Hit the jackpot with lenses!

lee caropolo

lee caropolo

Active member
Hello everyone i will be buying a 5d this week to shoot my first feature in june. I figured that now that the 24p is out why not? I have a couple of questions however.

My mother picked up some lenses at a garage sale and handed them over to me for my shoot! I love my mom! She gave me 3 prime lenses that are...

1) nikkor -S 50mm 1.4 nippon kogaku?
2) nikkor-Q 135mm 3.5
3) nikkor - S 35mm 2.8

Which adaptor can i use for these?

also are these a good choice to shoot a film with? They look like they are from the early 70s.

I also would like to buy the best zoom i can possibly get for this favoring the wide side. Is the canon 24-70 2.8L a good choice. Any suggestions for zooms are appreciated. Im really going for the cine look and would be willing to spend 2 or 3 grand. Im coming from a 16mm film backround and only own a ang zoom.

Any info greatly appreciated.
 
I have the 24-70 2.8L and it's great all-around lens. But it's not super wide. Many on this board will suggest the Tokina. I think it's the 11-18 but someone else will correct me.
 
The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is a very sharp ultra wide zoom which has very limited use on a full frame camera, such as the 5d2.

If you're looking for a zoom that favors wide, I'd compare the 17-40 with the 16-35. That being said, the 24-70 on ff approaches wide and, yes, it's a glorious lens.
 
Those nikon primes are arguably the next best thing to zeiss primes. You can get Nikon to EOS adapters on ebay for about $20 each. I'd look for a nikon 24mm f/2.8 ai and a 180mm f/2.8 ED ai/ais and you're set. Zooms generally breathe too much to be useable for film work. I spent 3 grand and got a full set of old nikon ai primes and a couple of iscorama 1.5x anamorphic adapters for shooting features. A zoom would be a time saver but I haven't found one yet that I'm satisfied with for focus pulling.
 
Last edited:
a little info for you about full frame lenses and focal lengths.

24mm is almost super wide on the 5D.... i would never want to go wider than that in a drama.. ever...

50mm is your "normal" lens. it matches the human eyes perspective the most.

85mm is your standard "close up" lens. you'd use this to do over the shoulder and close ups/mids and all that. just coz if you used a 50mm you'd be about 2 feet from your actor and that can be inconvenient or distracting.

anything above 100mm - some people like to use 105mm or 135mm as close up lenses. not much difference to an 85. just a little more zoomed in - which can help or be a hindrance. 200-300 is for those really zoomed in shots of people walking way from explosions and through city streets etc...

35mm is your standard wide. for interior shoots. and tight spots. it gives you a wider than normal perspective without distorting "natural perspective". anything wider than 35mm on a full frame looks too wide for most narrative drama applications.

the 24mm is the next step wider from 35mm. (you can get a 28 but it's not really a full step wider. only about half a step) you'd use this in super tight spots where the 35 just isn't enough. or for an effect. it definitely starts to distort the natural perspective.

and by "distorting natural perspective" i don't meant the picture is distorted. i mean the image you see will trigger in the brain as looking weird/not natural. it's subconscious and subjective.


so that's the basics... the widest you can go on a full frame sensor is 17mm. and that is super super wide. you might use it in still photography/architecture shots. but it's out of place in normal cinema. unless you're going for some sort of crazy effect or have a specific need for it. the only thing wider than 17mm is a fisheye.

the only reason i could see using a 17mm in cinema would be if your shooting epic landscape backgrounds and cropping for a cinema scope aspect ratio. then it could be quite cool.


so yeah. the 24-70 is plenty wide and is a great all round lens with a high resale value. though it's pretty tough to pull focus and hit marks on. all modern photography lenses are. so you'll want a follow focus.

if you shoot a lot of handheld. you might want to consider the 24-105 f/4 IS lens. it's a stop slower BUT the image stabilisation helps with the jello/rolling shutter effect on hand held footage.

now about those nikons. you need a "nikon to eos adapter". there are a bunch of cheap chinese ones on ebay for about $15. i suggest you get one for each lens and get canon back caps for them.

there are two problems with old nikons....

loose glass elements - when you rack focus during a shot sometimes the glass moves and it looks like you bumped the camera. it's only obvious in tripod shots.

and breathing. most old nikons breath terribly - breathing is when the lens looks like it zooms in as you focus on things closer. it can be really distracting depending on what you shoot.

those nikons are "ok". not great. i suggest you buy at least one adapter and playing with them before you buy a zoom.

and lastly you know about the aliasing/moire and rolling shutter issues with this camera right? :)
 
squig is right. zooms are hard to work with. a zeiss ZE or ZF set would be much better for cinema work.

i own a full nikon prime kit right now. and i don't like them very much.
 
jenningsp said:
a little info for you about full frame lenses and focal lengths.
a specific need for it. the only thing wider than 17mm is a fisheye.
Click to expand...

