Choosing first 50mm lens

D

David Evans

Well-known member
Hi,

I'm thinking of buying the SGBlade this summer and finally start filming with 35mm lenses. I have a XHA1s and though I don't see myself buying lenses that are more expensive than my camera, I also don't want to get cheap when it comes to lens choice...

Of course I dream of having a Panavision lens, but those can cost as much as a car, or am I wrong? But I saw some test footage with those lenses, and it's instant movie look.

So, getting it real, I heard that Leica are probably the best 35mm lenses out there, for movie look as they don't oversharpen the image as Zeiss do. Can anyone confirm this? Of course Canon and Nikon are always cheaper, but if Leica or Zeiss are worth the extra money, I don't mind saving. Like I said, I really don't want to get cheap on lenses.

I think I'm going for a 50mm f1.4 lens as my first purchase, can anyone help given what I said above?

(This looks good but can it be used for video?: http://www.amazon.com/Zeiss-Planar-...3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1242562526&sr=8-3

Thanks

David
 
You can't buy panavision equipment, they rent only. Don't be fooled by test footage you see, the lens actually only plays a very small part when it comes to the "film look". If you don't have a trained eye, you might not even see the difference between a canon, nikon, zeiss, or leica lenses. If you are on a tight budget, you should rather get a set of cheaper lenses than one or two expensive lenses. You will be much more flexible while shooting and therefore get better results (ex. if you only own a 50mm lens, it's going to be hard to shoot in a small room and even harder to shoot in a car etc.).

About the so called "film look" (I start to hate this word ;-) ): Good lighting, composition and camera movement, choice of location, costumes, etc. will make the difference. You would be amazed by how filmic the image can look even with a small handy cam when the lighting is done carefully....
 
Last edited:
50mm lens

50mm lens

David,

I'm pretty sure the Zeiss m42 mount lens can be adapted with a cheap m42 to Nikon or M42 to Canon adapter from ebay. Just search for M42 and respective camera mount.

My favorite lens is an old Nikon 55mm f1.2. Of course the extra 5 mm focal length can be compensated for by zooming out on the GG just a tad. Ebay usually has 1 or 2 for around $250 to $300. I'm posting a pic of the actual (but not the actual, actual) lens I use. and also 4 frame grabs from a DVX100 using the lens. I like the extra diffused look of the bokeh with this lens. The subject remains sharp while the background has the dreamy look of a Zeiss Softar filter from days past.



And a link to the direct page: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=110922&page=13
 

Attachments

  • Mandy.jpg
    Mandy.jpg
    173.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 55mm.jpg
    55mm.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 0
You can't buy panavision equipment, they rent only. Don't be fooled by test footage you see, the lens actually only plays a very small part when it comes to the "film look". If you don't have a trained eye, you might not even see the difference between a canon, nikon, zeiss, or leica lenses. If you are on a tight budget, you should rather get a set of cheaper lenses than one or two expensive lenses. You will be much more flexible while shooting and therefore get better results (ex. if you only own a 50mm lens, it's going to be hard to shoot in a small room and even harder to shoot in a car etc.).

About the so called "film look" (I start to hate this word ;-) ): Good lighting, composition and camera movement, choice of location, costumes, etc. will make the difference. You would be amazed by how filmic the image can look even with a small handy cam when the lighting is done carefully....
Click to expand...

I understand what you say and I agree! But movies have that look, no matter what. A scene can be poorly lit, with bad framing, terrible actors, that still would look like film, if shot in film. I think in video we have to take care of every little detail to make it as close as we can to film.

For example, I look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oioGoq7yAM

and it's instant movie feel. Very nice dollying and camera moves, but that movie texture is there. Oh well, I'll probably buy a SGBlade and a Nikon 50mm for starters. There are a few videos shot by Philip Bloom that show the difference between shots with and without a 35mm adapter. Assuming that nothing changed between shots, the difference that an adaptor makes is HUGE. I don't think it's just a matter of focus. It's much more than that. The image just feels much more complex, with more layers and textures. Can't wait to try the Blade :)

David
 
Canon FD? The Canon FD 50mm f1.4 is an incredible lens, leagues above the 1.8. It's so sharp it's unbelievable.
 
David Evans said:
I understand what you say and I agree! But movies have that look, no matter what. A scene can be poorly lit, with bad framing, terrible actors, that still would look like film, if shot in film. I think in video we have to take care of every little detail to make it as close as we can to film.

For example, I look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oioGoq7yAM

and it's instant movie feel. Very nice dollying and camera moves, but that movie texture is there. Oh well, I'll probably buy a SGBlade and a Nikon 50mm for starters. There are a few videos shot by Philip Bloom that show the difference between shots with and without a 35mm adapter. Assuming that nothing changed between shots, the difference that an adaptor makes is HUGE. I don't think it's just a matter of focus. It's much more than that. The image just feels much more complex, with more layers and textures. Can't wait to try the Blade :)

David
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I didn't say that the adapter doesn't make much of a difference, I said that it is hard for an untrained eye to see what lens brand was used. By the way, the video you posted has pretty deep focus. I think the word "film look" is usually associated with the "look" of movies with high production value and nice cinematography and is not necessarily tied to the analog medium film. I would say that the Curious case of Benjamin Button has a "nice film look" even though it was shot digitally almost entirely. Same thing goes for Slumdog Millionaire, which also used a digital camera in many scenes. I have seen 16mm film look much worse than dvx100 footage. I also shot film myself and can assure you that there is much more to the "film look" than just shooting on film.....

