my camera. I've collected a few lenses over the last several months and the Super Takumara 50mm f1.4 continues to steal the show. It's plenty sharp and the focussing.....is sooo smoooth.
 
I looked at the new EF 1.4, and I don't like it. It wasn't cheap either. The focusing ring felt grainy for a lack of a better term. Is the Pentax SUper Takumar an EF mount?
 
Revsta said:
I looked at the new EF 1.4, and I don't like it. It wasn't cheap either. The focusing ring felt grainy for a lack of a better term.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is exactly how it is with autofocus lenses, like I was saying.
Is the Pentax SUper Takumar an EF mount?
Click to expand...
No, you'll have to use an adapter. With the exception of Zeiss ZE lenses, only autofocus lenses are available for the EF mount.
 
ydgmdlu said:
Yes, that is exactly how it is with autofocus lenses, like I was saying.

No, you'll have to use an adapter. With the exception of Zeiss ZE lenses, only autofocus lenses are available for the EF mount.
Click to expand...

Ah. And those look bank breaking a bit for me. Perhaps I'll go with the Nikon adapter.
 
Like I said, the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/1.4 is simply not a good value when you can get a very similar-performing lens for 1/10th the price. There are other adapters than Nikon.
 
C/Y Zeiss glass can be had at quite a good value, 50mm 1.4 is like 300 or less if it's a japanese made one as opposed to an AEG(West Germany).

85mm AEG goes for anywhere from 500-900 depending on the copy.

35mm 2.8 can be had cheaply but the 35mm 1.4 is priced absurdly high.
 
I hope that Revsta doesn't mind me sharing this, but he's looking to spend much, much less than what any of you seem to be thinking. Different people clearly have different ideas of what's "cheap" and a "good value." Let's not forget that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top