Which lenses produce the best quality footage? at DVinfo.net

Tim Kho · April 24th, 2010, 07:25 AM

I am stuck using the stock Fujinon lens for my GY HD 111e and want to upgrade the lens. I do wedding videography and need the right lens to get that crispy quality looking footage.

DnM Wedding Films

the opening video is the quality i am after.

Shaun Roemich · April 24th, 2010, 11:38 AM

The shallow depth of field looks like a Depth of Field adaptor (or dSLR) to me, although one COULD use the Macro to get the flower shot successfully on the stock lens.

Tim Kho · April 26th, 2010, 05:43 AM

How about the red rock adaptor? have you had any experience with those for the JVC camera gy hd series?

Adam Letch · April 28th, 2010, 01:00 AM

away from any shallow dof lenses in wedding work, since the nature of footage is very fluid and often you don't have time to set shots up you want to make sure as much as possible is in focus most of the time. Typically its work is small areas, I"d go with the 13x fujinon, good sharp lense and cheap compared to the other serious offerings, though I've not personally read how good the new 14x is, if it's good, well bang for buck go for that.

cheers

Adam

Paul R Johnson · April 28th, 2010, 01:15 AM

I know it's a stupid question, but if all you're after is a bit less depth of field to make the foreground object stand out, in many cases, you can achieve this without all the adaptors and expense simply by cutting down the amount of light getting through the lens. So a neutral density filter, and/or increasing the shutter speed all cut the light down and the lens opens up. So many cameras nowadays are really sensitive and their lens spends most time outdoors with a really small working aperture. Indoors with artificial light, we get many questions asking about manual v auto focus as it's always blurred!

Before spending any money, try cutting the light down and see how the camera reacts.

Alex Humphrey · April 28th, 2010, 07:44 AM

The DOF adapters are large, bulky and suck up what little light you will have at a wedding. If you've got the money the fujinon 13x is great, but the OLD 17x5 is $2,500 everywhere and the new 17x4.5 that was redesigned is $3,500 everywhere as well. The 17x5 at it's worst is about as good or slightly better than the 16x at it's best. The 13x is a step up from the 17x5 and 2 steps up (maybe more?) from the 16x. No idea what the new 17x4.5 looks like, but I believe it's being also sold on the Pansonic HPX300, so there might be some lens testing on those forums (dvxuserl.com for instance if not here)

there was some talk here about nature. I woul vote to check out MTF adapters (under $500) that mount in place of your lens, then you mounte used old school Nikon (Nikkor preferred) MF 35mm lenses. That will get you high magnification with nice glass. Remember your stock lens is what 5-88mm or something like that. So when you put on a 100mm or a 200mm or 300mm, guess what, same numbering system.. or if your coming form 35mm world it's about 7x magnifcation of what your used to since the 1/3 CCD chip is seeing the center portion of the 35mm film plane that the lens was designed for. FYI the 125mm or even 100mm NIkorrs or even Nikon (e series) were very nice for that top quality look just beyond the reach of the stock lens, only much sharper from corner to corner... but for weddings, stick with a Fujinon 17x5 or 17x4.5 or a 13x. the new Canon lens might be ok, but it's the cheap entry level kit lens made by Canon rather than Fujinon. All reports is that it's better than the Fujinon kit lens, but perhaps not at the level of the Fujinon 17x5 lens.

hey not a bad ramble before coffee...??

Sareesh Sudhakaran · April 30th, 2010, 11:17 AM

a 35mm adapter would be more pain than it is worth for practical photography...unless of course you had all the time in the world and a guy to pull focus all the time on that shallow DOF.

Enzo Giobbé · April 30th, 2010, 02:17 PM

In my opinion, the 17x5 is the sharpest / most contrasty lens in the line (I also own the 13x3.5 and 18x4.2 lenses).

Here's the proof (shot with a HD200B capturing to a MR-HD100 drive set to Quicktime 16:9 SD, detail -3, Skin detail: off, #1 black Promist up, ND 1, F.4.5 - 5.6 / Adobe Flash conversion set to 400K, med quality): A Nightmare on Elm Street - Red Carpet Interviews | Horror.com

Even with all the Flash compression, you can still see the detail in the clothes (even the thread pattern). The 17x5 is a killer sharp lens that often has to be filtered down when used in interviews or movie projects.

