DSLR Lens Thread

Posts: 1997 - Karma: 111

Karma: 111

Posts: 1997

Insane

Yeah, that's the thread I was thinking about.

Nov 5 2010 2:15AM

0 0

Posts: 879 - Karma: 87

Karma: 87

Posts: 879

Insane

OK, to separate the two:

DSLR Video Specific

I search-barred but they all seemed like camcorder or goggle threads

Nov 5 2010 2:38AM

0 0

PeterWojnar

Posts: 3937 - Karma: 678

Karma: 678

Posts: 3937

Addict

DSLRs are for photography unless you specify you are talking about video DSLRs.

"DSLR" =/= video.

That said, I can see how someone may want a seperate thread for video gear... but come on, it's the same equipment. All that differs is whether you shoot one frame or 30 per second. A good lens will be a good lens for both...

Nov 5 2010 3:06AM

0 0

Posts: 1410 - Karma: 1,827

Karma: 1,827

Posts: 1410

Insane

I find myself repeating a lot of things lately on here about these sorts of things, and I am not trying to be rude or have anything against you, this is a general statement.

Before I repeat this for the third time in the last two days, I highly encourage people to NOT use NS as a reliable source of information regarding cameras. Go where the true professionals are (ex: dvxuser.com). Many people on here dont know as much as you think (myself included) and get things mixed up or are misinformed. This doesnt mean they are dumb. There are some pretty smart camera people on here that post, Horner, Landis, Will, E Heath, ect (I apologize if i left out someone, im speaking in terms of video). Things can be said differently and come out wrong. I could go on about why but I know that other camera nerds like me on here dont come to NS for camera information. We are all willing to share what we know, but its not always entirely accurate and can have many holes.

With that said, onto my repeat...

There is no such thing as a "video specific" lens for DSRLs. DSLRs are NOT video cameras. They are still cameras that shoot video. Thus, no auto focus, servo zoom, aliasing, 4:2:0 ect, ect, ect (lots of differences, look them up). If its a good still lens, its good for video. If its not good for stills, its probably not good for video.

With that said, there are such thing as video specific detachable lenses, known as "cine style" lenses, which are usually just talked about as cine style zooms. They were designed for video cameras such as the RED and anything that really came before this HDSLR craze. They are extremely heavy and expensive (a cheap 3 lens kit would cost around 6-10 gs and the lightest probably weighs around 10 pounds). I wish I could tell you more then that about them, but I really cant, since I cant say I have ever had a chance to touch one or even think about it.

Panny is also developing some new cheaper lenses themselves for their new AF100 that are supposed to be "video lenses." They will be different then these cine style lenses and much cheaper. The main thing about them is that they use Panasonics OIS (optical image stabilizer) technology and are supposed to be able to auto focus while shooting (something dslr lenses cant do, since they are after all for stills and not video), but it is already being rumored that they auto focus like a DSLR lense, which is not practical for video. This means loud, slow and snappy, rather then quickly easing into the proper focus.

I could really go on, but my point was, dont use NS as your main source for camera info and there is currently no such thing as a DSLR lens for video. They are developed for stills and everything I listed that isnt for still doesnt work on DSLRs as far as I know.

Also, the other thread already has a ton of good usefully information in it.

Hope that helped clear things up :).

Nov 5 2010 4:30AM

0 0

Posts: 879 - Karma: 87

Karma: 87

Posts: 879

Insane

Thanks for all the input guys, I was just looking to create a thread for lenses used on DSLR cameras that have been purchased with the main intent of using the video function. Still images and video differs quite a bit when it comes to what lens you're going to use I've noticed. And even though the choreographed cinematography personnel on NS tends to not be top notch, you can see out of what lens they're using, the depth of field, sharpness, and all other sorts of things that you might be looking into when purchasing a new lens for a DSLR camera that may be replacing a non/prosumer camcorder.

Theres a lot out there. I just thought this might be a good area to learn a little bit. Although, this is not my only resource, I have been also utilizing resources around me and on the internet such as the infamous DVinfo.net.

I was just curious to see what other people filming similar things as myself are using for filming these days.

Nov 5 2010 3:04PM

0 0

Posts: 838 - Karma: 149

Karma: 149

Posts: 838

Insane

www.cinema5d.com
www.dvxuser.com

go to those two websites if you want real info, ns really doesn't provide the best info.

