Lens suggestions to match ordinary FRAMES from today's hollywood movies?

[Roberto Lanczos]

Hey, what's up guys? ;) being off the field for a while.

I just can't express my excitement, i've been following everyhting about the 5DII since last year, and i've finally decided to go for it.

But before i jump on this beautiful baby i would like some help and suggestions with lenses.

My main goal is to archive very basic and ordinary frames like these:

-----------

-----------

by being aware that the 5D is weak in many areas and it cannot match modern day film in terms of clarity, resolution or texture... i would like to state that i'm not trying to match any of these frames in terms of color curves.
I'm looking for lenses that could help me get a very close look alike for most of these situations.


sorry for posting the phrase "MATCH FRAMES".
that was just to catch some attention.


Thank you very much in advance...
beautiful art with the 5D on this section. keep the good work.

Peace ;)

----

[Jon Fairhurst]

You could get similar framing with lenses in the range of 28 - 135mm. It can be hard to tell exactly what they are using, because you can change the framing of the main subject by moving forwards or backwards. You only know for sure if you know the relative size of a second object, and how far away it was.

That said, I'd guess that most of the "two shots" were done with an 85mm lens or equivalent. That would include frames 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and maybe 12. The closeups might be 135s, including 3, 4, and maybe 12. The wide shots might be 28mm, including 5 and 8. The medium shots might be 35 or 50, including 10 and 11.

If you are filming in a large space, you can use a slightly longer lens and back up. This makes objects in the background larger and less in focus. It can make your main subject look more glamorous and less distorted. If you are in a smaller space, you will be forced to shoot with a wider lens. Objects in the background will be relatively smaller and more in focus. You risk more distortion (big nose, little ears) on your main subject.

Choose a longer lens and back up a bit if you want more intimacy or more claustrophobia. If your subject is trapped in a crucible, this is a good approach. Put five or six people around your character, use a long lens, and you have trapped them in a crowd. On the other hand, if your character is lonely and drifting, using a wider lens close up can frame your actor the same, but can make those five or six people distant and sparse.

If you have enough light and want to cover all these shots with one lens, go for the 24-105mm f/4 L zoom. If you want to shoot in low light, have the cash, and are willing to change lenses, the 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L and 135/2L (and possibly the 50/1.2L) would be gorgeous.

Me? I've got the 28/1.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 200/2.8L. I'd skip the 35/2 - It's the weakest of the bunch. If I could only have two for a "human scale" video (as in your example), I'd go with the 28 and the 85. On a budget, I might split them with a Nikon Ai 50/1.8. (The 50/1.4 suffers from barrel distortion.) Having f/1.8 (or better) across the board allows you to set lighting for one lens and not have to make large lighting changes to accommodate your other lenses.

For narrative work (as shown in your example), I like the idea of using Canon lenses. Magic Lantern currently offers electronic rack focus, and the feature will only improve with future releases. Eventually, we'll be able to trigger it with IR, which will be perfect for steadicam work. For unscripted jobs, consider Zeiss lenses. I don't own them, but people I trust claim that their focus rings are superior when using a manual follow focus.

[Wayne Avanson]

Thanks guys, I found this most interesting…

Avey

[Roberto Lanczos]

JON... you are the MAN



Beautiful, gorgeous, ALELUYA

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Roberto Lanczos

by being aware that the 5D is weak in many areas and it cannot match modern day film in terms of clarity, resolution or texture... i would like to state that i'm not trying to match any of these frames in terms of color curves.
I'm looking for lenses that could help me get a very close look alike for most of these situations.

I don't think matching the look of those shots closely is outside of the 5D's capabilities; once you have the lenses it all comes down to lighting.

[Roberto Lanczos]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

I don't think matching the look of those shots closely is outside of the 5D's capabilities

It shouldn't be.
But most of the shots i've seen with the canon 24-105 still look a little fishy to me.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Roberto Lanczos

...most of the shots i've seen with the canon 24-105 still look a little fishy to me.

In general, the L primes will give the sweetest results, the mid-level f/1.8 primes will give very good results, and the zoom will be the weakest. If you're shooting at f/4, the primes will be loafing along, while the zoom will be at its limit. Shoot at f/8, and they're probably all fairly equal. Then again, if you're shooting at f/8, and maybe even f/5.6, the zoom should do a fine job.

As a reference, most of our recent 48-hour documentary, which has moderate DOF, was shot at f/3.2 with the 28, 50, and 85mm lenses. We used the 200L only on the cop car shot. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/eos-serie...3pictures.html

The above movie shots are graded to be much darker than our piece, use 2.35:1 rather than 16x9, and probably had a light diffusion filter on the lens or in post. Both the film and our short look to have roughly similar DOF, though it's hard to tell with the thumbnail size captures.

Anyway, if you want shallow DOF or low light, go for the primes. The zoom is handy for being out and about, but for narrative, I'd choose primes.

[Marcus Marchesseault]

I started into lens addic...er, collection hoping to find a magic bullet and got an f2.8 zoom and it is a very nice lens but not sufficient for very dynamic (run-n-gun) shooting. I decided to switch up the lens jobs into a wide-range zoom and primes. I use the zoom for walking around shooting for fun and for possible event work (I'm in-between careers at this time). I shot an event and primes are only good in fairly controlled circumstances. For narratives or more controlled work, Jon is right about the primes. I think a lot of the shots shown above can be done with slightly wide to slight telephoto lenses. I love the look of the Canon 85mm f1.8. I also have a fast Nikon 35mm f1.4 that is nice as it doesn't have too much distortion yet has wide coverage. I think a whole lot of shots can be done between the 35-85mm range and primes are the way to go when everything needs to look pretty. If you want a 135mm prime, the Nikon f2.8 can be had for about $75 and the one I got is very sharp. It might be a bit long so maybe a 105 would be the lens to get after a nice 85mm and something wide.

