C100: Best Interview Lens

T

Tom6K

Member
I'm looking at purchasing just 1 lens for interviews. If people had to purchase just 1 lens for interviews for their C100/300 what would you buy?

What are people using for their best all round favourite go to interview lens at the moment?

I love the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 as its fast and i can adjust the zoom range, cheaper than the Canon and has IS if needed.
The Canon 50mm f1.2 is sharp and is exceptionally shallow but pricey.
The Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art is so amazing I'm really leaning towards this but will miss the zoom range of the Tamron.
The Samyang/Rokinon are interesting but as I've never used them i fear for their cheapness..?

Oh dear which one to get for best all round pro use but not spending more than $1.5 grand. :kiss:
 
My Nikon 85mm 1.8 AIs looks better than any of those lenses to me for interviews (not outdoors or in bright sunlight, lens coatings have improved since the 70s). I find the Canon 50mm 1.2 to not be optimal, the DOF is too shallow wide open for anything MCU to CU, if the talent even exhales, part of their face is going out of focus. And if you are not going to shoot at 1.2, what is the purpose of the lens, just buy a much more reasonable cost 1.4 or even a cheap 1.8. The cost value equation for an ultra fast 50mm 1.2 doesn't make sense for video especially. I use zooms for run and gun but for interviews, my still Nikons look way, way above their very inexpensive price range. I use the Nikon 50mm 1.4 if I want to see some of the room for a medium shot and the 85mm for the standard MCU/CU talking head from about 9.5 to 10' away from talent. Need the Fotodiox PRO adapter, don't buy junky, cheap adapters. These Nikons are made better than any current Canon lens under $5k, they are mechanical works of art. My Canon 28mm 1.8 is a good lens but it is made like a modern plastic toy. The 18-135 STM IS and my new 10-18 STM IS are both built really crappy (plastic mount on my new 10-18?!?!) although they work fine and look fine. I would buy Canon Cine primes if I was rich, but I am not so the old, still MF Nikons are killer for the money. I only use zooms when I have to because generally zooms suck in comparison with primes, even the expensive zooms are generally not as good as a decent prime (exception I have shot with is the 70-200 IS II 2.8, that lens is a magic lens, it makes everything you point it at beautiful) but that's a $2,200.00 lens so it should. If you care about resale, avoid third party lenses with a few exceptions like the Tokina 11-16 2.8, that is the one third party lens that seems to have held value pretty well. But Sigma, Tamron? They look good, work fine. But used, they are hard to even give away.
 
Last edited:
I generally use zooms (Canon 24-105, Sigma 18-35, Tokina 11-16) for b-roll and primes and a zoom for interviews. My typical three C100 interview setup lately has been a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for the tight shot, Nikon 55 f/2.8 for the medium shot, and Nikon 105 f/2.5 for an off axis tight shot (when there is room).

So I'm with puredrifting on the economics of the Nikons. Great optics which rival Canon L-series, great build quality, can be used on any camera (so when you switch to Sony or Panasonic as technology inevitably changes they'll still be relevant), and quite cheap. Those three lens for interviews together were about $650 total. If I had to choose just one for interviews I'd go with the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for $350-$400 used. Though, it won't work well in a small room, so you'd want something like a 50mm; at $150 the Nikon 55 f/2.8 is pretty cheap, so why limit yourself to just one if you have $1500 to spend?

I've thought of buying a Zeiss 100mm f/2 or Zeiss 135 f/2.0 for the tight shot, and a Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art for the medium shot, but spending $2,500-$3000 for a likely small but nice improvement in sharpness hasn't been worth it to me (yet).

Here's a video I shot comparing different lenses on the C100 in an interview type setup for reference.

 
Last edited:
I recommend the Canon 70-200 f4 IS lens. As pure drifting mentioned the 70-200 f2.8 is "pure magic", I say the same thing about the 70-200 f4. It is light and many people feel it's actually sharper than the 2.8. Awhile back I compared the images of the 24-105 against the 70-200 f4 and it blew it away. I use the 24-105 a lot for photos on the 5D3 but for video I try to avoid it, and use the 70-200 as much as I can.