(The term "film look" is an extremely vague term and in my opinion overused.)
 
Last edited:
cordvision said:
Don't get me wrong, I didn't say that the adapter doesn't make much of a difference, I said that it is hard for an untrained eye to see what lens brand was used. By the way, the video you posted has pretty deep focus. I think the word "film look" is usually associated with the "look" of movies with high production value and nice cinematography and is not necessarily tied to the analog medium film. I would say that the Curious case of Benjamin Button has a "nice film look" even though it was shot digitally almost entirely. Same thing goes for Slumdog Millionaire, which also used a digital camera in many scenes. I have seen 16mm film look much worse than dvx100 footage. I also shot film myself and can assure you that there is much more to the "film look" than just shooting on film.....

(The term "film look" is an extremely vague term and in my opinion overused.)
Click to expand...

Yes, 'film look' is a worn out expression and misunderstood most of the times. I think that the 'film look' I want for my movies is a look that make people believe in it, and that makes them forget they're watching video. Even that video that I posted above has very deep focus like you said, but there's something about the colors and the way light is difused that makes the image look organic and not flat and dull like amateur video.

Don't get me wrong, I think video can be as professional-looking as film (look at Colateral, Benjamin Button, etc). For that matter look at so many low-budget movies shot in video by people from this and other forums. What I'm saying is that I am looking for that look and I think, from what I've seen, that a 35mm adapter will help me with that, even when I'm using a deep focus lens. And, of course, lighting. This is a new subject to me, I admit. I know that it is indeed important, but my experience with lighting is not much and I really want to get into that. If you know a really usable dvd that has tutorials about lighting in cinema, please let me know :-)

Still, about lenses, I just wanted to know if there is a difference between a $150 Nikon AI 50mm, and a $2000 Leica Summicron 50mm. I mean, besides the price of course. I thought the Leica, for that price, would have much better and complex image that would help cast away the video look, but maybe the Nikon is perfectly capable of it. I'll just to try and see how it goes.

Thanks
David
 
While set, lighting, costume, etc. are essential for creating a "world" or a "reality", lighting is critical for conveying mood and a look, and depth of field is one more tool to be used (either deep or shallow focus being legitimate choices), and of course course creative grading, I think there's two more elements to the equation.

One, of course, is Progressive scanning.
The other is "organic".
I think nearly everyone would agree that adaptors (regardless of their resulting DoF, whether a deeper focus or merely nose to eyes) also contribute to that intangible organic look.

The goal is to get as far away from the interlaced "video look" as possible, and it seems (to me, at least) adaptors do a good job of that.

And as far as lenses are concerned, they too have different looks, different degrees of contrast.
 
groveChuck said:
While set, lighting, costume, etc. are essential for creating a "world" or a "reality", lighting is critical for conveying mood and a look, and depth of field is one more tool to be used (either deep or shallow focus being legitimate choices), and of course course creative grading, I think there's two more elements to the equation.

One, of course, is Progressive scanning.
The other is "organic".
I think nearly everyone would agree that adaptors (regardless of their resulting DoF, whether a deeper focus or merely nose to eyes) also contribute to that intangible organic look.

The goal is to get as far away from the interlaced "video look" as possible, and it seems (to me, at least) adaptors do a good job of that.

And as far as lenses are concerned, they too have different looks, different degrees of contrast.
Click to expand...

YES! Absolutely 100% agree with what you wrote! I think that lighting, framing, etc is critical to create the look of the film, to create an identity and trigger specific emotions whether it's a dark shadowed horror movie, or a big wide oversaturated technicolor film. But there is a step that needs to be taken prior to that, in order to achieve the film feel (trying to avoid the 'film look' expression). And I think the correct expression we all look for should be "film feel". Because the look is really very different from each picture to the next (we can even notice the difference between the look of a big budget movie and a indie film), but there is something in the image and the motion that we can instantly recognize as film and (amateur/poor) video.

Progressive scan as you mention of course. I think there is no lighting and no framing techniques that could ever make a 50i shot sequence feel like film. And I also believe, from what I've seen (again, I never used an adaptor, so I don't know), that a 35mm adaptor helps creating a kind of organic feel to the image, that makes it less flat, more texturized and closer to that movie feel. I may be wrong of course, but I can't wait to have a SGBlade to try it.


About the lenses, many people are recommending the Nikon. I just want to know if the Zeiss are worth the extra money (almost 3x more...).


