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

Lens question

trueindie

trueindie

My camera kit:

- 2x Canon T2is
- 1x Tamron 17-55mm, f2.8
- 1x Canon 50mm, f1.4
- 1x Canon 50mm, f1.8
- 1x Canon 55-250mm, f4-5.6
- 1x Canon 70-300mm, f4-5.6
- 3x Kiron 28-210mm, f4-5.6 (I got a good deal)

Lights,
- 4x 1000 LED
- 6x 160 LED
- 2x 300 LED

The plan is to shoot most of the film at 35mm or 50mm for this crop sensor camera. Most of the film will be shot at f4 or lower, so not too much shallow DOF. Most of the film is conversation between two people, so back and forths between two people. And since I like shooting with two cameras, I was thinking of getting another tamron 17-55mm, 2.8. Some people are telling me to get a Rokinon 35mm, t1.5.

My question is, since I'm planning on shooting most of the film at f4 or lower, am I not better off getting the tamron, which will give me more versatility during the shoot, instead of a 35mm Rokinon. The Rokinon seems to be a great piece of glass, but I'm just wondering, for a shoot that hopefully will be lit adequately, and not shot wide open, is there going to be that much difference between the tamron and the rokinon?

Would appreciate any thoughts. and any other general advice.

I've been reading up extensively on how Mad Men is shot. And my goal is to emulate that as closely as possible. If anyone has any advice regarding that type of shoot, I'd be most grateful as well.

Thanks
Aveek
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
trueindie said:
And since I like shooting with two cameras, I was thinking of getting another tamron 17-55mm, 2.8. Some people are telling me to get a Rokinon 35mm, t1.5.
Click to expand...

I'm not a glass expert but I'd question why you would want a different piece of glass if you're shooting with two cameras simultaneously? Since you already have one tamron 17-55mm, 2.8, I'd get another. I'm assuming the tamron 17-55mm, 2.8 will be your primary lenses and you're shooting with both cameras simultaneously.

Hence I would not want a difference in the sharpness etc of my shoots - so I would use the same glass with both cameras.

I'll also say that your gear makes no mention of audio. Since capturing good audio will be crucial to this production, I hope you have the gear already or have budgeted for it. If not then I'd ditch the idea of a new lens and put the cash towards audio gear.

I spent $2k on my camera, $1k on glass and nearly $2k on audio gear. And my audio gear is decent 'budget' gear, not medium to top-end pro stuff.

You'll find lots of great audio threads and some great audio pros (two standouts being Alcove Audio and AudioPostExpert) here on IT. Do a search on: audio

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=49443&highlight=$1,200

You're posting in Cinematography & Lighting so may have simply omitted your audio gear but I thought it important to mention it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
IndiePaul said:
I'll also say that your gear makes no mention of audio. Since capturing good audio will be crucial to this production, I hope you have the gear already or have budgeted for it. If not then I'd ditch the idea of a new lens and put the cash towards audio gear.

I spent $2k on my camera, $1k on glass and nearly $2k on audio gear. And my audio gear is decent 'budget' gear, not medium to top-end pro stuff.
Click to expand...

Hey,
Thanks for the reply. I have almost $2k of audio gear. But I've never used it, or have had others use it to any satisfaction. For this shoot, I've got a sound guy with his own gear. He walks around with $8K strapped to him. So no additional audio gear will be necessary for me.

I'm leaning towards another Tamron. But I'm just wondering if I should use a tamron on one camera, and a 35mm rokinon and 50mm 1.4 canon on the other? I'm just curious if lens experts have an opinion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For shooting a dual camera setup if it's just flipping to the other person, you are going to want close to the same focal length just to prevent issues of perspective. If one is 30mm and one is 50, you'll have to get much closer with the 30mm, and it will be subtly obvious that it's different.

