Do i need to add a longer lens to my 'film set' :)

S

Stab

Well-known member
Currently I have a Canon 60D and Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 zoom and a 50mm 1.8 prime. Both provide very nice quality, despite the price.

I am using it for my company which will make advertisement movies (usually with funny stories :P). A bit shallow depth of field does wonders for the 'wow' factor of a shot and I am fond of a nice bokeh on the background, but still it should be visible what it was...

Anyway, the main question is:

Is 50mm (my longest reach at the moment) on a APS-C sensor enough to have people in focus from, let's say a medium shot, with the background nicely blurred in most situations?
And what about a full body shot?

Or, is it better to move the camera away from the subject and buy a longer lens such as a 85mm or 100mm for such purposes?

(I dont have enough shooting experience to know that yet)
 
A typical 35mm prime set is 18, 25, 35, 50 and 85 and your camera has a similar size sensor to 35mm motion picture film.. So yes, 85 is a good idea. The canon 85 1.8 is a very nice lens for the money. That said, I don't use my Leica 90mm F2 lens as much as the rest of the range. It is all down to style though. You may opt to go the other direction and add the tokina 11-16 instead
 
It's really a tough journey covering that whole film range. Lenses don't seem to stop having a fish-eye look until around 75mm, even 50mm has just a bit of it from what it seems, and when it comes to making faces look the most portrait-esque (and getting a good close-up shot from a good set distance), having that 75mm and up range would be very required IMO. With filmmaking, though, changing primes is a hassle, can get dust and dirt all in your camera, can slow down the process, and just adds more to your load; if you're shooting with a strong light source and set, primes aren't needed anyway. Where things get confusing though, is how there's no "perfect lens" - for instance, if that 18-50mm 2.8 went just a bit further to around 75mm or 85mm, it'd be the perfect filmmaking tool, but now there's the weight of deciding how your going to fill in that zoom range.

The honest truth is if I were you, I probably would have went with this lens : http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm...32/ref=sr_1_49?ie=UTF8&qid=1296907356&sr=8-49

It covers the 17-70mm range, which is a bit better, has IS, which is a godsend in DSLR filmmaking, has HSM (which I think is the quiet motor), and it's only $400. The downside is that it's a 2.8-4 lens, instead of just a 2.8 all throughout, but that aperture range is better than what you usually get with any lens with that zoom range, and the honest truth is that with you doing comedy sketches where the depth of field has to be wide and robust for movement, you'll probably be stopping your lens down a lot (as long as you're using lighting set-ups, of coarse.) Now, I have no idea about the quality of this lens over the 2.8, but just saying what would have probably been a better "all around quick tool". This next lens is personally my dream lens for all-around filmmaking and covers that purpose even better, a bit more expensive than the 17-70mm - http://www.amazon.com/Canon-15-85mm...2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1296907735&sr=1-2

And then from that, I'd simply invest in a bunch of very low light primes in the 1.4 range if you can find them at a good price. The honest truth though is that primes are extraordinarily overrated, you can't really do anything with them - the lack of IS is monstrous, I don't care what anyone says, and after that, most of them are extraordinarily expensive, you have to change them for any different length, ect ect. I'd only try to go that route if you know you're doing a lot of on-the-go low light work, or if you find a deal for a lens that promises absolutely superior quality over any other choice. Other than that, the honest truth is that I doubt any real filmmakers shoot in the low aperture range, Black Swan's DSLR shots were shot at F8 to get everything in focus enough. So with that, easy zoom IS lenses are just the common sense choice if you make sure to research the quality.

P.S. While some people say that having a constant aperture is useful for zooming, even if you're not actually going to use the low light feature (as with constant aperture vs. non-constant lenses, the picture will 'flicker' if you try to zoom with a non-constant lens, even if you stop the lens down where you'd think it'd be 'equal' at all ranges - like F5.6), the reality is that I'd like to see someone try zooming with a DSLR in video mode, especially if they don't have an IS lens. There's a certain comedic or dramatic zooming style that's associated with Youtube camcorders or professional news cams, and if you need that, go with that type of camera instead - DSLR's just aren't the zoom style cameras.

P.S.S. Since you have the lenses you do (honest truth though 17-50mm 2.8 is a good thing too, having 2.8 thoughout all that can be very useful), I would possibly just get a 75mm or 85mm prime lens for a good deal, and put it on if you think you need more distance from your actors. You may not even need it though, I'd say try out the 17-50mm range and see if it suits all of your work fine.
 
Last edited:
buying lenses is a neverending adventure, as soon as you get that 90mm you'll start thinking about the tokina 11-16, then about a 135mm or a 180mm, then a 35mm prime, then a better 50mm prime, then...

as for where to start, it definitely depends on what you're shooting: I'd go for a 90mm before the 11-16, but if you already own a stedicam or plan to get one, maybe the 11-16 should come first

of your current lenses, I don't like the canon 50mm f/1.8 (too much contrast, not the nicest bokeh), but the tamron 17-50 non-VC is a very, very impressive lens, better in my eyes than the sigma 17-70 that was cited above: yes, it gets to 70mm, but it is extremely fuzzy on that end!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

if you decide to go for a longer prime, around 90mm, the canon 1.8 is fine, and it's not very expensive, but I prefer my leitz elmarit-R 90mm (vintage, bought on ebay for a very reasonable price, just make sure it's well preserved, but don't expect it to be absolutely flaw-less): it is much sharper, is built like a tank, has a nice long-throw focus ring, and it will work on my next camera, whether it is canon, nikon, M43, etc (not the case with canon lenses)
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Canon-EF-85mm-f18-USM-29
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-90mm-f28-944
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top