C100: I need a New Look for 2017. What's your fave interview lens besides the 70-200?

Context.

Being close with a wide will be intimate, back with a tele 'distant' - however tight the frame.

One need to pick both the camera position and lens to work in context with the whole film.

Also where the interviewer is makes a huge difference to eyline and feel of the shot.

Assuming you also own a 28 and a 50 I would not be looking to spend on kit.. just get a feel for matching the camera, lens and interviewer position to the story you are telling.

Clearly a lense like the canon (cine) 30-105 or 30-300 will be parfocal and probably offer more options than an 80-200 but most cant afford those.

Personally I mainly use (S35) a 50 in a fairly intimate gaggle, interviewer, subject and camera, and often a 24 or 28 for handheld standing/walking interviews

S
 
I use a little bit of everything - 24, 35, 50mm, 85mm L glass usually limiting my stop to 2.0 or 1.8 at the most open especially with the 85. SOmething I did recently was shoot some interviews on a slider with the main angle being a 24 mm at 1.6 and a secondary side angle on 70mm -90 mm with the 70-200. The 24 almost wide open gave me an in focus subject with varying degrees of softness with mid and deep background . It was good look. I realize that frequently we get shunted into locations that have beige wallls and ugly curtains and then the 85mm @ 2.0 bails you out , but if you have an attractive location with varying depths of background a wide prime close to wide open can do some nice things for you.
 
I would not shoot an interview on single camera at 24mm. Even on a nice lens it's too much distortion for corporate IMO. It can work if you are doing multicam.

Lately I've been shooting two cameras on interviews with my Contax Zeiss lenses. I use my 35mm for the wide shots and either my 85mm or 100mm for the tight shot. But I actually shoot the "wide shot" pretty close to the subject, maybe 3 feet or so, which makes them bigger in the frame. And I use the longer lens from a greater distance to get a chest up shot.

Lately it seems like the "hollywood" look just means wide open fast lenses. I do usually shoot the 35 and 85 at 1.4, but it's hard to beat the 70-200 ISii... it's probably the prettiest lens in Canon's lineup when wide open, and the bokeh is top notch.
 
Some good points on here. And like so much else, a lot of it is subjective.

There is no "one right way" to shoot an interview. It depends on the client(and audience), the environment, the subject matter, your style, etc. Of course, if your style is "funky" and the clients is conservative and traditional, your style is probably going out the window for that shoot. But sometimes a very "un-traditional" shot can work or even sing, depending on the environment and mood/subject matter.

Ned, I don't think it's necessarily the lens that you don't like, I think that you just may be board. That can happen when you've been doing this for a long time and especially when you get into doing the same types of shoots or a lot for the same client. It all can kind of become cookie cutter and paint-by-numbers. Sometimes it's great when you get a formula that works and you can execute it repeatedly and with consistently good quality, but eventually it gets boring, because there is no challenge to you. Of course there is the flip side to that, the client wants something very cool, but someone else already came up with the look and then you have to duplicate that style. Over and over and over again... And you're back to square one.
 
Agree with R&G.
I once had a shoot (can't remember if I was hired originally assistant / PA or even grip initially) where I had to fill-in as the DP because his flight was delayed...and was working with the director for the first time trying to mimic the missing DP's "style" without ever having seen it (this was back in MTV hand-held, snap zoom days). A great challenge...verbal cues from a director can only go so far... but I mention this but it was a very educating experience...Being challenged really made me think about many things that often become rote. I try to challenge myself to try something new just to keep myself engaged.
 
Great reads everyone. A few random thoughts:

The framing on Sister Agnes is wide, but that could work if say, she's talking about all the time she spends in that room, or just if she herself is animated enough...moving hands, tilting head, big mouth movements...to fill the space... Also, I basically liked the framing and presume the whole piece wasn't shot that wide. :-)

OTOH, a lot of the work I've been doing ends up getting viewed on people's computers and smartphones. And when we know going int that's how they'll be viewed, we have more CUs.

I like working with primes when there's time (note that I'm not a DP, but more of a producer who's a very good PSM and an OK camera operator), but with corp stuff, as you all know, there's just not always time to reposition the camera as much as we'd like, to do scouts beyond "here's the room we reserved for you...the CEO will be here in 60 minutes and has another meeting in 90." So we tend to bring the primes but use zooms (at least on one of the cameras if we're rolling two+).

I too think the Sigma zooms are really interesting. Will probably buy a 50-100 f/1.8 before too long. But when working with them (just a couple times), the 18-35 and 50-100 sure did breathe a lot. Perhaps not such an issue for interviews, and I guess "breathing lens = bad" is more of a conditioned response than a state of nature. But dang... So Ned, if you're thinking of checking out the Sigma zooms, I suggest renting them for a bit to see what you think.

Also, it's so cool that there are so many interesting glass choices these days that cost less than a new car. Of course, the lenses that do cost more than a new car are a lot of fun, too.

This is all stuff Ned already knows. But what the heck.

Ned, let us know what you end up trying, buying, and doing.
 