I have the Canon 50 f1.4 and run into real problems with the shallow depth of field where the nose is in focus and the ear out of focus. The 70-200 f4 IS can be picked up used for around $700 to $800. If you don't need the IS then you can find one for around $400 used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myQSSlTyGEQ
 
Very interesting. I never considered a Nikon lens.

You saying something like a Nikon 50mm 1.4 has better quality glass than a Canon L series?? for a 1/4 of the price?

 
It hasn't been mentioned yet, so I will say the 24-70 f/2.8 seems like the obvious answer. Or maybe the 24-105. Fast primes are fine, but if you shoot at anything less than a 2.8 on a medium telephoto lens at normal interview distances, people will go out of focus if the move back and forth.
 
The purpose of a prime isn't just so you can shoot wide open, so saying a prime will result in the people being out of focus when moving back and forth is based on the assumption the user will use it wide open. Most lenses perform better when stopped down around couple stops from wide open, so if you have an f/4 zoom you'd need to be around f/8 to get optimum quality out of it, which would need a whole lot of light and probably would not be a shallow enough depth of field for what is typically desired from an interview. An f/1.4 lens, on the other hand, can be stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4 to get the best image out of it, which will in most cases outperform any f/4 lens. I generally use my Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 at f/4 to f/5.6 for interviews; occasionally at f/2.8.


Tom6K said:
Very interesting. I never considered a Nikon lens.

You saying something like a Nikon 50mm 1.4 has better quality glass than a Canon L series?? for a 1/4 of the price?
Click to expand...
Around the same, as good, or better, I would say. You don't get auto-focus (I use auto-focus on the C100s a lot, but not for interviews) and the lens coatings as mentioned may not be as up-to-date which could be an issue in some cases, though I've never noticed such issues in my uses (mostly indoor interviews). The focus rings and tightness of the adapters I find are not as ergonomic as using Canon L-series lenses, but both of those issues are mostly irrelevant for sit-down interviews.
 
puredrifting said:
If you care about resale, avoid third party lenses with a few exceptions like the Tokina 11-16 2.8, that is the one third party lens that seems to have held value pretty well. But Sigma, Tamron? They look good, work fine. But used, they are hard to even give away.
Click to expand...

I disagree a little here. One of my favorite interview lenses ever is the
old Sigma 50-150 F2.8 (this is the lens that was rehoused to make the
Red Pro zoom 50-150). And the other one of my favorite lenses is the
Sigma Art 18-35 F1.8. Seriously one of the best lenses ever made.
And honestly the whole Sigma Art line is awfully good. Third party
lenses can be great....if you pick the right ones. As for value....
when it first came out, the 18-35 was sold out everywhere for about 3 months.
i could not find a store in the US that had it....eventually I had to
buy it from Digital Rev overseas....
 
My favorite interview lens recently has been the Canon 85 1.8. It has a look that is hard to describe, but it just looks really nice for head and shoulders interviews.
 
Im favouring the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art atm. The price and performance seem unbeatable. Having said that I'm extremely curious about these older Carl Zeis Contax 50mm f1.4's, I'm assuming it would have its own soft creamy look too. And they a reasonably priced.

But the Tamron 24 -70 f2.8 still is niggling away at me as i can zoom in and out subtly when required. I do like the creamy look of it compared to the generic Canon 24-105 (just my opinion being generic)

So Sigma 50mm f1.4 vs oldr Carl Zeiss Contax 50mm f1.4 very interesting :)
 
When I am in an interview situation I find that many times 50mm does not get me close enough. I really do not want to be right on top of the interviewee. When I can predetermine a look with the producer/director and we decide that a wider feel (24-70) will work then a 50 or 24-70 works fine. In most situations, unless cramped in a small room I find that a 70-200mm 2.8 is the lens that I want. Most interviews benefit from several different framings for the edit and especially if it is a long interview.
 
cpreston said:
It hasn't been mentioned yet, so I will say the 24-70 f/2.8 seems like the obvious answer. Or maybe the 24-105. Fast primes are fine, but if you shoot at anything less than a 2.8 on a medium telephoto lens at normal interview distances, people will go out of focus if the move back and forth.
Click to expand...

soooooo.....juste need to focus, then.
 
