Hello,
I shot landscapes in my first documentary feature with a Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 II and was pleased with the results (but no longer have the lens).
For this project, I would like the flexibility to shoot as late as twilight, and unlit interiors, so have been thinking about getting faster primes: Canon's EF 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 (not quite sure if the difference between MK I and II is worth it with these).
I am wondering if relying on primes for landscapes is a good strategy in practice or if a zoom is a better idea? There may be situations where moving to get the right composition isn't possible, but shifting between 5K and 4K while recording, and cropping in post would give me more options.
Using the zoom would be easier to carry around and would give more compositional options, but there is the lack of shooting at very low apertures if needed. I'm also not sure if the optics on the zoom actually would be noticeably worse in real-life situations.
Any thoughts greatly appreciated
Thanks
I shot landscapes in my first documentary feature with a Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 II and was pleased with the results (but no longer have the lens).
For this project, I would like the flexibility to shoot as late as twilight, and unlit interiors, so have been thinking about getting faster primes: Canon's EF 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 (not quite sure if the difference between MK I and II is worth it with these).
I am wondering if relying on primes for landscapes is a good strategy in practice or if a zoom is a better idea? There may be situations where moving to get the right composition isn't possible, but shifting between 5K and 4K while recording, and cropping in post would give me more options.
Using the zoom would be easier to carry around and would give more compositional options, but there is the lack of shooting at very low apertures if needed. I'm also not sure if the optics on the zoom actually would be noticeably worse in real-life situations.
Any thoughts greatly appreciated
Thanks