Okay thanks, but is how is the technique a fad now though? I haven't seen it done in a movie in so long that I thought it would be a newer technique for today, compared to 30 years ago.

Mostly I just wanted to do a couple of crash zooms, to show reveals, like when an actor runs into a room then we quickly zoom back to reveal that their are men waiting to ambush him. That is what I wanted to use it for, things like that.

I was told to dolly back instead, but I can't move the dolly fast enough, and it then becomes a much slower reveal, instead of a fast reveal. The actors then have to wait for the camera to play catch up to their ambush, if I am dollying much slower, if that makes sense.

This is why I was told to pull focus faster, when doing the crash zoom. But is focus pulling during a crash zoom absolutely impossible then?

Why not just use a separate shot of the baddies lying in wait ?

Much simpler and more effective, and after the cutaway you can always come back to a wider shot showing the ambush from another angle ...

Well I thought of that. It's just I thought that a fast zoom would be more suspenseful to the situation rather than just simply cutting a lot of the time.

However, I think we have a much much bigger problem now though. It seems that the lens will not focus at all if we turn the focus ring. Not just for zooms but for anything it won't. Is it because we have an adapter in between the lens and the camera, and we need electric power going to the lens for the focus ring to work?

Once you understand the limitations of using dslr with non cinematic lenses you’ll be able storyboard approaches to avoid these limitations. While it’s fine to be inspired by Hollywood movies you’ll find replicating them problematic. Much of film making is creative problem solving. Rarely what you envision in your mind will survive the real world.

Generally speaking photo lenses found on these cameras aren’t designed to zoom or focus manually smoothly. They’re made to be used with auto focus. As a result it’s best to avoid zooms and while it’s easier pull focus it’s better to avoid it.

We can’t answer your specific questions without knowing what your exact setup is. Sounds like your camera and or lens is highly reliant on automatic settings. It might be one thing to turn off auto and another to be able to control things manually.

In the past zoom/focus ring on a lens directly changed the internal elements but now theses rings are no more than buttons that communicate with servo motors in the lens and/or camera that in turn move the lens elements.

Which cirlcles us back around yet again...I think it’s worth completely rethinking the shooting approach to this sequence. There are nearly infinite ways to cover it and you lasered in on this one. shoot...probably every marvel/netflix show has many examples of scenes just like yours. How did THEY shoot it? Did their decision lack tension and suspense etc. etc.? Probably not.

I think if you watch other films/shows youll get a ton of new alternative ideas on how to stage and cover this. That’s one of things it took me years to figure out...researching what other have done and letting their ideas inspire you instead of just trying to figure everything out in your mind.

Basically, if you don't have the tools to do a shot one way, you have to come up with another method that will work with the tools you have available. Sometimes you can come up with a more imaginative way of doing it. limitations often spur creativity.

Right. And sometimes when you DONT do that you regret it later.

I worked on a short film a while ago that had some gun stuff. We didnt have a way to do the blood stuff or the gun stuff well but did it anyway...and I wish we’d found another approach...show a shadow on the wall when the gun flahses and someone is shot, cut to outside of the house wide and see window light up briefly (these were night scenes), ANYTHING besides what we did cause it looked meh and reminds you youre a)watching a movie and b) a zero budget one.

Okay thanks. I see what you mean. Well I can just use the gimbal to do the reveal then, or I can just cut ahead maybe.

I have a much bigger problem now though it turns out.

It seems that the lens will not focus at all if we turn the focus ring. Not just for zooms but for anything it won't. Is it because we have an adapter in between the lens and the camera, and we need electric power going to the lens for the focus ring to work?

But even if I use the Canon lens on a Canon camera, I am also having problems using the follow focus. If I make marks on the follow focus to focus from point A to point B during shooting for example, the lens does not seem to hit it's mark's as accurately. Is this because it's a fly-by-wire focus system, as oppose to mechanical?

