Quick Discussion: Favorite Lenses/Focal Lengths and why?

[Phil Holland]

Today I spoke with a DP over some decent sushi on Sunday and we talked lenses for probably a solid 2 hours.

I'm a bit of a lens nut in general, but I thought it would be nice to have a light hearted discussion about your favorite lenses and why they became that treasure for you.

It could be a zoom, a prime, a set of primes, that lens you used shooting your first project; whatever.

We've got a huge amount of owners, Directors of Photography, Operators, and shooters on this board. This could be a fun thread and I'd love to hear about your lens journey.

 

[Nick Wernham]

I'm a director rather than a cinematographer. Most of my works to this point have been comedies: a dark comedy about greed, a farcical comedy about bureaucracy and a weird romantic comedy about the meaning of love with elements of magical realism (my feature directorial debut, which we go to camera on in May). Obviously in narrative work you wind up using at least a few different lenses of varying focal lengths for different purposes, but I like the idea that the audience's sense of perspective for most of the film remains fairly constant and that you move the camera to alter composition rather than changing the focal length. In essence, I like using a couple of "hero" lenses and then splashing in a few other focal lengths for effect when it is motivated.

I think that switching up the audience's sense of perspective can have a very powerful impact on their emotional response to a shot, but only if it doesn't feel like that variable is constantly changing in order to accomodate different frame sizes on characters. I really feel as if, whenever logistical factors such as the size of the location allow for it, the variables which a director and cinematographer should be making their decisions based on are that sense of perspective and the field of view. The camera's position should be the variable that is allowed to change to accomodate these creative decisions. I realize that this is just one opinion though and how appropriate this point of view is depends to a great degree on story and on other visual choices which the filmmaker is making.

In general I like my "hero" lens to be a bit wider than the standard lens on a given format. I like it to be close enough to the sense of perspective which we see with the human eye to convince an audience that is what it is most of the time, but sufficiently wide so as to allow for the faces of the characters to distort in a comic way as they move very close to the camera (without feeling too fishy). On an Epic in 5k this is about a 25mm lens. I actually think that a 27mm might be better, but I have only used that focal length when shooting 2-perf 35mm so I want to do some tests before we go to camera on the feature.

 

[Christopher Barrett]

My most unexpectedly frequently used the lens... the 18mm. Totally saves my ass on interiors. This was an add-on to my original set of Cookes and the day it came in I used it on half our setups. Weird, cause I typically prefer the tele's.

It's got a bit of barrel distortion, which I'm going to start to play with correcting in AE

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

Oh heck... I love all kinds of glass for all kinds of reasons, but if I had to pick... well I'll allow myself two, and I'll simplify the choice enormously; I'll restrict myself to lenses I *own*.

Cinema glass... I love the RPZ 18-85mm. Very sharp, very cheap, mechanically sound - and it's earned me $$$ - which, let's face it, is about the best measure of any lens!

Stills glass... no secret, I LOVE the Nikon 14-24mm. It's a real gem, astonishing optical quality for a cheap mass-produced lens. There's a *reason* stills guys buy adapters and use them on Canons, and there's a *reason* people will pay $10,000 for a Ruby rehousing. Oh, and it's earned me $$$ too

If I DO go wider and consider lenses I don't own, no contest: MPs. Simply perfection. What I shoot, I usually want perfection, and speed, not 'character'. I can't come close financially to investing in MPs yet, but I've just ordered a Master Zoom; watch this space

Mike

 

[Paul Russell]

Always being on a tight budget means scouring 2nd hand dealers for good lenses. Right now my favourite primes are a bunch made for the old Mamiya 645 series. They have a long manual focus, excellent contrasty and sharp optics, are built to last centuries and cost next to nothing. Unfortunately they only go down to f3.5 or f4, but for daylight shoots they work really well. Oh, and because they're built for the 645 they'll have no problem covering a dragon sensor. The main US clearing house is KEH.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

On Red/Alexa/35...

