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

[puredrifting]

When I wrote my article about "The Calling" for HD Video Pro, I had a wondeful chance to spend some time with Russell Carpenter, ASC as I had to interview him for the story. Besides talking about the Calling and of course, shooting all of his other incredible work, he asked me if I was a DP. He really wanted to talk about what I shoot, which he was pretty familiar with as he has had BTS crews on all of his larger projects. He asked what my favorite lens was and when I replied the 70-200 2.8 IS II, he agreed and said it was one of his favorite lenses as well. He agree with me that the lens is the bargain of the century, that it is capable of creating images on par with lenses that costs ten times as much. So yes, even Oscar winning DPs who can shoot with anything concur about how great that lens is. I have told clients about it, and they agree, we call it "the Magic lens" because it makes people look so good.

 

[Run&Gun]

That lens is just special. I found that immediately upon first using one, but it was driven home for me when I had one on the set of a feature film and a highly seasoned feature film DP came over to rave about that lens. In his career he has used all manner of expensive cinema zooms and primes yet he couldn't say enough in compliment of the Canon 70-200mm.

Someone mentioned iris-travel- I was looking at a photo of the Canon CN-E primes and it appears that the iris travel is relatively short compared to the Zeiss CP2 primes. The travel, going by the markings, looks more like that of a still photo prime. While the iris travel of the CP2's seems more like that of true Cinema primes. Anyone using the Canon CN-E's find the iris travel to be wanting?

The lens I want badly is the Canon 17-120mm Cine servo. You can just about live on that one lens for nearly all types of shooting and sell all your other glass. I know a commercial DP who used to be a prime lens guy but he says he is now almost always on the Canon 17-120mm. It is that good. I used one last week for an ENG-style shoot and it is pure sweetness after being on EF zooms and the Sony zooms. It has all that we miss from the B4 ENG lenses. I was even able to use my old trick of doing perfect extreme focus racks using the macro ring. The 17mm wide end is just about all you could ever want for ENG shooting and the Canon will still have that over the recently announce Zeiss 20-100mm. Which isn't even a servo lens anyway. If I could swing the price of the Canon 17-120mm I might be done buying lenses for good.


The last lens you'll ever need??

I have five of the Canon Cine primes and that is one of my few complaints: there is not enough travel in the iris. It's never boned me or screwed a shot or anything like that, but I'd much rather have a larger "throw" on the iris ring. It's been talked about endlessly that the primes are based on their L still lenses, but they were able to make the focus throw 300 degrees, why couldn't they make the iris longer, too? I'm guessing it wasn't deemed necessary by someone, because you wouldn't think it was just overlooked.

I still say, and there are plenty of others more qualified and talented than me that have said it before, these are really under-rated and overlooked lenses. I'd love to see Canon produce a "v2" set of them with user swappable "smart" mounts for EF and PL.

On to the 17-120... Beautiful lens. Heavy as F***, but beautiful and the best option out there for a "one lens" solution for people like me and JP and others who come from ENG and are used to just one or two lenses that can cover it all. Honestly, I haven't had a prime on so far this year. Partly because I have been on shoots that needed zooms(one shoot was three days w/five F5/55's all with 17-120's) and partly because a friend has been renting them since the the fourth week of January for Super Bowl work and won't be done with them until the Daytona 500. I would have liked to have had them for one of the shoots for the sit-down, but honestly it didn't matter, it still looked good.

I've heard people ***** and dismiss the lens because it's not constant aperture. Whatever... it's T2.95 from 17-91mm, so you've already beat out the Cabrio 19-90 for range at the same stop(ok, .15 stops difference if you want to be super precise, but can anyone see that difference?), and from 92-120 it ramps to T3.9. 2/3 stop difference(.80). Throw the new Fuji 20-120 into the mix and yes it's aperture is constant through the range and 1/3 stop faster at the top end, but the difference between 17mm and 20mm on the wide end is huge and well worth the trade off of 2/3 stop ramp to get me the extra back-end and overall range. And if you want to split hairs, the Canon is almost a 1/2 stop faster on the front end ; )

 

[Run&Gun]

Renting vs owning, that Karl broached, in my opinion is all based on what you do and your market segment. High-end commercial and narrative/features, yeah, more of a rental market. Network TV, corporate... (upper)middle of the road and below is owner/op in my opinion, because you make more money off of the gear than your labor and so much of TV(and JP can attest to this) is pop-up, next day type stuff and even day-of. You have to own your own gear.

 

[bill totolo]

Back to interview lenses. A few images were embargoed so i had to wait to share:

John Legend is kicking off the launch of a new series for the on-going PBS/Aol docu series MakersWomen, called MakersMen. This was shot with (2) Canon C300 MKII's in CLog:
Gamma: Canon Log3
Color Space: Cinema Gamut
Color Matrix: Production Camera

With a pair of Canon CN-E 30-105's with Schneider HD Classic Softs 1/4 and 1/2 (ND 1.2 on window):



Next up is a frame grab from the C300 MKII, CN-E 30-105 HDCS 1/2 in REC.709:



And finally the Sigma ART series 18-35 and 50-100 f/ 1.8 lenses with the Canon C300 MKII in REC.709:




Over all, very impressed with the Sigmas. Speed and sharpness of a prime lens. No way I could shoot under those light levels with a slow lens/camera combination.
They breath like stills lenses, but for locked off docu style shooting, a very handy lens.

