Which prime lens focal lengths to get?

  • Look at Nikon "E" series lenses if you are on a budget. Good glass. More plastic on the housing = cheaper lens. But the quality is close enough that some lens afficiados argue some "E" series lenses to be superioer to their more expensive Nikon equivalents.
  • Don't worry about low light too too much with the GH1, remember it's a whole different ball of wax than HD cams with 35mm adapters on the front where you lose soooo much light then have to compensate for it later. 1.8's which are much more affordable should be fine for anything you'd be crazy not to light anyway.
  • Remember the reduced angle of view is only reduced angle of view - not an "equivalent" as it's so often inaccurately described. A 25mm lens is not a 50mm lens "equivalent" on the GH1, as most say. The lens retains the native properties of the lens. 25mm at F1.8 10 feet away does not suddenly have the same DOF as 50mm at F1.8 at 10 feet away. Only the field of view changes, which basically means you have to stand 1.33 times further back than you would normally to get the same frame with that lens. So to fit everything in your frame with your 50mm you have to stand 1.33 times further back (13 feet vs 10, 1.3 feet vs 1) to get the same angle of view / everything in the frame as we've been accustomed to with our 35 mm adapters.
You mentioned barrell distortion with extremely wide lenses. That's not as much of an issue due to the reduced angle of view, because that area of the lens is cropped out.

I wouldn't worry about a wide angle lens. I'd use the stock lens. F4 is pretty sensitive with some ISO tweaking which is good up to 800. Extreme wide angles aren't that shallow anyway, so I don't see spending LOTS of money for a fast wide angle when the kit lens starts at 14mm, and you could never afford anything faster that wide anyway. Would cost thousands of dollars. Anyway - wide stuff is deep focus anyway so just go with the kit lens. AT LEAST try it. If you're having low light issues and need wide angle for indoors, then see what you can afford.

But personally, I may use the kit lens for 14 - 35, then I have a 50mm 1.8, 85 mm 1.8, 135 mm 2.0. I do have a 2.8 wide angle which was not too expensive which I will bust out for really low light. Again - with this camera a 2.8 lens will be tons more sensitive than a fast lens with an adapter and probably even more sensitive than a bare HVX.
 
Here's my glass collection

ZOOMS

11-16/2.8 Tokina (Nikon)
17-35/2.8~4 Tamron Zoom (Nikon)
18-50/2.8 DC EX Sigma Zoom (Nikon)
28-70/3.4~5.6 Contax Zeiss Vario Sonnar (Contax)
100-300/5 Vivitar (Nikon - Cheap as hell, great for exterior shots but needs serious color match)

PRIMARY PRIMES

28/2.8 Contax Zeiss
35/2.8 Contax Zeiss
50/1.4 Contax Zess
85/1.4 Contax Zeiss
135/2.8 Contax Zeiss
180/2.8 Contax Zeiss

LOL THIS IS FUNNY PRIMES

100/2.8 Nikon Nikkor Macro
90/2.5 Vivitar VMC Series 1 Macro
25/2.5 Vivitar
135/2.5 Macro (forgot what this cheap thing was, but it's fun and random)

ABOUT TO ADD THESE

Sigma 20/1.8
Sigma 28/1.8
Rokkor 50/1.2 (just purchased it)
C/Y Zeiss 28/2
C/Y Zeiss 35/1.4
C/Y Zeiss 135/2
C/YZeiss 100-300/3.4 zoom

I've been looking at the FD collection and I like the look the glass gives, I think I'm gonna start up that collection soon.
 
gmoe said:
Good luck trying to find a canon 24mm f/1.4 very rare these days... I think the sigma 20mm will have vignetting because the 24mm from what I've found on the G1 forums has slight vignetting.
Click to expand...
And expensive. I'm doing a little rethinking on my lens choices again. I wish there was just a faster version of the kit lens and then I'd just go with that.

