what lenses have you used in your short films?

Saharanturtle

Saharanturtle

Active member
BTW, I'm talking about actual films with scripts and stories,not arts experimental stuff, or YouTube vids/sits


Do people use zoom lenses like the 55-250 in film? Anyone got any scene examples where zoom lenses are used in film?

I only have the kit lens and the 55-250 and I can't think of what type of scene that lens can be useful for
 
If I understand correctly, I believe that Hollywood shoots on film with primarily 3 sets of prime focal points. When shooting with film, you don't zoom. You dolly. I don't recall the sizes of them off the top of my head, but I want to say 30mm, 50mm, and 85mm (wide, portrait, close up).
People who shoot on DSLR try to emulate the look of film, and so it would make sense to use a similar set of lenses (and 85mm falls into your 55-250 range). However, that being said, I've seen people get incredible looking shots on all different kinds of glass. You do what looks right. Just be prepared to have to stabilize a long telephoto lens for video.

Ideally, from a technical perspective it really shouldn't matter if you are using a zoom lens or not. Prime lenses tend to be a lot less expensive for faster glass, so I think many people prefer those. However, the convenience of a zoom is often worth the extra cost, size and bulk of a good zoom (otherwise, your feet will be the zoom, and you'll find yourself always backing up and repositioning the camera to frame your shot). Aside from that, its totally a personal preference. The only things to take into consideration, IMO, is the speed and sharpness of the glass.
 
The best answer is that you use whatever you need to in order to obtain the image you want. I have shot films with primes and zooms together. The last film I shot (roughly 30 minutes, currently in post) we had on set:


canon 85 1.8
canon 50 1.4
canon 50 1.8
canon 100 2.8
canon 16-35 2.8
canon 70-200 2.8
tamron 17-50 2.8
tokina 11-16 2.8


So it was a pretty even split between primes and zooms, and we were running mostly 2 (occasionally 3) cameras as we had a time frame at one of our locations. It's really up to you. As dishe said usually it is cheaper to get a hold of some decent primes to start out with but any can work
 
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
Canon 28mm f1.8
Sigma 30mm f1.4
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 85mm f1.8
Junk Canon Kit lens (old from a rebel) 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 for bang around things
 
I personally don't think anything could replace a 18-135mm IS lens for my productions in many quick situations, it's said that most filmmakers try to shoot at around F8 anyway and really, it's extraordinarily surprising what money is wasted during film production on things like multiple lenses, huge tripods, rigs ect ect. If you look at the behind the scenes photos of Hills Green for example (arguably the best shot DSLR film as of yet), it's usually a simple set-up that you can literally go camping with. Little tripod, little camera, little lens, and a little bit of lighting. If I remember right, I think they spent $6,000 on the film in total, and yet The Wrestler, which in many aspects was the same exact type of film, cost $6,000,000. Loads of equipment is all a bunch of showoff, and anyone going around bragging about having a whole truckload of equipment is deep down just mad that they invested in a bunch of only vaguely useful things. If I remember right, a zoom lens was also used to film the short film RIP, created entirely by one of the most talented young cinematographers in the DSLR world, and with Rubber, arguably the most successful DSLR film in the world, they used old primes and I think even some zooms if I remember right. Usually, the money-saving directors simply say that with a spatial resolution of 640P, it's not going to really matter what glass you use, it all goes through the same quality loss process inside the camera.

If you have more money to shell out and more time to carry around a truckload of mess, don't skimp out on the things you may need, but if you have a budget, the most time-saving things are usually also the most money-saving.
 
There are a lot of big films and TV shows that zoom in different scenes all for different reasons (The Departed, Firefly, etc). It is more aesthetically pleasing to move your camera to your subject (as dishe said), because sometimes zooming can seem amateurish.

Personally, I try and keep the zooming to a minimum. I will do it every once-in-a-while but in small increments (unless I'm shooting documentary style).

Prime lenses will allow you more light in low light situations and more flexibility with your DoF, which is always nice. However over-using shallow DoF is highly frown upon. If you are good at framing shots and you have good production design, there is no reason why you can't have a deep DoF (because you've put all the work into making it look so good, why would you want to blur that out?). The 55-250 lens (which I'm assuming is Canon) should be more than fine, as long as (as previously stated) you have good framing and PD.

