I am interested to hear what lenses and focal lengths are used for interviews. Having used an EX1 and EX3 for the last couple years, I never need to look at the focal length as I can just zoom. My main goal of this thread is to figure out which lenses I need to get as I do a lot of work involving talking heads.

One issue I am having is whether or not I should buy a $1300 Sony Alpha lens, the 135mm STF f2.8/T4.5 (my favorite lens). I wonder if its too long as it becomes a ~200mm lens on a S35 sensor. Btw, I used to own this lens when I was a still photographer and shot with a full-frame A900; so, I loved using it for portrait work.

Thanks

Its not too long . On my 35mm adapter I often shot at 200mm.

At 135, you're talking about facial closeup at a distance of about 8ft.

In my opinion, it's about the longest I'd go on a interview shot because anything longer doesn't look that much different and you're just farther away which might complicate other aspects (interviewee direction/communication, etc). I am reluctant to say 200 is ok (not because it's not, it is, but you're not talking 200, you're talking 135 :-) )

The below snaps, cam was about at 8ft. One was about a 35-40mm, the tighter shot was about 100. So imagine cutting at the neck for 135, at that camera distance (which was a comfortable distance for interviewer eyelines, lighting, etc)

Everyone has there own tastes about this. I have shot lots of interviews with people farther than 8' away and gone to the end of my 80-200 to beautiful effect and they were not extreme closeups. The adapter was probably using something between a 5D and a 7D sensor size . The background goes very soft and it can look great. Most people probably don't go so long though.

I know, I didn't mean to sound argumentative. Just wanted to note that it's the long end of what's practical probably in most cases...and more importantly, 135 will work just fine.

Some subjects love the camera, some loathe it. Having the camera way back on a 200mm can be less intimidating, using the remote to record while sitting at a comfortable conversational distance from the subject. But then again there are the exhibitionists who love a camera right upon their face.

135mm for an interview!!?? You guys have a much bigger area to work with than I do!

Most interviews I've done the camera is communally 5 or 6 feet away from the interviewee, much further away and the interviewer's shoulder gets in the way - I like tight eyes lines; it engages better with the interviewee, like an actor's CU..

For the F3 that would put it in the 50mm to 85mm range. 100mm if going tight.

For indoor interviews, I typically wouldn't shoot longer than about 135mm ( on the F3), or wider than 50mm. I almost always use a zoom, because I need to change focal lengths quickly. On exterior interviews, I've gone longer, but not with the F3 (yet). Choice of focal length affects the way a face looks.
Usually, long is flattering, but not always.

I would like a 30-180mm f2.0 constant aperture motorized zoom for the F3. Of course, I'd probably have to hire a kid to carry it around for me...

Steve,

My favorite lenses for interviews are fast primes so you can maximize your depth of field and that is really what you want on interviews. Here is what I use.

Sigma 30mm F1.4 (great for cramped spaces or when in need to show your subject's surroudings)
Zeiss ZF.2 50mm F1.4 (probably the most versatile one)
Zeiss ZF.2 85mm F1.4 (great for MCU or CUs)

I also think 135mm is too long of a lens for interviews unless you have a very large room or need to be really tight.

Best,

Thierry.

And btw, people on a budget looking for a fast F1.4 85mm should consider Vivitar's 85mm. Can't go wrong for $320 and it's all manual which is great for the F3 using a MTF Nikon adaptor.

http://bit.ly/ih6Eio

Thierry.

Thierry, Do you shoot a lot of interviews with primes? Most of the time, my clients want quick focal length changes between questions.

I tend to shoot more and more using primes. Well, that is indeed a limitation of primes and that is an aspect your clients need to accept. If they are unflexible with this, then, I'd use a Sigma 17-50 F2.8 or Nikor 70-200 F2.8 zoom. But you won't get the shallow DOF of F1.4. And I find that with the reduced size of super 35mm sensors when compared to full frame DSLRs, I really want to maximize the DOF.

Thierry.

Surely you mean minimize the DOF, if you're after a shallow effect.

Yeah, sorry. I meant maximizing the DOF shallowness...

Usually, the zoom is preferred because it's an unobtrusive tool. Once we start the interview, I'm invisible.
If I stop to switch lenses, it draws attention to the camera. Now, if the F3 had a turret...

I know primes are preferred in many applications. Interviews where you need to change your FOV a few times is one of those times where I prefer to use a zoom lens.

Personally I am usually in the 80-150mm range most of the time. I prefer to shoot longer when space allows because I'm further back and not distracting. I prefer the look of a longer lens on faces. Especially if I'm working with people with prominent facial features if ya know what I mean. A bit of depth compression can be flattering.

I like Thierry use the Nikon 80-200 2.8 when a client is in need of varied FOV's, but I prefer the ZEISS ZF 85 F1.4, or the 50mm. My 50 is the macro type which is a slower F2.

There should be a Zeiss 35mm 1.4 out soon.

