If you could afford only one new Zeiss Compact Prime...

[Mike Brent]

"Theoretical" question which is "not" related to me - if you could afford only one new Zeiss Compact Prime - which one would you get? 50? 85? And why? (will be used for shooting fiction shorts, etc)

Danke schoen

 

[Matthew Duclos]

50mm f/2 macro.
Of the set, this lens stands out in optical quality.
Plus you have the close focus of a macro lens.

 

[Michelle Duclos]

Silly Matt.. there is no 50mm f/2 macro. You must be thinking ZF's. If you could get only one CP.2, I would say the 85mm T2.1. Gorgeous lens, beautiful image.

 

[albert rudnicki]

soooo they are 2.1 across the set.....

 

[Philip Allister Anderson]

32mm. A 50mm will be to tight for a lot of small spaces. especially in low budget situations. I.E. When you are using your closet to double as a black cave

 

[MichaelHalsell]

soooo they are 2.1 across the set.....

Albert you didn't vote? 50 or 85?

 

[Mike Brent]

Let me ask this in another way - never mind the Zeiss: in drama work - which focal length do you use most?

Thanks

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

As Matt Duclos wrote 50mm focal length with but with speed T 1.5 is my favorite

 

[albert rudnicki]

Albert you didn't vote? 50 or 85?

one lens only would be 50mm.
However, 85mm is my favourite.

 

[Martin Widerberg]

50mm. You could use it for a whole film.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Well for about $1400 total you can get a pristine set of used Contax Yashica Zeiss T* 50mm 1.4; 85mm 1.4; and 28mm 2.8 which are essentially the same optically as the ZFs and Compact primes and fit fine on a canon mount Birger/R1 or RED/Epic with a $20 adapter. Focus throws are long and smooth and with a set of gears work great with a follow focus.

And then you don't have to choose...

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

50mm. You could use it for a whole film.

Martin for sure it is doable and I'm fond of that concept.

In that case could be good to get pretty expensive still glass like a Leica M Noctilux f/095

and use it with R1MX ISO 800 sensitivity then you almost do not need lighting.

And of course you would need some lights just because of some special photography effects but not so that much.

 

[Shane Kelly]

35mm if I had to choose

 

[Michael Hastings]

Seems like 35mm would be closer to "normal" on S35 and while it may not be ideal, but you can almost always move a little closer but there are a lot of rooms/spaces where you can't move back any more.

 

[MichaelHalsell]

50mm f/2 macro.
Of the set, this lens stands out in optical quality.
Plus you have the close focus of a macro lens.

Ah... Now I see the light!

 

[Paul Nordin]

Seems like 35mm would be closer to "normal" on S35 and while it may not be ideal, but you can almost always move a little closer but there are a lot of rooms/spaces where you can't move back any more.

I'm with Michael. 35mm is the indie filmmaker's friend. Wide enough to shoot a 2-shot in a small room, not so wide as to distort facial features on singles. In my mind, conversations about sharpness, contrast, macro are all secondary to being able to properly frame what I'm shooting. A 50mm is just too long a lens for tight interiors...starts looking clostrophobic (which can be cool at times, but not all the time).

 

[Andrew Rieger]

I am probably alone but if I could only use one lens, I would go with an 18mm. I love wide angle photography so this is personal preference but a wide seems to be very flexible, especially if you have little control over your location. Children of Men was all shot with an 18mm and a 21mm. If you need shallow dof and closeups, than an 18 is not good but you can get in close to actors with wide angles to get some interesting results. In all reality, you need one wide, normal and telephoto to get by if you are going for a standard film look (assuming you are not making a Gilliam movie which is practically all wideangle) go with an 18, 50 and either an 85 or a 100. if you go the route of stills glass, you can get all three for the price of one compact prime. The Duclos Zeiss lenses are optically the same as the Compact primes for a 1/4 of the price, sure the stills lenses have a shorter focus throw and tend to breathe when shifting focus but if you know the drawbacks, you can great results. If you can only afford to get one compact prime, you need to go with still lenses, one lens is too limiting for all situations. You can make it work but it is more trouble than it is worth.

Better yet, go with a good zoom. Duclos makes a great 17 to 35 f2.8 that you could shoot almost everything with. My set up for my Scarlet S35 will be a Duclos 17-35, Zeiss 50 1.4 and a Duclos 80-200. I figure that these three lenses will cover all shooting situations I will ever come across.

 

[Mike Brent]

I would not get just one lens but one Compact Prime and then other still lenses...In other words, maybe I should ask which lens require most focus pulling... because that's the real advantage of these lenses.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

18mm would be weird for when the actor needs to be bigger on screen (if that's how the director wanted the shots), with a 35mm you could maybe compromise some wider shots to benefit the rest of the movie, since you could do mediums and even CUs.

Anyway, it all depends on the style of direction.

 

[Carlo Pisani]

I shot an entire documentary on a CP 28mm. It's a very versatile lens, though, sometime for CUs, I would I wished I had a 35mm. Maybe a 32mm would hit the perfect sweat spot, but it's not available, so well, there you go, compromises.