Favorite Prime Lens: What's yours?

[Bill Binder]

In all fairness here, I don't think that's a fair test/example because the 4:3 frame above wouldn't be framed that way if it were shot in that format (e.g., the subject on the right wouldn't be cut off like that). That said, even if it were framed more reasonably, I'd probably still opt for the wider aspect ratio myself.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Bill Binder

In all fairness here, I don't think that's a fair test/example because the 4:3 frame above wouldn't be framed that way if it were shot in that format (e.g., the subject on the right wouldn't be cut off like that).

Well then, what about this example:

[Ben Denham]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

And to the others who have mentioned the takumar lenses... I've used a friend of mine's a couple times. It's spectacular glass and very affordable. I don't use them just because there aren't many to choose from and I need a pretty wide spread of matching lenses, hence all Nikon for me (besides my Lomo superspeed set), but yeah, great glass, sharper than my Nikon 1.4 at wide open!

I've found that particular takumar SMC 50mm 1.4 matches pretty well with canon lenses. It is a little warmer than my 24-70mm canon zoom but only marginally, nothing that can't be corrected pretty easily in post, (or perhaps in camera, something I plan to look into). The important thing is that both lenses are on the warm side of the spectrum. Matching Takumars or Canons with lenses that have a cooler rendering of colours is not something that I would want to mess around with.

[David W. Jones]

I own more lenses than you can shake a stick at, but one of my favorites is my Zeiss 35/1.4

[Dan Brockett]

Hi Peer:

I understand the choice from an aesthetic point of view, I just can't understand it from a practical point of view. Looking at 2:39 on a 16:9 set is akin to viewing 16:9 on a 4:3 set, it is a big compromise, you are wasting a ton of screen space. The only place it makes sense is for theatrical viewing and I am willing to bet that less that 1/10 of 1% of DSLR anamorphic shooters are having their work shown theatrically. Why would you want your work shown on the web and on TV sets as a tiny ribbon of content in a vast field of black?

It's a fascinating phenomena.

Dan

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

Looking at 2:39 on a 16:9 set is akin to viewing 16:9 on a 4:3 set, it is a big compromise, you are wasting a ton of screen space. The only place it makes sense is for theatrical viewing and I am willing to bet that less that 1/10 of 1% of DSLR anamorphic shooters are having their work shown theatrically.

Why would you need to show 2.39:1 only in theaters?! Because we are "wasting a ton of screen space"?! It's like saying 4:3 should only be watched on CRT's because otherwise "you are wasting a ton of screen space".

(Besides -- although we got a 54 inch set at home, I prefer watching 2.39:1 on my laptop in bed with headphones.)

-- peer

[Glen Elliott]

My favorite thus far has been the 50 1.2L. I've worked with the 85 1.2 and it is an amazing piece of glass- but feel that 50mm is a more usable range than 85mm (even on a full frame camera like the 5D). The 85 1.2 is my favorite talking-head/interview lens.

I'm about to invest in the 24 1.4L. I've heard a lot of good things about it. It seems like it would make an excellent glidecam lens- though I'd lose the ability to zoom if need be. For that reason the 16-35 may be better. I have the 24-70 and glide with that but when you zoom the lens breathes (moves) which throws off balance. The 16-35 doesn't do that. I don't know...I'm torn.

[Laurence Janus]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

Well then, what about this example:

I like the middle one. But not as much as I like reading Peer's latest rant. LOL, we should hang out.

My favorite prime is my 50mm 1.8 because it is my only prime

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Glen Elliott

My favorite thus far has been the 50 1.2L. I've worked with the 85 1.2 and it is an amazing piece of glass- but feel that 50mm is a more usable range than 85mm (even on a full frame camera like the 5D). The 85 1.2 is my favorite talking-head/interview lens.

I'm about to invest in the 24 1.4L. I've heard a lot of good things about it. It seems like it would make an excellent glidecam lens- though I'd lose the ability to zoom if need be. For that reason the 16-35 may be better. I have the 24-70 and glide with that but when you zoom the lens breathes (moves) which throws off balance. The 16-35 doesn't do that. I don't know...I'm torn.

The Canon 50mm F1.2L is my favourite prime lens & the 24mm F1.4L is my #2 lens. I too am tempted by the 16-35mm F2.8L especially for the 16mm ultra-wide view. However I didn't already own the 24mm then the extra two stops of aperture on that lens would make the choosing between the two very difficult.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

Hi Peer:

I understand the choice from an aesthetic point of view, I just can't understand it from a practical point of view. Looking at 2:39 on a 16:9 set is akin to viewing 16:9 on a 4:3 set, it is a big compromise, you are wasting a ton of screen space. The only place it makes sense is for theatrical viewing and I am willing to bet that less that 1/10 of 1% of DSLR anamorphic shooters are having their work shown theatrically. Why would you want your work shown on the web and on TV sets as a tiny ribbon of content in a vast field of black?

It's a fascinating phenomena.

Dan

Dan, though Peer and I have disagreed before (and probably will again :) I'm one of those who would rather watch 2:39 on a 16:9 set. It's a pleasing format to the eye. If I could shoot anamorphic on my 5D (without spending a fortune or using bad adapters), I would.

Peer... stop teasing us an post a couple screen grabs from your anamorphic lens, please.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Dan, though Peer and I have disagreed before (and probably will again :)

Yea, I know -- but I'm sure we can find something to argue about again -- it gets too dull around here otherwise ;^)

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I'm one of those who would rather watch 2:39 on a 16:9 set. It's a pleasing format to the eye. If I could shoot anamorphic on my 5D (without spending a fortune or using bad adapters), I would. Peer... stop teasing us an post a couple screen grabs from your anamorphic lens, please.

Since my anamorphic setup isn't very "gig friendly" (currently I'm doing some boring corporate stuff), I won't have any real footage ready to show till later. But for now (and just for you Dylan) I uploaded a super quick 2.39:1 test:

Anamorphic test -- 2.39:1 on Vimeo

-- peer

[Dylan Couper]

Thanks Peer
Very interesting, and tempting!

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Thanks Peer
Very interesting, and tempting!

Sure. In fact, nowadays I consider 16:9 being the new 4:3 -- it has become the pedestrian aspect ratio while 2.39:1 is the pro & classy format. And trust me, this is not just me. Just a minute ago I was checking the news on CNN, and up came this 2.39:1 commercial -- so I checked out who made it and found that all their ads are 2.39:1 -- Vint Cerf - Father of the Internet

-- peer

[Antti Turpeinen]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

Well then, what about this example:

The one on the bottom says 'lovely' to me :)

My favourite prime lens is Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ZE. Also old manual Nikkors getting use here.

[Laurence Janus]

I hate to nitpick your nitpicking but isn't it 2.35:1?