If this is the case, should I just sell the lens and get a telephoto lens that is all mechanical so I don't have to worry about these electronic interferences and shortcomings? Plus it was said on here that it's easier to pull focus with a follow focus, on a mechanical lens, than a fly-by-wire one, so would trading this lens in for a mechanical just make things easier all around?

Pulling focus is tough period unless your or your puller are very experienced at it. Solutions are stopping down the lens so people can move around more inside the available DOF and staging the blocking/conposin the shot to work within those limitations, or using wider lenses where you have way more in focus all the time, making it work stylistically. This is all from personal experience on zero budget stuff with dslrs and C100.

Okay thanks, but I watched this video on it, and they say in the video that pulling focus on fly-by-wire lenses, is much more difficult compared to mechanical focus rings:

Focus By Wire: Why It Sucks (Featuring Possible Solutions!) - YouTube

So even though pulling focus is difficult either way, isn't it still more difficult on a fly-by-wire from what they say?

Probably? I have not tried one vs the other but the mechanical lenses are at least designed where when the ring is set at a certain place, youre focused (approximately) at a certain distance. It’s consistent and repeatable. Not so with fly by wire.

Yes, that is why I have been having focus problems with this fly-by-wire zoom lens, is that when I set focus marks, they don't seem to be the same each time and cannot be repeated, just as you say.

So I am wondering if I should just sell the lens and get a telephoto zoom lens that has an all mechanical ring, for around hopefully the same price, if it will focus better.

Or if you say to work with what I have, how does a focus puller suppose to set distances and marks with a fly-by-wire lens, or what do they do instead to compensate with the gear that they have to pull focus?

When I went to film school, they never even taught us on fly-by-wire lenses, and I haven't even heard of that until now on here. So what does a focus puller do to pull focus instead if they cannot set distances or marks?

There isn’t any doubt that a cinema lens is what you need to pull focus. This is what everyone has been saying from the beginning.

It still isn’t easy and it introduces other issues. Mainly cost. You can buy cheap Chinese primes like Ronkino. Then you need a quality field monitor and focus pulling accessories.

Either you are doing this for a hobby or gaining experience to parlay into some commercial related video work that you can earn a living. You can only lose money making these type of low budget movies.

Actually I managed to find a hard stop telephoto lens on sale cheap!

Is the Sigma 150-500 camera lens worth buying, since it's on sale now?

It's the https://www.bhphotovideo.com/…/Sigma_737101_150_500mm_f_5_6…/BI/2855/KBID/3801 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/&/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801) to be exact.

I'm usually uncomfortable buying second hand equipment cause it's been used and you don't know how worn out it is, compared to new stuff, or if there is any damage you find in the long run.

However the lens is on sale where I live for a hugely low price compared to a new Sigma model. So I was wondering if this lens is worth buying at all, even if it means needing an adapter to put it on a different camera possibly.

The person at the store said that since it's an older model it may not be as sharp and have some vignetting issues in the corners, but is he right, or was he just saying this so I would buy a new model perhaps?

I wanted a lens that can zoom into 300mm, for some long shots, where as this one zooms into 500 so a little more than what I need maybe, but for such a cheap price, is it worth the extra size and weight maybe to get a good 300mm quality lens, if it is?

As for needing a cinema lens, other people have been pulling focus on DSLR lenses though. On film riot, they even do this all the time. So isn't it possible since other people have made movie with DSLRs and DSLR lenses that have went on to win awards even? As for buying Ronkino lenses, I couldn't find a company called Ronkino. Do you mean Rokinon?

As for other equipment I work with videographers who have their own equipment and they help shoot as I direct. However, one thing they do not have is a telephoto lens, so I have to supply that for them, and just trying to find the best one for this project as well as future projects to invest in.

With a stills zoom lens there is the chance that it will lose focus when you zoom in. Since this apparently varies from lens to lens the odds are that will do so until you test it..So it's best regarded a lens that has the option of various focal lengths.

Rokinon lenses are used by a number of film makers, although better when stopped down, they're not great when wide open. DSLR prime lenses are available that you can pull fucus on.

