# The Three Best Lenses for Filmmaking?



## filmrebel (Sep 8, 2012)

If you could choose three lenses for filming on Canon DSLR, what would they be and why? I've been looking at the Canon 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.8, since they cover all the range (on a full-frame, anyway). Thanks!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 8, 2012)

If you are specifically doing video then a trio of Samyangs may actually be better.. 

The 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4 & 85 f1.4

These lenses have mechanical iris rings and can be declicked for smooth on the fly aperture adjustment, they all have nice wide long throw focus rings, and are all excellent performers.

The more aperture the better for video, as you generally have a fixed shutter speed and for shot matching will want to keep ISO as even as possible between shots.

ND's can stop down a lens when usable aperture runs out, they can't add more in at the wide end. You will find f1.4 softer and trickier to shoot at, but it makes a big difference having it available.

If you want to stick on brand, I am personally not a fan of the 28mm f1.8, I think its a big expensive soft lens. Especially at the edges, which could be more fatal for video than for stills.

Doubtless others will have their own opinions but thats mine.

You'll note that I actually don't own any of these lenses.. I've went down the fast zoom route, which better suits my type of work.


----------



## filmrebel (Sep 8, 2012)

Wow, I would have never thought of using Samyung, but you bring up some good points. For a 50mm, would you recommend the Canon 50mm 1.4? I'm definitely thinking of using the Samyung, it's received some very good reviews. Thanks!


----------



## filmrebel (Sep 8, 2012)

Sorry, not Samyung, it's Samyang.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 8, 2012)

I've got the 50mm f1.8. I've went through about four in the time I've been using the EOS system, my mk1 lost infinity focus, dropped my first mkII and turned it into a tiltshift. My Dad stole my second mk2, and I'm on my third mk2.

I often considered the f1.4, I would like the smoother iris and the better build etc.

It's not a great lens for video work as the focus ring is tiny and quite loose with a short throw, the f1.4 addresses all of these problems, but it's not any better at equivalent apertures. 

Look also at the Sigma 50mm f1.4, its a much more recent design, and unusually for sigma, its actually more expensive than the canon one, some folk rave about it but I gather it suffers from sample variance.

However if you are really buying for video, the build and layout of a manual lens may even steer me towards a zeiss, IF 50mm is a must have.


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 8, 2012)

I have Samyung 35mm F/1.4. The IQ is good. However, I haven't used it for a while because it doesn't have AF. For film, MF actually is just fine. A friend told me, he always disable AF when he take video.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 8, 2012)

Mf is standard for video so unless you're planning on shooting alot of stills I agree with Paulie, go with the Samyangs. I also agree that the canon 28 1.8 isn't that great a lens. I'd always recommend Zeiss but if you're on a budget you can't go wrong with the Samyangs. 35, 50 and 85 is a good start but you may want something a bit wider as well.


----------



## unadog (Sep 8, 2012)

I know this is contrary to what most will tell you, but I love my Canon 24-70 2.8 L for video, and for almost all of my work.

I know it doesn't have mechanical aperature control, but I have done fine with the electronic controls.

I have a large stock of prime lenses, but tehy never get used. I have the Canon 24 2.8, 40 2.8 STM, 50 1.8, 90 TS-E (tilt shift.) I just sold my Canon 85 1.2 and the 45 TS-E. I also have the Zeiss 28 2.8 and 35 2.0 ZE.

Yet teh only lenses that I really use are my 24-70, and the 70-200 when I need more reach. I am thinking of selling all of teh rest of my lenses, with two exceptions.

I have the Canon T4i with video auto focus. I bought the 40 mm STM and 18-135 IS STM lenses to use on teh T4i for video. They feature silint focus mechanisms, and they also focus in a more pleasing manner for video. I plan on keeping those two lenses.

If you do decide to go for manual lenses, the Zeiss are a decent choice. I also really like the focus on the TS-E lenses. They have a very long throw, and you can use the tilt for creative control of depth of filed, either to increase or decrease depth of field. The shift function is also very useful to avoid converging lines in architectural shots, etc. 

They area bit slow at 3.5 or abouts. But the older TS-E (24, 45, 90) cost about $875 used, which is about the cost of ther Zeiss used. 

Good luck!
Michael


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 8, 2012)

What are people's experiences using the 24-105mm f/4 L IS for video?

How important is IS/VR for video?

How important is an aperture ring?

How important is the "play" of a focus ring?


----------



## DB (Sep 9, 2012)

I use my 24-70mm f/2.8L for video all of the time as you're not advised to shoot film below f2.8 -> too soft and OOF [main reason: L lens colour is near perfect and so requires no correction in post]

You do not need IS for video as most video is not shot handheld, and when it is, it is usually done using a rig or glidecam. Best to keep camera on a fluid head mono/tripod. Plus IS drains the batteries and makes a humming sound.