You could easily use both your 50mm for it. As long as you make sure there are no point light sources behind the 1.8, they'll look pretty close to the same. The 1.8 is sharp, but doesn't have as nice bokeh the 1.4 has, but removing any busy background objects and lights from the back will help.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes.. two cameras. But forget that. Most important question is at F4 or lower, how much of a difference is there between the tamron 17-55, 2.8, and the Rokinon 35mm f1.4 or t1.5
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Not sure if you'll find someone who has experience of both these lenses here on IT... If not, I found some reviews...

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II VC Review
http://photo.net/equipment/tamron/17-50vc/

Some of the review...

At 17mm center sharpness and contrast are good, even wide open at f/2.8. The center does sharpen slightly on stopping down to f4, but f/2.8 performance is still very good. Stopping down further *to f/5.6 or f/8) makes very little difference. In the corners of the image the image is softer, especially at wide apertures, but by the standards of 17mm lenses, performance is still quite good. There is noticeable chromatic aberration at the edges of the frame. Distortion (barrel) is also quite noticeable at 17mm when there are straight lines near the edges of the frame.

In the mid section if the zoom range at 30mm center sharpness is still good at f/2.8. Again some improvement is seen by stopping down to f/4 but no significant further sharpening at f/5.6 and f/8. In the corners at f/2.8 the image is noticeably softer (and softer than at 17mm). Stopping down, even by 1/3 stop, improves matters and at f/4 the corner sharpness and contrast is much better. f/5.6 and f/8 bring only a very small improvement. Chromatic aberration is visible, but quite a bit lower than at 17mm. Distortion is minimal.

At the telephoto end of the zoom range (50mm), the center of the image shows some softness and lowered contrast when wide open at f/2.8. Again stopping down to f/4 makes a significant difference and further stopping down to f/5.6 and f/8 doesn’t really yield much more improvement. In the corners of the image there is some softness at f/2.8 and the image progressively sharpens at f/4, f/5.6 and f/8. Chromatic aberration and distortion are minimal.
Click to expand...

Rokinon 35mm F/1.4
http://kurtmunger.com/rokinon_35mm_f_1_4id294.html

Rokinon 35mm F/1.4
http://fstoppers.com/fstoppers-reviews-rokinon-35mm-f1-4-aspherical-lens-fantastic-value-money
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If your not using a set of matched primes then all your lenses will look different.

I have a set of canon FD lenses. They are not matched in anyway other than they are canon from a similar vintage. I use them interchangeably without consideration of the minutia. And yes, I can tell in the finished product when Im using the 28, vs the 50, vs the 17mm.. the look varies widely, turns out few people care, and those who do dig the quality.

Id be inclined to pass on buying any new lens, you will likely shoot mostly on the 50mm for all your dialogue and move to the tamaron zoom for the wider shots (28mm or so). Anything else will be a specialty shot.. like a long lens compressed, or a ultra wide shot that will be so different looking anyway that the lens variability will not matter.

Download and print out a focus chart.
You should test your lenses before the shoot, heck you may not like the way they look regardless of how well they work together.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
+ 1 on what wheatgrinder wrote

In relation to what OP wrote:

trueindie said:
Yes.. two cameras. But forget that. Most important question is at F4 or lower, how much of a difference is there between the tamron 17-55, 2.8, and the Rokinon 35mm f1.4 or t1.5
Click to expand...

Not sure why you want to 'forget that' when you're planning on dual-camera simultaneous shooting yet don't presently have two identical lenses (apart from the 3x Kiron 28-210mm, f4-5.6 - which won't be your main lenses)?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Interesting point.. on my single camera shoots, I use the same lens for both sides of a dialogue shot, if was going to try to shoot dual camera I would find two lenses that are the same. In your situation Id buy another 50mm f1.4
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IndiePaul said:
+ 1 on what wheatgrinder wrote
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Thank you Wheats.

Not sure why you want to 'forget that' when you're planning on dual-camera simultaneous shooting yet don't presently have two identical lenses (apart from the 3x Kiron 28-210mm, f4-5.6 - which won't be your main lenses)?
Click to expand...

