• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

camera Best prime lens

Hello, I'm back (I know its been a while but I had a baby and set up a small photography business) and I was wondering what lenses do you usually use when shooting video?

For photography I currently have my main camera as a Canon 77D with the Tamron f/2.8 17-50mm but I have a few other cameras and lenses too (everything from an ancient Nikon D40 through to gopro 8 and Canon 400D and the standard kit lenses plus things like a 70-300mm f4-5.6 macro lens etc...) but currently no 'prime lenses' of my own.

I am going to stick with my 77D body as my main for now but I have been meaning to get my own prime lenses (instead of borrowing) and was planning on a 50mm f/1.8 as it seems the gold standard for photography. However I was watching a video (while juggling small children) about famous directors and noticed it mentioned most of them use 'wide angled' lenses under 50mm, so now I'm wondering if its better to get another prime for filmmaking and if I do which would be best to go for (18mm, 28 mm, 35mm etc...)?

Thank you
 
50mm is a fairly versatile focus length, until you need to go wider in a smaller space. 24mm, 25mm, and 28mm are extremely versatile, as is 35mm. But keep in mind, if you’re shooting narrative, why different lenses are used and when they’re used. Generally, you want the camera to be placed where the viewer’s “placement” in the scene should be, then the focal length is chosen to get the desired frame. A distant camera at 85mm has an entirely different feel than a close camera at 25mm, even if the subject’s framing is the same. All that’s to say, while you can always move the camera closer, be aware that your closeups may not feel right on a wider lens.

Consider 24-35mm your wider lenses, and 50-85mm your portrait (close-up) lenses. It’s more nuanced than that, but there’s your general starting point.

Are you wanting primes more for photography, or for video? If video, what kind of projects do you normally shoot?
 
Last edited:
I've been shooting photography for 18 years (depressing to realize I'm that old lol) but I'm fairly new to videography so its all a learning curve.

Hoping to learn enough to make some films with my teen son who is also interested in learning, I have experience as an actor and writer but was surprised that shooting video is quite different to photo, theirs a lot more still to learn.
 
I've been shooting photography for 18 years (depressing to realize I'm that old lol)…

Yeah, it happens. I got my first job in broadcast TV in 1996.

but I'm fairly new to videography so its all a learning curve.

Hoping to learn enough to make some films with my teen son who is also interested in learning, I have experience as an actor and writer but was surprised that shooting video is quite different to photo, theirs a lot more still to learn.

So here‘s the thing about primes: they‘re a massive pain in the ass if you don’t have the support crew to deal with it. There are, of course, visual/aesthetic advantages to shooting with them, but they can also slow you down. On the ”making some films with my teen son” level of production, you’re probably going to be better off with a couple of good zooms.

Look for constant-aperture zooms. Lenses that aren’t constant-aperture lose light as they zoom in. Also, parfocal (maintains focus throughout the zoom range) is good if you can get it. With those features, you can shoot with zooms but treat them like primes.

On the most basic level, Sigma have their Art series zooms, 18-38mm f/1.8 and 50-100mm f/1.8. Constant aperture, but not parfocal. The parfocal thing is really nice to have, but if you’re treating your zooms like primes it’s not really that big of a deal. These are solid, sharp, good-quality lenses that will get you through pretty much the entire range that you’d want. These also work with your camera for lens control.

There’s also a 28-75mm f/2.8 (constant) from Tamron that’s pretty good.

Above that, not knowing your budget, you could also look at something like the DZOFilm (EDIT) Pictor cine zooms, which are constant-aperture and parfocal. They’re also completely manual - aperture, focus, zoom - and thus won’t talk to your camera. They come in 20-55mm and 50-125mm versions. The 20-55mm would probably be more than enough for your needs. I have the DZOFilm Linglung (Micro 4/3 mount) zooms, and the 10-25mm and 20-70mm lenses are lovely. I have two sets that I use with my cinema camera packages. They also feature a long throw on the focus ring. That gives you much more finite control than stills lenses that only have about 35º of rotation.
 
Last edited:
I consistently use a 50, 35 and 28. In general you wouldn't need the 28mm
so I would suggest just buying two at first.

I agree with AcousticAl that getting a good 20-70 zoom might be better for
making movies with your son.
 
Yeah, it happens. I got my first job in broadcast TV in 1996.



So here‘s the thing about primes: they‘re a massive pain in the ass if you don’t have the support crew to deal with it. There are, of course, visual/aesthetic advantages to shooting with them, but they can also slow you down. On the ”making some films with my teen son” level of production, you’re probably going to be better off with a couple of good zooms.

Look for constant-aperture zooms. Lenses that aren’t constant-aperture lose light as they zoom in. Also, parfocal (maintains focus throughout the zoom range) is good if you can get it. With those features, you can shoot with zooms but treat them like primes.