Nov 5 2010 3:16PM

0 0

kfilenda

Posts: 509 - Karma: 72

Karma: 72

Posts: 509

Ridiculous

After reading the replies, Ill give it a shot

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 (used on t2i)

Purchased from B&H for $99

Main use is for video

I would rate it a 9.5/10

I love this lens. It am very satisfied with it so far, being a 1.8 lens I havent gone above an iso 800 with it and its dof is beautiful. The image is very clean and focusing with it is smooth and easy. My one complaint is that because I am using on a t2i which is a aps-c sensor and not full frame it seems more like a 60-70mm lens but I have adjusted to just taking a step back when filming. Here is an example, I used it for the first 15 seconds or so. Overall I would recommend looking into this lens. Cheap. Clear. Fun.

Nov 5 2010 3:19PM

0 0

PBraunstein

Posts: 1448 - Karma: 3,804

Karma: 3,804

Posts: 1448

Insane

not trying to throw more shit in the shitstorm, but there is a bit of discrepancy in what you said. while your statement is partly true, there are definitely lenses out there that noone would have every thrown on to a modern day dslr for any purpose but filming. I mean one of my favorite lenses to film with (but is normally MUCH to sharp for pictures) is my Pentax 50 1.4 ($100) from the mid '60s.. under 2.0 is nearly useless as a photo lens on my 7d. Video is another world with this lens. compared to lets say the canon 1.8 ($100) which is a plastic built with not the smoothest or tighest focusing ring, but decent image quality. The Pentax is solid metal with manual aperture and no autofocus available (creates a much smoother, tighter feel on your focus ring.. much like a cine lens). the image quality is amazing with minor natural vignette and obviously the 1.4 makes it incredibly sharp and an amazing low light lens.

again.. this is just an example of a lens that i believe, no photographer shooting on a modern slr would have in their bag.

on another note, all of this is info that can be found on sites that are much better websites for camera knowledge (cinema5d, dvxuser, etc.), not to mention in other threads already on this website.

Nov 5 2010 3:31PM

0 0

Posts: 879 - Karma: 87

Karma: 87

Posts: 879

Insane

thanks for gettin the thread back on track.

this is the kind of response im looking for.

dope edit by the way

Nov 5 2010 4:21PM

0 0

Posts: 879 - Karma: 87

Karma: 87

Posts: 879

Insane

Word. I've been readin' up since I posted this

Nov 5 2010 4:23PM

0 0

Posts: 879 - Karma: 87

Karma: 87

Posts: 879

Insane

heads up to this site

http://www.cinema5d.com

Nov 5 2010 4:26PM

0 0

mammothpunks

Posts: 5724 - Karma: 372

Karma: 372

Posts: 5724

No Life

Zeiss does make cinema specific lenses for DSLRs.

http://www.zeiss.com/c125756900453232/Contents-Frame/67275a0d0ce11dc2c12575fb00453e8d

What sets these lenses apart from typical dslr lenses is the rotation amount on the focus rings. Cine lenses have a longer pull on the focus, which allows more precise control over focus. Also the focus markings are much more accurate.

Nov 5 2010 6:56PM

0 0

Posts: 1410 - Karma: 1,827

Karma: 1,827

Posts: 1410

Insane

Very very true. Funny thing is I looked into getting old manual lenses for my t2i when I first got it for the reasons you mentioned.

They arent designed for video obviously, but tons of people buy them for it these days.

Good point.

Nov 5 2010 7:27PM

0 0

Posts: 1997 - Karma: 111

Karma: 111

Posts: 1997

Insane

The 50 1.8 (Nifty fifty) is a must have for anyone getting into DSLR stuff (photo or video).

Nov 6 2010 6:22AM

0 0

a_pla5tic_bag

Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357

Karma: 5,357

Posts: 9210

Crazy Fool

anything long with a large aperture is going to look sick on a DSLR with video. Look at the 100mm f/2 if you have canon; it's super sharp and fast. plus if you're on crop it'll look a little longer but it's such a nice lens on full frame. I wish I had one.

Nov 6 2010 10:32AM

0 0

Posts: 879 - Karma: 87

Karma: 87

Posts: 879

Insane

ya, i was lookin for sure

Nov 8 2010 2:27AM

0 0

Posts: 1997 - Karma: 111

Karma: 111

Posts: 1997

Insane

I don't know if you know this or not but aperture pretty much controls depth of field. Shooting at a larger aperture (smaller number like 1.8) will have a more shallow depth of field. So if you're really wanting to shoot with a really shallow depth of field, buy a lens that has a larger aperture.