 

[JCummings]

Here's a few grabs from work last week using the Canon 17-55. I really like this lens and it sorta lives on the camera. I'm about 8' away and vary framing from a wide to med. I like to shoot in 4K so I can re-frame or push later in HD.
Camera: Sony F5, 4K, standard gammas, ISO 800-1000, f2.8, no color correction.



Post crop from med shot



Post crop from med shot 200%





Zoom by foot, no crop.



This lens is quite sharp. Much sharper than theses jpgs. Zooming in post holds up well to about 200%. Certainly good enough for web video in HD.

 

[puredrifting]

Thanks for the nice samples gentleman, both look great. JCummings, nice skin tones from that F5, same as the F55. For some reason, the FS5 and FS7 lack these skin tones while the F5 and F55 seems to look pretty good. Wish Sony would have carried over that color science to the lower end cameras. As far as lenses, the Canon CN-es look beautiful, although I would want to also test the new low line Angenieux if I were in that market. My only problem with the cine zoom lenses, besides the cost, is that are they are too large and heavy for handheld and I do a lot of handheld shooting. Just like JCummings though, I have kind of fallen in love with the 17-55 2.8, it's a great lens, small, light and cheap. If it went to 80 or 90mm, I doubt it would ever leave my camera but even as is, it's so good. Between it and the 70-200 2.8 IS II, I can cover basically everything I shoot. Just out of curiosity JCummings, what functionality do you retain on the Sony F5 with that lens? Does the IS still work? I would imagine it is manual focus only?

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

nice skin tones from that F5, same as the F55. For some reason, the FS5 and FS7 lack these skin tones while the F5 and F55 seems to look pretty good. Wish Sony would have carried over that color science to the lower end cameras.

The colour science is the same on F5 and Fs7 when shot in CineEI. I've shot both side by side and they looked identical on the monitors when matched settings.

 

[JCummings]

I've fought all sorts of weird colors on that F5...magenta to green. Never quite know what you're going to get, especially using presets. I usually do a WB then dial color temp to my liking.
The only thing EF lenses won't do is auto focus on that camera. The 17-55 is great for general shots and handheld. Unlike some purists, I have no problems using the IS from time to time.
I do have some nice faster primes, but they're PL and it's a pain to swap mounts when you're working fast.
I agree, this lens and the 70-200 would be a great general purpose combo. I don't have the 70-200, but I've used one and liked how it looked.

 

[B.Berry]

I haven't used the Sony F5 or 55 but love using my old Sony F3, I Know that if I'm not shooting log and just shooting a picture profile, that the PP needs to be dialed in just right, I use a couple of great picture profiles
one from AbleCine, and one from Rodger Macie, it's the AB Norm and the Macie Standard, If I use these profiles under daylight or tungsten, and I know if those color temps are close to 5600K for daylight or 3200K for tungsten then the preset looks wonderful, and if the lighting is looking too warm or too cool, a white balance puts everything in back in place. Sometimes I play with warming the white balance by adjusting it in the picture profile, or just warming a white balance. Of all the camera examples I see be it Sony, or Canon, it's setting up the camera and using a dialed in picture profile from someone that knows how to set up a camera under scopes, or shooting in log and knowing how to grade the footage that makes or breaks that image. Sometimes there is no time to shoot in log, and the client wants to grab the rushes and go straight to edit with minimal CC I use the picture profiles I know that will work, and Able and Macies's do!

 

[Run&Gun]

I haven't used the Sony F5 or 55 but love using my old Sony F3, I Know that if I'm not shooting log and just shooting a picture profile, that the PP needs to be dialed in just right, I use a couple of great picture profiles
one from AbleCine, and one from Rodger Macie, it's the AB Norm and the Macie Standard, If I use these profiles under daylight or tungsten, and I know if those color temps are close to 5600K for daylight or 3200K for tungsten then the preset looks wonderful, and if the lighting is looking too warm or too cool, a white balance puts everything in back in place. Sometimes I play with warming the white balance by adjusting it in the picture profile, or just warming a white balance. Of all the camera examples I see be it Sony, or Canon, it's setting up the camera and using a dialed in picture profile from someone that knows how to set up a camera under scopes, or shooting in log and knowing how to grade the footage that makes or breaks that image. Sometimes there is no time to shoot in log, and the client wants to grab the rushes and go straight to edit with minimal CC I use the picture profiles I know that will work, and Able and Macies's do!

It's interesting that you bring up Abel's and Macie's picture profiles. Going back to the Beta says, I LOVED the Macie Standard set-up in my D50WS. I got compliments ALL OF THE TIME from producers, engineers and video guys. To this day, that camera still looks great, color wise, skin tones, etc.

