JackCarter
Well-known member
I was so overexcited I missed the part about all metal bodies.
Other: ZEISS LWZ.3 21-100mm/T.2.9-3.9 T Announced
- Thread starter Clermond
- Start date
This is what I do for a living, and I must say I do not understand what you guys are talking about.
I really never, ever have need for anything wider then 24 mm. So this lens will be absolutely lovely!
JPNola
Veteran
This is what I also do for a living and I am wondering how the hell it is you shoot much variety of work and so rarely need anything wider than a 24mm. ( that is meant to be humorous and not aggressive ).
For any handheld shots where you walk with the camera a 24mm makes it difficult to maintain a steady traveling shot. And, imo, the for of a 24mm is uncomfortably narrow compared to the for of human vision, a for that viewers expect to see in walking shots. Far easier to be smooth with a 16mm or better yet a 12mm. Exteriors of buildings / homes- 24mm is rarely wide enough. Not when the intent of the shot is to show the entirety of the structure. Shooting a group of 3 or 4 people in close proximity to the camera- 24mm isn't wide enough. Not if you want any shot that includes the entire group at once, that is. ( sure, you could ping-pong back and forth with singles and leave individuals off camera when they speak ).
I do a wide variety of types of work and in much of that shooting there is a Director / Field Producer overseeing the shots. They request framing from time to time. "No, go wider than that. Include the entire building." They would be frustrated were I unable to give them anything wider than a 24mm or reluctant to give them anything wider than a 24mm. I probably wouldn't get hired again and would risk becoming known as "that shooter who really never, ever sees any need for anything wider than a 24mm. Don't hire him. He's ridiculous."
"I really never, ever have need for anything wider then 24 mm."
Then you must have clients who never, ever have any need for anything wider than 24mm. That is, if your work is aimed at meeting the needs, wants, and likes of your clients.
Last edited:
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
8mm or 7.6mm on a 2/3" Betacam or F800 style camera was always the "normal" wide angle focal length for most people and I never wanted or needed anything wider, so that has always been my point of reference with lenses for handheld run & gun. The equivalent for super35mm is 19.2mm, so this Zeiss lens comes very close to that number. I look forward to giving this lens a test drive and possibly picking one up as my new primary lens. Could be a good match for my Zeiss 15.5-45mm.
JPNola
Veteran
In my experience 4.5mm became the most common wide on 2/3" in the later years. It started out as a specialty lens but then it became the lens that everyone wanted. Some clients even specifically demanding it. Almost to the point where you wouldn't get the cable tv segment jobs if you didn't have the 14x4.5 Supersede. I shot for 7 different owner / ops and all of them had the Fujinon superwide. Once you shot often with that lens an 8mm wide felt terribly narrow and restricted. Handheld walking shots were not nearly as nice with an 8mm. I became used to the 4.5mm wide and as a result 20mm or even 18mm on s35 feels limiting. I shot on the wide end of a 16-35mm last week and even 16mm wasn't wide enough for my liking. The s35 equivalent of that 4.5mm is roughly 12mm.
My perfect s35 zoom would start at 12mm.
20mm, 19mm...too narrow and restrictive for my liking. Don't make for super smooth walking shots. Too narrow for shooting in tight confines like the inside of a car.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The thing in is in much film making you want to..
Show where we are.. establish the locaiton
Show the subjects relationship to that location
Show what the subject is doing
Irrelevant of format of imager you want to tell the story. (unless of course you dont!)
Read. (S35)
Whole Kitchen with chef 16mm
Chef at cutting table, 28mm
OTS of chef looking from him to chopping board 28mm
CU of chef face 85 or 100
CU of chef hands chopping 85 or 100
These shots are known to cut.
So the ideal is a 16-100 but you take what you can afford/carry
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Yes, I agree they got popular but I'm talking about my own experience and preferences. I couldn't stand those lenses. In my opinion, they looked asbsoluty awful with terrible distortion and produced ugly non-cinematic images. If someone wants their work to scream VIDEO! then use a super wide lens. Ugly stuff. I rarely use my Zeiss 15.5-45 at full wide for that very reason. And when I need something even wider, for in a car for instance, I have my Duclos 11-16mm. But that is for occasional special circumstances. For a "normal" everyday lens the Zeiss 21-100 looks like a total winner on paper.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Doug
A lot of us shoot for directors who will be saying..
'show me the room'
'bash in on his hands'
'bash in on the couple on the other side of the road'
It doesnt matter if we like these shots, we are just doing our job in providing them to the director.
S
A lot of us shoot for directors who will be saying..
'show me the room'
'bash in on his hands'
'bash in on the couple on the other side of the road'
It doesnt matter if we like these shots, we are just doing our job in providing them to the director.
S
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
That's not how I would shoot it. I'd use one or two focal lengths, maybe a 35 and 50, and actually MOVE the camera to change the shot. That is more cinematic than doing the equivalent of "zooming" with different primes. This is how normal human vision works. If you want a closer look, you move your feet to get closer. A shoot that uses everything from a 16mm to 100mm on one setup sounds like a TV show in a studio.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Everything always comes down to that, doesn't it? Why even bother with such discussions as this if that is going to be the final argument. It comes in a close second to "That's how I've always done it and I like the results I get." There is no argument to follow that. Each to his own.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
This is a fine way to shoot but one should remember two things
-phycology: walking closer creates more intimacy so that may not be what the film calls for especially if there is a reporter on your shoulder* changing the subject to camera distance can disorientate the 'vibe' as the intimacy changes
-Multicam: walking closer you get in the other operators shot
S
*it may also be absolutely what the film calls for.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I'd say, mid-shot, mid-shot, mid-shot, was the hallmark of the mediocre videographer. Wides can be epic. Extreme wides can be extremely epic. They're not always easy to use and often separate the men from the boys
i don't understand this comment. With a 22x7.6mm zoom on an F800 or Betacam it was hardly mid-shot all the way through the shoot. We had a much wider range than any lenses today. But that doesn't mean that a 12mm or 300mm are needed as a daily lens.
Liam Hall
Veteran
I was reacting to your earlier comment:
Wides are very cinematic, but lots of people struggle to shoot good ones. I'm not saying you can't shoot a decent wide BTW!
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Occassionally yes, but there a lot of people who rely super wide as a crutch and use them constantly, espcially in television with the camera sitting 5' off the ground on the operator's shoulder. Boring. My point is that I think I could easily live with a 21-100mm lens as my everyday lens, with the other wides nearby for special situations. Others may have different styles of shooting.
icarusfilm
Veteran
That would make Roger Deakins who shoots all of his films almost exclusively on a 32mm Masterprime the king of mediocre videography.