Okay thanks. Well I couldn't find any Rokinon lenses that go as high as 300mm since I want that for some other shots, other than this one I am talking about.

But I could still use a zoom lens for doing long pans and tilts, and for other shots, where I want high compression, where I don't require a zoom.

So let's say I say screw zooming, but still want a telephoto zoom lens with various focal lengths. I already have the Canon 75-300. But the problem is, is that I am having trouble focusing cause it's focus-by-wire.

So would it be worth selling and buying a Sigma 150-500mm, since that lens has all mechanical focusing, and would that make it easier, that it's worth trading in for?

Yes Rokinon.

If you want to pull focus by wire be my guest.

A telephoto zoom is an odd choice of lens for cinema work.

Well there are lots of movies that use telephoto lenses though. Mainly the movie i am wanting to make has some running chase scenes in and the telephoto lens can track someone for a long time. The scene in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly where Tuco is running through the graveyard, had a telephoto lens tracking him as he ran, so I wanted that kind of lens movement which you cannot get with a lens that is not telephoto. I also want shots with high compression, like OTS shots where the characters look real close to each other and a telephoto lens will get that high compression.

Longer focal lengths are used in quite a few films, cinema has no focal length restrictions, Often the longer end of a 25 to 250mm zoom is used, plus there are also prime lenses. The Canon range has been a traditional favorite.

Oh okay thanks. When you say the Canon end has been a traditional favorite, why is that exactly? Anything I should be aware of there?

I also asked another filmmaker and he said that I should sell my lenses cause they are fly-by-wire, and that I should buy hard stop lenses instead. Do you think he's right though, and that fly-by-wire is that bad, that I should sell, and take the loss, and get all hard stops?

The Canon lenses focus the "right" direction, unlike Nikon lenses. The lenses are modified with a universal mount, which meant that the lens mount can be quickly changed by the rental companies so that they could be fitted to a range of film cameras. The Canon 300mm f2.8 would be the main lens, but they had longer focal lens available in the Canon range.

The universal mount involves removing the rear of the lens and fitting a new section with a thread onto which the various camera mounts can be fitted. You can still buy these lenses, but they are professional still lenses, so aren't cheap and the modification isn't cheap either.

"Hard stop" focus allow you to to directly pull focus and use the markings on the lens, a focus ring that turns continuously can't be used this way.

Oh okay, but so far when I have been using my fly-by-wire lenses, I was putting the markings on the lens myself with a grease pencil. So even though there are no markings on their originally, can't you still focus with a fly-by-wire as long as you make the markings yourself, and make sure to hit them, rather than overturn the ring at any point?

I can't comment on the lenses you've using, but that tends not to be consistent on the lens I've used.

Oh okay, how is it not consistent?

The care required meant it wasn't practical on the rough and tumble of a professional shoot, when changes can quickly happen. Even short throw manual focus rings can cause problems when the markings are close together.

The distances are usually measured with a tape by the camera assistant.

Oh okay, I see, it's just I thought we could measure with tape an assistant with a fly-by-wire, the same way as mechanical focus. I thought that maybe by not having to turn the ring as far, with the markings closer together, was a good thing, cause then I can pull focus faster I thought.

Is a short throw ring and a fly-by-wire ring, the same thing when say 'short throw'?

A short throw focus ring is one that is commonly found on stills lens and video zoom lenses. With these lenses the scale is often a 1/3 rotation, intended to be used by the camera operator, cine scales are much longer, perhaps 300 degrees.

Oh okay, so on still lenses, is the short throw pretty much the same distance on a mechanical ring, as oppose to fly-by-wire?

If so though, how does that make mechanical rings better on still lenses, if the distance on fly-by-wires are the same?

This explains:

Focus By Wire: Why It Sucks (Featuring Possible Solutions!) - YouTube

Okay thanks, I watched that video before :).

The one thing they mention is that sometimes when you try to make marks on the lens and focus that it goes from macro to infinity. I haven't experienced that so far, but maybe.