32mm. 40mm. 75mm (the 75 s4, oh man, there's not a woman alive that doesn't look glow in front of that damn thing).
any zeiss 135mm and the leica 90mm.
14mm. above all else, especially the nikon/focus optics 14mm. even compared to the cooke 12, go figure! somehow 14 is perfect.

To me these focal lengths tell the story. A 21 feels like a fast inhale, the 35 feels like someone took your breath away, a 28 is like slowly breathing out... all lenses are beautiful... but somehow the ones above just do it for me. plenty of DPs like to hang out between a 24 and a 40 and pull off incredible shots that feel intimate in that "medium wide" range... shots that you or I couldn't make look as good on a 60 or 85... because it's not physically possible. you could try all day and it won't look the same. that's why the big boys get paid what they do, and why real lighting is not a skirted china ball or a three quarter back key and some wrap light... pulling off an intimate low angle medium close on a 28 or 32 while making the actress look 10 years younger is no small feat... anyone can slap on an 85 to throw the trees out of focus and make her nose small.

On 16mm/Ikonoskop...

5.9mm. 3mm. 16mm. 20mm. 7mm. 75mm.

There is something completely different about the way a 16mm lens renders the image compared to a 35mm lens with twice the focal length. A 7mm lens on 16 is completely different compared to a 14mm lens on 35. I am not intelligent enough to understand the physics behind why each feels so unique. neither one is better, but that doesn't explain why I love 25mm on 16 but usually despise a 50 on 35.

all I know is a shot like the one below (7mm, Ikonoskop) would not feel the same if it were a 13 or 14mm lens on 35. same goes for the one beneath it, 25mm, from about 8 ft away, a 50 just would not feel the same... and I'm not talking about depth of field. it's something about the physics of the way objects and faces are formed! I hope the new red sensor allows for user-definable resolutions, as we might get around 3K with Super16mm glass, enough for web work that isn't destined for a 4K future.

Sometimes it's not about sharpness it's about feel.

Both images are available light, no color grade, so it's all about the glass here.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

hey Phil, if we're giving up all our thoughts and tricks, what'dya pickup from Mr. decent sushi?

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

And Phil I want to know what sushi place you hit?

BTW I was so a Primo guy for about 13 features and now there are so many choices I cannot begin to pick... I have Nikon primes that i own. And the Tokina 11-16 can work for me. But I did shoot the Leicas and they were smooth. Would really love to shoot all the anamorphic glass out there. I only know the C's G's and E's from PV. Very excited about the Cooke Anamorphic primes

 

[PatrickFaith]

I have Nikon primes that i own. ... Would really love to shoot all the anamorphic glass out there. I only know the C's G's and E's from PV. Very excited about the Cooke Anamorphic primes

The current lens that most "pulls" me into the picture plane is the Zeis/arri anamorphic master prime. ( I haven't been able to test the other new anamorphics)

I also have some nikon lenses I really love for some "emotional" reason that I can't really give a logical reason for, i could see myself shooting a entire film with a set of nikon lenses.

My main goto lens is my 35mm & 50mm RPP (those lenses just give me r3d's that make me look like I know what i'm doing).

 

[Phil Holland]

hey Phil, if we're giving up all our thoughts and tricks, what'dya pickup from Mr. decent sushi?

Heh. We were actually talking about NAB and new glass on the horizon. He poked fun at me about how "green" I am when it comes to cinema zooms. I think I proved that when Evin brought his Optimos to SALT II and I was looking at them like they were from another planet. I'd say the vast majority of my work has been shot on primes, so that does make sense. But damn I have to say, newer zoom designs are pretty incredible.

And Phil I want to know what sushi place you hit?

