Quick Discussion: Favorite Lenses/Focal Lengths and why?

[Asif Limbada]

I love tele lenses, I shot an entire racing related video using those. My fav right now is Canon EF 200 f1.8. I have been fishing around for some Master Prime love, I think 150mm would be awesome.

I love the 35 to 50 range as well.

And 85mm as well.

Hell, I think every focal length is delicious for me.

 

[Phil Holland]

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.

Great stuff Ryan. I'm also one of those 75mm over 85mm on S35 format. Then maybe 100, 135, and so on.

Cooke has a rather full line of focal lengths on the S4s and that's really appealing to me. I currently have coverage from 14-600mm on FF35 still glass and perhaps the most daunting task is recreating that range in PL. Won't be too hard, but still daunting. I'll be picking up a Battle Tested 300mm Red Pro Prime and doubler for sure. Can't live without that reach for certain things.

I have no idea what i'm going to do for 200mm at the moment. Working on that. Got 14-135mm mostly figured out in one set if I go with them.

The other issue is speed. I do desire T1.3-1.5 glass for certain applications. The current primes I'm looking at aren't exactly that fast, more in the S4 range. I might have to grab a set of Illuminas or something at some point.

My fav right now is Canon EF 200 f1.8.

Don't ever sell that lens. It's a great one.

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

Good old Nikon AIS 85mm f1.4. Zeiss 21mm f2.8. If i bought cine zoom now, it would have to be Zeiss CZ 28-80 T2.9.

 

[luigivaltulini]

As soon as the budget allows only Cooke S4, are my favorite
The look they give these lenses be a good thing.
For the rest of the time REd Prime, canon EF, although lately I've used The Zeiss ZF and I was pleasantly surprised at the quality and price.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

The 14mm - 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.

???

The Nikon 14-24 is f/2.8...

Mike

 

[Jeremy Hildebrant]

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.

There is something slightly intriguing to me about EF mount cine primes like the CN-E's, Xenon FF, CP's. Just the ability to quickly throw on a 70-200L, or a 24-70L for it's close focus ability, or even the Tokina 11-16mm for wide fov.... All done simply without having to juggle lens mounts.

 

[Phil Holland]

There is something slightly intriguing to me about EF mount cine primes like the CN-E's, Xenon FF, CP's. Just the ability to quickly throw on a 70-200L, or a 24-70L for it's close focus ability, or even the Tokina 11-16mm for wide fov.... All done simply without having to juggle lens mounts.

I agree on the appeal for sure. Luckily we shoot on a camera system that allows us to use essentially anything we want on it.

For me, at least how I'm moving forward, I have a considerable amount of glass in EF. Now I'm focusing on PL because of it's sturdy design and the availability of quality cinema glass with great mechanics. Something I can't find too much of in the EF world.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to pick up an M Mount while I'm at it. Put together a very compact 3-5 lens kit seems appealing to me. I have a small Voigtlander 40mm f/2 pancake lens in EF that I enjoy using now and kitting out a range of Leica or Voigtlander M might be fun for some things.

 

[Peter Strietmann]

Nothing beats a 12x angenieux.

Just realized I never said why. Two reasons one is the range from 24mm to 290 pretty much covers everything except very wide shots and the other is at 2.8 it is fast. Oh yes one more thing is it looks beautiful.

 

[Jeremy Hildebrant]

I agree on the appeal for sure. Luckily we shoot on a camera system that allows us to use essentially anything we want on it.

For me, at least how I'm moving forward, I have a considerable amount of glass in EF. Now I'm focusing on PL because of it's sturdy design and the availability of quality cinema glass with great mechanics. Something I can't find too much of in the EF world.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to pick up an M Mount while I'm at it. Put together a very compact 3-5 lens kit seems appealing to me. I have a small Voigtlander 40mm f/2 pancake lens in EF that I enjoy using now and kitting out a range of Leica or Voigtlander M might be fun for some things.