April 24th, 2010, 11:38 AM	#2
Shaun Roemich Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada Posts: 4,088	The shallow depth of field looks like a Depth of Field adaptor (or dSLR) to me, although one COULD use the Macro to get the flower shot successfully on the stock lens. __________________ Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/

April 28th, 2010, 01:00 AM	#4
Adam Letch Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 414	I'd stick away from any shallow dof lenses in wedding work, since the nature of footage is very fluid and often you don't have time to set shots up you want to make sure as much as possible is in focus most of the time. Typically its work is small areas, I"d go with the 13x fujinon, good sharp lense and cheap compared to the other serious offerings, though I've not personally read how good the new 14x is, if it's good, well bang for buck go for that. cheers Adam

April 30th, 2010, 11:17 AM	#7
Sareesh Sudhakaran Trustee Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Mumbai, India Posts: 1,385	a 35mm adapter would be more pain than it is worth for practical photography...unless of course you had all the time in the world and a guy to pull focus all the time on that shallow DOF. __________________ Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.

April 30th, 2010, 02:17 PM	#8
Enzo Giobbé Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA and Roma, Italia Posts: 155	Crisp In my opinion, the 17x5 is the sharpest / most contrasty lens in the line (I also own the 13x3.5 and 18x4.2 lenses). Here's the proof (shot with a HD200B capturing to a MR-HD100 drive set to Quicktime 16:9 SD, detail -3, Skin detail: off, #1 black Promist up, ND 1, F.4.5 - 5.6 / Adobe Flash conversion set to 400K, med quality): A Nightmare on Elm Street - Red Carpet Interviews \| Horror.com Even with all the Flash compression, you can still see the detail in the clothes (even the thread pattern). The 17x5 is a killer sharp lens that often has to be filtered down when used in interviews or movie projects. __________________ Enzo Giobbé www.enzogiobbe.com

April 24th, 2010, 07:25 AM	#1
Tim Kho Tourist Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: NSW Posts: 3	Which lenses produce the best quality footage? I am stuck using the stock Fujinon lens for my GY HD 111e and want to upgrade the lens. I do wedding videography and need the right lens to get that crispy quality looking footage. DnM Wedding Films the opening video is the quality i am after.

April 26th, 2010, 05:43 AM	#3
Tim Kho Tourist Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: NSW Posts: 3	How about the red rock adaptor? have you had any experience with those for the JVC camera gy hd series?

April 28th, 2010, 01:15 AM	#5
Paul R Johnson Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lowestoft - UK Posts: 4,016	I know it's a stupid question, but if all you're after is a bit less depth of field to make the foreground object stand out, in many cases, you can achieve this without all the adaptors and expense simply by cutting down the amount of light getting through the lens. So a neutral density filter, and/or increasing the shutter speed all cut the light down and the lens opens up. So many cameras nowadays are really sensitive and their lens spends most time outdoors with a really small working aperture. Indoors with artificial light, we get many questions asking about manual v auto focus as it's always blurred! Before spending any money, try cutting the light down and see how the camera reacts.

April 28th, 2010, 07:44 AM	#6
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	The DOF adapters are large, bulky and suck up what little light you will have at a wedding. If you've got the money the fujinon 13x is great, but the OLD 17x5 is $2,500 everywhere and the new 17x4.5 that was redesigned is $3,500 everywhere as well. The 17x5 at it's worst is about as good or slightly better than the 16x at it's best. The 13x is a step up from the 17x5 and 2 steps up (maybe more?) from the 16x. No idea what the new 17x4.5 looks like, but I believe it's being also sold on the Pansonic HPX300, so there might be some lens testing on those forums (dvxuserl.com for instance if not here) there was some talk here about nature. I woul vote to check out MTF adapters (under $500) that mount in place of your lens, then you mounte used old school Nikon (Nikkor preferred) MF 35mm lenses. That will get you high magnification with nice glass. Remember your stock lens is what 5-88mm or something like that. So when you put on a 100mm or a 200mm or 300mm, guess what, same numbering system.. or if your coming form 35mm world it's about 7x magnifcation of what your used to since the 1/3 CCD chip is seeing the center portion of the 35mm film plane that the lens was designed for. FYI the 125mm or even 100mm NIkorrs or even Nikon (e series) were very nice for that top quality look just beyond the reach of the stock lens, only much sharper from corner to corner... but for weddings, stick with a Fujinon 17x5 or 17x4.5 or a 13x. the new Canon lens might be ok, but it's the cheap entry level kit lens made by Canon rather than Fujinon. All reports is that it's better than the Fujinon kit lens, but perhaps not at the level of the Fujinon 17x5 lens. hey not a bad ramble before coffee...??