We hit Katsu-ya in Studio City. I'm a sushi nut and I'd say that's pretty decent sushi. Not the best I've had, but it's up there.
Really wish I got to hang out a bit with you on Hop Peter. I was down at the Lot shooting VFX stuff and saw you around. Don't know who shot the LA night scenes with the Red One on that, but I know I'm the one who processed and color corrected them down the line because I was the "Red guy"


I totally went about this whole thing pretty backwards. I started off in the industry more on the VFX side of things and capturing "clean" elements was ideal. I remember the first time I used a Master Prime and it pretty much blew me away. I was already fascinated by still lenses and anamorphics at that point. It's been a weird balance of lenses with a lot of character and more of that clean and clinical look. I did a lot of quality control work early on inspecting negative and film scans. I think that closer inspection made me a bit crazy. I loved the images that were coming in and seeing the craftsmanship it took to pull off those shots impressed the hell out of me.

Tinkered a bit with 8mm and 16mm before I started working. Having access to film scanners, laser recorders, and both S35 and VistaVision cameras early on made me hate DV and even HD to an extent.

Came from humble beginnings, but was totally spoiled by what was around me and eventually what I was doing I guess.

I have two sides of me. I love folks that can pull off an entire feature with a single focal length. Those 21, 25, 32, 35mm folks. Love that. I tend to plan out shots with a frame in mind and focus on depth of field, compression, and perspective. So I end up using a few primes usually. I'm one of those if I'm not using one lens, I'm probably using 3 focal lengths. If I need 4, I'll probably go to 5. Just a weird thing I've noticed. Kind of makes sense though when you think about general coverage. Don't mind going out with a 35mm. I'd feel weird shooting anything with only a 50mm on S35 though. 21-25mm makes sense to me. Anything in that normal or slightly wider or longer than normal fov feel about right if I had to choose just once lens.

Got pretty addicted to glass though. Same with formats. Can't seem to kick it.

 

[Phil Holland]

I guess I should add, much of the reason that this is on my mind is that I'm finally at a place where I'm going to invest in some proper cinema glass and some other serious thing I don't currently have. Nervous. Exciting.

Primes first. Zooms next. Lots on my mind. Can't afford the big pizza with all the works, but I can finally get a good set of quality glass for VFX, commercial, and narrative work. Exactly what I need to add to my world to help out with my business plan and hopefully further my craft.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Phil, heard great things about the canon cine zooms. Tried those?

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil, heard great things about the canon cine zooms. Tried those?

I've seen two of those on a projector at Duclos when we did the SALT III High Speed Lens Test. Gotta say I'm impressed by what they can do. Good value to me.

Why on earth Canon has zooms with a PL option and primes without that option confuses/angers/frightens me.

 

[Nick Wernham]

I like the Red Pro Primes which our company owns a lot, but our production is considering renting some Cooke S4 lenses in order to get certain focal lengths which that set doesn't have access to (particularly a 21mm for some wider shots which just seems like it might be right, a 27mm for our "hero" lens and a 40mm which I want to use for our inserts). I've always just loved the "Cooke look" too. I recognize that most people seem to like Master Primes the best of all, but there's just something about the Cookes on an Epic. I'm not nearly as gear savvy as most of the folks here so perhaps another Cooke fan could explain it better than me which is to say that they could explain it at all.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

I'm not nearly as gear savvy as most of the folks here

I'd take one guy who's image-savvy over ten guys who are gear-savvy.

Mike

 

[Christopher Mills]

The Canon Cine Zooms

The Canon Cine Zooms

Just did a BTS gig on a tv series that's using the new canon zooms.. they look very nice, work well with a subtle lighting look (as it has not aired, I can not name it)..
the ACs tell me they wish the close focus were nearer (the 30-80 CF is 5 feet), as these sets have less wild walls than usual.
They are not handheld friendly, but are full scale production appropriate glass.

 

[Ken Robings]

Here's a good article (from Film and Digital Times) about the "Cooke Look", from a meeting during the NAB of Cooke owners and the Cooke principals;
http://www.fdtimes.com/2013/04/22/cooke-nab-anamorphic-evening/
Ken Robings
digitaloptik.net

 

[Phil Holland]

I like the Red Pro Primes which our company owns a lot, but our production is considering renting some Cooke S4 lenses in order to get certain focal lengths which that set doesn't have access to (particularly a 21mm for some wider shots which just seems like it might be right, a 27mm for our "hero" lens and a 40mm which I want to use for our inserts). I've always just loved the "Cooke look" too. I recognize that most people seem to like Master Primes the best of all, but there's just something about the Cookes on an Epic.