Play on the focus ring should not matter too much, especially as you normally shoot MF using ViveView to get your composition in focus. Thereafter just shoot. Focus pulling is not used by Pro's other than to start or end a scene and they use special equipment to do this and they rehearse it first a couple of times.

An aperture ring is only really important if you're using an old or manual only lens, especially if it has been rendered declicked or smooth by a specialist (e.g. see TheLensDoctor on eBay - they do this to a lot of old but good glass, so that filmmakers can manually adjust the aperture dynamically and not in discrete steps. This allows a greater degree in flexibility with respect to available light (as both your ISO + Shutter Speed will be predetermined and manually set prior to recording).


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 9, 2012)

Did you try these: CN-E24mm T1.5 L F, CN-E50mm T1.3 L F, CN-E85mm T1.3 L F ?

I haven't tried them, but from the notes they seem to be fair good for filmmaking...
They say: "Perfect on the EOS C300, these lenses are also compatible *with all Canon EOS DSLRs.*", so it seems legit.


----------



## filmrebel (Sep 9, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Did you try these: CN-E24mm T1.5 L F, CN-E50mm T1.3 L F, CN-E85mm T1.3 L F ?
> 
> I haven't tried them, but from the notes they seem to be fair good for filmmaking...
> They say: "Perfect on the EOS C300, these lenses are also compatible *with all Canon EOS DSLRs.*", so it seems legit.



Yeah, too bad they're so expensive. I would get them in a heartbeat if they weren't though.


----------



## rmblack (Sep 9, 2012)

I've read that there are new samyang lenses coming out specifically for video...I'll find ya a link



> SAMYANG T1.5 35mm AS UMC
> SAMYANG T1.5 24mm ED AS IF UMC
> SAMYANG T3.1 14mm ED AS IF UMC
> 
> ...



http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samyang_14mm_24mm_35mm_vdslr_cine_lenses/

I use the older 28-70mm 2.8L for filming, as well as an 80-200mm 2.8L. I also own the 50mm 1.4 and 100mm 2.8 macro, but haven't used these as much. The primes may render better colors and detail (the 100 more so than the 50), but having the flexibility of a zoom is critical for framing your shots. 

Remember, that's my experience filming mostly freerunning and parkour, which is spontaneous, high paced, and not necessarily a great subject to film with a dslr : 

What I never understand is why OP would ask for "the best lenses for filming" and expect a worthwhile response. Get specific, man!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 9, 2012)

@dirtcastle



> What are people's experiences using the 24-105mm f/4 L IS for video?
> 
> How important is IS/VR for video?
> 
> ...



A) Never used it. Not an appropriate lens for my camera with it's crop. Generally f4 is a bit low for video in low light/

B) Not really. You'll be shooting at 1/50th. Support is more important as you'll be holding the camera for longer takes otherwise. Think monopod, think counterbalanced tripod.

C) Aperture ring isn't massively important, it's just nice, makes the DSLR behave more like an ENG camera where the responses are tactile rather than electronic. Video is on the fly, so smooth aperture rings let you tweak exposure almost invisibly as far as the end viewer is concerned.

D) Play is the wrong term, i think you mean 'throw', more throw gives you more modulation, more precision.


----------



## daveheinzel (Sep 9, 2012)

My favorite three that I own and use are:

1) Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS ii. The IS on this lens is fantastic for handheld video, and the image quality is so consistently amazing. Love this lens for almost any type of work.

2) Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ZE. It's the cheapest Zeiss you'll find, and it's great for video. Image quality is outstanding - very sharp when focused. And the barrel rotates so much for focus, giving you great control for follow focus. And it has hard stops at the end of each focal range. It's a pain for still photography unless you stop down quite a bit.

3) Canon 17-40mm 4.0. This was my first L lens, and I'd probably like the 16-35 better because of the larger aperture, but I have really been happy with this lens.

I use a 7D and 60D for DSLR video work. Another lens I have and use for video is the 10-22. It's crazy wide at 10, and handheld video has a very seasick kind of feeling. But in some situations it comes in handy.


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 9, 2012)

@paul

Thanks for the info!



paul13walnut5 said:


> D) Play is the wrong term, i think you mean 'throw', more throw gives you more modulation, more precision.



I did mean "play", rather than "throw". I've heard that the smoothness and tension of a focus ring can make a difference when shifting a shallow depth of field.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 11, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> I did mean "play", rather than "throw". I've heard that the smoothness and tension of a focus ring can make a difference when shifting a shallow depth of field.