You will not be able to have just ONE lens for interviews if your goal is to throw the bg out of focus. The reason is the types of rooms you are forced to do interviews in are vastly different. Sometimes there's no depth in a small room or the subject has to be up against a wall. In those cases having a tele like the 70-200 is no use. You can't tell the client or director "we can't use this room", they don't understand, so focal length choices have a lot to do with room size.

About 1/4 of my work is talking heads. If I had to have only ONE lens my 24-105 would cover any room length. However, the clients love the out-of-focus background look and it is harder to achieve that with that lens if the room has little depth. My Go To lens, room length permitting, is my 70-200 f2.8 but that needs at least 8' from me to the subject and at least 10-15 feet from the subject to the bg to give a nice out-of-focus background look. Many rooms, such as offices, aren't that deep.

So in sum, a longer lens will screw you if you end up in smaller rooms, so having the wider range lens will be safer, but is harder to throw the bg oof. As a general rule I try to get the longest length room I can for an interview as long as the audio is OK. As I approach the room that they want me to shoot with my cart I make mental notes about larger rooms and props I can borrow.

P.S. When I transitioned from the Panasonic AF100 to the C100 I sold my 3 Zeiss primes and now use zooms. I do miss the added crispness of the primes but many clients want varied focal lengths during an interview, and there's just no time to keep changing primes every other question. Some clients will punch in during post but many are purists and want a focal length change.

P.S.S. Style: I am a documentary junkie, it's all I watch. Styles come and go. Many clients now like a wide interview shot where you see the whole environment. Getting VERY popular. Means more propping of the bg and it will be in focus. Can't do that with the 70-200.

P.S.S. There are situations where the client or director needs you FAR BACK from the subject due to emotional reasons, such as filming children, people crying, etc. They want the subject to forget the camera is there. So having a tele in your bag of tricks is critical if you're putting yourself out in the market as a pro. And that's another reason you can't show up with just "one interview lens". They won't understand and will get upset.
 
Last edited:
I have not done a single camera sit down in a very long time. I almost always use two cameras now. But back when I shot single cam, my favorite interview lens was the Cooke 18-100 zoom.
 
There is no perfect interview lens as each interview is different.

If I'm shooting around town I usually carry 35, 50, 85 Rokinon cine primes. If I'm travelling I bring a few fast zooms.

I have found the greatest advantage in shooting 4K is the ability to punch in where appropriate to highlight a moment. This is something almost impossible to do in the field on the fly without occasionally screwing the editor with a focal change at the wrong time and missing a great moment. It has also opened me up to setting my 2nd camera with an interesting profile or off axis angle instead of just a punch in of the main camera angle to enhance the project.
 
nedcam said:
You will not be able to have just ONE lens for interviews if your goal is to throw the bg out of focus. The reason is the types of rooms you are forced to do interviews in are vastly different. Sometimes there's no depth in a small room or the subject has to be up against a wall. In those cases having a tele like the 70-200 is no use. You can't tell the client or director "we can't use this room", they don't understand, so focal length choices have a lot to do with room size.

About 1/4 of my work is talking heads. If I had to have only ONE lens my 24-105 would cover any room length. However, the clients love the out-of-focus background look and it is harder to achieve that with that lens if the room has little depth. My Go To lens, room length permitting, is my 70-200 f2.8 but that needs at least 8' from me to the subject and at least 10-15 feet from the subject to the bg to give a nice out-of-focus background look. Many rooms, such as offices, aren't that deep.

So in sum, a longer lens will screw you if you end up in smaller rooms, so having the wider range lens will be safer, but is harder to throw the bg oof. As a general rule I try to get the longest length room I can for an interview as long as the audio is OK. As I approach the room that they want me to shoot with my cart I make mental notes about larger rooms and props I can borrow.