On the most basic level, Sigma have their Art series zooms, 18-38mm f/1.8 and 50-100mm f/1.8. Constant aperture, but not parfocal. The parfocal thing is really nice to have, but if you’re treating your zooms like primes it’s not really that big of a deal. These are solid, sharp, good-quality lenses that will get you through pretty much the entire range that you’d want. These also work with your camera for lens control.

There’s also a 28-75mm f/2.8 (constant) from Tamron that’s pretty good.

Above that, not knowing your budget, you could also look at something like the DZOFilm Linglung cine zooms, which are constant-aperture and parfocal. They’re also completely manual - aperture, focus, zoom - and thus won’t talk to your camera. The 10-25mm and 20-70mm lenses are lovely. I have two sets that I use with my cinema camera packages. They also feature a long throw on the focus ring. That gives you much more finite control than stills lenses that only have about 35º of rotation.
That's a lot of good information, thank you.
 
I have a 35, 50, and 135 and I wish I also had a ~20 and 85.
Sometimes I use my iphone 12 pro for wide shots because I only have a 35mm
 
Last edited:
I consistently use a 50, 35 and 28. In general you wouldn't need the 28mm
so I would suggest just buying two at first.

Less is more!

I agree with AcousticAl that getting a good 20-70 zoom might be better for
making movies with your son.

I misspoke on the DZOFilm. The Linglungs Are Micro 4/3 mount, not appropriate for the 77D. The Pictor zooms are Canon EF, and come in 20-55mm and 50-125mm flavors.
 
... was planning on a 50mm f/1.8 as it seems the gold standard for photography.
I have one of those for photography. In fact, I have two, as well as an f/2.8 24mm prime. They rarely see the light of day (or night) for the simple reason that they're so restrictive! Yes, optically they have some advantages over and above the wide aperture, but those advantages are lost when you find that it's the lens dictating your composition, because there are a dozen reasons why you can't position yourself in the right place for the shot you want. For the most part, I use the 50mm for "still life" studies and no-flash low-light shots, and the 24mm for late night urban landscapes; for just about everything else, I'll use a zoom lens.
 
I wish I understood lenses better. All I know is that I've never seen any prosumer video camera or digital SLR with a modest lens produce images like professional cameras with expensive lenses. I don't mean the lighting or even the framing. It's hard for me to explain. The scope of the image. I don't know if it's distortion or lack of distortion or the way expensive lenses bend the light. I just don't know.
 
I wish I understood lenses better. All I know is that I've never seen any prosumer video camera or digital SLR with a modest lens produce images like professional cameras with expensive lenses. I don't mean the lighting or even the framing. It's hard for me to explain. The scope of the image. I don't know if it's distortion or lack of distortion or the way expensive lenses bend the light. I just don't know.

Put a Cooke prime on a DSLR and you’ll see a world of difference.

The lens isn’t just one piece of glass. It’s several lens elements throughout the lens body. The quality of the glass and the coating used on the front element can affect color, contrast, and sharpness. The spacing and grouping of the lens elements, along with quality and coating, can create barrel distortion, vignetting, and chromatic abberation.

There are also operational features that create the visual aesthetic the viewer sees and subconsciously notices, but may not be aware of. Parfocal means there’s no breathing while racking focus. Lens breathing looks entirely different than a parfocal lens. There’s also the issue of back focus, and lenses that can be calibrated and that maintain a sharp back focus also impact the visuals in ways we see but may not immediately recognize. Without proper backfocus, which is an issue for zoom lenses, there can be slight shifts in focus through the zoom range.

The best lenses are made by companies that take all the extra time and care in R&D and construction to maintain sharpness and avoid all the other issues. There are some really good lenses out there nowadays that aren’t as pricey, such as the Sigma ART 18-35mm, which can look really good on any camera. Sigma even have cinema-housing versions of the ART 18-55 and 50-100, featuring manual aperture and geared aperture, focus, and zoom rings, but they’re visually the same lenses. There’s still a huge difference between those lenses and the high-end cinema lenses.
 
One other thing you’ll also notice between professional cinema primes and… not… professional cinema primes: front lens diameter.

The good cinema primes have much larger lens diameter, so more surface area for gathering light and larger gathered image to project on the image sensor. Lenses with smaller elements are projecting less information onto the sensor, which can magnify issues in the glass. There’s a bit more to it, comparing angle of view and whether the lens is made to cover full frame, Super35, M43, or whatever, but the idea is the same. A physically larger lens is going to resolve much more sharp detail when comparing apples to apples.

I have a set of vintage Yashica/Contax ML primes: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. The 85mm is actually a Zeiss Contax because Yashica didn’t make an 85mm in the ML line. They’re vintage stills lenses from the late 70s and early 80s. I love them, but they definitely have a stylized aesthetic to them and aren’t appropriate for every project. They’re also smaller lenses, so they soften just a tad. That softness is actually part of the look I like about them, but it’s still not going to hold up to a true cinema prime.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top