Minimum lenses required for short films

[Bertzie]

I'm looking to get a t2i for short films, and I'd like to know, (in your opinion) what the absolute minimum lenses you would need. Would it be possible to make a decent film with just one or two lenses?

[Janke]

The kit lens, 18-55mm, that comes with the camera, is enough for most purposes.

Only for very low light, extremely shallow DOF, or super-wide or telephoto shots do you need other lenses.

[lmbsoares]

There's absolutely no connection between a good film and which lenses you use. Good scripting, directing, lighting, acting, etc... that's what makes a film good.
But on your question, it all depends on your budget. If you have a tight budget you can get away with the kit lens, it will behave very well on daylight, and you can invest in some lighting for indoors shooting.
I personally have had great results with the Canon 50mm 1.8, it's cheap and it's perfect for lowlight, and I also use the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, which covers the wider range with exceptionally good low light capabilities, and constant aperture.

[Bertzie]

There's absolutely no connection between a good film and which lenses you use. Good scripting, directing, lighting, acting, etc... that's what makes a film good.
But on your question, it all depends on your budget. If you have a tight budget you can get away with the kit lens, it will behave very well on daylight, and you can invest in some lighting for indoors shooting.
I personally have had great results with the Canon 50mm 1.8, it's cheap and it's perfect for lowlight, and I also use the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, which covers the wider range with exceptionally good low light capabilities, and constant aperture.

I know all about all that other stuff, but this is a camera forum. And I figured, if I'm gonna invest this kinda cash for a good camera, I'm gonna invest in a good lens or two as well. When I say "good film" I'm referring to the video quality.

[lmbsoares]

When I say "good film" I'm referring to the video quality

Ok, understood.
Well, I can vouch for the two lenses I stated, and you might also want to take a look at old lenses using an adapter, they can produce beautiful results, and you can find them really cheap.
Here's a lens "test", you can find tons online: http://vimeo.com/20665598

[Janke]

For super-wide shots, I use a Tamron 10-24mm. It's not quite as sharp as the Tokina 12-24, but it's wider.

The difference in sharpness is visible only in 10-or more-megapixel stills, not in HD video shots, so it's an excellent wide lens for video. It does skew the prespective a bit, so one must be careful when panning:



As Imbsoares, I also have an EOS mount Tamron 17-50mm f:2.8, very nice.

Additionally, I have an old Fujinon 50mm f:1.4 for low light, a Tamron 90 mm f:2.5 macro (my sharpest lens!) - those are with lens mount adapters - and a Tamron EOS mount 18-270 mm "super-zoom" - and, of course, the 18-55 kit lens that came with the camera. It's light, so that's the lens I choose when I need a minimum of heavyweight gear...

[Gillvane]

You will find your self in several situations.

1. You will need a wide lens. The area you are shooting in is confined, so you can't physically back up enough to get the frame you want. You have to zoom out, go wide. So you need a good wide lens. The kit lens 18-55 will work in a pinch at the 18mm or around there, but IMO, the kit lens is kind of crappy.

2. You will need a longer lens for close ups. If you take a wide lens, and get really close to your talent, you will flatten their faces, and they will not look pretty. Generally, you back up, and zoom in to get that close up with a longer focal length. 50mm is fine, 85mm is also good. Or, you may want a close up of a bird in a tree or something where you cannot get physically close to your subject.

3. You need something for low light. You will find a situation where it's kinda dark, and you don't have the big guns to light it up. A fast f1.8 lens will come in handy for those situations. f1.8 is cheap, and should be sufficient. You can go 1.4, but it's starting to get expensive then.

4. You will need wide AND fast. YOu can't back up to get everything in the shot, AND it's dark. Wide fast lenses are expensive.

So, it's nice to have something to cover all those possibilities. The Canon kit lens goes wide, but it's not fast so no good when it's dark. Also it has a crappy focus ring, IMO. A relatively fast f1.8 50mm is cheap, 99 bucks, but it's not wide.

Determine what conditions you'll be shooting in mostly, or what shots are most important, and start to get lenses for those conditions.

Is your short film all about animals in the forset? You MUST have a long lens so you can get those shots without spooking them. Are you shooting everything at night? It's going to be important to have a fast lens. Is the whole short shot in the bathroom? A wide lens is going to come in handy.