SpecialEdFX said:
I've noticed using a Letus with either HVX, Z7U or EX3 that Nikon and Canon primes have much more of a different look than when you run film behind either of the two's respective cameras. Videos online from Nikkor and FD on the GH1 seem to be almost as drastic as the a formentioned video cameras. I'm seeing Canons as an all purpose, crisp good lens. Nikons are giving a marbled, western-y, low contrast vibe. On our show we've opted for Canon only, but I wanted to see if any y'all have noticed any characteristics between the two.....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. I've been concerned about the Nikon and Canon matching and have been contemplating with going all Canon. I like the look of both and possibly prefer the Canon. Plus, the Canon FD's seem to be a little less expensive.

Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Look at Nikon "E" series lenses if you are on a budget. Good glass. More plastic on the housing = cheaper lens. But the quality is close enough that some lens afficiados argue some "E" series lenses to be superioer to their more expensive Nikon equivalents.
Click to expand...
This is good news. I look at those too. How can I tell an E series from another series just by looking at it? Is there an E on the lens?

And for the sake of saving page space I won't quote the rest, but want to say thanks for continued insightful input Jack. The f/1.8's and above definitely seem cheaper, so I may go with mostly those to start with and see how it goes. Maybe go with a 50/1.4 though just in case I need something with better low light performance.

I understand the FOV vs equivalent. I was typing it as equivalent FOV and we should probably be typing it as something else. Maybe something like 50mm(0.5x FOV) f/2.8 for a 50mm f/2.8 lens on a camera with a 2x crop factor like the GH1. The 0.5x FOV tells us the FOV is approximately half the typical FOV of that lens.

I started searching for the lenses I listed and realized the 24mm lens I listed was super expensive. Not sure how I made that mistake. So I have to rethink my lens choices for the 20-28mm range. But if f/2.8 will work well I may be able to stick with the focal lengths I was aiming for. I started looking at f/2 even. If 2.8 is going to be that good, then I could also look at some zooms instead of primes. I wish I had the camera so I can test out the kit lens and see what I can do with it. But I also don't want to not have the lenses ready to go once the camera arrives. There's some stuff I want to start shooting right away once it arrives.

Kholi said:
Here's my glass collection
Click to expand...
That's a lot of lenses! I'm guessing the Contax Zeiss are your faves? Where do you typically buy your lenses, and do you tend to buy used or new?
 
Last edited:
Mike@AF said:
[QUOTE-gmoe]

That's a lot of lenses! I'm guessing the Contax Zeiss are your faves? Where do you typically buy your lenses, and do you tend to buy used or new?
Click to expand...


Always buy used myself. Just look for a balance between cost and condition. The Contax Zeiss are definitely my favorite lenses. I was turned unto them officially by Willis (who has an ungodly collection of C/Y Zeiss primes) and just love 'em to death.

If you've ever shot footage on an adapter with a 17-35/2.8 ED Nikon or the 80-200/2.8 ED, that kind of sharp and smooth images is what every contax zeiss lens produces. The collection is massive, as well.

That said, I'm still going to get a set of super-fast primes for lowlight work.

One thing to remember if you're mixing glass: color balance, contrast, etc will change between lenses and sometimes even between lenses within the same family.

Do tests and find out how to correct either in camera with custom profiles so that they all match across the board or in post. Just doing a white balance may not do the trick!

A lil' heads up.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
They say "E" or "E Series" on them and they say "Nikon" instead of "Nikkor".
Here's an article comparing the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 to the Nikon 28mm 2.8 E Series, saying that the optics are equally sharp, but the "E" series has a fragile plastic feel (so just don't drop it).
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/28mmnikkor/28mmf28.htm
Basically I just search eBay for Nikon E Series to find them.
Click to expand...

The plastic doesn't bother me because I'm very careful with my equipment. I've never dropped, bumped, or knocked anything. I'll take a look at those vs. the Canon FD's.
 