Yeah, the interchangeability between EF Cine primes and EF still glass is really only a thought to me because RED has built a rock solid EF mount. Plus, it seems the entry level cinema lenses have good mechanics and glass for the price point they are in, don't you think? The PL lens mount is only 4 screws away when renting Angies or higher end primes. Honestly, I'm not convinced myself, just speculating. PL is probably the way to go if building a quality kit with many flavors to choose from and add to in the future.

Favorite lens for me is probably the cheap ole Canon 50mm 1.4 on FF and Scarlet 4K. How can something so cheap have such a nice feel...

 

[Phil Holland]

Yeah, the interchangeability between EF Cine primes and EF still glass is really only a thought to me because RED has built a rock solid EF mount. Plus, it seems the entry level cinema lenses have good mechanics and glass for the price point they are in, don't you think?

Entry level cinema glass, still glass, cine-mods, and converted/rehoused still lenses are pretty much all a good deal on EF and F mounts. Some have decent mechanics. A lot do not. Everybody has different thoughts on breathing and if it's a "big deal". It is to me when it's really aggressive. Image shift is a terrible thing, especially if you are pulling to and from while following a subject. The upcoming Schneider Xenon FF-Primes didn't exhibit much of any of that, which is why I have good things to say about those prototypes. To me, at that price point, they are a steal.

That locking collar that Red has designed helps a whole lot with stability. Gives lens and mount the ability to take a firm handshake, which is something that's pretty much lacking on an other EF mount camera out there. There is an inherent difference between those mounts and a PL mount however. PL is firmer and more secure mount, which helps out with using things like a follow focus. Just thicker metal involved. You'll notice certain lenses ship with mounts for support rods. Even shorter length lenses. One of the reasons those exist is to help out with the "wiggle" that the still mounts have when applying any pressure to a lens.

PL has been around for over 30 years, but the real reason it was adopted by so many so quickly is due to it's simple design and stability.

 

[Robert Hart]

Mike. My original response was slightly incorrect. The Nikon lens I referred to was not a 14mm - 48mm but a 12mm - 24mm AF-S lens, which is constant f4. I must have gone a bit crosseyed reading the responses. It was a bit late when I wrote the repsonse.

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.

The reason why this lens was handier from 14mm was that the image would corner-vignette with the zoom wider than 14mm on the modified Letus adaptor I was using. The available screen was wider than AF-S, around Super35mm by the time I had finished adjusting it.

I sincerely hope that a thousand and fifty redusers have not gone sprinting out, banging the screen door against the front wall in reckless haste to buy a Nikon AF-S lens on my say-so.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Leica APO-Summicron 180/2. I don't care what anybody says, it's worth every penny. The smooth richness of the colors. The "different" bokeh - too busy for some, I love it. Man it's heavy, though. Also, not a lot of DoF to work with wide open, not always an easy lens to focus (especially on a DSLR; with an EVF and peaking it's wonderful).

 

[Nick Morrison]

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.

Funny, I kind of agree with you. In the same way that "a 50 is a 50 is a 50", I've started to wonder if a "9 is a 9 is a 9".

IE I think S16 lenses may have a special "wide-angle" magic to them. All the focal lengths are wider, so presumably they never totally relinquish this "feel".

So even though a 25mm on S16 has a FOV of a 50mm on S35, it still has the same "bend" of a wonderful 25.

You almost get the best of both worlds. You get to go "tight" with some of the heroic grandeur of a wide, but without calling as much attention to yourself as you would on S35.

I started to notice this "magic" in "Moonrise Kingdom". I could really see the "bend" in the wides and even tights, much more so than I'd ever seen on S35.

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.

I agree, and it also means the Black Magic "Pocket" camera may become very interesting as well. Having a tiny RAW S16 camera you can stash in your jacket may end up being even more of a game changer than the 4K cinema camera they've released. I'm not as interested in their cinema camera (RED accomplishes much more of what I need), but this small camera has really caught may attention. I've been collecting small format glass already, so I can't wait to go out and play.

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.

I agree, I think a 135 is a wonderful, under-rated focal length. It's like an 85 on crack. It gets more shallow and intimate than an 85 or 100, but you don't have to stand back so far and removed as you would on a 180 or 200.

I'm dying to shoot a multi-cam scene on three 135's.