I shoot everything manually, I set the fstop, ISO, shutter speed myself. HOWEVER, I like the newer lenses that can talk to the camera. I want to be able to see the fstop on my viewfinder, and to set the fstop electronically, not have to grab the ring and manually set it, so I don't like the older lenses.

[Janke]

If you take a wide lens, and get really close to your talent, you will flatten their faces

I've seen this misconception several times here - a wide lens does not flatten a face, it does exactly the opposite; exaggerates the nose, pushes back the ears - you look like a horse! (Shall I post an example?? )

A long tele lens will flatten a face: asmaller nose, with ears not far behind...

For "portrait" perspective (i.e. a medium close shot, no more than head+shoulders) on a 1.5-1.6x crop DSLR, like the T2i, a 50 to 80 mm focal length is ideal.

[Gillvane]

I've seen this misconception several times here - a wide lens does not flatten a face, it does exactly the opposite; exaggerates the nose, pushes back the ears - you look like a horse! (Shall I post an example?? )

A long tele lens will flatten a face: asmaller nose, with ears not far behind...

For "portrait" perspective (i.e. a medium close shot, no more than head+shoulders) on a 1.5-1.6x crop DSLR, like the T2i, a 50 to 80 mm focal length is ideal.

I stand corrected. You are right it doesn't "flatten" your face. I does the wide angle distortion thing, which is not flattering. Sometime in photography you want to do it as an effect. But in video, generally you want to avoid it.

[Bif]

It's called "foreshortening".

Bruce Foreman

[Janke]

It's called "foreshortening".

... while it actually is "fore-enlarging"...

[vadis]

If inspiration for minimalism is needed, consider that The Wrestler was filmed with one lens.

[drapeama]

... consider that The Wrestler was filmed with one lens.

It's possible to do everything with one lens. Then the T2i kit lens could easily do it, maybe except for low-light, then a Prime lens would be better.

I have 5 lenses, and I usually use them mostly in that order, depending what I need to do with it:
1) Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (great for portrait or medium close-ups, nice and shallow background and nice bokeh)
2) Canon ES 18-55mm kit lens (the most usefull/versatile lens probably)
3) Vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8 (great for very shallow backgroung, macro focusing and telephoto shots)
4) Hoya 28mm f/2.8 (great wide angle and nice lens flares)
5) Vivitar 80-200mm f/4 (nice because you can zoom & focus using the same ring. Good for long telephoto shots)

Now is all these lenses are really needed, probably not: one could do almost everything using only one of these lenses but for creativity, they are all great. Each has strenghts and weakness.

[vadis]

Now is all these lenses are really needed, probably not: one could do almost everything using only one of these lenses but for creativity, they are all great. Each has strenghts and weakness.

It is nice to have various lenses... but using only one on a shoot promotes a creativity of its own. Of the primes that I have (including a 24mm Nikkor and 50mm Takumar f1.4) my favorite is a MIR 24N (35/f2.0). If I had to choose only one prime to use on a narrative project, this would be it.

[Janke]

35/f2.0

Best of both worlds - wide enough not to be too tele-like (56 mm equivalent on a full-frame SLR), and good for low light.

If you want to pay for it, Sigma has a 30 mm f:1.4 - but that's only one stop faster, and just a little wider (48 mm equiv.).

If I'd have to choose only one lens, I'd like to have a 24mm f:1.4 - it's only $ 1,699.00 at B&H + $ 50 for the lens hood...

[Shaunp007]

I find myself using these lenses most often
- Sigma 30mm f/1.8
- Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

For closeups I like the Canon 50mm f/1.8

[Gillvane]

There's also the zoom versus prime thing. Zooms are great because you don't have to move the camera to adjust the frame. It's especially nice if you want to go just a tiny bit wider, or a tiny bit closer, without picking up the tripod.

However, primes are generally sharper than zooms, and zooms usually change fstop as you zoom, although you can buy more expensive zooms that have the same fstop throughout. The kit lens is a cheap zoom, so as you zoom in, it lowers the fstop. All the way zoomed in, it's like a 5.6 or something, no good for dark situations.

With a cheap zoom, you dont' have to move the tripod, but you may end up adjusting the ISO to get the shot as the fstop changes.