True, but, what you want there is a long throw. A lens that gives you a 270deg throw is gonna allow for minute adjustments in your DOF. One that has a 60deg throw is gonna be impossible to work with. Having a focus ring that is consistent is important, but the throw is even better. The smoothest ring doesn't matter if shifting it 1/2" means you throw focus 10ft

And I agree with the decision to go with Samyang lenses. You can also go with a variety of legacy lenses (Nikon AI, Contax-Zeiss, etc) that are cheap for what they offer, as you are relying on manual focus anyway. In reality, video gives you a WIDE variety of options, and the 50mm should have the most options. Might even be worth avoiding the Canon options and trying to find something more video specific


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 11, 2012)

Ohhh. I see. That does make a lot of sense.

Is there a chart I can consult for Canon lenses?


----------



## daveswan (Oct 4, 2012)

I tend to use a selection of Leica R glass with adaptors for EF. Focus throw varies from 270 deg to 330 deg for the 21 f/4 Super Angulon, though I use a Zeiss Flektogon 20 f/2.8 for wide.

TBH I'll be moving to the BMC when it delivers and will have to re-think my lens selection.

If my funds hadn't been so tight I'd have sprung for a FD 24 f/1.4 tghough I couldn't use it on my digital Canons. Mind you, I did think of giving it a go on my old EF.


----------



## Jesse (Oct 4, 2012)

...um... Zeiss primes......


----------



## Jesse (Oct 4, 2012)

The Canon 100 L is also great with its hybrid stabilization.


----------



## CarlosM (Oct 4, 2012)

I shall echo the Carl Zeiss vote. The whole "Smooth aperture ring" to me is bunk, only because I work on closed sets 90% of the time and if youre fixing exposure while shooting then you lit wrong.
on the fly shooting IE weddings I can see it being useful. But I remember coming across some reviews that tested the amount of light getting into the lens and it wasnt near what they sold it as.
Rokinon/Samyangs were advertising 1.4 when they were really at f/2 kinda thing. Ill have to dig it up and post it here.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 5, 2012)

@CarlosM

Are you confusing T stops with F stops?

T is a tranmission value, which is measured and can vary from sample to sample and with age etc.

F is a mathematical expression of the relationship between the diameter mechanical aperture and the focal length.

In short, it's more likely that a lens is wrongly marked as say T1.5 than wrongly marked as F1.4.

This may be pedantic, but for film makers the difference is important. I can't imagine Samyang knowingly sell f2.0 lenses at f1.4's. I would be very interested if you could provide the link to the review.


----------



## unadog (Oct 8, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> What are people's experiences using the 24-105mm f/4 L IS for video?
> 
> How important is IS/VR for video?



Many, many people who are shooting ther C300 like the 24-105 as their main lens.

A lot of those folks also say they would not use a lens that did not have IS.

What you are getting here is the tension between traditional "cine" usage of older, manual lenses, and more "run & gun" or documentary usage, with auto focus and even auto exposure in some cases.

It is also important to ask how much still photography you are doing, and whether you need to do both at the same time?

This is a great read on using the C300 for documentary work in Afghanastan (although he is using the 17-55 IS rather thna the 24-105):

http://www.cinemaeosuser.net/index.php?/topic/58-c300-for-documentary-work/


I really like the Canon T4i for video work, with auto focus in video mode. It also has face tracking auto focus, and the ability to change focus by touching a new focus point on the touch screen. 

It isn't perfect, but it moves teh T4i into more of the "camcorder" type range for event video. it also gives you new creative tools for "cine" type work. For example, I can have it track focus on a billboard that is in teh frame, then move the camera laterally and toward teh billboard while it maintains focus (so that "face tracking" isn't a perfect description for what it does.)

Or you can set up a scene with focus on one point, then "pull" focus by touching another point on teh screen. the new STM lenses (the 40 mm and the 18-135) move focus "steo by step" toward the new point silently, rather than huning like traditional USM lenses do.

Purists will chafe - "do everything manually." (I remember when auto focus first came out on cameras in the 1980's? It seemed like "real" photographers wouldn't use auto focus - like it was cheating!)

But new capabilites give you new possibilities. With every camera, you learn a "dance" to make use of it's capabilities to get the resuolts that you want." (Focus and recompose using the center focus point, etc.)

You really just need to start playing, and figure out what makes sense to you.

Good luck!

Best,
Michael


----------



## preppyak (Oct 8, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> This may be pedantic, but for film makers the difference is important. I can't imagine Samyang knowingly sell f2.0 lenses at f1.4's. I would be very interested if you could provide the link to the review.


Yeah, I can't find the link for the exact review, but I believe it was essentially a T-stop issue. They compared the Canon and Samyang lenses side by side, and at f/1.4, the Samyang was a good 2/3 stop darker. I think it was the 24mm lens they tested it on originally, and then confirmed it on other samples and the 35mm. So, it might actually be f/1.4, but the light transmitted was definitely lower than the Canon equivalent.