[Roberto Lanczos]

******** EDIT ********

With a budget of 3500$... the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 don't leave enough room for any other in the 24-35mm range.

Any tips on covering 24-85 or more with 3500$.

If i see myself going the tamron route, i'm going to start crying for real.


******** EDIT ********



I'm gonna have to make some cash with crappy lenses and wait a all another year.
god... i dont wanna wait.

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Roberto Lanczos

With a budget of 3500$... the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 don't leave enough room for any other in the 24-35mm range.

Any tips on covering 24-85 or more with 3500$.

If i see myself going the tamron route, i'm going to start crying for real.

KEH.com has several Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS lenses for well under $200 each or f/1.4 for around $200 (ken rockwell recommends the 1.8 over the 1.4 due to barrel distortion). You can get the legendary 85mm f/1.4 for $600 or the not-legendary-but-I've-got-one-and-like-it f/2 for $200. At the wide end the f/2 24mm are generally more expensive, from poor condition lenses at around $200 to good ones in the $400-500 range. 35mm f/1.4 are similar price, f/2 are cheaper at around $200.

So going with the least expensive options you could have a 4 lens set all f/2 or faster for under $1000, or under $2000 if you go for the fastest lenses they've got. Even with the cheaper lenses you'll be able to get good results... and again if you want stuff to look like the samples you posted you'll need to light carefully anyway, so the difference between f/1.4 and f/2 may not be that significant in the end.

[Bryce Olejniczak]

Beware of vignetting with Nikon lenses... they are not made for full frame cameras.

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Bryce Olejniczak

Beware of vignetting with Nikon lenses... they are not made for full frame cameras.

Don't know who told you that. There certainly are some new lenses designed for the APS sized sensors which won't work with full frame cameras, but that certainly doesn't apply to all Nikon lenses (I believe it's only lenses with a DX designation). All the lenses I mentioned are older manual lenses designed for 35mm film cameras so they should match nicely with the 5D's full-frame sensor. There will be some vignetting at the widest apertures but that's generally the case with any fast lens regardless of manufacturer.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Evan is right. Avoid Nikon DX lenses and Canon EF-S lenses. Also avoid the old Canon FD lenses - you might find an adapter, but won't be able to focus to infinity. Also, think twice about Nikon "G" lenses. You will need a special and expensive adapter to be able to control its aperture. All other Nikon and Canon lenses are fine.

Evan is also right about falloff. Open most any lens wide open and the corners will be a bit darker than the center of the image. Inexpensive 3rd party lenses are sometimes worse. Canon or Nikon might limit a given lens to f/4. Tamron, Tokina or Sigma *might* let the same lens open up to f/2.8. Such a lens looks like a great deal, based on specs, but in the real world, you need to stop it down to f/4 or smaller.

Review site The Digital Picture is quite biased to Canon L lenses. Canon Digital SLR Camera and Lens Reviews at The-Digital-Picture.com I take it with a grain of salt. One excellent feature of the site, though, is the falloff charts for all Canon EF glass. You can see exactly how much falloff to expect with the various lenses at various apertures. I wish they reviewed Nikon and Zeiss lenses as well, so we could easily compare them using the exact same measurement procedure.

[Kevin Shahinian]

Roberto,

I too have a difficult time with the distortion present in the 16-35mm and other lenses in the sub-35mm range, as rarely do you see such a look in a major motion picture. Not knowing what your lighting conditions or actual application are, I can say in general that I'm a fan of anything above 35mm or in that range. I'd stick w/ EOS; there is a 35/1.4 and a 50/1.4. Getting into telephoto, the 85/1.8 and the 70-200mm (at either f/2.8 or f/4 if you're looking for a bargain). I find the Canon 2x extender another inexpensive tool to have in your kit. Although you lose 2 stops, it turns your 70-200mm into a 140-400mm, useful if you ever need to go for a Tony Scott style closeup for not a lot of cash if you've got the extra light.

I notice most of your frame grabs are medium wide shots; good for you. One of the things that has frustrated me w/ all of the excitement over DoF is the great bokeh I see in CUs seems to come at the expense of the cinematic vistas and wideshots reminescent of epics past. Finding a great wide lens w/ little distortion is as important as anything imo.

[Roberto Lanczos]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shahinian

I'd stick w/ EOS; there is a 35/1.4 and a 50/1.4. Getting into telephoto, the 85/1.8 and the 70-200mm (at either f/2.8 or f/4 if you're looking for a bargain). I find the Canon 2x extender another inexpensive tool to have in your kit.

I'm following everything about the 70-200 f/4 right now. sounds like a great choice for a telephoto in that range.
for wide shots, according to some, the Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 is an amazing equivalent for the 24-70 L series, and some claim is the only exception in the tamron line.

But i gotta tell you, i'm struggling here. i don't see too many choices for covering 24-85mm with 3.5k ( including the 5D body )

i could go with the 35/f2, 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8, but that's it. that would be around 1k.

on the other hand, for the price of the above,
i could get the tamron 28-75 and the tele 70-200 f/4.
probably the worst idea ever to archive the frames in the sample,
but GOSHHH that 70-200 is soooo tempting