Which prime lens focal lengths to get?

M

Mike@AF

Veteran
Okay, I wasn't going to, but I've decided to get some primes for this bad boy for some better low light shooting. Assuming I'm going to really like the camera when it finally arrives and keep it, I've already ordered a jinfinance Nikon adapter off eBay.

Now I need to get some lenses, but I don't know which focal lengths to get. I personally don't like the lens distortion that comes with real wide lenses, so I don't want to go too wide. I'm currently looking at getting Nikon 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, and 50mm f/1.2. Any thoughts on how well those lenses work with the GH1? Any other suggestions?
 
What are you planning to shoot?

It is impossible to give suggestions on lenses without knowing what you'll be shooting. If you plan on shooting wildlife, you'll get a very different set of advice than if you plan on shooting inside cars.

Wide lenses don't necessarily produce a lot of distortion. Cheap wide lenses do.
 
Good point. I'll be shooting mostly narrative shorts, maybe a feature. Mostly indoors I imagine, but there's definitely going to be outdoor shooting and possibly inside cars.

On the HVX the widest angle has been plenty wide enough for what I shoot and I usually set it to around the 6 mark on the zoom ring at the widest. I don't know what the equivalent focal length of that is.
 
There ya go... now someone will be able to help.

Seems to me that you'd want to cover essentially 18-135mm in 35mm equivalent. Now it's just a matter of how many "steps" you can afford in that range.

When I shot 35mm (still) I always found 35mm length to be about ideal for what would be an establishing shot. And something closer to 85mm for 2-shots. Inside a car, you're going to want to be between 18-24 I would suspect. And if you need to cover some distance, then the longer lens might be helpful.
 
I think I'd like to keep this at around $500 so I figure that gives me up to 4 lenses, maybe 5 depending on if I get some great deals or not. So would 24, 35, 50, 85 cut it? Then a 135 if there's money left over? Should I seriously consider a 20 over the 24? I'm not sure what the difference in the FOV would be. Is there any distortion with the Nikon 20 or 24?
 
I think the 85 (and the 135) might be a no go. Just looked at them on eBay and they're more than I'd want to spend right now.
 
So you expect to pay about $100 a lens. I can't help you there, as I've never bought a 35mm lens that was any less than $300, and several over $1k.

I'd be very suspicious of any 35mm lens under $100. Either it's going to be in quite poor condition, or it's going to be rather slow.
 
I'm tracking them on eBay and hoping for a really good deal. We'll see I guess. If I was going to get just one for low-light use, what would be the best? 35mm or 50mm?
 
I just looked at your original post again. I would caution against buying any prime at F2.8 or higher for indoor work. That's ok for shooting outdoor landscapes, but it's pretty slow for indoor work. I'm usually at F2.0 indoors and wishing for 1.4.

I also don't know the multiplication factor for the GH1 but I know it's not full 35mm so you are going to have to go even wider to get an equivalent FOV. Maybe down in the 18mm to get 24mm equiv. (That's a wild guess).
 
Mike@AF said:
I'm tracking them on eBay and hoping for a really good deal. We'll see I guess. If I was going to get just one for low-light use, what would be the best? 35mm or 50mm?
Click to expand...

Generally a 50-55mm F1.2 is where we went for low light. Not necessarily best focal length, but fast lenses in that size were pretty inexpensive to do. You'll pay REAL money for a decent 35mm F1.4 lens, and I can't remember seeing a non-cinema 35mm 1.2 or faster.
 
--Primes that'll get you by:
18 - 22mm
28 - 35mm
50 (optional, completely depends on your tastes. If I had to forego a piece of glass it would be the 50)
70 - 90mm
135 - 200mm

Pick one from each section and you will rarely run into a situation that you can't handle as far as focal length goes. This also depends on your preference for cinematography.

