Difference between film lens still picture lens and lens used in digital slr cameras

C

calito

Active member
I'm trying to learn a little more about cinematography and I'm confused with the lens.

I've been contemplating to buy either Nikon lens or Canon, but I really don't know what to look for.

One other thing that I'm not clear is the difference between film lens and the lens used in digital slr cameras.

Can someone give me a hand here?

Also what are the canon and nikon lens most used for digital video (using the adapter)
 
Hi Braskar - I saw your posts over at the micro35 forums as well (redrockmicro.com/forum).

Here's a starter for you:

- with the advent of 35mm adapters such as the micro35, indie and budget filmmakers have realized they can use inexpensive 35mm SLR (still) lenses with their video cameras to achieve great images with shallow depth of field (DOF). This is a significant breakthrough because previously this required the use of high-end cameras and lenses costing tens of thousands of dollars

- Most folks - for a variety of reasons - seem to be favoring the Canon or Nikon lenses, although any SLR lens with the appropriate mount should work (the micro35 also has an adapter for Pentax K and screwmount lenses). IMHO it's because they probably already own these lenses (and they are easy to get), they are relatively inexpensive, and they are generally high quality 35mm lenses.

- the polls at redrockmicro.com/forum are currently running 2:1 nikon vs. canon

- What to look for: although auto-focus or manual focus lenses will both work, the auto-focus will not work on any 35mm adapter. If you are looking to buy some, generally the manual focus lenses are cheaper, so why bother going to the AF

- Zoom vs. prime: prime lenses are fixed focal length lenses (e.g., 50mm, 18mm, 75mm, etc.). Zoom lenses obviously have variable lengths (.e.g., 20-80mm, etc.) There is some debate on SLR zoom lenses "breathing" (meaning they don't keep focus accurately as you zoom in or out), but there seems to be a lot of varying opinion on this.

- The cheapest option is to buy a zoom lens that covers the focal lengths you want to shoot , such as a 20mm-120mm lens.

- all 35mm adapters "lose light" - that is, they drop about 1-2 f-stops of light. If you were shooting a scene previously at f4, now with the micro35 you will have to shoot it at f2, or increase the scene lighting. This means generally you should look for faster lenses - those with a max f-stop of 1.4, 1.8, maybe up to 2.8.

- If you can afford it, you should consider purchasing a set of slr prime lenses. have some wide angles (such as an 18 or 20mm), solid middle-of-the-road (35mm, 50mm) and some portraits (80mm, 100mm). I currently have the following nikons:

18mm f2
50mm f 1.8
[pending] 80mm f. 2
100mm f.2.8

- finally if you are budget conscious, again start with one zoom, or you can buy slower primes (such as f3 or f4) and upgrade to faster primes as you can afford them.

I hope this helps you on your way.

Cheers

Brian
 
Thank you Brian you're the best!
We have to talk about the micro35 I'm really interested in getting it. I've been looking around the m35 website it is great! Congrats and thanks again.
 
no problem Braskar. I hope others will chime in with their recommendations as well. It's best to get many different opinions. Break a leg!
 
There really is little benefit with these adapter when using a lens at f/2.8 or a 2.8/4 split.

Reason is that lens will provide about the same depth of field as a lens on a 2/3" camera
at f/1.6 or so. While I'm well aware that the DVX100 is not a 2/3" camera.. I still only
would use an adapter like this if I really need a shallow field and more so than what I
could achieve by using a 2/3" camera.. Does this make sense?

Moral of my story is:
Stick with f/2, f/1.8, or f/1.4 primes to maximize the full effect of using the adapter.
 
True, but an f2.0 200mm prime is expensive. And most actual film isn't shot at f2.0 and under (well, a lot is, but not all.) Remember, the dvx's lens only opens up to about f2.8 at 45mm and you get quite pleasing bokeh at that focal length for talking heads. So a 200mm f2.8 would give you pretty incredible bokeh.

But, yeah. I'm probably going to get a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2.8 and a 200mm f2.8. I'm also buying an adapter ring to use them on my Canon slr (and the Digital Rebel XT I'm buying.) I may get a cheap zoom just for ease of use as well.

Lots of fun with lenses for Matty!
 
I find the following Canon lenses to be most useful:
14mm f/2.8
20mm f/2.8
24mm f/1.4
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.2
100mm f/2.0
135mm f/2.0
 
When are the guys going to manufacture a unit with a PL Mount? I'm fortunate enough to own some film prime lenses but they all have a PL Mount. The only unit available for me at the moment is the P&S Mini35mm.
 
Thisiswells, those seem like great lenses, but pricey. Did you get them used? And where? 24mm f1.4 an 85mmf1.2 are incredibly expensive. (Still nothing compared with cinelenses)

That said, other than a lack of an extreme telephoto lens (200mm+) which some directors love, some dislike (so it's your call), that's a great choice in lenses so far as I can tell. Tototally comprehensive for all useful focal lengths.

