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 :)

APS-C or not APS-C

I think I settled with what type of lenses I want, so APS-C is not for me, I'd like to be prepared for a FF in the future and at the same time get much better quality out of the lens because of the 1,6 crop.
The question now it, what lenses?

Out of the cinelenses avalible (not counting the expensive canons) the Tokina is only APS-C and the Rokinon/Samyang does cover full frame but lacks a lot of quality in sharpness wide open.
I want to go as fast and wide as possible; around 20-24mm 1,4 would be the best for what I need right now. But I'm also very intrigued by the Sigma 35mm 1,4 (art), it seems to have no negative respons anywhere.

The ones I look at right now is the Rokinon/Samyang 24mm T1,5 Cine and the Sigma 35mm 1,4 (art). If I order this weekend I could get both for around 1700 USD compared to 2200 USD for just the Canon L-serie 24mm
I'm not sure what to do here, the Sigma is a no brainer for me, but the Samyang/Rokinon 24mm I'm not sure about, is it worth it? I mean, yes for that price, but if it's not giving any good images it's not worth it even if it was for free.
 
David W. Jones said:
Thinking about adding this zoom to my kit. Might be something that could take the place of the handful of cheep primes you are looking at.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/894998-REG/zeiss_2008_988_28_80mm_t2_9_compact_zoom.html
Click to expand...

Too slow and too expensive I'm afraid. The reason I want to go with fast primes, especially wide fast primes is that whenever you use a full frame 35mm sensor you will get an almost IMAX feel to the images. Watching a 24mm at T1,5 on a FF sensor is incredible, the increase in immersion where you could be close to the screen and engulfed by the entire image and still remain the feel of a telelens in it's DOF.
I do not like longer lenses because there's an overuse in close ups among filmmakers today where they most of the time forget that the room is as important as the actors faces. I feel claustrophobic when watching a lot of movies today because they keep forgetting to let the audience "into the room" and they get caught up in the actors faces so much they forget that what they react to is as much the other actor as the enviroment they are in. So with a wide fast lens on a FF sensor I could get those closeups with their full DOF quality while remaining a coverage of the room the actor is in.

So, I'm more interested in the range of 15mm - 50mm and occational use of 85mm, but they need to be very fast. So, as of now I do not have the money to buy real cine-primes, I have to go cheaper and the quality of a lot of still lenses are really really good. Problem is that they aren't made for making movies. The Samyang 24mm is, but it's so unsharp and the Zeiss and Canon primes are priced in the same range as other cine-lenses so they won't work.
 
I guess you have a different look in mind than I do. To me, a t2.6 cine zoom is pretty darn fast. And I question the use of shooting FF with wide angle lenses for close-ups so you can see the room, but then shooting at a razor thin full frame t1.5 stop. But hey, if that's your bag then go for it.

All the best!

Dave
 
It only get razor thin when you go to longer lenses, I wouldn't shoot at 1,5 on let's say a 50mm. If you go down close to 20mm you don't have that razor thin DOF. Going under 20mm gives even less DOF. A dream lens would be a 16mm T1,5 but that doesn't exist except in higher price ranges.
 
You may not be able to find anything wide and fast for FF
The best is the Nikkor 24mm f1.4. It's over $2000
The widest is Sigma 20mm f1.8. This is the older Sigma design (not art) so the lens may not be as sharp as the Nikkor.
Now in APSC you have the new Sigma zoom- sharp as tack @ 1.8 from the samples .
And it covers you from 18-35mm so your wide primes are taken care of with no speed penalty usually associated with zooms.
If you ever need FF coverage you can always sell the APSC lenses and buy FF.
Right now the FF will just hinder your WA choices severely...
 
Christoffer Glans said:
It only get razor thin when you go to longer lenses, I wouldn't shoot at 1,5 on let's say a 50mm. If you go down close to 20mm you don't have that razor thin DOF. Going under 20mm gives even less DOF. A dream lens would be a 16mm T1,5 but that doesn't exist except in higher price ranges.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just too old to understand what type of close-up shot you are trying to accomplish here with the wide lenses on the Full frame camera, as in my nearly 40 years of shooting, a close-up is always a close-up. And from my experience, I know a 24mm lens needs to be a way too close 1' 6" away from a person to shoot what I consider a close-up with a full frame sensor, a little closer if you are not cropping to 2:39. And I would sure consider 1 1/4" DOF to be razor thin. Forgive me if it sounds like I'm coming off as some A-hole, as that is not my intention. I guess I just don't understand your concept of a close-up shot.

Good luck with your lens search!

Dave
 
That's the trend these days whether we like (or want it) or not.
To paraphrase - I would prefer to have a 200mph car even if I rarely use its potential. One may always shoot 2.8 or deeper stops but when in a bind starving for light or that special razor DOF take it's good to have the option handy- especially at the same cost- it's like a bonus.
and the creatives will sure use it given the trends today....
 
David W. Jones said:
Maybe I'm just too old to understand what type of close-up shot you are trying to accomplish here with the wide lenses on the Full frame camera, as in my nearly 40 years of shooting, a close-up is always a close-up. And from my experience, I know a 24mm lens needs to be a way too close 1' 6" away from a person to shoot what I consider a close-up with a full frame sensor, a little closer if you are not cropping to 2:39. And I would sure consider 1 1/4" DOF to be razor thin. Forgive me if it sounds like I'm coming off as some A-hole, as that is not my intention. I guess I just don't understand your concept of a close-up shot.

Good luck with your lens search!


Dave
Click to expand...

I might have exaggerated a bit by saying closeup, but what I essentially mean is that because screens get bigger and resolution gets bigger, people are "closer" to the screen nowadays. This means that if I could immerse them by giving them a "close up" for that kind of close-to-screen view and fill out the image with the rest of the room around the actor. Then the audience "feel" is that it's a closeup, but it has much more then just a big head cramped into this huge rectangular box (the screen), which is how I see todays closeup-work being.

Think more of a halfshot but standing really close to a 4K screen, you see the actor "close" but you have "so much more room to breath in"

Then there's the noiseratio and the ability to shoot in practical lights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top