Thanks !
David
 
Well, I'm in a similar situation as you, no adaptor yet, trying to pick one.
And wrestling with the lens question, because my wife has a full set of Canon EF lenses, but they're difficult to work with on an adaptor (you can't change the aperture while on the adaptor), so I may go with used Canon FD lenses.
You may want to consider them also.
Here's my thread on that:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=171421
i think Zeiss have a higher contrast look than Nikon, may be sharper overall, but at triple the price??? I guess it depends on your budget :^)
Chuck
 
Besides having the option to use longer lenses (shallow DOF), an adapter also changes the way the highlights are rendered, I feel that the roll off is a bit smoother. I would say that adapters also flatten contrast a little bit, which feels as if you had more latitude. With some adapter you also see some grain from the GG. I guess, that all those factors contribute to the "film feel".
As for lenses: Another important thing to consider in lenses is their mechanics. Some lenses have a very short focus throw, which makes it incredible hard to pull focus wide open. Zeiss lenses generally have a longer focus throw than nikon lenses and canon lenses. Another thing to consider, nikon lenses focus in reverse compared to cine glass. This is not a huge deal for most people since there are FFes that can be reversed if you are used to focusing with cine glass. I would have a look at used contax zeiss lenses (there should be a contax mount available for the SGPro soon). Contax zeiss lenses focus like cine glass, have a longer focus throw than most still image lenses, are mechanically very well built (very smooth), you get the sharpness of zeiss glass, and best of all, they aren't as expensive as the new nikon ZF lenses....



groveChuck: have a look at redrockmicro, they are working on a little device that let's you change the aperture on canon FD lenses while shooting.
 
Last edited:
My 2 cents on film look.

My 2 cents on film look.

Using high end video cameras for a couple of decades, I was always trying for the "Film Look" with video. One music video I shot with a Pro hi-8 sony (EVW-300) Back when hi-8 was pretty good. The camera with lens was around $8500.00 USD about 15 yrs ago. Of course it was sd but the image was the best I could afford at the time. I soon learned about interlacing. I know it's been covered a thousand times but here it is once more.

In my opinion, the most important element for the "film look" is the progressive frame rate of 24 fps and of course the P for Progressive which means non interlaced. Instead of interlacing, in the US 30i for 30 (actually 29.93 or something) interlaced half frames displayed every other line at a time. the even fields, then the odd fields. so you're actually watching 60 interlaced half frames a second for a very continuous smooth non filmic look, just like the news. I think lighting is very inportant to the look of the production but has very little to do with the "film look" Am I over using the term "film look"? I will use "FL" from here out. Have you ever seen those behing the scenes ducumentaries shot on "video"? Where they show a scene from the actual movie and then cut directly to the behind the scenes "video" The very same scene, well lit and all, can be shot from almost the same exact angle and look so amazingly different. The non interlaced frame rate is what makes the most difference. followed by the depth of field.

Ok. Back to the music video. I was editing down for posting the video on the web (320x240) and chose 24 fps and to de-interlace the video (using Adobe premiere) . I wasn't expecting the results. Premiere performed some sort of rudimentary 3:2 pulldown and Walla! My well lit, very "video" looking production became instantly very "film like".

Today, just take any camera with interlacing and non interlacing options like the DVX-100 and shoot something interlaced and then switch the scene file to 24p and watch them back to back. Whenever shooting with the DVX. The 1st time people would view the 24p footage the 1st thing out of their mouths was "Wow! It looks just like a movie". Even with the broad depth of field. It's night and day. Just like flipping channels from the news to a movie.

So, in this order, 24p footage coupled with a DOF adapter (to produce shallow depth of field) covers the 2 most important issues when striving for the "FL".

Cory

In my opinion.
 
cordvision- Yeah, it's the Redrock Live Lens, and I haven't been able to find anybody who's used it.
Excuse me while I continue looking for the film feel... or is it feeling for the film look? ;^)
 
groveChuck said:
cordvision- Yeah, it's the Redrock Live Lens, and I haven't been able to find anybody who's used it.
Excuse me while I continue looking for the film feel... or is it feeling for the film look? ;^)
Click to expand...

freshdv.com covered it quickly in one of their NAB videos... don't even know if it is for sale yet...
 
cordvision said:
freshdv.com covered it quickly in one of their NAB videos... don't even know if it is for sale yet...
Click to expand...

I saw that video and I couldn't believe it when the price is mentioned. $495! That's one heck of an investment just to mount EF lenses on the adapter. Unless I misinterpret it and it's really $4.95...
 
So I've decided to buy a 50mm as my first lens. I still haven't decided on the lens yet, the race is between Nikon 50mm 1.4 AI-s and a Zeiss T Planar 50mm 1.4 ZF. Let's imagine, for a moment they had the exact same price. Wich would you advize me to get? What I want to know is, if 50mm is worth going for the Zeiss (forget it's more expensive) over the Nikon or if that difference in picture quality is much more noticeable on the 35mm lenses (consider the Distagon...).

Thanks

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