My ideal zoom would be. But 29K

My ideal zoom would be. But 29K

Lets start a fund to help me buy this lens. 'Premiere' level of donations start at $1000 and get you pictures of the lens on a F3 :)

Hi Dennis,
Is it the lens that's light-weight, or just your wallet after buying it?
Actually seems like a decent 'wide zoom range' for hand-held, but doubtless unweildy, and too short for most of your interviews.

D, yes hand held as well as a good production wide to median. When you use the 5D for a while and then migrate to the F3, the 16mm-35mm Canon is missed. And yes I know the reduction factor plays into this. But imagine someone gifting you this lens. Ill be renting from Able/Fletcher as needed. In the mean time the Zeiss 18mm 3.5 will do,... until the Sony zoom arrives.

I found the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 on the F3 to be a pretty good alternative to Canon's 16-35 F2.8 I use on a 5D. It's a bit shorter than the Canon but it's a very good looking lens and the built quality, ergonomics and price are quite good. My all around lens for handheld work is Sigma 17-50 F2.8. Nice and light.

Thierry.

T, Thanks, Ill try it out.

B&H 699
For Nikon DSLRs with APS-C Size Sensors
How does that affect the F3 sensor/ FOV

Sorry, 669$

Vignetting will occur if the lens is used with digital cameras with image sensors larger than APS-C size or 35mm SLR cameras. Perhaps yo mean a different version.

Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom Lens for Nik 583306 B&H

The sensor size on the F3 is comparable to APS-C sensor size, no vigneting will occur.

T.

Thierry any footage from F3 using the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 that you can share or the Sigma 17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC ?

Sorry but nothing of interest to show at this point. I am taking the F3 on a shoot to Morocco early April and should have great viz to show on return.

Best,

Thierry.

Thierry any footage from F3 using the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 that you can share or the Sigma 17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC ?

Steve

I recently shot with the Tokina 11-16 for GM. Here's the link to some of the selects. I used it on a Cam Mate jib. We had zip gears on it and the focus puller used a Preston that my Jib op owns.


Sony F3 - Ton TV on Vimeo

T, Thanks, Ill PU one before NAB and take a look.

T,
My initial concern was its use on a 5D.

Nigel,
Nice selects. Can you tell us the bit rate? and how was it posted? CCed?

Nigel,
Nice selects. Can you tell us the bit rate? and how was it posted? CCed?

Dennis

We shot these instalments of Ton TV with a combination of the F3 and 5D's. I had just got my F3 a few days earlier, so we had to scramble to prep it, even though I had previous experience with it. The F3 bits were recorded both in camera and to my Nanoflash. These are the files I posted.

They were recorded 1080P 23.98 at 100 mbs. I cut the selects in FCP with a very minor correct with the 3 way colour corrector, and exported with compressor to h.264. Uploaded with the Vimeo uploader. There was a wide range of lights above at the auto show. LED's to tungstun... A lot of green involved. I was very impressed on how the camera held up with the contrast of dark cars with hard light hitting it from everywhere, and light coloured cars and floors. The Tokina was great. Covered the F3 sensor, and did not seem to vignette.

I was trying different gamma curves when we did this, looking for a good combination that would handle the contrast. The host links were with cinegamma 2.

Since then, I've refined a bit of the look, testing out Alister's natural look (thank you Alister) and just finished a week with Subaru that we are producing. We had a lot of contrasty situations and the camera held up very well in all these situations. I'll have full control in post to have it graded properly, and am very happy with the quick looks I've had.

Not sure of the release date for GM's Ton TV, but it will be on their website at some point

Nigel,
How did the F3 look compared to the Canon's and did the client notice the difference? ( That's the big question isn't it?

Lenny

Nigel,
How did the F3 look compared to the Canon's and did the client notice the difference? ( That's the big question isn't it?

Lenny

We used 2 5D's to shoot the interview, guest type segments, cross shooting, and also on our host segments straight to camera with the 5D on a close up side angle on a long lens. I did notice a difference in the two cameras for sure. Firstly, we were monitoring the 5D's using HDMI outs and splitters, so that was always a pain.

The 5D was more contrasty, even with the contrast at the lowest setting. Same goes with the saturation. I ended up turning it down. The F3 had more latitude, and even though we didn't have a lot of time before hand to set it up, there's more room to play in the set- up.

The director noticed the difference. When you take in account all the extra headaches with monitoring the 5D's and all the extra bits involved to make them work, I was happier when we were shooting with the F3. I did get a chance to do some quick tests with Alister's 5D look for the F3, and it seemed like it matched it up closer to the 5D.

Nigel- thank you for posting the footage.

Nigel,

For your work, do you have a preference between a F3 + external recorder and a Red One MX (or Epic)? I am very interested in how the F3 affects peoples' desire to use Red cameras.

Nigel,

For your work, do you have a preference between a F3 + external recorder and a Red One MX (or Epic)? I am very interested in how the F3 affects peoples' desire to use Red cameras.

Funny you should say that. I got a call from the producers of a documentary, who have decided to shoot their movie on F3 instead of RED (which is why they were calling me).

RED fans will never understand a decision like that. Actually, I take that back. I'm a RED fan and I fully understand their decision. I guess I meant to say, the RED fanboys would never understand.