The 18-35 does not breathe at all. The 50-100, on the other hand, is unuseable for pulling focus on a locked off shot. In fact, the Sigma is actually closer to a 75-150mm at minimum focus of 3ft.
 
No boundaries!

No boundaries!

Run&Gun said:
Some good points on here. And like so much else, a lot of it is subjective.

There is no "one right way" to shoot an interview. It depends on the client(and audience), the environment, the subject matter, your style, etc. Of course, if your style is "funky" and the clients is conservative and traditional, your style is probably going out the window for that shoot.
Click to expand...

Early in my career I worked as a Camera Assistant for a DP doing corporate stuff. The client was a conservative client but this DP was frequently doing things that were "radical" and pushing the client's comfort zone. 18db gain just for the look of it, crazily blue white balance that at that time was difficult to be "corrected" in Post, fresnel lights panned onto the lens during sit-down interviews creating lens flares, "lens whacking". His philosophy was that it was better to have a definitive "style" than just crank out vanilla work that was the same as all the other DPs, even if the highly stylized and aggressively creative nature of his work risked clients. He argued that if you only crank out the same work as everyone else you are easily replaceable and he'd rather do interesting work that had a unique style than do boring work that didn't push creative boundaries. If it turned out that a client would only accept bland work lacking in style and lacking originality then that was a client he didn't want anyway. Easier said than done, risking losing work. But in the end it all worked out for him and he was able to build a career doing interesting work that he found rewarding as an artist and attain a stable of clients who valued his originality and creativity.

His mantra was "put your vision in the can". Meaning, put your personal creative stamp on things and if they don't like it, F 'em. But better to go down being distinctive than to survive being forgettable.

More and more I am requested to abstain from use of creative tools because advancements in Post technology have made it possible to simulate those creative tools in post, and they'd rather have to option to go with or go without. Examples being digital vignetting, digitally applied grad effect, digitally rendered tilt / shift effect, digitally created shallow depth of field. The trend resulting from advancements in post production capability is for us as Cameramen / DP's to shoot things more "neutral" and thus allow Post more options. But that takes creative input away from us and more makes us automatons. There I become defensive of territory and am prompted to remember that mantra told to me early in my career: "Put your vision in the can." Use the grads. Use the tilt/shift lens. Use the vignetting filter. Whack lenses in shot. Fight to defend the organic. Do that which cannot be undone. F'em if they don't like it.

So, tying all this back to nedcam's thread-starting inquiry- I commend Ned for wanting to invigorate his work and I thank him for his forum post reminding me that I need to again step up my own game. It is important as a craftsman / artist to avoid becoming stale and avoid doing "vanilla" work. That is what I learned from the DP doing the corporate work. Or at least I think I learned. The extent to which I have put it into practice might be something for another to judge. There are of course going to be many times where you have no choice but to execute something in the vanilla manner that the client is requesting. And times where there are not many available creative avenues- a talking head on green screen, for example. But when possible it is important to push the boundaries and push yourself creatively, even if that means pushing a reluctant and creatively hesitant client. Break the rules. Push your own comfort zone and the comfort zone of clients. Put your stamp on the work. Make your mark. Put your vision in the can. F'em if they don't like it.
 
I have used my 28mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 for interviews, I agree with what Eric and Rob wrote. As a photographer, it would be called environmental portraiture but this kind of framing, to me, is more interesting because you get to see the world the person exists in. Problem is, as Eric alludes to, if you only have one camera and one angle, a wide 3/4 or full body length shot is pretty limiting from an editoral standpoint. Best would be two cameras like Rob shows up above, establish them in the wide, cut in when they answer different questions, etc. But it is challenging trying to find a good location where the BG shows something worth shooting. I, like you, often end up in offices and boardrooms which are either ugly at worst or boring at best and there isn't often enough time to art direct the background into something interesting. I was recently talked out of the T/S lenses for interviews for our docu-reality sizzle reel we are shooting, a lot of people felt it is a dated look and once you shoot that way, you are committed, there is no changing it in post.
 
Last edited:
nedcam said:
My Go-To interview lens, when I have the space, is my 70-200 and to tell the truth, I'm getting really bored with looking at my footage. When I sit down to edit, eeesh...I need a new look. Every sample video I send out starts to look the same.
Click to expand...

Ned,
Not exactly sure what you're bored with, but if it's the optical qualities of the lens try the old Russian lenses, adapted to EF mount. helios, jupiter, Tair, from 28mm on up. Focus pulls are pretty modest on interviews. You will get weirdness with bokeh, flares etc. Old lenses are surprisingly sharp-you may just have to try a couple to get a working lens. Old pre AI nikkors are also nice in that vintage way.

Lighting and composition, settings (locations) are very different conversations.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I second the Sigma 18-35, or a 24mm or 35mm prime, filming around f/1.4-f/2.8, typically around f/2. If you film all of your interviews with one camera on a long focal length, they tend to look generically the same because the background is small, compressed, and heavily out of focus (even at f/5.6). Film your interviews wide at 24mm and suddenly the location of the interview becomes a part of the interview, making each interview setup more unique. It also gives you a lot of choices with background lighting and set design.