So the reason fly-by-wire sucks is because there is no markings on the lenses. But when I checked out mechanical focus ring lenses at the camera store, there were no marking on those either, and you still have to make them with a grease pencil.

If they are not cine lenes, but still DSLR lenses, where you have to make the markings yourself, are they still worth buying over fly-by-wire still?

I think some important things got missed.

The two types of lenses "feel" different, literally the way it feels as you turn the ring on one vs the other. Some people can feel the focus pull, probably easier to do that on a mechanical.

More importantly, what we mean when we talk about consistency is the the lens returning to the same focus point every time you return to a given mark. Cine lenses are the best at this, mechanical still lenses a little crappier perhaps, and fly by wire the crappiest.

So you make your mark on the lens for an talent end mark that's at 8 feet from the lens, or whatever. On a mechanical focus lens you SHOULD be sharp every time you hit that mark (if your actor hits their mark), on a fly by wire...who knows? That's the big difference. If you're willing to live with that, cool. Perhaps you stay with fly-by-wire and just check playback after each take unless you have a sharp/large enough monitor that you can tell if/when you nail it.

Okay thanks, I thought maybe on the fly-by-wire lenses that I needed more practice and I was the problem to get it extremely accurate, but perhaps it's the lenses then.

If you want to make a career out of this get the right equipment and learn the right methods. That's why I suggested Rokinon. It's not that I think they're great lenses but they're the right tool for the job and something you can afford. All you need to make a movie is a wide, medium, and telephoto prime. Heck some movies have been made with just one prime! You've spent an entire month talking about crash zooms maybe it is time to buy a telephoto lens, an 85mm or maybe 135mm for those closeups and borrow the other focal lengths from your friends.

Okay thanks but I need at least a 300mm lens for the next project cause I want to some shots that require a longer length than 135mm. Basically I want to move the camera while following the actors as they are running during chase scenes, and I cannot follow them for as long amount of time with a 135mm before they start to get further away. With the 300mm, I can track them and move the camera with them longer.

I also want a 300 for other shots, such as a close up of an actor's face, and he is pointing his gun towards the camera, and the gun looks really close to the face. I can't get that shot with a 135mm on my zoom lens.

Or another shot I want are over the shoulder shots, where you can make the person look really close to the other person, even though they are sitting an entire table length apart.

So for those shots I would like a 300mm cause 135mm will not quite be enough. So is there any company that makes a 300mm lens, like a Rokinon one, where it's easier to pull focus and operate for a good price, like Rokinon?

I worked on some commercials that used a 25mm to 250mm zoom at the long end and you needed a very large room in order to get far enough back.

I'd check out some older lens, many film makers use them and if you get a top end brand the quality will be good. These will have a manual focus and build quality of the higher end lenses is usually extremely good.

A less well known one https://www.scottscheetzphotography.com/blog/equipment-review-tamron-300mm-f28

Although, I suspect the f4 lenses will be more in your price range.

With a properly design lens that is designed to remain in focus throughout the zoom range the design allows for any focus point to be the same at all focal lengths so markings are repeatable. On a stills style lens the markings will always be +\- an amount depending on where you set the zoom. You could mark the zoom position in say five different colours then mark the focus in the same colour any build up a pattern that you could present on a chart but I’ve never tried this to see what the results looked like.

Okay thanks. If I can't zoom, then I can't zoom, and I will just get a telephoto lens for other shots, besides zoom shots then :).

I thought about getting an older lenses before and tried one out, but it had a much softer look to it. The person at the camera store, told me that older lenses have softer looks to them, and if I want a telephoto lens that is sharp in order to match, they said that I need a modern telephoto to match the other modern lenses I will be using.

Do you think that's true though, and that older lenses perhaps just look too different? There is one on sale though that is used that is the Sigma 150-500 so maybe that one will match modern lenses perhaps?