Funny you should say that. I got a call from the producers of a documentary, who have decided to shoot their movie on F3 instead of RED (which is why they were calling me).

RED fans will never understand a decision like that. Actually, I take that back. I'm a RED fan and I fully understand their decision. I guess I meant to say, the RED fanboys would never understand.

Hi Aaron,

Can you tell us the reasoning behind your director's decision? And will you be using your Cinedeck with the F3 or something else, and is this project planned for before or after the F3's 444 upgrade is available?

Thanks to all so far for your input.

For cranes and jibs, has anyone had issues with the lens creeping when using a zoom lens from a stills camera?

Hi Aaron,

Can you tell us the reasoning behind your director's decision? And will you be using your Cinedeck with the F3 or something else, and is this project planned for before or after the F3's 444 upgrade is available?


Hi Steve. Yes we are way off-topic for this thread here. I've had some pretty long talks with these guys about what they are doing and how they're doing it. I know they're not just blowing smoke either since their last film won an academy award. Those don't happen by accident.

I never really got a solid answer about WHY F3 instead of RED, but from what I can gather it's something to do with the post production and "quick turnaround" of footage.

They already own an F3 and they already have a defined workflow that they would like any B-camera guys (like me) to use. They are already shooting with Convergent Designs nanoFlash. I can already deliver footage identical to nanoFlash, since I have a Convergent Designs XDR. Their workflow with the nanoFlash won't benefit tremendously with the F3 S-log upgrade so I don't think that was a consideration. Plus they've already shot a ton of footage before the S-log was available so I don't think they care about it.

I sure do though. I just wish it wasn't $3,500. Seems a little steep.

Sorry to take the topic off the path. Now back to lens talk.

Nigel,

For your work, do you have a preference between a F3 + external recorder and a Red One MX (or Epic)? I am very interested in how the F3 affects peoples' desire to use Red cameras.

Flexibility is a big key for me. The range from recording internally, too the Nanoflash, and then too Gemini, (or Cinedeck, Sony's new recorder...) Quick turnarounds with no real hassles to convert or encode the footage.

I like this range. I looked long and hard at the other options, but at the end of the day part of it was return on investment, and the projects I could use the camera on. Over the last month, I've used it on run and gun shoots to full blown commercials. With the Gemini, and other options this spring, I think it will push the bounds of where I can use this camera.

Once upon a time we paid over $70K for a Betacam. I did, but can you make that money back now in under a 3 years now. I think some of the economics have been forgotten in this equation about cameras. Technology is changing very quickly, and I've had people at rental houses ask me how owner/operators make money these days. Especially if they buy very expensive cameras, and day rates go down.

Am I off topic.... Lots of snow here today, and a long day shooting....With the F3 :) part of the shoot was some welding. Could not believe how well the F3 handled it.

Nigel, thanks for the input.

No, you aren't off-topic. I only mentioned about getting back on-topic because I have seen threads go wayyy off on another tangent where multiple people start multiple conversations. Anything to do with the F3 is great for me as I will buy one within a couple months now that I know the FS100 is not what I need; although, its price is very tempting as I already have a nanoFlash. Plus, I really like the Zeiss lenses for the Sony Alpha mount.

Lets morph this thread some more: Nigel, Aaron and others - when do you find 8bit not enough from a nanoFlash/XDR? I am learning DaVinci Resolve on Mac (using FXPHD) and applying what I learn to After Effects. At least with my EX3/nanoFlash footage, I have found that I really need something 'better' such as low noise. However, I haven't had a chance to really push clean 8bit footage, which brings me to another question: anyone have a short clip of a scene with lots of contrast that I could download for testing?

Lets morph this thread some more: Nigel, Aaron and others - when do you find 8bit not enough from a nanoFlash/XDR?

I have to try really hard to produce any 8bit related artifacts, in camera, with the nano/XDR recorders. Under just the right circumstances you can probably force some banding with a high contrast scene and a perfectly graduated sky in the scene.

It's rare indeed to see any 8bit artifacts in footage I've shot. Of course, if you don't promote the footage in post, and keep it 8bit as you grade, it's fairly easy to introduce artifacts into footage being graded as 8bit footage. Of course I don't do that though.

I have to try really hard to produce any 8bit related artifacts, in camera, with the nano/XDR recorders. Under just the right circumstances you can probably force some banding with a high contrast scene and a perfectly graduated sky in the scene.

It's rare indeed to see any 8bit artifacts in footage I've shot. Of course, if you don't promote the footage in post, and keep it 8bit as you grade, it's fairly easy to introduce artifacts into footage being graded as 8bit footage. Of course I don't do that though.

Aaron,

I should have clarified that I was talking about pushing 8bit in post. So, do you convert to Pro Res or Cineform and do you find those converted files hold up better to heavy grading?

That's right Steve. When I record with XDR/nano, I edit the native files right on the FCP timeline. I send the sequence to Color and I set the output type as prores HQ with higher bit depth. So I'm not really transcoding the source files, only working in Color in a bigger depth and outputting higher quality files.