favorite interview lens?

I think my favorite would be the canon 50mm 1.4 for a sit down interview and if im tight on time and need to get a quick sound bite canon 24-105 f4
 
I prefer interviews shot wide. 24mm on an APS-C sensor or 35mm on full frame. Subject framed waist-up.
 
Nikon AIS nikkors - 85mm f/2, 135mm f/2.8

Otherwise Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is hard to beat in that league of lenses.

I haven't tried it but Sigma 50-150 looks like a good option too.
 
Imamacuser said:
Hasselblad (Zeiss) 80mm f/2.8, super sharp and built like a tank.
Click to expand...

doubledark said:
is this really such a good thing? I ask because to me, ultra sharp is not very flattering.
Click to expand...

I don't find it overly sharp, like any lens it gets sharper as you stop it down (until you run into diffraction). On women or elderly people I always have the option to back off the focus, use a softening filter or reduce detail in post. I think sharpness only really looks bad in situations of in-camera sharpening or excessive post sharpening. With that said, I'm still shooting 1080P, so maybe if I was shooting 4K I'd find it too sharp; of course everyone seems to have their own standard, remember the days where people were softening their HD video because it was "too sharp", now HD is too soft so we all have to jump on the 4K band wagon.

Okay back to topic, I forgot to mention that it's really heavy, has a super long focus through (a little too long for my follow focus), and being medium format sized it's kinda overkill for a s35mm sensor, but I guess it would be perfect if I ever rented a RED Weapon.
 
abreu-canedo said:
looks great! I always tell people that I think the Canon lenses lack character but I have been proven wrong :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Rafael, appreciate the feedback. I think the 85mm 1.8 is a LOT of value for it's modest cost. The 70-200 2.8 IS II definitely also has a distinctive look that I love. I rent it often, will eventually buy one.
 
doubledark said:
Wow, that is wide. I'm favouring 70-105 range, even out to 200mm(full frame lenses on APSC).
Click to expand...

There's an interview with Roger Deakins somewhere where, in the middle of the interview, he starts talking about how he doesn't understand long lenses for interviews. The guy interviewing him switches the lens to shoot Deakins the way Deakins would shoot himself, which is wide and close. I remember seeing that a while ago, and I guess internalized the idea. If you shoot wide and get close, the subject looks like they'd look to your actual eyes if you were conversing with them in real life. You get to see their hands move, their body rock back and forth, etc.
 
I would imagine most of Roger Deakins work is with professional actors who are comfortable with a camera in close. Most of the folks I shoot interviews of are ordinary people who tend to get a little uptight when you put a camera in their face. Hence the use of longer glass with the camera back a little farther. Just my 2 cents.
 
David W. Jones said:
I would imagine most of Roger Deakins work is with professional actors who are comfortable with a camera in close. Most of the folks I shoot interviews of are ordinary people who tend to get a little uptight when you put a camera in their face. Hence the use of longer glass with the camera back a little farther. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

IMO it is part of our skill to somehow be cool with the kit in a manner that makes it invisible even if it is a big camera with a huge fluffy onboard.

If you have eye contact with the IV subject they are not looking at the kit.

The more we fiddle with the kit and lose the eyes of the IV then it goes wrong

Often, I am on minimum focus with my 28/speedbooster when doing RnG interviews.

S
 
I'm not sure what the conflict is? You can be telephoto and still wide enough to see body language, provided the room is large enough. Unless you're going for a stylized look I wouldn't get closer than I had to. . .one (as previously stated), keeps the cam out of their faces, two, avoids the distortion that come come from being too close/wide, and three further away/more telephoto you can throw the background out of focus more, which is usually what we're after in interviews.
 
Yes there is a big difference between trying to show set design in a movie, and trying to limit showing an unattractive office during an interview.
 
Last edited:
Josh Bass said:
I'm not sure what the conflict is? You can be telephoto and still wide enough to see body language, provided the room is large enough. Unless you're going for a stylized look I wouldn't get closer than I had to. . .one (as previously stated), keeps the cam out of their faces, two, avoids the distortion that come come from being too close/wide, and three further away/more telephoto you can throw the background out of focus more, which is usually what we're after in interviews.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant of the FOV the camera to subject position hugely affects feel and intimacy - shooting from back with a tele, however tight the crop always feels 'remote/voyeuristic' - Im not saying that is bad, just that that is how it is

Also the eye distance between the interviewer and the subject is critical to maintaining mood - what you want that mood to be is of course up to you.

I always place my camera and then choose the lens to get the FOV I want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top