----------



## Quackator (Oct 8, 2012)

There are a number of features to look for in lenses for filming:
1) A long angle for focussing in order to precisely focus when wide open.
2) Hard stops at both ends for focussing. Without that you can't calibrate a focus puller.
3) Floating elements that prevent the lens from breathing while focussing.
4) Clickfree aperture for smooth fading and small exposure corrections that don't jump 
at the viewer.
5) Standard toothing on aperture ring, zoom ring and focus ring to directly match 
standard follow focus appliances.
6) All scales to the side where the assistant/focus puller can better see them.
7) Aperture markings in T-stops, not f-stops.

All these features are contradictory to what AF lenses dedicated for still photography 
are optimized for

Except for point 3 ("breathing"), the Samyang/Rokinon VDSLR lenses master all these
requirements. The Zeiss/Arri Master Primes obviously master all these requirements, but 
looking at their suggested retail prices is not for the faint of heart.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 9, 2012)

@unadog


> Purists will chafe - "do everything manually." (I remember when auto focus first came out on cameras in the 1980's? It seemed like "real" photographers wouldn't use auto focus - like it was cheating!)



AF on still cameras only has to be in focus when you take your shot. Video has to be contiguous and for moving subjects.

Add in the extremely shallow depth of field that large sensor video capable DSLRs offer and it becomes very tricky.

Switch to AF and you are at the mercy of the camera a) knowing what is supposed to be in focus b) having an AF point close enough to make this possible and c)being able to track / rack focus as desired / required.

I am a purist, and I may chafe at AF for video. But I've tried it the other way, and it just doesn't work.


----------



## unadog (Oct 9, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I am a purist, and I may chafe at AF for video. But I've tried it the other way, and it just doesn't work.



Do you realize that there is new full time auto focus technology for video that has just been released? Which of those cameras have you used?

Newer cameras from Sony, Canon, and Panasonic have Phase Detection auto focus (the kind normally used for still images) built in to the sensor for use during live view and video, in addition to the older Contrast Detection auto focus.

Stepping mechanism focusing is also new. For Canon, that is new with the T4i body as of approximately June 15, and with the 18-135 STM as of August of this year. If your experience is with cameras prior to that, this is totally different technology. It is desined to move more slowly and cleaning toward teh direction of focus only, without hunting. 

Even the high end Canon C300 will have auto focus enabled via a firmware update for the 18-135 STM. That means there are also likely to be a lot of other, higher end lenses in the pipeline with STM.

It is not perfect, but it is very good. Succeeding generations will improve on the technology. 

The new IS on the STM lenses is also calibrated to reduce vibration from hand held use in video mode. New tools create new possibilities. They don't work in all situations, but for people who are creative, they do open up new ways of working.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 9, 2012)

> Do you realize that there is new full time auto focus technology for video that has just been released? Which of those cameras have you used?



None.

I don't use AF for video.

The lens on my ENG camera doesn't even do AF.

Tell me which system can identify the subject, even in the corner of the frame, and not be confused with foreground movement, can keep the subject in focus even if they move in the frame, or if the camera is moving? That lets me rack focus during a pan following a soccer player running right at the camera?

At say 100mm and f2 and at 50m, 25m, 30m, 10 meters distance? That isn't confused by the players nearer the camera?

If you can tell me one I'll certainly try it.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 9, 2012)

Also how many STM lenses are there just now? Any fast telezooms? Ultra fast primes?...

I do keep abreast of technology. If it gets much much better then I'll consider anything that makes my life easier, for now, and I suspect the next 10 years at least I'll be using MF for video. 



> They don't work in all situations, but for people who are creative, they do open up new ways of working.



WTFF (effing eff) does AF or MF have to do with creativity? Am I deemed uncreative because I prefer to MF?

I would get shot down in indignant flames if I were to say that video AF is the mark of the rank novice from all the rank novices who shoot video with AF. So I won't.


----------



## unadog (Oct 9, 2012)

You are being a troll here. I haven't challanged you on a single point. You chose to take exception to small details of my statements. 

You are slamming technology that you have never used, because it can't do everthing, in all situations.

I am sorry that you are old and cranky and set in your ways. I am also older. I have 20+ years of expereince, as well as a degre in photography. But I am still willing to try new things and to continue learning.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 9, 2012)

Havent challenged me on a single point...

"do you realise" 

Thats a challenge.

"for people that are creative"

I'm really not trolling. And I'm not that old. But I'll accept purist.

I try new things all the time, if theres a better way I'll adopt it. I cant try the stm system because i've no intention of buying a t4i (might get an m though) and theres no lenses yet available that suit my needs.

There is a system that can do everyting I said... Its mf for video.

I can be a bit cranky. I'll agree there. But disagreeing with you, from the sharp end of doing video day and daily for a living does not make me a troll.

Many congratulations on your degree.


----------



## unadog (Oct 10, 2012)

Yawn ....


----------



## Quackator (Oct 10, 2012)

You may yawn, but he is right.

(Where'd you buy that degree from?)


----------