Okay, here are the options.
1. Use two cameras. Use two tamrons

2. Use two cameras, one tamron on camera A, and on Camera B, 35 and 50.

Why am I thinking this way? I did a test between my 50mm 1.4 and 1.8. At F4, the 1.4 is easily a stop brighter. And I was thinking of shooting this thing at 35mm and at 50mm (on a crop sensor). So what I was really wondering is, at F4 is the 35mm Rokinon also a lot brighter than the tamron? That was the reason for my question. Then there might be something to think about.

Of course a lot depends on whether I can get the location I want. If I get it, it might be better to shoot with the Tamron at a wide angle, just to show off the background and the settings.

Thanks,
Aveek
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
trueindie said:
So what I was really wondering is, at F4 is the 35mm Rokinon also a lot brighter than the tamron? That was the reason for my question. Then there might be something to think about.
Click to expand...
It sounds like f/4 is just an arbitrary number you're using. Did you actually do a DOF calculation and determine you need it at f/4, or is there any wiggle room?

If you don't run into DOF issues, you should shoot it how you want based on the amount of light and DOF you need. If you need to shoot it at T/4.0 and it's a stop low, then open up that aperture to f/2.8 if you have to, provided your DOF still works and doesn't look odd in comparison to the other camera angle. If you have to, put an ND filter on the brighter one and use some more light.

I really, really think you miscalculated if the 50 1.8 was a stop darker at the same fstop. I would believe 1/3, and maybe even 1/2 (which is rare but happens -- the 70-200 2.8 v2 is the only one I know where there's a significant difference between the lens versions). A full stop means something is probably wrong with your lens. I'm serious, there's something being broken or the test was somehow misconfigured or with multiple variables involved. Maybe one of the lens elements has a fungus.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
stef said:
It sounds like f/4 is just an arbitrary number you're using. Did you actually do a DOF calculation and determine you need it at f/4, or is there any wiggle room?

If you don't run into DOF issues, you should shoot it how you want based on the amount of light and DOF you need. If you need to shoot it at T/4.0 and it's a stop low, then open up that aperture to f/2.8 if you have to, provided your DOF still works and doesn't look odd in comparison to the other camera angle. If you have to, put an ND filter on the brighter one and use some more light.

I really, really think you miscalculated if the 50 1.8 was a stop darker at the same fstop. I would believe 1/3, and maybe even 1/2 (which is rare but happens -- the 70-200 2.8 v2 is the only one I know where there's a significant difference between the lens versions). A full stop means something is probably wrong with your lens. I'm serious, there's something being broken or the test was somehow misconfigured or with multiple variables involved. Maybe one of the lens elements has a fungus.
Click to expand...

Hey Stef,
You're absolutely right. I didn't do any calculations. F4 or lower is an arbitrary choice. I haven't shot any tests at the location yet to determine what it is I really want, or what is appropriate lighting. I hope to do that in the next couple of weeks.

Let me just give you my amateur thoughts on look and feel so maybe you can understand my approach and guide me appropriately.

I don't know too much about the calculations that are needed to be done to determine appropriate f stop. To illustrate how much of an amateur I am, these calculations hadn't actually even crossed my mind (I'm about to look them up).
F4 was an arbitrary choice. I determined that I don't want DOF in wide shots. I know I want wide shots. I don't want too much panning as the character moves about while he talks. I want the frame to be still and the character to move about with ease. The camera can move from side to side as the conversation progresses, but I don't want noticeable panning. I want DOF only for extreme closeups of hands and faces and objects. But in general, I want to stay away from shallow DOFs.

So for most of the shoot, there will be no closeups. Things will be shot wide. So I just mentioned F4. It's not set in stone. To be realistic, it's going to be much lower than F4, as F4 is going to be too shallow for what I have in mind. So,... things just have to be lit very very well.

