Usable Fstops for video?
Would you use a lens with an Fstop of 4 or higher for video? Would you be able to use it for exteriors in daylight?
I have some nikon g lenses a 14-55 and a 55-200 but they have very high fstops..
was just seeing if it was even worth getting the adapter to use them on my gh2 I thought i might be able to use them for exteriors in the daytime.
www.exit101movie.com
exit101movie.blogspot.com
When you say higher, do you mean lower? As in like f/5.6? Or do you mean like f/1.8? Shooting outdoors, your usually going to need to stop down past f/8 or lower for exposure anyways, unless your using ND filters. The only real problem with using slow lenses is that, like any lens, they need to be stopped down even further to get the sweet spot (on my f/4 Zuikos this is around f/8).
Dylan
In sunlight (EV15), at ISO 100, 1/60 sec exposure, your f-stop will be 22 - so yes, slower lenses are useful!Originally Posted by azmyth
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value
We shot some indoor hockey arena stuff with fairly mediocre lighting on a Canon EF L 70-200 f/4 lens on a 7D and we were having to use ISO's in the 800-1600 range. But outdoor, like Janke said, you're going to be well above the minimum fstop in outdoor environments. Really fast lenses definately have their uses, but as an all purpose zoom lens, f/4 isn't a bad starting point.
I was asking because I have a 55-200 mm Nikon AFS lens and a 18-55 mm AFS one is f/4.5 and the other is f/5-5.6 fstop.
I just bought an adapter for them for my GH2, so I can use those outdoors in sunlight.
www.exit101movie.com
exit101movie.blogspot.com
I think that one thing I would say is that for video, variable f-stop is the bane of your existance. You're better off considering that zoom lens as a 5.6 fstop, and call it a day. And for outdoor, again, that's fine, but if you're going indoor that's starting to get high. If it's the 18-55mm that's variable f-stop, a nice 14/18-55/85 f2.8 would be a solid investment in the future. But don't buy it till you need it. If you litterally can't do a shot you want with the lenses you have, then you'll need something else.
These are the lenses I own currently...
The GH2 kit lens.. 14-42mm
Canon FD 1.8 50mm
Yashinon M42 1.7 50mm
Rexagon m42 2.8 28mm
and those 2 Nikon AFS lenses I already listed.
trying to fill in the blanks. I really like these old vintage lenses.
www.exit101movie.com
exit101movie.blogspot.com
But don't forget that you run into diffraction problems above roughly f/9. The main reason why compact cams and camcorders only go to f/8.
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
For video shooting (contrary to 18 MPix stills), I don't think you have to worry about diffraction that early.
Also, compact cameras have a very tiny f-stop opening at f:8, but at that same f-stop, they are much bigger in the larger lenses for DSLRs. (They are directly proportional to focal length, a compact camera may even have a 4mm lens!)
On a DSLR shooting video, I wouldn't worry until you have to go beyond f:16.
In a recent outdoor test I was able to shoot down to f8 (800@ ISO) on the GH2 with a Nikon 210mm (399mm equiv) without it being too bad. Sure, it was way cleaner at f4, but if you have the glass, you may as well, and at least you won't have to worry about NDs or CPLs.
More equipment than talent
I do all the time. Both the Canon EF-S 18-55 "kit" lens and the EF primes I use for video. Outdoors in daylight I often wind up using f11 and f16 especially in settings where somewhat deeper DOF is called for. I have used f22 but past that the "diffraction effect" could begin causing some degradation.
If I need or want f8 or f5.6 I keep .6 and .9 ND filters in the bag for a 2 stop or 3 stop reduction respectively, and if a wider aperture is needed with the primes I can "stack" them for a 5 stop reduction.
Nikon G lenses have no aperture ring, in the Nikon line the aperture can only be adjusted from the camera's command dial so it appears that with the GH2 you will likely be able to use them only wide open unless I'm missing something.
I know it's the current "rage" to go for "old vintage" lenses, some were really good like the Pentax Takumars and the Nikkor AI/AIS, along with the Olympus Zuiko's and almost anything Zeiss. But those of us who had to come back with crisp results in the 1970's through the 1990's learned to avoid a lot of the rest like the very plague.
Yashinon lenses were "kind of fair" but nothing I would be caught dead with on assignment. If you couldn't afford Takumars for your M42 Pentax (simply called "thread mount" back then), you might be able to "make do" with Yashinon if you were strictly a hobbyist.
Rexagon and Rexar were strictly "no name" junk glass. Those working in military labs were "pushing it" by using Vivitar lenses which seemed to come in 3 grades: Pretty fair - almost somewhat good, very mediocre, and downright "gosh awful".