Also if you're shooting with a DSLR (photo or video), learn how to shoot in manual. Here's a good website:

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography

Read all of that and then go into each part of the triangle (Shutter speed, Aperture, ISO)

Sorry if you already know all of that. If so, hopefully someone else will learn from it.

Nov 8 2010 2:49AM

0 0

Posts: 838 - Karma: 149

Karma: 149

Posts: 838

Insane

Yeah but 2.0 and lower is fucked up thin, ever shot with a 1.4 lens? shooting at 1.4 sucks, IMO way to thin of DOF, its like as thin as a piece of paper, a subjects nose can be in focus and their eyes will be completely blurry. The reason people want a low aperture lens is so they have to stop up less when getting to a lenses sharp sweet spot while in low light. (i always will recommend not shooting wide open and stoping up 1 or 2 stops at least)

For example, we'll talk about my 50mm 1.4 again, stoping up to 2 or 2.8 creates a better image, but if you have a 50mm 1.8, you'd have to stop up to 2.8 or 3.5 to get the same image and same amount of light into the lens. Honestly, a 70-200 f2.8 will have just as good DOF as a 70-200 f4, just will perform better in low light.

DOF isn't necessarily only controlled by the aperture too, it depends on how close you are to the subject and how far away the background is. You can produce a nice DOF with a normal camera by following some simple rules of subject close and background far away.

Overall, I'm saying you don't need a 1.4/1.8 lens to get a better DOF, but you want a 1.4/1.8 for lower light situations. You can save some serious cash if you don't need 1.4 or 1.8 or even 2.8, its amazing.

Nov 8 2010 3:33AM

0 0

Posts: 1997 - Karma: 111

Karma: 111

Posts: 1997

Insane

^Yes, I know. I shoot 1.2 sometimes. DOF is also controlled by the focal length of the lens.

The main reason for a large aperture is for shooting in low-light situations where a flash wouldn't be allowed (Like a wedding ceremony inside of a church).

But you're right for video. Shooting action sports under F2 is very difficult.

Nov 8 2010 3:44AM

0 0

solitaryman

Posts: 3578 - Karma: 123

Karma: 123

Posts: 3578

Addict

To the last couple posts very good points. For video i say get an M42 adapter and pick up a helios 58/ f2 or a yashica 50/1.4 or CZ 50 1.2 which will run you a little more. There's a bunch more good m42 lenses but for video around 50 would be convenient so im just throwing those in here.

Nov 8 2010 12:48PM

0 0

[~_~]

Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273

Karma: 1,273

Posts: 20239

@th1337

Troof. There is no reason to shoot at 1.4 unless you're one of those shitty college photography students. My 50mm 1.4 is never shot wider than f/6, mostly at f/11.

Nov 8 2010 1:41PM

0 0

Posts: 838 - Karma: 149

Karma: 149

Posts: 838

Insane

Yeah, shooting 2.8 on my 50mm f1.4 is ridiculously thin still, 4-5.6 is the best. I'm sure for skiing im gonna stop up so that i have a greater DOF.

Nov 8 2010 2:02PM

0 0

Posts: 1410 - Karma: 1,827

Karma: 1,827

Posts: 1410

Insane

Damnit, I keep hearing different things from different people.

I heard f/4 with a 1/50th shutter was the most natural look?

I know f/6-9 on the HVX is the sweet spot.

And E Heath is right about the distance thing. You can set up an interview shoot with a background and use a fixed lens like an HVX and get a nice DOF if its all set up correctly.

I just love playing with my camera at f/1.8. Not to actually use for real use, but just to play trying to follow objects and try keep them in focus, but im a weird person, so yeah.

Nov 8 2010 2:11PM

0 0

Posts: 838 - Karma: 149

Karma: 149

Posts: 838

Insane

I've found the HVX is sharpest from 3.5-6ish, i never go below 3.5 if i can, i try to never go below 2.8 on my 50mm and 4 on my 28mm. With my redrock, hvx 3.5-5.6 and lens stopped up 1 or 2 stops, i get the sharpest image.

Nov 8 2010 2:12PM

0 0

[~_~]

Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273

Karma: 1,273

Posts: 20239

@th1337

Guidelines like that are mostly bullshit. I completely ignore the 180 degree rule, personally. Also, f/4 looks vastly different on many lenses, so that doesn't make sense either. On my 50mm 1.4, 5.6 is the sweet spot. On my 70-200 f/4L, f/8 is the sweet spot. These universal "rules" are nothing but perpetuated myths.

Nov 8 2010 2:14PM

0 0