FS7: If you could only use one prime lens on your FS7, which would it be?
- Thread starter karma17
- Start date
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Only one prime? That would be my RED 300mm f/2.8. A great lens that has paid for itself time and time again.
My second choice would be the 75mm f/2.0 from my Cine-Xenar kit.
My second choice would be the 75mm f/2.0 from my Cine-Xenar kit.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
And it would be a struggle for me to shoot wildlife, sports, and aircraft with a Zeiss 25mm (wich I also own). Fortunately, we can all carry a nice arsenal of lenses that will get us through anything we encounter.
Forget primes. What I'd really like to have is a Z450 with a 22x zoom. Been dreaming of that more and more lately. I hope if I squint just hard enough I might be able to find a way to justify it.
Gizmosgadget
Active member
Doug, you'd be willing to give up X-OCN?
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
In exchange for4K XAVC-I with a 22x lens, yeah, I think I've reached that point.
Hardest thing to give up about the F55 is not the codec, it would be the 120 fps 4K. That is one thing that is holding me back right now. Well, that and the cost of a good ENG lens!
One lens is really difficult but I'll try to list what such a lens should be able to do.
1. Moderate wide to normal angle of view
2. Short near limit
3. Fast
Then again it would be near impossible to shoot everything with just one prime lens and get a good result so this mind exercise is futile. Think event with people on stage, wild life, commercials, macro, low light, etc.
1. Moderate wide to normal angle of view
2. Short near limit
3. Fast
Then again it would be near impossible to shoot everything with just one prime lens and get a good result so this mind exercise is futile. Think event with people on stage, wild life, commercials, macro, low light, etc.
It really depends what you're shooting with it. Obviously Doug feels the 300 meets his needs.
At one point I did shoot a series of training videos where the concept was that the camera was one of the characters so everything was POV and hand-held (shooting through a lightweight teleprompter I custom-rigged to keep all the actors looking at camera when they talked to me.) We tested a number of different lens lengths (both primes and zooms) and settled on a 24mm/1.4 for what felt like the best field of view/speed options/size/weight/ etc. The script was more than 300 pages and we kept that camera configuration built for two weeks.
At one point I did shoot a series of training videos where the concept was that the camera was one of the characters so everything was POV and hand-held (shooting through a lightweight teleprompter I custom-rigged to keep all the actors looking at camera when they talked to me.) We tested a number of different lens lengths (both primes and zooms) and settled on a 24mm/1.4 for what felt like the best field of view/speed options/size/weight/ etc. The script was more than 300 pages and we kept that camera configuration built for two weeks.
combatentropy
Veteran
I do not have an FS7. But that won't stop me from giving advice from my armchair.
IronFilm was right. The correct answer is 32mm.
I have an elaborate theory, with a mad-scientist hand-waviness that scares away women and small children, that ultimately dovetails into a mundane conclusion: prefer a normal lens. My definition of a normal lens is precise: one whose angle of view, in the diagonal dimension, is 45 degrees. Figuring this out for a particular camera involves tedious mathematical and optical equations (which is why I wrote my own calculator).
For a sensor exactly the same size as 3-perf Super 35 movie film (24.89 x 14mm), a normal lens is indeed about 35mm (more precisely, 34.475mm). However, the FS-7 is a wee bit smaller than Super 35: (24.003 x 12.658 mm). The normal focal length, therefore, is 32.76mm.
Since lenses, I have read, are usually not exactly the focal length they say they are (like, a 35mm lens could actually be 34mm, 36mm or even 39mm), and since I doubt that the overall impression on an audience member is distinguishable, I say: something between 28 and 35mm is close enough for this particular camera.
For those of you who are more practically minded and made it this far, I would say that a practical benefit of running around with a normal lens is that most people, even photographers, would not guess that you had shot a whole movie with it. This would not help Doug Jensen in his documentary on the antelope, but for narrative filmmaking I think it's doable, even desirable. In a controlled setting you should be choosing a lens by the perspective you want (I want to feel close, or I want to feel far away) not by the composition you want to achieve (I want the shot to be just of her head and shoulders) because you can move the camera to whatever spot you want (ideally).