I'll pass on the same advice I gave Daniel Rutter when he got his GH1. He had one Nikkor zoom that is supposed to be quite good, but I advised him to go for the 14-42 "kit" lens (you already have) which although not the sharpest lens going is more than adequate with the GH2 if used properly. I advised him to look seriously at the 20mm f1.7 "pancake" prime which is getting good reports as a good performer and I think he plans on making that his next lens purchase. That lens will give you a somewhat "normal" perspective (neither wide nor telephoto) that can work as a general purpose lens as well as an excellent low light tool.
The Canon FD 50mm f1.8 is supposed to be a sharp lens with good inherent contrast and should take care of any very moderate telephoto need you'll come up against. And I'd look at what other primes are offered in the micro 4/3rds system.
"Vintage" zooms may tend to offer more "drawbacks" than real advantages, and for video I use 3 primes much more than zooms anyway (except when doing video of "action format" pistol and 3 gun matches where the action does not allow me to be changing lenses without missing something); EF 24mm f2.8 for wide normal perspective, EF 28mm f1.8 - normal (similar to what you would get with the 20mm f1.7 "pancake"), and EF 50mm f1.8 for portrait or closeup "two shot".
Just my opinions tempered with a bit of experience.
Bruce Foreman
I am a reforming videomaking addict
Here's the lenses I have:
Nikkor 28-80 f3.5-5.6 (an old plastic kit lens that came with a family 35mm SLR)
Panasonic 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens
Pentax 50mm f1.7
Now, I don't really have the ideal low light kit there... but in general, I can shoot anything with the kit lens if I stay wide. If I use the 50mm, I can shoot just about anything low light as long as it's not huge. Bruce mentions me looking at the 20mm pancake by Panasonic, which although has ridiculously high f-stop (1.7) will be useful in many situations as a "true" 50mm on the GH1 and GH2.
I've been seriously thinking about some of the available 35mm f2 or f2.8's as they have a nice mid-range, but nikkors aren't cheap ($300+). I think, if you can stick with primes you'll be alright. You're strictly doing setup shots, and any decent lens above f3.5 can be used in any lighting situation as long as you add light where it's needed. In video work, the more light you can get.. the better.
A lot of people recommend sticking with Nikon lenses as they have good resale value, but if you have a lalalala budget for lenses... then you gotta pinch them pennies. Stick with Nikons if the price is right, otherwise FD's are highly recommended by GHx owners... and I personally like Pentax glass. Although I've only ever used 18-55 kit I used on a K-7 and the 50mm f1.7 that I own. Pretty sharp lenses, if a little contrasty.
Also, unless you can account for it in post or lighting, don't mix your lenses in the same/similar shots (or angles). As mentioned, the contast differences between lenses (FD's and the Panny lenses especially) can be hard to account for.
I believe this is why a lot of people give up with vintage glass and go cine glass.
I have a Fujinon 50/1.4 from the early 1970s - it's excellent, even wide open, much better than a Canon EOS-mount 50/1.8! I'd say it's on par with Nikons and Pentax lenses of the same vintage.
BTW, for Canon owners: remember that FD-mount lenses can't be used on EOS cameras without a degrading (and expensive), optical adapter!
Bif, you forgot Leica
Some of the vintage designs are still in use nowadays. The main difference slight changes in the glass recipe, lens coating and better production tolearances. However, I have never seen any difference between my AIS 50/1.4 and twentysome years younger 50/1.4 AF-D Nikkors.
Some Zeiss folks even keep the opinion that pre-war uncoated lenses gave better pictures than the *T lenses. My Contax was pre-war, but I was too young when I used to figure out the engineering (I was six years old using my grampa's Contax for snapshots).
Counter example: 70's Vivitars were not bad. Nowadays, they are crap.
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Ooh, I own a Leica Thambar 90/2.2 ... with spot filter, cap, shade and case. My most expensive piece of glass - and I've never used it, you could say it's an investment... bought it on a flea market decades ago...
A bit worn, so not as expensive as this one, though: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-screw-...item19c75b2185
More info: http://www.shutterbug.com/content/le...-portrait-lens
Yes.Bif, you forgot Leica
Quite an error of omission. I've never heard a single complaint concerning glass for the Leica's.
Late 60's to mid 70's was the time frame when I saw Vivitar's in what seemed to be three "grades". While I was working in the base photo lab at Shu Lin Kou air station on Taiwan, the other photog and I hit the Navy Exchange in Taipei and they had one Vivitar 20mm. I hesitated and he snapped it up. Seemed to be a great lens, wondrous 90 degree field of view. Then a couple months later they got in another and I grabbed that one.
Both same lens, same formula, both in Nikon mount. Mine was crisp and his was very noticeably soft. I wound up printing both our work and the difference between the two literally hit me in the face.
I saw essentially the same sort of thing with Vivitar 70-210 zooms. The same lens formula seemed to vary all over the place from acceptably sharp to miserable. And you never knew what you were buying, you could wind up with a good performer or a piece of crap.
