I can't tell the difference between primes and zooms and how primes are 'better'.

[Gabel]

It's kind of silly, I agree.

I am an AC and a DP, and I've been on some bigger sets. Lighting tweaks, blocking, makeup touches, etc... changing a lens is FAST. If you hire 2nd AC's, a fast lens change can take 30 seconds or less. When you call for a lens, the 2nd AC should be standing close to the lens box, they grab it, carry it over where the 1st is already holding the previous lens with one hand and covering the port cover with the other. You do the handoff, put the lens back on and done. Swing the mattebox shut, and since you're using cinema lenses, (same sized front, similar length) they require little adjustment after the change, and there you go. Faster than makeup can likely do re-touches, or a director can finish giving notes.

The only time I think zooms are essential are with some music videos or shoots where reframing during the shot is needed, where the cameraman and director watch something like a performance, and they can just snap in and grab CU's then come back out. Smash and grab shooting. Works for interviews, and other applications too. A great way, and really only reason to utilize a zoom other than using the zoom in a shot.

I see the convenience of zooms, but I shutter when people dismiss primes because they take too long to change. They take too long because the producers probably hired just one AC, a random assortment of photography lenses of all different sizes, and a DSLR so buried in zacuto accessories you have to get an excavation team to the lens. Of course a lens change will take awhile!

Well said! Most of the time you don't need to wait long for a lens change, as most of the time there are other things to be done as you mentioned. Zooms are a must for one-man band stuff (where changing lenses is HELL), but those are not really cinematography (rather videography). Weight and size is another factor against zooms, as mentioned. Shooting interiors on location with a 2' zoom sticking out, requiring a 6x6 mattebox, instead of getting away with a 4x4 does make a big difference. I'm the 2nd AC on a feature we're shooting on a RED ONE MX where we have an old Angenieux 25-250 3.7 zoom that is our go to one, but that is because the DP really likes the character of it, with it's imperfections. But we still have a set of SuperSpeeds along, both for speed, but also size. On them we can strip down size a lot, with a small Arri clamp on mattebox and lost about a 1/3 of the camera size. But with the zoom on, every time we move the camera or adjust the tripod the 1st AC needs to take of the camera, move the tripod and them fetch it, as it's just too heavy to do otherwise.

 

[J.F.R.]

To the op, tell me 1 single zoom lens that does this kind of bokeh


It's more than saving time or just framing, many prime lenses just have a distinctive character that simply cannot be replaced with a zoom and vice versa. Zooms are a very great convenience from the lower all the way to expensive cinema, but still the fact remains that certain prime lenses image can simply not be re created. Also you have lens baby lenses and many other "special" type lenses that provide a look that simply cannot be done with a zoom lens. This is one of the main reasons why primes will always exist even though for framing purposes a zoom is easier/faster to work with.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Yep. I have three different 28mm lenses. One has a bit of vignette I LOVE for some shots. One is quite fast with warm colors, one is super crisp. I use different ones depending on what I want in a particular shot. I have multiples of most of my focal lengths, each with it's own character.

 

[David W. Jones]

To the op, tell me 1 single zoom lens that does this kind of bokeh
View attachment 59069

It's more than saving time or just framing, many prime lenses just have a distinctive character that simply cannot be replaced with a zoom and vice versa. Zooms are a very great convenience from the lower all the way to expensive cinema, but still the fact remains that certain prime lenses image can simply not be re created. Also you have lens baby lenses and many other "special" type lenses that provide a look that simply cannot be done with a zoom lens. This is one of the main reasons why primes will always exist even though for framing purposes a zoom is easier/faster to work with.

I would suggest that this is really true on a lens by lens basis. I have somewhere between 50 and 70 different lenses, I'd have to pull them all out to really be sure, but different primes exhibit different bokeh, and the same is true with different zooms. I don't know that I would judge all zoom lenses against the bokeh of the lens photo pictured. Unless of course your bread and butter are out of focus "bokeh shots" without an actual in focus subject.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I would suggest that this is really true on a lens by lens basis. I have somewhere between 50 and 70 different lenses, I'd have to pull them all out to really be sure, but different primes exhibit different bokeh, and the same is true with different zooms. I don't know that I would judge all zoom lenses against the bokeh of the lens photo pictured. Unless of course your bread and butter are out of focus "bokeh shots" without an actual in focus subject.

I realized some time ago why 'bokeh' never was an issue for me in 'appreciating' a lens... I usually stop down to the point were one can 'barely' see bokeh in the distance... only a few shots that I have taken are such 'wide open' or subject small, near, and DoF fall off such that distant objects are 'really out of focus'...

Heck I always have wanted one of those 'shift/tilt' lenses just to 'tilt to lay down the plane of sharp focus, such that DoF would go from 'here to infinity'... well, provided no people or buildings in the shot... for that the split diopter would do better...

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

I tend to shoot wides with deep DOF and closeups (and sometimes mediums) with fairly shallow DOF so the focal length is working for me as well as the aperture. No doubt some lenses do have pretty ugly bokeh and some are quite beautiful.

 

[David G. Smith]

Nope...location. Two cameras most of the time; studio mode, Steadicam, handheld. Included several night exteriors and mini-moves, too.

Sadly, those kind of stats are no longer surprising to me. Personal record was on a web series earlier this year where we averaged 83 setups a day. That one was 105 pages (plus alts and improv) in 8 days. It was indecent.



On jobs like these, if I'm not thinking (and passing out lighting notes) at least three setups ahead at all times, we go down in flames. No room for error--no sleep until Brooklyn. *sigh*

83 set ups a day is Roger Corman 6 day AIP 70 minute feature territory!!! Please tell me that total is for 2 cameras.

Very impressive. Thanks for sharing.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Yes, two cameras! And that one was a spoof reality show--still had to light it, though.

Something in this discussion reminded me of a little trend that seemed to come up years ago, when the Primo 40 was the hot lens. They have a 35 also, but the 40 seemed to be the one that ended up in the package more often. I remember one show where we did have both, and the director all but sneered at the 35..."the 40 is just such a better look". One day when the director called for the 40, the AC cheekily put the 35 on the finder (with the focal length indicator covered with tape) and handed it over. The director walked through the shot and when he handed the finder back announced "Man! LOVE that 40! So beautiful!" etc.

We enjoyed that.