But when we moved to HD, Macie just didn't translate to HD. I saw some guys that ran their set-ups in their tape VariCam's and they were horrible. Bad color, bad skin tones, just all around bad. So I "rolled my own" set-up based off of another that was given to me by my sales rep. Looked great and gave me the same feeling I had with the original Macie in SD. A while after I bought my first P2 Vari I decided to give the Macie set-ups a try again, because some guys on another forum were saying how happy they were with them. Sent my cam and main lens up to Boston for set-up and lens file and what I got back was a disappointment. I went through every file they loaded and none of them looked good to me. I went back to "my" set-up that I ported from my original Vari(took several months of trial and error to get it right in the new camera). In both tape and P2 I run my personal set-up and I have Abel files, as well. I think my "film" set-up is an Abel or based on an Abel. In my F55, I run the Abel files and it's usually the Abel Norm with standard gamma(5?) when I do sit-downs by myself and don't have to adhere to an established look.

I've done side-by-side two cam shoots(both cams on the same subject) with my F55 and Fs7 with both of us running the same set-up(normal) and I could immediately see the difference in the cameras on the same monitor. Fs7 couldn't hold a candle to the 55.

 

[puredrifting]

The colour science is the same on F5 and Fs7 when shot in CineEI. I've shot both side by side and they looked identical on the monitors when matched settings.

Really? I wonder why all of the footage I have seen from the FS7 and FS5 looks awful (cyna/magenta bias skin tones, pasty looking dead people, with a weird, disorienting motion signature) whereas the times I have rented and shot with and most of the other stuff I see on-line and even in edit bays from the F5 and F55 usually looks pretty good? I don't know Sony menu settings on all of their model cameras. Could it be that many FS5 and FS7 users are using the wrong presets or don't how to dial in good skin tones whereas most F5 and F55 shooters do?

 

[JCummings]

In my F55, I run the Abel files and it's usually the Abel Norm with standard gamma(5?) when I do sit-downs by myself and don't have to adhere to an established look.

I've done side-by-side two cam shoots(both cams on the same subject) with my F55 and Fs7 with both of us running the same set-up(normal) and I could immediately see the difference in the cameras on the same monitor. Fs7 couldn't hold a candle to the 55.

I may be wrong, but doesn't selecting a new gamma disable any picture profile you may have previously loaded?
I do like the standard gammas for quick and dirty interviews. Standard 5 especially as I prefer a more contrasty look.

 

[JCummings]

Could it be that many FS5 and FS7 users are using the wrong presets or don't how to dial in good skin tones whereas most F5 and F55 shooters do?

I've always suspected that Sony presets (like 5600) are affected by the last manual white on the camera. You wouldn't think it would work that way but I've had some inexplicable results with Sony presets.
Maybe I didn't read the manual correctly.

 

[B.Berry]

With those picture profiles from Able and Macie, I end up going with the AB Norm mostly it's still a very rich color on my F3, I will sometimes take the saturation down 10% in post when shooting with my Zeiss ZF lenses and my nikon 35-70mm and 80 200mm. I think the Cinealta branding does have something to do with the better color mojo in the F3, F5, F55, I still don't see much I like in the FS line except maybe the RAW out to the Odyssey from the FS700.I do love my Odyssey, it gives me everything from the engine of my F3 and C500. The preset balance on the F3 isn't affected by my white balance in A or B none that I've notice yet, I do know the white balance area needs to be more closely zoomed in on the Sony cameras for accurate white balances.

 

[JCummings]

I'll bet the F3 looks great with the Odyssey. It's still a nice looking picture. I have one and still use it occasionally.

 

[B.Berry]

Yes, that Odyssey works really well with the F3, what I also like with the F3 is the FZ mount and adding an Optitek adapter! Those lock those still lenses on the camera so well with no play. The MTF adapter worked but hand holding the camera I could feel the play in the lens and the mount. Another note people out there please be careful of your lens swapping and mount changing, I had just bought a third F3 that was supposed to be in excellent condition upon inspection after receiving the camera I found horrible maintenance of the front end, the FZ and PL mount were dusty and grimy, and the low pass IR optical filter was scratched AbleCine quoted me $760 to replace it. There is a great section (video) on the able site about cleaning the low pass filter, dust is an enemy.

 

[B.Berry]

I'm not sure why Canon didn't include the locking EF mount on the C300 Mark II, it came standard on the C500 and that locking does make a difference.

 

[Run&Gun]

I may be wrong, but doesn't selecting a new gamma disable any picture profile you may have previously loaded?
I do like the standard gammas for quick and dirty interviews. Standard 5 especially as I prefer a more contrasty look.

Standard 5 is usually my go-to, now. I tend to like a contrasty look and in a fully controlled sit-down, I don't need to shoot log or another more open/flat look(unless the client is specifying it). I actually want to take the time "port" the EOS Standard set-up from my C300 to my F55, or at least as close as you can get with two completely different cameras, manufacturers and color sciences.

Not sure about the gamma/picture profile interaction/disabling. I haven't heard that, but may be worth checking into. Just my gut, but I say no. But I would like to know definitively.

 

[John Foundas]

Sigma 50-100 1.8