I remember the first time I saw, held, and shot on Red Pro Primes. I remember thinking how damn cool they were. Love the somewhat incognito design. Certainly fitting the SWAT design theme. With the prices of used sets these days I would say anybody grabbing upgrading to Dragon and looking to up their game to PL glass should take a look at these. Crazy affordable.

I dig the Cooke Look. I don't have much experience on the 5/i other than two brief tests, but I've worked on material shot with them that I think looks amazing. I've been around S4 glass a whole bunch though. That's solid stuff. Can't go wrong there.

If I had all the jelly beans right now I'd go for a fresh set of the Leica Summilux-C primes. They are my favorite lenses I've shot on in the last year. Dig me some Master Primes, but the Summilux-C's have a lot more going for them in terms of coatings and compact design. They feel right on an Epic too. Can't explain that. Not as smooth (glass-like) focus action as the Master Primes, but I kinda like a little bit of their resistance.

I'd take one guy who's image-savvy over ten guys who are gear-savvy.

Agreed!

 

[Robert Hart]

I feel a little bit humble and inadequate as a cinematographer's bootlace I am not. I am also a SI2K heretic who happens here from time to time.

When using groundglass 35mm adaptors for behind-the-scenes shooting, the 14mm Sigma-for-Nikon I found handy in confined spaces, the 35mm was my "normal" lens and the 85mm for the closer views of human subjects.

CORRECTED TEXT - The 12mm - 24mm Nikon zoom was far handier from 14mm to 24mm but as an f4 lens it was limited in what I could do with a groundglass adaptor which rules off pretty much at f5.6.

I have two old Cooke Panchro 2s, a 50mm and 75mm which I wish had been available to me when I was still using the 35mm adaptor. As care-worn as they are, there is something about their look on the adaptor that I am sure would translate to a 4K+ RED camera.

With the SI2K, my favourite lenses out of the CP Ultrar T* set of 9mm, 12.5mm, 16mm and 25mm have been - the 9mm, sharpest of the lot, the 12.5mm and the 25mm. The 9mm has a complicated focus system which apparently combines cam and helicoid actions. Repeatability of focus is a bit more difficult with this lens.

I also have a 5.7mm Kinoptik but it is a bit soft. The rectilinear corner stretch makes for an image which clashes a little with the image of the other lenses. I am inclined to use the Kinoptik solely on its own. For the confined cabin of a small aircraft there is nothing quite like it.

On the CP16 film camera, my favourite was the 12mm - 120mm zoom. I did not think as much of the 10mm - 150mm. I did not then have access to prime lenses for the CP.



There you go. Some comments from a relative amateur to distract and misinform you. Please heed the people who generously share here who have polished their craft to perfection over the years. It is magical to watch somebody like that just make things happen and extract silk purses our of apparent sow's ear situations with the apparent ease of changing their shirt.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

It depends on the project.

Sometimes I could live on a 21mm or 25mm forever. Sometimes it's the beautiful 40mm, 75mm combo.

I also find my tastes change with the format. 4K RedEpic, something very close to S35mm is one thing... 5k is another, and 6k slightly more so.

It's a very interesting question and I think specifying the exact format is very important.

For me, Cooke lenses are my choice. Love them to death. S4's and Mini-S4's are gorgeous, and an AC can't ask for more from mechanics and build. That said, I would have to say the 40mm at S35mm is wonderful, as is the 75mm. I've always loved the 75mm over an 85mm. At 5k, I've been loving the added FoV on the 18mm. I've always thought of myself as favoring wider lenses, such as 21's, 25's, etc, but I recently bought the Cooke Mini-S4 135mm and i've been questioning my lack of long lens use! The 135mm is beautiful.