Older lenses are much in demand because of their look, the latest lenses being regarded as too clinical by many and the older lenses have a more interesting look on the digital cameras. However, you do need to ensure your lenses match, so you can't mix old and new lenses unless they have the same characteristics. Cooke are now manufacturing new versions of their Panchro lenses.

https://www.cookeoptics.com/l/panchro-classic.html

Okay thanks, that's what I was told before, not to mix old and new. So I get an older telephoto lens, but also want wide and medium lenses, then I should get older ones of those as well. Or otherwise I would get all new. If Rokinons are good, is there any telephoto lens that is new that operates like Rokinon for pulling focus, but also has the same quality looking match?

Or I can stick to getting all old lenses if that's better or those Cooke ones.

The Cooke lenses are well out of your price range, even old ones will be out of it these days. There's a big demand for them.

Regarding vintage lenses, I would look online for the different characteristic of various lenses, it's a personal choice. I know someone bought a budget 1970s lens from ebay for £5 and liked the images it produced on a BlavkMagic camera.

An older high quality telephoto should hold up pretty well with the Rokinon. It's a matter of matching the contrast and colour as much as possible.

Part of that comes down to the visual style you’re after...what do you want the final product to look like? Do you want a softer look, a razor sharp look? Does it matter to you? That will narrow down your possible choices.

Okay thanks. Whether or not I want a soft or razor sharp look depends on certain factors. One filmmaker I know told me that with the softer look, you can actually get away with more, such as say, prop guns being made out of rubber, as oppose to needing them being made out of real metal with razor sharp modern lenses, cause then with the sharp ones, you can tell if it's rubber or not.

Is that true though, that softer lenses are better for more flexibility with prop realism?

I wouldn't confuse "soft" too much, the lenses are not that soft, it depends on the quality of your rubber props. Poor props will still look like rubber, high end feature films still use "rubber" props for fights etc.

The lens choice is aesthetic and about how you want the film to look overall. Basing it just on your rubber props is pretty utilitarian.

Yeah that's true. Well I am not sure which look would be best. By soft are we talking like the softness of an 80s movie more so?

No, it's to give a more "organic" look to a digital image. How soft a 80s film looks will depend on the film, they're different and have differing lens filtration .

If you want that look you should shoot on film.

Okay thanks, it's kind of tough decide on a look vs. the price what I can afford. Is there any lenses around 300mm that are around a similar range of price a Rokinon, that I perhaps am missing?

Look on eBay, you may used early Canon 300mm f2.8 lenses there, these are professional lenses and should hold up pretty well with a Rokinon (it probably out performs them) However, a used Canon 300mm f4L may be a better bet on the price,

I would use google to see comments and reviews of these lenses,

Okay thanks. I tried looking for Canon before but it seemed all the lenses so far that could connect to a modern adapter are fly-by-wire, unless older ones that are not fly-by-wire can also connect to an adapter as well. I can keep looking.

As for the zoom shot I wanted before, I thought maybe I could just cut it instead. I could show a close up of the main character look through the door window, and then cut to a about 50 or more feet away, and show the people waiting to ambush him.

But I am worried this will be jarring to the audience, if I cut instead of zoom. When I cut to the 50 or more feet away of the men waiting to ambush, the audience might be thinking "what, were are we now? where is the main character all of a sudden. Is there a window in the background far away from everyone? Is he looking through that window?"

So I am wondering if cutting to such a far away point of view all of a sudden, will cause the audience to loose their sense of direction of I cut, as oppose to a zoom back.

I suspect you'll have to work on the shot in your own mind, forums can only go so far.

Regarding the lens, the mounting system will be a restricting factor. Some camera mounts give you a wide range of options through adapters, mirrorless cameras from say Sony offer advantages in this.

Okay thanks. I tried mounting my current lens on other cameras, with adapters cause I want a telephoto, I can mount from camera to camera, depending on what the cinematographer has. I tried with an electronic adapter that feeds power to the lens.

I noticed that the fly-by-wire focus still works, with an adapter, on another camera. However, the F-stops do not work. It just says "F--", instead of having actual F-stops. So if I were to get an all mechanical focus ring, what's the point of an electronic adapter, if the aperture doesn't even work with it?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/overview-lens-adapters/BI/2855/KBID/3801