Kholi said:
Always buy used myself. Just look for a balance between cost and condition. The Contax Zeiss are definitely my favorite lenses. I was turned unto them officially by Willis (who has an ungodly collection of C/Y Zeiss primes) and just love 'em to death.
Click to expand...


How do the Contax Zeiss compare to the Zeiss ZF Primes? Looking at the used prices for the Contax Zeiss it seems if I were to go that route I may as well go with the ZF's. Are they somewhere between ZF and Ultra Primes?


Kholi said:
One thing to remember if you're mixing glass: color balance, contrast, etc will change between lenses and sometimes even between lenses within the same family.

Do tests and find out how to correct either in camera with custom profiles so that they all match across the board or in post. Just doing a white balance may not do the trick!

A lil' heads up.
Click to expand...


Exactly why I was concerned about mixing Nikon with Canon. Thanks for the info Kholi.
 
sniff sniff.. I wish I didn't sell my Contax Zeiss set... They are wonderfully sharp and correctly rotate the right way when using a follow focus.. (sigh) I may have to build that kit back up again...

In my book they are better than the Nikon Zeiss--
 
Alright, this throws a major wrench in things. I'm one of those crazy guys that can't make up his mind and keeps changing his decision. But I say crazy not stupid.

So knowing how much better the Zeiss lenses are, I'm now thinking of going with Zeiss ZF. I'd buy a couple lenses now and a couple later. Probably start with the 50 and 85 at f/1.4. Then get the 28 and 35 at f/2. All total I'm probably looking at 5-6x my budget, so you may be wondering what I'm thinking. Well, the GH1 to me is an interim solution.

Ultimately I want a Red Scarlet S35 or Epic S35 and I'm thinking the Zeiss glass would be better suited for the Red cameras than the Nikon or Canon. I do like both the Nikon and the Canon but I've been pouring through comparisons of the lenses for the last several hours and I'm 100% sure I like the Zeiss ZF better than the Nikon and Canon, and to me it's very noticeable.

So it makes sense to not invest money in glass that ultimately I'd sell just to upgrade anyways. And if the GH1 kit lens is that good and as Jack says low light won't be as big an issue as I think, then why not start building the lens kit I really want.

Here's the question: Should I really be looking at Contax over the ZF? I looked all over the net for a comparison of the Contax vs the ZF and couldn't find anything. There's comparisons between the Nikon and ZF. The ZF seem to get a lot of flack for being manufactured by Cosina in Japan instead of Zeiss in Germany. That doesn't bother me though, because they're made to Zeiss' specs and each lens is tested. And I can also see the difference in comparisons. On Reduser.net all the talk is about how good the ZF are. No one seems unhappy with them or has anything negative to say. There isn't much talk about the Contax, except for how to mount them on the Red One, which may be a concern initially with the Scarlet or Epic. So how much of a difference is there between the Contax Zeiss and the Zeiss ZF? And what are those differences?
 
A) The two things that will stick with you from now on: Great tripod w/fluid head setup and glass. You're on the right track.

B) It's incredibly noticable. I remember when I first noticed it, someone I know was shooting a war project and Willis jumped in later on. The first half of the project was shot with Nikon Nikkor Primes (not the infamous zooms) and the second have Zeiss Contax. The SECOND I saw the Zeiss C/Y shots my mouth dropped. And this was on the LETUS EXTREME. If you notice it there, you'll definitely notice it anywhere else. That's what sold me on Zeiss Contax.

C) I agree. If you can afford it, and are willing to take your time collecting/amassing, there's no sense in not doing it right the first time. Although do not discount the value of older, softer glass, either. They have their uses.

Today, we shot with a really old Angenieux Zooms, the thing is massive and quite soft but the image was VERY pleasing. So it depends on your preference. I love the Zeiss look myself.

D) Zeiss Contax versus ZF? Well, I've read around that they're both equally matched. It comes down to build for the most part. Contax glass focuses the same way as Cinema Glass, ZF's focus the opposite way. Construction, etc.

