Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

24 and 35mm or legs?

J

jorge krausch

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
UK
Is the 35mm really worth the extra buck, if you have a 24mm and a 50mm .. ?
In other words, maybe its not something your legs cant fix..
(moving in or moving back)

(Speaking of the Canon L lenses)
 
(then again a 35mm would give a 50mm field of view on an Epic, closest thing to how we see?)

»on 5k
 
As some one who shoots with Canon L series often.. the 35, 85, and 135 are my favorite in the line up, so I'll definitely say that the 35 is worth it.
 
Thanks Louis, ive been thinking of starting with the 14, 35 and 85mm Canon L lenses ... :)
 
You'll eventually buy them all...

You'll eventually buy them all...

I am impressed with the 14mm version 2 Canon.. it appears to be much nicer than the 14mm Smayang etc..
I have shot stills with the Canon 24,35,50, and 85 f1.4 and like them all very much for still lenses.
on a smart mount RED camera, they are a good option.
 
Going closer with a 24 isn't the same as shooting with a 35, there are still visible differences. Have a look at this 28 vs 35mm comparison: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.de/2013/03/sigma-35-14-vs-nikon-28-18g-dof-and.html
That illustrates what i mean.

I had a 24, 50, 85 before i got mine and i missed the step between 24 and 50. 24 was a bit wide for some situations and the 50 already a step to much. I didn't go for the Canon, because i was waiting for a Mark II (current model is pretty old, and Canon has decided to not use that design for a CN-E version, so a MK2 should be next).

Oh, and have a look at the Sigma 35mm 1.4. I had my doubts, avoided testing it for a long time, but when i did, i decided to keep it. ;) Only a better Canon MK2 can make me sell that one (do you hear me Canon?) Hehe.
 
I consider the 24mm the last of the Wides and it offers a very different perspective vs. the 35mm even with just 10mm apart, if it was form a 50mm to a 65mm would be different, but going form a 24 to a 35 is much different, not only for the Shollower DOF on the 35mm at same wide apertures, but for the actual perceptiveness that the wide 24mm gives vs. the 35mm, and this is extremely noticeable in close ups that include any type of human subjects as it rounds up their facials, and reason why you also go wider with 3D as it offers a more rounded perceptiveness of the 3 dimensionally of a subject.

If you could only get the 24mm or the 35mm in your set already also having a 85 or 100mm then I'll get the 24mm, but make sure to get the 24mm f/1.4L II, otherwise with nothing below the 35mm you'll be missing entirely a wide lens.
 
I have the Red Pro Primes, and for a long time it seemed like I never used the 35. Then I did a shoot that was all jib arm, interior with a lot of two- and 3-shots, and I used the 35 all day. 25 would have been too wide, I'd have been fighting to hide the lights. 50 would have made it tough to get much sense of movement from the jib. So I guess it's just hard to predict.
 
The 35 is your neutral lens. Neither wide. Nor close. Amour was shot entirely on a 35mm lens, because Haneke wanted the impartiality and reserve of this focal length to give his movie the honesty and clarity he needed: the movie was about death after all, about us slowly "watching" an old couple deal with death. The 35mm was a perfect focal length to communicate the audience's experience. It neither elevated or glamorized death. It just presented it. In fact, Haneke shoots almost everything on just a 35mm, for this very reason.

I think a 35mm is an indispensable focal length. To me, you must have a 24/25, 35, 50, and 85. They are the classic 4. Over time, wides were added and a 16 or 18 became the 5th addition to the set (Touch of Evil helped popularize the 18). Sets got filled out with additional long lenses (100, 135, 180 etc). A 20 or 21 could be added for a more controlled "wide" (one of Spielberg's fave focal lengths). 28's and 60's also became popular.

But to me. A 35 is a must have. Its the one honest look at the world around us.

The classic 4 are classic for a reason.
 
How wide is the 24mm on the epic with the crop factor? Wouldnt it be better to get the 14mm? Os does it distort?
 
Tecnically 25, 35, 50 and 85 arent really so, on red epic right? Crop factor wise? Or is it just a few footsteps back to compensate?
 
25mm, 35mm, and 50mm are good choices, they give you moderately wide-angle to medium views. You can play this game forever, but in general it is easier to work with primes if you have one in between doubling the focal lengths, i.e. the 35mm between the 25mm and 50mm.

Sure, if you tend to favor really wider-angle shots, you could start with an 18mm as a base, but then you'd probably want am 18mm, 25mm, 35mm... and then you may find yourself wishing you had a 50mm. Or maybe stretch the gaps a little and go for a 21mm, 35mm, 50mm.

If you really wanted to double the jumps between lenses, then maybe more like an 18mm, 35mm, 75mm, but again you run into the same problem of doubling or halving your field of view and having to compensate by moving the camera forward or back more often. As I said, you can play this game forever. It really depends on what typical field of view you favor, in the wide-angle range or the longer range.
 
Mike Yonts said:
I have the Red Pro Primes, and for a long time it seemed like I never used the 35. Then I did a shoot that was all jib arm, interior with a lot of two- and 3-shots, and I used the 35 all day. 25 would have been too wide, I'd have been fighting to hide the lights. 50 would have made it tough to get much sense of movement from the jib. So I guess it's just hard to predict.
Click to expand...

I notice being at 35mm a lot also when the camera is on a jib. I'm hoping Canon fills in their CN-E line up with a 35mm or Schneider adds a 24/25mm to their recently announced Xenon FF series.
 
35mm is my most used Focal Length.
 
35mm has the advantage of being wide-angle enough to get a master shot but still long enough that you can push into a close-up without too much distortion. Some people of course will push in with a 27mm (Spielberg for example) or 18mm (Malick for example) or even 14mm (Gilliam) but then camera angle / height plays a factor in how objectionable it looks on the face (the face itself also is a factor, some actors look great even with an 18mm right in front of them -- Audrey Tautou in "Amelie" for example, or Jessica Chastain in "Tree of Life"). But generally if I am doing a Steadicam or crane move on a prime lens, for example, and will need to push in tight to a face, I'd likely use a 27mm or 35mm.
 
I'll echo what David said. 35mm and 32mm have always felt "normal" to me on S35-ish image sensors.

Works for nice narrative establishing as well as close ups. Had to make an interesting call when shooting a POV kiss once and remember making the choice for 35mm to give that natural perspective. Initially I was going to shoot it long, but I think there's something really nice about the 35mm.

It's also a great length for two shots and OTS. Adds a bit of scale to the FG character without distorting them in an unattractive matter.

I love a 24mm/25mm too, but I'm real careful about where and what is in frame when it comes to living subjects. Same thing goes for any wider than that.
 
Anyone know of a 17-70 L ii VS 25, 35, 50 primes comparison? Would be nice to see Zoom vs Prime side by side comparisons on red epic.. especially low light ones
 
35mm is the medium shot lens in super 35. It just feels the most "real" over 27/28 or 50. A must have lens IMHO.

Don't worry about is it L glass... Buy some of Nick's Contax glass instead ;-).

Completely agree with Nick's comments. My most used focals are 24, 35, 50 and 85 although I have 14 to 200 pretty well covered with primes and zooms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top