P.S. When I transitioned from the Panasonic AF100 to the C100 I sold my 3 Zeiss primes and now use zooms. I do miss the added crispness of the primes but many clients want varied focal lengths during an interview, and there's just no time to keep changing primes every other question. Some clients will punch in during post but many are purists and want a focal length change.

P.S.S. Style: I am a documentary junkie, it's all I watch. Styles come and go. Many clients now like a wide interview shot where you see the whole environment. Getting VERY popular. Means more propping of the bg and it will be in focus. Can't do that with the 70-200.

P.S.S. There are situations where the client or director needs you FAR BACK from the subject due to emotional reasons, such as filming children, people crying, etc. They want the subject to forget the camera is there. So having a tele in your bag of tricks is critical if you're putting yourself out in the market as a pro. And that's another reason you can't show up with just "one interview lens". They won't understand and will get upset.
Click to expand...

In the end you have to go with what inspires you. The 24-105 is a great versatile lens, but there is really nothing that excites me about it. The 70-200 has some really beauty to it, and yes it isn't the perfect lens if you are in an office or super small space. I shoot in a room that is about 40 feet and have no problem. When the OP mentioned an "interview" lens I tend to think more in terms of a portrait lens rather than a wide angle lens. Yes, perhaps there are occasions for a interview where the entire room is visible but that seems to be the exception to the rule.

I assume most people have a 50mm lens of some sort in their camera bag, if they don't then WTF, there ain't no excuse not to have Canon's 50 f1.8 in your bag for a $100 bucks. Then get the 70-200 f4...... is 1 more stop really worth spending $2400 for on the f2.8? An interview with just one camera angle is pretty boring, I wonder if the OP has another camera, in that case money becomes more of an issue.
 
nedcam said:
You will not be able to have just ONE lens for interviews if your goal is to throw the bg out of focus. The reason is the types of rooms you are forced to do interviews in are vastly different. Sometimes there's no depth in a small room or the subject has to be up against a wall. In those cases having a tele like the 70-200 is no use. You can't tell the client or director "we can't use this room", they don't understand, so focal length choices have a lot to do with room size.

About 1/4 of my work is talking heads. If I had to have only ONE lens my 24-105 would cover any room length. However, the clients love the out-of-focus background look and it is harder to achieve that with that lens if the room has little depth. My Go To lens, room length permitting, is my 70-200 f2.8 but that needs at least 8' from me to the subject and at least 10-15 feet from the subject to the bg to give a nice out-of-focus background look. Many rooms, such as offices, aren't that deep.

So in sum, a longer lens will screw you if you end up in smaller rooms, so having the wider range lens will be safer, but is harder to throw the bg oof. As a general rule I try to get the longest length room I can for an interview as long as the audio is OK. As I approach the room that they want me to shoot with my cart I make mental notes about larger rooms and props I can borrow.

P.S. When I transitioned from the Panasonic AF100 to the C100 I sold my 3 Zeiss primes and now use zooms. I do miss the added crispness of the primes but many clients want varied focal lengths during an interview, and there's just no time to keep changing primes every other question. Some clients will punch in during post but many are purists and want a focal length change.

P.S.S. Style: I am a documentary junkie, it's all I watch. Styles come and go. Many clients now like a wide interview shot where you see the whole environment. Getting VERY popular. Means more propping of the bg and it will be in focus. Can't do that with the 70-200.

P.S.S. There are situations where the client or director needs you FAR BACK from the subject due to emotional reasons, such as filming children, people crying, etc. They want the subject to forget the camera is there. So having a tele in your bag of tricks is critical if you're putting yourself out in the market as a pro. And that's another reason you can't show up with just "one interview lens". They won't understand and will get upset.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. I honestly almost always do
2 cam interviews now. One is often somewhere between
21-35mm (usually on the 18-35) and one somewhere in
the 70-105mm range on the 50-150. Nice thing
about the 18-35 is it's a zoom lens with prime lens speed.
You can get the BG out of focus even at the wider angles,
providing you can get somewhat close to the subject.
 
I'm a big fan of the Canon 24-70 f2.8, but yes it's expensive. I've also seen good results with the relatively inexpensive 70-200 f.4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top