Also, Zeiss Contax has a much more vast array of lenses than the current ZF offerings.

E) mounting on Scarlet will be much easier in the future. In fact, there are definitely EOS lens mounts being sold right now. The issue is that EOS mount owners generally want electronic lens control, one, and two people weren't really looking at Zeiss SLR glass in the first place. Not until others jumped in the water first.

I'm sure once someone shows up with some bad-ass footage shot with C/Y Zeiss lenses then people will jump ship.

One thing about the ZF's is that they'll probably sell faster in the future if you do decide to get rid of them, and the value will still be near-to-what you paid for them. For Contax, to ensure that you get your value back you'll need to invest in good copies of the fastest primes.

Notice how much the 21/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and 100/2's go for used on ebay.
 
Great! Thanks for your input!

I've always liked the look of the Zeiss the most, so I think that's the right move. I think I'll go with the ZF. I rarely buy anything used, and with something this expensive I'd rather get used lenses that are as close to new shape as possible and that's the ZF. I'm sure I'd be completely happy with the Contax, but it would be much more difficult to find them in the shape that would please me.

So I may go pick up those 50 and 85 f/1.4 tomorrow. We'll see. If not tomorrow, very soon. Either way, those will give me the aperture I want for low light situations that the kit lens won't handle. Although I imagine I'll find myself forcing the Zeiss into use.

Did you de-click your lenses? I know the ZF clicks at 1/3 stop increments, so I'm not sure it's really necessary. I typically don't adjust aperture mid-shot.

I assume yours are geared as well? Did you do some kind of a zip gear or have it done professionally? Who did it? How much?

EDIT: You know, after we both get our GH1's we should do a Contax/ZF shootout. Would be interesting to finally see and know the difference definitively.
 
It's a good idea to buy ZF if you need near to new quality. Especially for the 28/2 and 100/2, as if I remember right they're floating element designs. It'll be worth the money going ZF because of that.

Also, the choice to go 50 and 85 is a nice one. I personally would probably get something wide (28/2) and then either the 50 or 85. Mostly because if you get caught indoors without enough space, that 28/2 will be a life saver.

No de-clicking. The iris will slide right in between stops anyway so I never bothered. I personally don't think it's necessary at all.

Also, I'm not using a follow focus. I found that it was too cumbersome for this setup and I also personally prefer pulling focus off of the barrell unless forced to do otherwise. I remember when I got my 35mm Adapter setup and wanted an FF for so long. When I finally got one it only got used when other people used my camera.

If I had it myself, I was always pulling focus by hand. In fact!

http://www.vimeo.com/1093520 -- Letus Ultimate, Zeiss ZFs, HVX200A, Pulling by hand off the barrell.

Forgot I had that.
 
Nice video and focus pulling.

I do plan on getting the 28 f/2. And the 35 f/2 as well. I wanted to start with the f/1.4 lenses though. Depending on what actually happens with the delivery of these cameras I might also have the 28 and 35 by then.

I have a follow focus for my HVX and I agree, probably don't need it for this setup. Hardly need it for the HVX. I'll try it without to start and see how it goes. I'll probably end up selling the follow focus to help pay for the lenses. I imagine when I finally get the Red I'll end up gearing them though.
 
I'd also agree on getting a 28 and a 50 first. Or a 35 and 85. Essentially make sure they're different enough. I'm not quite smitten with Zeiss/Leica that much myself though.
 
That's a focus-by-wire lens; since it's not optimised like the 14-140 kit is, it might pick up noise if you're using a mic mounted on the camera. Also I'm a little frustrated by the way the AF/MF works across the focus modes. It's not consistent in operation and tends to get in my way.
 
Y'know I really do want to try out some ZF lenses. I wish that there was at least a 135 in the mix but I guess they'll roll that out sooner or later..

Being able to own them would be a good way to judge how much I like them in comparison to Contax.

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