Just an interesting note, Yasujiro Ozu (great director, unique visual style, but pretty crazy and obsessed with static images) shot almost exclusively with a 50mm lens. John Woo says he alternates between extreme telephoto and wide angle (everything but a 50mm lens) and he has one of the most wild visual styles. Interesting to see how directors vary.

In regards to Canon versus Nikon, Canon mounts are built such that there's more distance between the lens and body so you can add a Nikon adapter (but lose all automatic funtions, which you'd lose anyhow). If you try to adapt a Nikon mount for Canon lenses, you won't be able to focus to infinity, however.

Soo....a Canon mount is all around more versitile. But since there are so many Canon standards (EOS, FD, ect.) and essentially only one Nikon mount (AI and everything after it are roughly compatible), I'm going Nikon mount all the way. There's some great cheap glass out there, too. AND, oddly enough, Nikon manual lenses can meter on Canon dSLRs with a 30 dollar adapter, but they can't meter on a D70.
 
Canon's EOS back flange distance is 44mm v. Nikon 46.5mm
Canon's older FD lenses were 42mm... The shorter flange distance enables (for reasons I don't fully understand) lenses with larger maximum apertures. For example, Canon made a 200mm f/1.8 and a 50 f/1.0 Unbelievably crazy expensive and highly desirable lenses that have not been possible with a back flange of 46.5mm or perhaps Nikon just chose to not compete in that area.

I had a 50, 28-70 and 70-200. I actually gave all that stuff to my dad to take
family pictures and they're a thousand miles away.. Haven't had my camera since Christmas.

My list reads more like a wish list.. But, eBay, eBay, eBay for deals on great lenses.
 
thisiswells - I agree the faster the lens the better - but man, that list you provided is a lot of scratch! The 14mm alone on eBay will probably run $150 or so.

I don't necessarily agree there is little value at f. 2.8 or above. Check some of the sample footage on micro35.com (especially the christmas one). The lenses and f-stops are all listed, and there is some great shallow DOF at f-stops higher than that.
 
steadicamsteel said:
When are the guys going to manufacture a unit with a PL Mount? I'm fortunate enough to own some film prime lenses but they all have a PL Mount. The only unit available for me at the moment is the P&S Mini35mm.
Click to expand...


the micro35 will have a PL mount available. The PL mounts are more expensive (since apparently they must be hand-machined) but they are definitely available. What kind of lenses do you have? I'm jealous :)
 
Really, a 50mm f/1.4 from any company will be sufficient for most applications
requiring the shallow focus look.

I bought my Canon for $300 or so new from B&H...
That is not very much for a lens contrary to indie ethos.
 
It's not, but I got my Nikon 50mm f1.8 for 25 on ebay.

I suppose it's the difference between indie and absolutely-no-budget-whatsoever. I'm not saying you chose bad lenses; that's an awesome bunch of glass. I'm just saying that cheaper glass is sufficient and that shooting wide open is not always ideal (although the grain of these devices and the light loss necessitates shooting with a lower f-stop than traditonal film.)
 
Having never used redrock's product, I can't comment on his choice of intermediate screen.

However, in my experience of using the real thing and building several homebrew versions
with all sorts of intermediate screens, from optical grade ground glasses to frenal-based screens,
I had significantly better results from the f/1.4 than I did with f/1.8 lenses.

Using a $25 lens seems absurd to me, but to each his own.
BTW, what is the target price for the Micro35 thing?
 
Policar - I can't comment on your experiences, but we haven't seen any grain in the micro35. It is incredibly well engineered.

I also bought my 50mm 1.4 nikon off eBay, but I didn't see anything cheaper than about $80. Lens quality, dings, fungus, scratches, etc. also play into the price of these lenses.

thisiswells, I do agree the faster the lens the better, but primarily because it gives you more freedom on lighting and hopefully less lighting gear to drag around and setup. Outside it probably won't make a difference.

The price of the micro35 Cinema Lens Adapter (or as you call it "thingee" :)) has a target introductory price of about $500. If you know anything about this technology and comparable solutions, this price should blow your mind. :) We are starting to take orders in mid-May.
 
Mr. Blonde - one of the great features of the micro35 is that it is designed to be adjustable to fit any camera - the HVX-200 is definitely one of those. So it should work fine (we haven't gotten one yet, but based on the specs we're confident).

One of the objectives we have is to make sure it works with any DV or HD camera so people can upgrade their camera and still use the micro35.

Hope that helps

Cheers

Brian
 
I own a set of Arri Variable Prime Lenses (VP1, VP2 and a VP3). They're not the lightest of lenses but the glass is beautiful. I picked them up on ebay from CSC in New York. Ex Demo but they look hardly used, in fact the VP3 looks Brand new. Don't want to make you jealous but they retail at $20K (US) Each (there or there abouts) I got all 3 lenses for $15K. Sweet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top