One thing I want to desperately avoid, is the DSLR look and feel. I just don't want to have anything to do with it on this film. I'm afraid I don't know how to avoid this.

Also, just to give you a better sense of my inadequate knowledge, when I say I want the Mad Men, look and feel, I don't mean that I know how to do this. I'm just saying I like that kind of framing and want to emulate that. So for instance, I want everything to be shot from the waist level, and with medium lenses, unless the scene calls for something else. But in terms of lighting, I've been looking and looking and looking at scenes from Mad Men, just to see what angles the lights are coming from. I'm getting some ideas, but I'm not sure any of the ideas are effective enough in my head.

But at some point I have to pull the trigger, whatever my inadequacies, and start shooting. I'm just trying to imbibe as much as possible before then, in whatever capacity I can.

Regarding the full stop between 1.4 and 1.8, I'm sure you're right and I'm wrong. The footage just looked so much brighter to me, it felt like a full stop. I'm sure you're correct and it's 1/3, as the 1.8 is brand new and has hardly been used and I'm sure there's nothing wrong with it.

So I'm just mentioning all the things above just to kind of think out loud about my approach to the shoot. I'm hoping that some of the DPs will catch any glaring miscalculation and let me know about it.

The setting is going to be a very large private meeting room in a hotel, with sofas and tables, for about 70% of the film. About 30% will take place in a small to mid sized ballroom in the hotel. Lighting will definitely be a challenge. I haven't picked my DP yet. And I'm still meeting people.

Stef thanks so much for your thoughts. I look forward to more of them.

Best regards,
Aveek
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It will have to be a pretty big hotel room to be able to use a 50mm on a t2i. That's generally a half-body to head & shoulders portrait lens on that camera. It would work great for a back and forth closer shot at a bar or on a sofa. I've used one for OTS shots.

You will have to be very far back for a 50mm to shoot an entire sofa. This is perfectly fine if you have the room, although the area in front of the couch will be a dead zone, so the crew will only be able to be to the sides or way back near the cameras.

F/4 will give you a few feet of DOF on that camera (at a medium shot), which is lots of wiggle room for movement, but will blur the background a touch. That will get rid of a lot of that thin DOF dslr feel, but you might go to f/8 if you have enough light in the room to get several feet of DOF at 15 feet. You will need a lot of light, though. In general, don't go higher than f/11 with that camera due to softness from diffraction.

Once you know the set, you can determine the DOF you want, then determine the light you need, then determine the camera settings you need... and what settings you need to compromise if you can't get it all.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
stef said:
It will have to be a pretty big hotel room to be able to use a 50mm on a t2i. That's generally a half-body to head & shoulders portrait lens on that camera. It would work great for a back and forth closer shot at a bar or on a sofa. I've used one for OTS shots.

You will have to be very far back for a 50mm to shoot an entire sofa. This is perfectly fine if you have the room, although the area in front of the couch will be a dead zone, so the crew will only be able to be to the sides or way back near the cameras.

F/4 will give you a few feet of DOF on that camera (at a medium shot), which is lots of wiggle room for movement, but will blur the background a touch. That will get rid of a lot of that thin DOF dslr feel, but you might go to f/8 if you have enough light in the room to get several feet of DOF at 15 feet. You will need a lot of light, though. In general, don't go higher than f/11 with that camera due to softness from diffraction.

Once you know the set, you can determine the DOF you want, then determine the light you need, then determine the camera settings you need... and what settings you need to compromise if you can't get it all.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I've used the 50 on the T2i. It's not that bad haha.
And yes, you're probably right. most of the shoot is probably going to be f/4 to f/8.

Also, in Mad Men, when they do back and forths, the framing is not always similar, and it works just fine. In fact in some cases, it makes things better. So having two tamrons is not not necessarily the right choice either.... Just have to think about it more. Have to visit the location.

Thanks!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top