I have a small Voigtlander 40mm f/2 pancake lens in EF that I enjoy using now and kitting out a range of Leica or Voigtlander M might be fun for some things.

Yeah M-Mount glass is SO SHARP. The distance to the sensor is so short, the sharpness is just unreal. Masterprime level…or greater.

I can't even imagine what footage with these must look like.

Leica APO-Summicron 180/2. I don't care what anybody says, it's worth every penny. The smooth richness of the colors. The "different" bokeh - too busy for some, I love it. Man it's heavy, though. Also, not a lot of DoF to work with wide open, not always an easy lens to focus (especially on a DSLR; with an EVF and peaking it's wonderful).

Yeah…I'm drooling over a Nikkor 200 f2. That's what I want….Sigh…one day.


My favorite focal lengths are a 35mm and an 85mm. I do mostly interviews, and we use these the most. I love close ups on a 35mm. And I love how versatile an 85mm can be. Wide open they are soft and dreamy, stopped down…razor sharp.

I find 50's convenient, but they don't speak to me as much, even if they were Hitchcock's favorite focal length.

I'm intrigued by the whole "neutrality" of a 28, but still haven't made it work for me.

I've only just started to scratch the surface of a 21, and just starting to see how incredibly cine-friendly this focal length can be. My early responses are "WOW" and "HOLY F*CK".

I want to use more 100's. I always settle for an 85.

I LOVE 135's. God I love them. Need to use them more.

And I'm f*cking ape shit drooling for a 200 f2.

Can't wait to get my 300 2.8 "modded" so I can finally, finally see what all the fuss is about.

 

[David W. Jones]

It's odd, I have had this lens for a while now, but never really used it much. The lens, is an old Zeiss Contax 18mm f4, and I got such a kick out of using it the other day on a cooking show mounted to a 5D mkIII for this groovy ultra wide shot. The lens vignettes on a full frame sensor, but it just looked right for the overall tone of the show.

 

[Nick Morrison]

It's odd, I have had this lens for a while now, but never really used it much. The lens, is an old Zeiss Contax 18mm f4, and I got such a kick out of using it the other day on a cooking show mounted to a 5D mkIII for this groovy ultra wide shot. The lens vignettes on a full frame sensor, but it just looked right for the overall tone of the show.

So funny, I've been thinking about this 18. On Dragon it's FOV will be like a 13mm. VERY WIDE, and VERY INTERESTING. Especially with that wonderful, older T* coating.

I wonder why it's vignetting. Do you have a hood on it? I know mine has a hood and will vignette on full frame as well. But w/out the hood presumably it clears.

 

[Phil Holland]

It's odd, I have had this lens for a while now, but never really used it much. The lens, is an old Zeiss Contax 18mm f4, and I got such a kick out of using it the other day on a cooking show mounted to a 5D mkIII for this groovy ultra wide shot. The lens vignettes on a full frame sensor, but it just looked right for the overall tone of the show.

I have and occasionally use an Olympus OM 18mm f/3.5 I've adapted to EF. It was born sometime between 1977-1979. Sort of a strange lens. Resolving power it's up there with modern 18mm f/3.5 primes, however, seems to suffer less barrel distortion. Lacks a bit of contrast and suffers from it's older coatings. Interesting look to it though. Close focus is pretty amazing. At f/8 if you focus at 3 feet or beyond nearly everything is somewhat in focus.

Mechanics-wise it's true rubbish for cinema use Breathes terribly and has a hefty amount of shift. Still use it occasionally though when I want a vintage wide look.

 

[Chad Lancaster]

Love my Leica R 15mm f2.8, it's one of those lenses that when you need it you REALLY need it.

 

[Evin Grant]

There's something about 27/28mm on Super 35 sized imagers that is really great to me, second would be 40mm then 65-75mm.
For wides my go to is 20/21mm followed by 16mm. For tele 135-200 is probably what I prefer.


I'm generally a Leica M, Optimo, Nikkor guy but the new Schneider Xenar and Xenon primes are the most interesting lenses to me in a while.

I still miss my Zeiss T2.1 20mm,28mm, 40mm and 60mm Macro.