Though, I may be hesitant to shoot too wide with framing if I'm shooting with just one camera; typically I do two or three cameras if I'm shooting like that.

nG2NzrP.jpg
Click to expand...

My initial reaction to this was..."How do you mic a nun?"
 
JPNola said:
Early in my career I worked as a Camera Assistant for a DP doing corporate stuff. The client was a conservative client but this DP was frequently doing things that were "radical" and pushing the client's comfort zone. 18db gain just for the look of it, crazily blue white balance that at that time was difficult to be "corrected" in Post, fresnel lights panned onto the lens during sit-down interviews creating lens flares, "lens whacking". His philosophy was that it was better to have a definitive "style" than just crank out vanilla work that was the same as all the other DPs, even if the highly stylized and aggressively creative nature of his work risked clients. He argued that if you only crank out the same work as everyone else you are easily replaceable and he'd rather do interesting work that had a unique style than do boring work that didn't push creative boundaries. If it turned out that a client would only accept bland work lacking in style and lacking originality then that was a client he didn't want anyway. Easier said than done, risking losing work. But in the end it all worked out for him and he was able to build a career doing interesting work that he found rewarding as an artist and attain a stable of clients who valued his originality and creativity.

His mantra was "put your vision in the can". Meaning, put your personal creative stamp on things and if they don't like it, F 'em. But better to go down being distinctive than to survive being forgettable.

More and more I am requested to abstain from use of creative tools because advancements in Post technology have made it possible to simulate those creative tools in post, and they'd rather have to option to go with or go without. Examples being digital vignetting, digitally applied grad effect, digitally rendered tilt / shift effect, digitally created shallow depth of field. The trend resulting from advancements in post production capability is for us as Cameramen / DP's to shoot things more "neutral" and thus allow Post more options. But that takes creative input away from us and more makes us automatons. There I become defensive of territory and am prompted to remember that mantra told to me early in my career: "Put your vision in the can." Use the grads. Use the tilt/shift lens. Use the vignetting filter. Whack lenses in shot. Fight to defend the organic. Do that which cannot be undone. F'em if they don't like it.

So, tying all this back to nedcam's thread-starting inquiry- I commend Ned for wanting to invigorate his work and I thank him for his forum post reminding me that I need to again step up my own game. It is important as a craftsman / artist to avoid becoming stale and avoid doing "vanilla" work. That is what I learned from the DP doing the corporate work. Or at least I think I learned. The extent to which I have put it into practice might be something for another to judge. There are of course going to be many times where you have no choice but to execute something in the vanilla manner that the client is requesting. And times where there are not many available creative avenues- a talking head on green screen, for example. But when possible it is important to push the boundaries and push yourself creatively, even if that means pushing a reluctant and creatively hesitant client. Break the rules. Push your own comfort zone and the comfort zone of clients. Put your stamp on the work. Make your mark. Put your vision in the can. F'em if they don't like it.
Click to expand...

I like that.
 
bill totolo said:
Well you already know what I'm going to say...

CN-E 30-105, I'm a broken record.
Click to expand...

That shot screams competence, .. but I think it has the slightly flat look that can come from an 80-200

I feel that, I dunno, there is something wrong in the distance of the placement of the three elements; interviewer, camera, subject

Maybe the interviewer is too far away from the subject and therefore there is a lack of intimacy.

Thinking on this thread I mainly use my trusty 35-70 nikkor and place myself close enough that at the 70 end im getting a nearly ECU

One problem with some 70-200s is the lack of minimum focus capability.. one fills the frame by going tele - not by being close.

So my tip to the OP is that maybe the 70-200 is pushing you too far back from the subject to create intimacy with the subject.
 
morgan_moore said:
That shot screams competence, .. but I think it has the slightly flat look that can come from an 80-200

I feel that, I dunno, there is something wrong in the distance of the placement of the three elements; interviewer, camera, subject

Maybe the interviewer is too far away from the subject and therefore there is a lack of intimacy.

Thinking on this thread I mainly use my trusty 35-70 nikkor and place myself close enough that at the 70 end im getting a nearly ECU

One problem with some 70-200s is the lack of minimum focus capability.. one fills the frame by going tele - not by being close.

So my tip to the OP is that maybe the 70-200 is pushing you too far back from the subject to create intimacy with the subject.
Click to expand...

Too bad the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS L II is so damn slow. I just bought one a few months ago and it's sharp as hell and the MOD/MFD is insane. It's almost like a macro lens.
 
cpreston said:
The 18-35 does not breathe at all. The 50-100, on the other hand, is unuseable for pulling focus on a locked off shot. In fact, the Sigma is actually closer to a 75-150mm at minimum focus of 3ft.
Click to expand...

Huh. My memory is the Sigma 18-35 we worked with did breathe a bit... Maybe it was an early/flawed unit. Maybe Sigma's addressed the problem.
 
The sigma 18-35 is a incredible lens if you need wider shots or are very close to the subject. Personnaly, when I can afford it, I will probably buy the Canon 24-70 2.8 II. A fantastic lens! This would bridge the gap between my 18-35 and my 70-200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top