As far as the lenses that I use during production, there are a few:
-Canon 50mm 1.2
-Canon 70-200mm 2.8
-Canon 24-70mm 2.8 Macro

I use the 50mm prime for most of my shallow DoF shots, and the other two lenses for my other shots. The nice thing about DSLR cameras is that you can literally pick and up change camera positions in a manner of seconds. You no longer need a grip or AC to move the sticks while the camera operator strains to hold up the camera during the move. A shoot day that would usually take 8 hours can now be cut down to 3 hours (if you're prepared). That said, since the camera is so easily moved you don't necessarily have to switch lenses as often. For example, on a recent commercial that I shot I used a 50mm prime for 80% of my shots and took advantage of my lightweight camera package.

I am now finished with my short rant. Haha. I hope that helps you.
 
To add.....obviously just because you are using a lens capable of zooming doesn't mean you are zooming while recording. I am almost always against doing that as it does indeed send a very amateur vibe to your viewer, but zoom lenses can still have their place on a set simply for convenience.
 
7D

Canon 22mm f2.8
Canon 24mm f1.8
Sigma 30mm f1.4
Canon 50mm f1.4

It was set in a small office.

I also have a Tokina 11mm-16mm f2.8 but we didn't use it. It's a little soft and is best used outside imho.
 
Snapper123 said:
Loads of equipment is all a bunch of showoff, and anyone going around bragging about having a whole truckload of equipment is deep down just mad that they invested in a bunch of only vaguely useful things.
Click to expand...

Why the sweeping generalization that condemns anyone who doesn't do it your way?

Beefy rigs aren't showoff, and I have yet to work with anyone who was "mad" that they invested in the extra equipment. Work a shoot with a 2-ton grip truck, and then tell me that stuff is all a waste of time and money. Things can be simplified when needed, but there's a reason the big-budget productions do what they do: they aren't buying kits full of lenses and lights and camera support just because they can. The nifty part is that you don't necessarily have to invest in this stuff yourself... you can rent just about anything these days.

Primes, generally speaking, offer better and faster quality at each focal length. They also tend to have a bit less barrel distortion at wider angles than do zooms.
 
if you watch robert rodriguez's 10 minute film school, you'll se he used zooms on el mariachi in a very interesting way:

when shooting some dialogue by two actors, he'd be constantly stopping them for a few seconds, just enough to change the focal lenth, move a bit, reframe, then go on with the scene

he was both editing in camera and creating the illusion that he had tons of lenses and crew and spent a lot of time shooting each scene

not that I'd try to do that, or dare to compare any of us to Mr.R.R., but something to think about
 
Zeiss Flektogon 20mm f/2.8
Solligor 28mm f/2.8
Takumar 35mm f/2.0
Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.8
Jupiter 9 85mm f/2.0

Dave
 
Why the sweeping generalization that condemns anyone who doesn't do it your way?

Beefy rigs aren't showoff, and I have yet to work with anyone who was "mad" that they invested in the extra equipment. Work a shoot with a 2-ton grip truck, and then tell me that stuff is all a waste of time and money. Things can be simplified when needed, but there's a reason the big-budget productions do what they do: they aren't buying kits full of lenses and lights and camera support just because they can. The nifty part is that you don't necessarily have to invest in this stuff yourself... you can rent just about anything these days.

Primes, generally speaking, offer better and faster quality at each focal length. They also tend to have a bit less barrel distortion at wider angles than do zooms.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Very interesting and helpful replies. Back ttt


Off topic: for some reason this thread doesn't show up in my user cp, maybe its because I posted it from my cell phone?!?
 
I shoot 99.9% narrative, mostly on sticks with a crew.
I just recently purchased a set of Takumar M42 primes...reasonably priced, they have high reviews and wonderful build quality.

28mm
35mm
55mm
75mm
105mm
135mm

The 105mm and the 135mm, were VERY inexpensive (under $50 each) and occasionally a really long lens can make for some nice "distance" visuals, like with FX, fight scenes and moving/car shots. BUt they are not 100% necessary right out of the gate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top