1.4's are all well and good, generally a 2.0 is going to work for interior just fine on the GH-1. I think the only time I wished for a full set of 1.4's was outside shooting the action test. Only had two 150w HMI's and one 85w CFL to light an alley (flood the alley, rather). So yeah, 1.4's, 1.2's and 0.95's would've been awesome.

Are you considering zooms?
 
kholi, thanks for that. Seems my experience from still work still holds up in terms of picking focal lengths. I agree with you on the 50, but the ONLY reason I'd suggest one is just to have one darn fast lens in case you really need to make something work. Being able to "reach in the bag and pull out a 1.2 has always had merit for me. Even when I had to reframe in post.

So to me, it looks like you've got your:

Tight Quarters/scenic range
Establishing/interior range
Optiional "normal viewing" range
2-shot range
1-shot range

I think I'd be afraid to shoot anything over 135mm with my tripod so if the OP goes with a long lens, I hope consideration is given to a solid set of sticks.

I also agree that at a decent wide zoom, and a decent short tele zoom would be good. In fact, it would speed up shooting a ton, probably save money in the long run, and be easier to deal with than running around with a bag full of primes.
 
Keep in mind the GH1 has a 2x crop faactor, so the field of view is only half as wide as the same focal-length lens on a full-frame 35mm camera. So, a 24mm lens becomes like a 48mm. So what would be a wide-angle (24mm) on a full frame 35mm acts more like a "normal lens". I believe the HVX lens is equivalent to about 28mm on the wide end, perhaps even a bit wider than that. So, if you want to equal the HVX's wide field of view, you need about a 14mm. And to get something 14mm that is f2.8 or faster is going to be EXPENSIVE. Those are just the facts.
The kit lens is f4 at 14mm. That is admittedly slow. And if your goal is to have that trendy shallow depth-of-field, shooting at f4 probably won't cut it. But if that's not an issue, and you can't afford hundreds into the thousands for fast wide primes, there's an alternative. Lighting.
I know it's old-fashioned, but actually lighting your films to a level where f4 is the proper exposure can make your film look awesome. Especially since shooting at 400 or 500 ISO or maybe even 800 ISO looks pretty good on this camera.
Or maybe you can light your close-ups at f2.8 with cheaper primes (fast 28mm, 35mm and especially 50mm lenses can be found dirt cheap), then shoot your wide shots with the kit lens at f4 and lower your shutter speed by one stop...or light just your wide shots one stop hotter...they will match in editing if you're diligent. It's kind of a pain in the ass, but it's cheaper.
Another option I'm exploring for really fast, wide primes are c-mount lenses, which are mainly old 16mm camera lenses. They're not exactly cheap either, unless you get lucky, or buy a really crappy lens, but boy are they fast and wide. Problem is, they have serious vignetting on the sides of the image. I have my own workaround for that problem, but now I'm just rambling.
If you find any fast wide primes for $100, let us know!
Good luck. It's a killer camera!
 
Taking in consideration the gh1's cropping factor, do you still apply the same focal length? for the types of ranges you listed?
 
Wow, this as turned into a good discussion. Thanks everyone for your input. To respond to some of the comments/questions...

I would prefer a zoom lens, but I haven't seen any at f/1.2 or f/1.4. The best I've seen is f/2 and that was pretty expensive. I figured I could get a few primes at f/1.2 or f/1.4 for when I really need better low light capability. The 24mm f/2.8 was a thought to get something wide and better with low light than the stock GH1 lens. I would definitely prefer an f/1.2 or f/1.4 over the f/2.8, but they're out of the budget range I'm trying to keep for this.

The crop factor of the GH1 is definitely an issue. I don't like the distortion on those real wide lenses getting below 20mm. The 20mm lens is an option though. I usually don't shoot wide shots. I don't really shoot masters either. I may use a master-type shot to establish quickly, and maybe revisit within a scene as necessary, but typically stick to medium and close-up shots.

