Using a Stock Lens

[DP-Film]

I have been running my own video production business for the last 6 years and used many different cameras, including the Panasonic DVX cameras, Sony EX's cameras and Canon XL cameras.

All of these cameras worked great but I felt I was missing the real cinematic feel I was wanting.

In April of last year I purchased a Canon 7D and was blown, the picture was rich and beautiful and it gave me the cinematic feel I was looking for with its depth of field.

Having a Digital SLR gives you the choice of using many different lenses to get the perfect frame and picture.

After playing around with different lenses I got to wondering, could I get the shots I wanted just using a stock lens? Would it be possible for someone without bundles of cash to professionally shoot a project for top clients?

I directed two commercials last month with my Canon 7D, I decided to shoot them using only my stock lens (EF 28-135 IS USM) and I was very pleased with the results.

Let me know what your thoughts and feel free to upload videos you have shot using only a stock lens.

 

[M. Gilden]

The stock lens has merit, but its usefulness is very limited.
This has been discussed many many times on this forum already, and after the pros and cons, the consensus is pretty much that the ONLY reason people use this lens is because it was free.

The pros about it are that it offers image stabilization, tends take rather sharp images, and, well, it comes for free with the camera in most cases.
Also, most kit lenses start off pretty wide (18mm), however it appears the one that came with yours only starts at 28mm. While they are great for outdoor shots (where you'll be likely stopping down the aperture anyway), for indoors, low light, or if you want that shallow depth of field in tighter spaces, its actually a pretty lousy choice. At F/3.5, it starts off pretty high already (which is bad), and when you zoom in, it drops down to F/5.6 (which is worse, and practically unusable indoors without a lot of lighting). The fact that it also changes aperture as you zoom means that you can't really change your focal point easily without significantly changing the lighting of the shot.

The bottom line is, its usable in certain situations, but the limitations are too many to consider it your ONLY lens! Additionally, I'm pretty sure none of us would ever buy that lens if it didn't come for free with the camera.

Now, here's the thing- you DON'T have to spend a lot of money on lenses to get great looking video.

What you need are some fast primes (not zoom lenses). Primes are cheap and start off with much lower F/stops that yield superior looking images for a fraction of the price (incidentally, films are almost always shot with prime lenses, so if you want the film style look and workflow, you might as well do what they do).

You can get a Canon 50mm F/1.8 for around $100. Its cheap, and looks great, although it also feels cheaply made and very plastic. But the images you get for that price are outstanding.

Additionally, you should consider vintage lenses... since for video you are manually focusing anyway, you don't need all the circuitry in the modern lenses. A good Nikon 50mm F/1.4 from 20 years ago, with solid build quality made out of metal and glass (that were built to last back then), can be had for ~ $60, and looks FANTASTIC. All you need is a cheap Nikon to EOS adapter.

There's a whole thread on this here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?201760-The-Vintage-Lens-Thread

When first got my camera, I picked up a 50mm F/1.4, a 28mm F/2.0, and a 75-150mm zoom (for long range outdoors stuff) all Nikon lenses that are almost as old as I am, for under $250 all together.

After spending thousands on a camera, I'd think spending a couple of hundred dollars to really make the most of it would be a no brainer. If you don't like the idea of vintage glass, or really don't have a couple of hundred dollars to spend on it, at LEAST get one fast portrait lens, even if the 50mm 1.8 plastic fantastic Canon. I promise you that after you try it, you'll never want to touch your stock lens again!

 

[vision_filmz]

Commercials look good. Now to piggy back what Dishe said I will disagree on his opinion that the kit lens is not good, with your commercials you showed great work and even dof.


Now I will agree and say the 50mm 1.8 is a great lens for cheap, so you should pick that lens up. Prime lenses generally are sharper and look better though and will allow you to shoot with less light.

Look at some old lenses as suggested. The kit lens is good when you have light, but if you are ever in a situation where you need an extra stop or two you're going to run into some serious problems.

 

[M. Gilden]

Commercials look good. Now to piggy back what Dishe said I will disagree on his opinion that the kit lens is not good

That's a misquote. I didn't say it wasn't good. I said it had limited uses.

If that's the only lens you have to shoot with, than I'd say that isn't good. And if the lens didn't come with the camera, I doubt people would actually go out of their way to buy it. That's different than saying the kit lens isn't good for anything.

 

[DP-Film]

Starting small, looking Big

Starting small, looking Big

I agree it would not be a very smart strategy to always use a stock lens. Prime lenses are always going to give you a much sharper and clean image.

I guess the point I am trying to contribute is mostly directed towards those who are just starting out.

The best and most expensive equipment is not always going to give you the best looking product; I would say this is mostly determined by how you use it.

If you have a photographers eye and know all the in’s and out’s of your equipment you can create a brilliant product worthy of you clients cash, without breaking the bank yourself.

The two commercials I posted links to were shot and edited very quickly.

The first commercial linked was actually shot in just over an hour. I was able to get a softer light on my actors by shooting on an overcast day instead of using expensive flags, soft boxes and scrims. The colors looked pretty well straight from the 7D, I only had to do slight color correction. I was able to edit the commercial in about eight hours.

The second commercial was shot in about an hour and forty minutes. The location was quite dark and was lit by using two lights and soft boxes. I actually didn’t color correct this commercial at all. The commercial was edited in about the same amount of time.

My equipment consisted of:

• Camera: Canon 7D
• Lens: Canon EF 28-135 IS USM
• Tripod: Bogan, Manfrotto legs and 501 head
• Lights: Two light weight 500w and 1000w lights with soft boxes

All this together would only cost a little over $2000

My crew consisted of my DP, my audio guy and myself.

So my point for all those who might be starting out is that it’s okay to start out small but gain the knowledge to make it look big.

Here is another video I shot and edited in twenty four hours for a video competition using only a stock lens.

 

[M. Gilden]

Its good to see you making the most of the kit lens.

But, as I said before, while I don't agree with the folks claiming the kit lens is trash (it clearly has some uses and is worth keeping it around), to say that its "all you need" is kind of silly. And I'm someone who is a FIRM believer in that you don't always get what you pay for (great projects can be accomplished with very inexpensive equipment).

That being said, I don't understand why you wouldn't consider paying $100 for a 50mm 1.8 lens when using $2000 worth of equipment.
Plenty of folks on this forum have demonstrated that you can create excellent looking footage with just a "nifty fifty" and the kit lens. This isn't really a secret or revolutionary.

But just to put things in contrast: Sprint had a commercial they shot of Nascar drivers being interviewed with the HTC EVo's 720p camera. Considering it was a camera phone, it actually looked pretty excellent! But, it was all shot outdoors in the sun, ideal lighting for any camera. Try to make a commercial like that indoors, you will run into severe limitations.
The same is true of your kit lens. You have demonstrated that, like a camera phone, you can take great looking commercials in ideal lighting and environments. But what about when that is not available?

 

[steventimothy]

There's nothing wrong the 18-55 stock lens. I have one myself. But I also have a Nikkor-S 50mm f1.4 ($100). I can shoot anything with the 18-55 given enough light and it's sharp and fine. But the most artistic looking images come from the old Nikon.