IronFilm was right. The correct answer is 32mm.
I have an elaborate theory, with a mad-scientist hand-waviness that scares away women and small children, that ultimately dovetails into a mundane conclusion: prefer a normal lens. My definition of a normal lens is precise: one whose angle of view, in the diagonal dimension, is 45 degrees. Figuring this out for a particular camera involves tedious mathematical and optical equations (which is why I wrote my own calculator).
For a sensor exactly the same size as 3-perf Super 35 movie film (24.89 x 14mm), a normal lens is indeed about 35mm (more precisely, 34.475mm). However, the FS-7 is a wee bit smaller than Super 35: (24.003 x 12.658 mm). The normal focal length, therefore, is 32.76mm.
Since lenses, I have read, are usually not exactly the focal length they say they are (like, a 35mm lens could actually be 34mm, 36mm or even 39mm), and since I doubt that the overall impression on an audience member is distinguishable, I say: something between 28 and 35mm is close enough for this particular camera.
For those of you who are more practically minded and made it this far, I would say that a practical benefit of running around with a normal lens is that most people, even photographers, would not guess that you had shot a whole movie with it. This would not help Doug Jensen in his documentary on the antelope, but for narrative filmmaking I think it's doable, even desirable. In a controlled setting you should be choosing a lens by the perspective you want (I want to feel close, or I want to feel far away) not by the composition you want to achieve (I want the shot to be just of her head and shoulders) because you can move the camera to whatever spot you want (ideally).
Cynthia Webster
Active member
One Lens for a feature, eh? I'd pick an EF-mount Full-Frame 35mm Cinema Prime (for a camera with a S35 sensor)
and use a speed booster for switching between "normal" and close-ups.
On the other hand, I remember reading that "The Black Stallion" was shot almost exclusively with a 75mm prime...
and use a speed booster for switching between "normal" and close-ups.
On the other hand, I remember reading that "The Black Stallion" was shot almost exclusively with a 75mm prime...
My Dad's 16mm movie camera didn't have a zoom, it had a rotating turret with 2 or 3 fixed lenses. For my F55, I have no zoom lenses either just primes. I was about to say the made in Japan set of (6) Sony Cine-Alta T2.0 PL primes punch above their weight but it's a bad analogy as each one is about 5 lbs. But if I had to choose just one focal length for all around use (which I have done), it's the 35mm. When we think about the Washington press corps, they didn't all use the same thing but often they had only a fixed focal length or rangefinder film camera. They seemed to be able to tell a good story by moving a little closer or farther away.
The T2.9 Red 300mm PL Pro prime I purchased a few years ago from Paul Cronin. I didn't use it much at first, but following Doug Jensen's comments this was a mistake on my part. Not just for wildlife but speed and beauty with people and events, gets you in tight without being obtrusive, beautiful bokeh, foreground and background disappears into oblivion. Really nice skin tones too.
https://youtu.be/MxvWMPqLgJ0
https://youtu.be/OxYfAUynnlQ
The T2.9 Red 300mm PL Pro prime I purchased a few years ago from Paul Cronin. I didn't use it much at first, but following Doug Jensen's comments this was a mistake on my part. Not just for wildlife but speed and beauty with people and events, gets you in tight without being obtrusive, beautiful bokeh, foreground and background disappears into oblivion. Really nice skin tones too.
https://youtu.be/MxvWMPqLgJ0
https://youtu.be/OxYfAUynnlQ
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
That's cool to hear you like that lens, too. When I got my Canon 200-400mm w/ 1.4 ext. a few years ago I almost sold my RED 300mm because I figured I would never need it again. But I'm so glad I didn't sell it because I still use it often. It is like meeting a good friend all over again whenever I have it on the camera. The focusing is so smoooooth and it's great to have an iris ring. I love the long reach of the Canon, and I'm will to accept it's shortcomings, but the RED is actually a pleasure to use.
Nice videos. Is any of that for stock?
Paul Cronin
Well-known member
Glad you like the lens Tom. Doug lent me his last winter shooting stock and I have some great Osprey footage using my FS7. Now I use my Sony E-Mount glass and get great results.