Favorite Prime Lens: What's yours? - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Canon EOS Full Frame for HD
All about using the Canon 1D X, 6D, 5D Mk. IV / Mk. III / Mk. II D-SLR for 4K and HD video recording.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 21st, 2010, 04:09 PM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 542
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.
__________________
BayTaper.com | One man's multimedia journey through the San Francisco live jazz and creative music scene.
Bill Binder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 04:16 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Norwegian lost in California
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Binder View Post
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:
Attached Thumbnails
Favorite Prime Lens: What's yours?-pointblank-apsectr.jpg  
__________________
www.NoPEER.com
Peer Landa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 04:21 PM   #18
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan Couper View Post
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.
Ben Denham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2010, 07:55 AM   #19
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Little Rock
Posts: 1,383
I own more lenses than you can shake a stick at, but one of my favorites is my Zeiss 35/1.4
__________________
David W. Jones
www.joneshdfilms.com
David W. Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2010, 09:59 AM   #20
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,070
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 Brockett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2010, 10:50 AM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Norwegian lost in California
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Brockett View Post
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
__________________
www.NoPEER.com
Peer Landa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2010, 02:45 PM   #22
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,898
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.
__________________
Glen Elliott
Cord 3 Films
Glen Elliott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2010, 06:55 PM   #23
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peer Landa View Post
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
__________________
SONY α77 :: Panasonic X900M :: Sony DSR-PD170P :: Miller DS5 :: Premiere Pro 2.0 :: Cineform NeoScene
Laurence Janus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2010, 01:14 AM   #24
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glen Elliott View Post
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.
Nigel Barker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2010, 05:32 PM   #25
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 8,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Brockett View Post
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.
__________________
Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC?
Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com
Dylan Couper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2010, 06:25 PM   #26
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Norwegian lost in California
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan Couper View Post
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 ;^)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan Couper View Post
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:

-- peer
__________________
www.NoPEER.com
Peer Landa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2010, 11:25 PM   #27
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 8,308
Thanks Peer
Very interesting, and tempting!
__________________
Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC?
Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com
Dylan Couper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2010, 07:19 AM   #28
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Norwegian lost in California
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan Couper View Post
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
__________________
www.NoPEER.com
Peer Landa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2010, 04:41 PM   #29
New Boot
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lahti Finland
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peer Landa View Post
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.
Antti Turpeinen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2010, 12:43 PM   #30
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 139
I hate to nitpick your nitpicking but isn't it 2.35:1?
__________________
SONY α77 :: Panasonic X900M :: Sony DSR-PD170P :: Miller DS5 :: Premiere Pro 2.0 :: Cineform NeoScene
Laurence Janus is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:50 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network