Apart from a 14 2.8

The glove box and in fridge lens - very cinematic - if you like lockstock

A non breathing zoom to check out is an old 35-70 nikkor

S
 
I have only read good things about the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for motion. Why will it be hard to work with? Will it be hard to focus? The zeiss ZE are expansive, you are saying that they are better because of image quality or for focusing?

Thanks
 
Thanks for the correction, Jordan and Patrick, as well as for the additional info about wide/super wide. I haven't actually worked with any lens with a lower focal length than my 24-70 but I keep reading about people who like the Tokina 11-16. Guess I should read closer to realize that most who love the Tokina are using it on cameras like the 7D, with 1.6x crop.

Good to know that I don't need another lens on the low focal-length-end than my 24-70!
 
Wow thanks everyone for your replies. jennings also thanks for the low down on the primes and zooms. I am aware of the problems with the 5d ill just be careful with the aliasing using long focal lengths at times and basically keep the camera on a tripod and some type of affordable steady cam. I think a zoom is ideal for me because i don,t have much of a crew. I would like to get a nice wide angle prime for some of the action mastershots. Im also doing the lighting and effects makeup! I think ill go into b&h to purchase today because i need to start experimenting early. (2 months too prepare) Honestly ive never had trouble focusing before and i usually make do with whatever. I wont have any type of video tap whatsoever(cant afford it) just using the lcd on camera. I guess if all my test footage is out of focus ill purchase some type of video tap. Im at work now so ill study these post some more and get back to it. This forum rocks thanks again!
 
Can someone help me with the question about the zoom? Is it that you can't zoom "live"? The image quality? Shorter focus ring? Why a prime is so much better? I understand the image quality will be "a little" better but is that it?

HELP!

Thanks
 
That 50mm 1.4 is a great lens. Very sharp with great coatings that age beautifully.
It shows some vignetting when it's wide open though.
 
Lee Wilson said:
Mike Brent said:
I have a Tonika 12-24 DX from my D90, where can I find an adapter for it? It will turn to a 19x38, correct?
Click to expand...
No.

7.5mm - 23.75mm with lots (I means looooottttss) of vignetting.
Click to expand...
Not at all either.

A 12-24 will always be a...12-24mm lens. In the full format included. It won't cover the FF, so there's vignetting for sure. Unless perhaps in the top of the range, I mean somewhere nearby the 24mm focal length. As for instance what likely happens with the Tokina 11-16mm that can cover FF in the 15-16mm range with slight or practically no vignetting at all.

What Mike would probably like to mean is that a 12-24mm DX lens has an equivalent FOV of something about a 19-38mm lens in the full format. On the other hand, if you'd get such 12-24mm range in full format, you'd really need a 7.5mm-15mm in a DX lens as equivalent. The superb Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8, for example, would equal 8.75-15mm in the 1.6x crop format as equivalent focal length. Not usage though. A 14-24mm is also a 14-24mm lens into a crop format, only with a different (less wide) FOV.
 
Mike Brent said:
Can someone help me with the question about the zoom? Is it that you can't zoom "live"? The image quality? Shorter focus ring? Why a prime is so much better? I understand the image quality will be "a little" better but is that it?

HELP!

Thanks
Click to expand...

I use a canon 70-200 F4 dont have any primes over 50 (apart from 400 2.8 and 600 F4)

Zooming in shot is IMO a no go - just no way to keep it even

I like the lense because it cuts down lens changes and speeds up filming and gives some alternative views/crops from one sticks position

and of course you dont carry a bag of primes

The 'problems' with focusing on canon AF lenses is..
Throw
Overspin
Friction


Overspin
They over spin at infinity - so if you set up any marks on the lens these can drift

Throw
Short focus travel meaning if you are USED to focusing with cine lenses the short travel is confusing and difficult to use
A short throw also means any 'marks' drawn on the lens are close together had hard to see/use

(travel is the degrees turned to get from infinity to macro)

Low friction - again confusing to those used to yanking cine lenses

------

Personally I would note that a short focus travel low friction lens has its upsides

one is physically interfering with the rig less so one is less liekly to interfere with the shot

the short throw means you can rack further quicker

the low friction means you intefere with the rig less so are less likely to destabilise the shot

Any FF motors will require less power and cost less

Hocus = $1500
Bartech= $5000 (?)

THe difference is the torque they can handle

To me the best rig is a short throw low friction lens controlled with a remote FF that translates your 'cine style ' pulling on the controller to the appropriate move on the lens

When focusing my lenses (which I chose for low friction and short throw -even though I have oldschool primes too) I find the moves are so small that I am learning to move microscopically 'feeling the force' and just 'thinking' my shots into focus - using a belt driven FF i dont have backlash issues of cog FFs

S
 
Last edited:
I need to prep for shooting a spec reality based television show.
I would like to use the D5 vs my EX1.
wold you recommend the Canon 24 L prime or the Zeiss 21mm?
 
I also don't think I would ever zoom, not because its not possible but because it reads "film student" all over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top