So after that Vivitar 20mm (and I got a good one) I stayed with Nikkors until I switched to Canon EOS in the early 80's.
Bruce Foreman
I am a reforming videomaking addict
Bruce I was awaiting your reply.
I was already aware of your opinions towards vintage lenses..
What gets me is, maybe my vision is skewed.
The knock off vintage lenses I have to me have a better aesthetic than the 14-42 kit lens.. I dunno why.
I've heard of the "inexpensive" lenses the FD's and Nikkors perform the best. I had planned to build up a set of either of those.
Honestly I can't afford to pay for lenses that cost more than the camera right now (or even half the cost of the camera). Part of the reason I went with the GH2 is due to being able to use any lens I want vs. being stuck with whatever lenses are native to the camera. There's not a whole lot of Panasonic options. I value your opinion Bruce because of your experience. What puzzles me is, you'd think it would be fairly obvious.. but its not.. I truly like the aesthetic from some of my crappy knock off lenses better than the more expensive kit lens. I don't know why, or if my eyes are just bad..
http://vimeo.com/34783127
I shot this with that Yashinon, and to me.. it looks good. I haven't shown it to anyone that didn't agree. Had some people even say "WoW that looks like a TV show" Of course these were all non film people. But, isn't that who my audience is?
I'm not trying to disagree with you, I just wish what you were saying was more obvious for me. I bought a vivitar zoom yesterday based off of a comment on dvxuser from a well known film maker over there..
He shot this with a cheap zoom..
http://vimeo.com/12209296
And again, to my eyes it looks great.
Could it be a matter of personal preference or is it some technical reason my eyes are just incapable of seeing. I'm getting new glasses soon, so maybe that will help me see the difference.
www.exit101movie.com
exit101movie.blogspot.com
That is subjective - if you like them, they're good for you.
Definitely.
Not necessarily. The last lab chief I worked for taught me a lot about color, he says people see color differently from each other. This caused me no end of problems as he saw more to the blue end of the blue/yellow "slider" and I saw more to the yellow end. When he was QC'ing the portrait prints I was making when skin tones looked perfect to me he saw them as "cyanotic" and would instruct me to reprint.
When he pronounced them "perfect" they looked "jaundiced" to me (and often to the customer). So I would have to print somewhere in the middle, he would "grudgingly" approve it, the customer would accept it, but I didn't like the way it looked.
He also pointed out that in some people the way they perceived color could be affected by what their last meal was.
So your vision isn't "skewed" any more than for the rest of us.
That's easy. While the Canon "kit" lenses are pretty good (I've always felt Canon and Nikon were kind of "neck and neck" as far as quality goes) many others are going to be a "compromise". Zooms are always more of a compromise in IQ than good primes in the same line, the "kit" lens for the Panasonic may lack a bit of inherent contrast as well as resolving power. With video not being able to resolve the full quality of the sensor, that inherent contrast may carry an impression of sharpness and if it isn't there the video image will not have the "snap" we are used to.
One big advantage of the "kit" lens is that it works with all camera body features.
I would tend to stay with the Nikkors, they seemed to have a consistent quality with the exception of a few. There was a 43-86mm zoom that was favored by a lot of photojournalists, I had one for awhile, but the word out was that none of those were sharp. And sometimes wide angles are a problem due to lens element centration errors. I went through 3 28mm Nikkors before the tech who put them on his diagnostic device pronounced the last one as "good as it's going to get". It only had 4% deviation, the others had read out as 11% and 8%.
Should you supplement the GH2 with a Canon T3i or 60D later on, you can get an adapter that would let you easily use Nikkors, the FD's are a bit of a problem with EOS adapters, the Nikkors will work much smoother for you.
Not bad eyes, it's often a very subjective thing. Now here's the hard part. You may have to somehow reconcile what looks good to you with what will look good and be acceptable to the majority of folks who will be viewing your product.
That "kit" lens probably forms a pretty fair "clean" image but may have no real aesthetic "character"
I've already commented on that video, the segment with the couple exhibited too much green, the hacked segment looked very good with clean whites and crisp blacks. I would assume skin tones would look good. That Yashinon didn't look bad. What you need to look out for with those, and other bargain lenses, is that each may exhibit a different color "personality", and shifting from one such to another may need more color correction in post processing.
I've used Yashica TLRs (that was always my "fallback" medium format camera while trying to get something else) and the lenses in those were copied from the Tessar's that were in the f3.5 Rollei's. Mostly adequate but lacked the inherent contrast the Rollei lens had, although the larger negative size helped produce solid looking prints.
It doesn't really matter whether you agree or disagree, this is all just that subjective. On that Vivitar zoom you may have wound up with a good one. Tests and usage will tell.