If the HVX is about a 28mm at it's widest, then is it safe to assume that at the 6 mark on the zoom ring it's maybe a 35mm? So I'd have to get a 17mm wide lens to be equivalent to my usual wide shots? Problem would be the distortion that I typically don't like. 20mm seems acceptable to me so would give me a 40mm field of view and perhaps not too different from my usual style.

I just realized that I have to keep in mind that when I would shoot in low light with the HVX I would stay wide only because I needed the f/2 or open on the camera. If I zoomed in to get the field of view and focal length I wanted it would close the aperture too much.

Much to think about. We'll see how it goes with eBay and where I end up.
 
Oh, I forgot...

I'm looking at Nikons right now. Any recommendations on others to look for that would be better at roughly the same price? Anything better for less money? Prime or zoom.
 
eL ProduceR said:
I don't know if the OP will consider zooms, but I'd like to know your suggestions.
Click to expand...

There are some great Sigma 2.8 constant zooms and Tamron 2.8 Constants that'll more than do the job in most situations. They can be had on Ebay and Craigslist for fair prices at that.

However, if you're doing a lot of daylight work, don't count out even cheaper, slower zooms. I say it alot, but one of my favorite lenses is my Contax Zeiss 28-70/3.4~5.6 zoom.
 
PerroneFord said:
kholi, thanks for that. Seems my experience from still work still holds up in terms of picking focal lengths. I agree with you on the 50, but the ONLY reason I'd suggest one is just to have one darn fast lens in case you really need to make something work. Being able to "reach in the bag and pull out a 1.2 has always had merit for me. Even when I had to reframe in post.
Click to expand...

That's a really good and valid reason. Faster 1.4 and even 1.2 50mm's aren't too hard to come by. Although I'd personally rather have a faster 28, 30, or 35mm. And there is certainly a quick 30/1.4 Sigma floating out there if I remember right that's getting awesome reviews. Needs to be tweaked a bit but still. 30mm @ 1.4 will be awesome for tight quarters.

So to me, it looks like you've got your:

Tight Quarters/scenic range
Establishing/interior range
Optiional "normal viewing" range
2-shot range
1-shot range
Click to expand...

Correct. And even then, I've gone through entire shoots using only a 35mm and 85mm. So three lenses (wide, medium, tight) will be ample in most situations.

I think I'd be afraid to shoot anything over 135mm with my tripod so if the OP goes with a long lens, I hope consideration is given to a solid set of sticks.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely scary! Especially with DSLRS + Video. So far, the only way around it for me has been to turn the MKii into a 14lb unit. At that weight I'm comfy @ 300mm handheld. It's no more distracting, the motion/drift, than stuff I see in theaters which is awesome.

I'd definitely suggest weight or a steadicam system if you plan on going handheld.

I also agree that at a decent wide zoom, and a decent short tele zoom would be good. In fact, it would speed up shooting a ton, probably save money in the long run, and be easier to deal with than running around with a bag full of primes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. An all around zoom (the 14-140 kit lens is perfect) will speed up production in an awesome way.
 
dvbrother said:
Keep in mind the GH1 has a 2x crop faactor, so the field of view is only half as wide as the same focal-length lens on a full-frame 35mm camera.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. It's about 1.4x actually. It's not an actual 4:3 sensor, it's 16:9 and the movie mode uses that. So a 24mm is actually somewhere around 32mm/35mm range.

[/quote] And to get something 14mm that is f2.8 or faster is going to be EXPENSIVE. Those are just the facts.[/quote]

Tokina 11-16/2.8 -- Incredible. Ebay it. 500.00 a pop. This lens is being rehoused for PL application.

The kit lens is f4 at 14mm. That is admittedly slow. And if your goal is to have that trendy shallow depth-of-field, shooting at f4 probably won't cut it.
Click to expand...

Most movies you watch are shot between 2.8~4. Given the actual crop factor (which isn't 2x) an F4 will produce hyper-similar cinematic results.

Lighting.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top