Lens Help for Wedding Videographer!

[Harry Simpson]

kinda defeats the purpose....

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

No, the ISO won't change the depth of field.

-- peer

I know that:-) but if that wide aperture lens is giving you the correct exposure & you stop down to increase the DOF then you will need to increase the gain to compensate.

[Mitchell Lewis]

I agree with shooting moving/uncontrolled subjects at f/1.2. That's crazy. It will be an issue at even f/2.8. If you had an external monitor and a person to pull focus for you then maybe you might be able to do it.

On the other-hand, If you have control over your subject. For example: telling the bride/groom what to do, where to stand, etc.... Then you could probably make a f/1.2 work well.

I would still vote for the 70-200 f/2.8 but I would also add the 16-35mm as it would be nice to get some really wide shots of the entire scene. 16mm on a FF camera is VERY wide and will give you a new look that most people aren't used to seeing in a video.

Remember that the 70-200 is really only useful in very large rooms and outdoors. But most weddings are held in large rooms so you should be okay. The minimum focus distance for the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is 3.94 feet. So keep that in mind as well. The 24-70 is going to be the lens you use 90% of the time I'm guessing.

Finally - rumor has it that Canon is about to release a new 24-70 lens with IS. When shooting handheld IS is your best friend.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/04/e...iscontinued-2/

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

I rarely shoot weddings compared to my other stills & video subjects, but maybe some of my choices will provide a few ideas.

Your lens choice of three fixed primes almost mirrors the combined ranges of your 24-70mm zoom lens, so I would be more tempted to also buy lenses either side of your present wide-angle zoom.

A true 100mm or 180mm macro lens would be useful, especially for close-ups of flowers, rings, etc. and still able to be used normally as a medium telephoto for other subjects such as portraits etc.

A 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 IS is definitely a worthwhile addition to your kit, although for portraits I do prefer the fixed prime models such as 200mm f/2.8; f/2 and f/1.8 or 300mm f/2.8. Tight still shots of the bride with a wide-open 200mm lens can look fantastic and easy to handhold, but for video clips you really need to mount it on a tripod or at the very least a monopod to keep footage smooth.

A wider zoom range than 24mm, such as 16-35mm or 17-35mm or 20-35mm f/2.8 models would be a great addition, or a wide prime lens such as 15mm; 18mm or 20mm (Canon/Nikon/Zeiss) for tight areas or when you want to add impact to normal views.
All of these primes are available in fast f2.8 which is enough for most outdoor and indoor work, and then just keep one of the faster f1.4 optics such as the 24mm, 50mm or 85mm primes for low available light conditions.

I'd also be tempted to add a steadycam to your kit for use with one of the three camera bodies matched with your widest prime or zoom lens.
The 5D is so lightweight, even when combined with the BG-E6, that you don't need a vest and can use smaller handheld steadicams like the Merlin, Glidecam or Hague.
Ultra-smooth steadicam clips add a lot of visual impact to shots of any subject. For example you could do one smooth 'fly-through' (like a bird in flight) where the camera glides up the flower-lined path outside the church, enters through the church doors and past all the pews to land at the altar.

On the subject of 'L' lenses, I'd be tempted to stick with them if using Canon, although also take a look at other superb quality optics in the Nikon & Zeiss ranges, including the pro-ranges from Tokina, Sigma and Tamron.

[Peter Chang]

Get the Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro!

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Peter Chang

Get the Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro!

Although I haven't done any wedding gigs, I would think a 2.8 IS 70-200mm zoom would be more versatile than a 100mm. No?

-- peer

[Ken Diewert]

I might as well chime in as I do shoot weddings with the 5d2.

The 70-200 2.8L is very practical and I use it alot.

I use the 50mm 1.4. (at the receptions - when the lights go down). I would like something wider, and will probably pick up something wider and faster, maybe even the 24mm f2.8. It's not the 24mm f1.4 - but it's a handy cheaper version.

I also use the 17-40L f4, because I can use it on the glidecam, at the wide end and it flies quite well. Obviously the 16-35 f2.8 would be a step up - but I shoot the 17-40 at higher iso and the smaller apertures makes focusing relatively easy.

Something to really consider with weddings, especially when you're shooting solo, is that it really is run-n-gun, and fast lenses require far more time for critical focus. When I use the 17-40 f4. I really can almost leave it set at the near edge of infinity and everything outside of 12' or so looks pretty good. With the 70-200 f2.8 - you're always peeking and tweaking. The 50mm f1.4 is even more so.

Having said all that - If I had the extra cash, I'd pick up the 16-35 2.8, the 24-70 2.8, and what the hell, that 100mm 2.8 macro would be great too.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Also consider Zeiss ZE lenses. They have smooooth focus rings and hard stops. The 85/1.4 and 50/1.4 have nice, long-travel focus rings that turn about 220 degrees. The 35/2.0 is a great, all purpose focal length, but it's not as fast and the ring only turns 110 degrees or so. The 28/2.0 is known as the "Hollywood" lens.

At work, I have access to the 85/1.4, 35/2, and the 21/2.8. I wouldn't go as wide as the 21 for wedding video. The corners get a bit weird with motion. You usually have enough working space at a wedding to back up if you need to "get it all in". A 24 or 28 is all you should need. If you want that super-wide effect, a fisheye might be better, since people will "get" that it's an intentional effect, rather than sensing that something is a bit off.

For general filmmaking, I'm thinking that the 100/2 Makro, 50/2 Makro, and 28/2 (Hollywood) would be a fantastic set. The apertures are matched, they're faster than zooms, they give you macro capabilities, and the linear/curvature distortion is near zero. But they're not far from what you can do with your zoom, aside from the macro capabilities.

To compliment your zooms, I might go with the mindset of covering odds and ends that you can't already get: the 85L for shallow DOF portraits and low-light, the 35L for general purpose low-light and near macro stuff. Maybe a true macro. Maybe a fisheye for kicks. Longer lenses (200+) can be used for a cinema verite look where people don't know they're being filmed. Just be careful not to make it look like stalker footage or an FBI sting!

But also consider the Zeiss stuff for their smooth focus rings.

[Luc De Wandel]

Originally Posted by Mitchell Lewis

I agree with shooting moving/uncontrolled subjects at f/1.2. That's crazy. It will be an issue at even f/2.8. If you had an external monitor and a person to pull focus for you then maybe you might be able to do it.

On the other-hand, If you have control over your subject. For example: telling the bride/groom what to do, where to stand, etc.... Then you could probably make a f/1.2 work well.

I would still vote for the 70-200 f/2.8 but I would also add the 16-35mm as it would be nice to get some really wide shots of the entire scene. 16mm on a FF camera is VERY wide and will give you a new look that most people aren't used to seeing in a video.

Remember that the 70-200 is really only useful in very large rooms and outdoors. But most weddings are held in large rooms so you should be okay. The minimum focus distance for the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is 3.94 feet. So keep that in mind as well. The 24-70 is going to be the lens you use 90% of the time I'm guessing.

Finally - rumor has it that Canon is about to release a new 24-70 lens with IS. When shooting handheld IS is your best friend.
EF 35 f/1.4L Discontinued? Canon Rumors

Couldn't agree more. I've been a pro stills photographer for 35 years (Concertpix' homepage) and nowadays these are my favorite lenses for 5D mkII in moviemaking, from the 15+ I've owned: 24-105; 16-35; 70-200 (f2,8) and the 300 f2,8 (sharpest lens canon ever made). Try to find a good Merlin steadycam, and put your camera on it, with the 16-35 in full wide-angle. The results, when moving down the aisle, or through a crowd (reception, etc...) is just awesome.