Looked pretty good to me, too. Well lit, mostly well composed. But it's not intercut with video shot with other lenses. You don't have to have an exact match, individual scenes may call for "individual" rendition, but you shouldn't have to fight lens rendition variations.
Personal preference is going to be a very big part of it. But I still advise going mostly for consistency in your lenses.
The new glasses should help immensely with visual acuity, but I don't see them affecting the way you perceive color, but color perception may not be much of a problem for you.
A lot of "bargain" vintage lenses (other than most Nikkors and any clean FD lenses you have) may exhibit "flare" and may be "soft". This will be "appropriate" for some scenes where you want to portray tenderness and soft emotion. But the film you are working on now may require more "stark" treatment and you may need to use "crisp" sharp lens rendition to carry the horror legend feeling.
Just my thoughts, and I do respect yours.
Bruce Foreman
Last edited by Bif; 2012 January 25th at 13:22.
I am a reforming videomaking addict
You know, my left eye sees color differently than my right, and the difference is huge!
Why? Because my left eye has a plastic lens (cataract operation), while the right one still has the "natural", but somewhat cataracted lens - I'll have it operated within a year or two...
Left eye sees bright blues very light, yellows are vibrant. Right eye sees bright blues as dark, some even greyish, and yellows lose all luster.
Ordinary mercury streetlights and cool fluorescent lights look whitish blue through the operated eye, but yellow-green with the other.
So, if I can see such differences with my two eyes, imagine what different people can see! (Even without plastic lenses...)
Personally, I avoid all lenses higher than f/2.8 for video (except for long zooms, such as 200 or 300mm, which you won't find below f/3.8 or f/4.0).
The main reason why I do so, is becos a 2.8 lens will be sharpest at 5.6, so you lose a few extra stops anyway. A 1.4 will probably be sharpest at 4.0.
Another advantage is that all of the fast lenses give you all possible options regarding DOF and working in low light. You can always close down a 1.4 to 5.6, but you can't open up a 2.8 to a lower aperture ...
I just bought a GH1 to see what it can do when hacked (compared to my 550D). Still had a few FD lenses from my DOF adapter days (a Canon 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8) and bought an FD Sigma 24 2.8 in mint condition for $30. I've tried them on my brother's Nex5N a couple of weeks ago and these are great lenses.
And -as others have already said- let your eyes be the judge : if you like what you see and it looks good on a screen, use it. Even if the brand isn't loved or appreciated or has a bad rep online. It's the results that matter.
I did some more "thinking" on this and came to the conclusion my opinions towards vintage lenses might be too "rigid" for today's environment.
If the results you are getting please YOU, and folks you show those results to like them, that is likely what matters most.
I did a lot of shooting on color slide film, the better films and especially Kodachrome (my favorite) were the greatest "enforcers" of exposure discipline there was. If one shot on Kodachrome that was processed ONLY by Kodak liscensed and supported labs. Your discount store chain could not purchase, install, or use Kodachrome processing gear or the current "K" process. So that film in itself was a "standard", there was so little variation in that process you could really count on it.
And that's where lens differences could really show up. National Geographic at first required their staffers shoot Kodachrome but later allowed some of their best and most dependable to use Ektachrome, but anyone else submitting to National Geographic had to submit on Kodachrome or the publishers would not even look at the submission.
So most of us using Kodachrome tended to stay within our camera system for lenses, most used Nikon and Nikkors, those of us who couldn't afford Nikon often used Pentax and Takumars (the old M42 thread mount). When Canon got good and competitive you could count on good consistency in their line of lenses. And for a long time we used prime lenses, zooms often just weren't sharp enough.
So that's where most of my opinion came from.
Nowadays we are in a different environment, digital changed a lot. So lens differences may not matter that much. I'll still stick to Canon system glass, that's what I have and I like the general consistency I get. But that's just me.
Your situation is what you have to deal with, and if the lenses (or most of them) are giving you what you want in your work, that is really all that matters. My only caution will remain, be sure you get lenses with an aperture ring you can work with.
Good luck and I look forward to seeing more examples of what you get. That "hacked" segment with the Yashinon did have GOOD color and I'd like to see how it looks with people in it.
Bruce Foreman
I am a reforming videomaking addict
Bruce I always enjoy reading your replies, because its obvious you put in a ton of thought and years of experience.
I agree that the shots of the people were "green". I wonder if my white balance settings were off there..
that footage was not shot in the same time period, under the same conditions. the shots of the dog in the bathroom was just ambient light. I lit the people with CFL softboxes.. (could that be it?)
www.exit101movie.com
exit101movie.blogspot.com
CFL softboxes could very well be the culprit if you didn't have "photo grade" CFLs in them. Flourescent light in itself used to be red or sometimes magenta deficient. This often led to an overall "greenish" cast and there used to be a specific filter to correct this (back to Kodachrome days) but the degree of deficiency varied enough that just one correction filter didn't cover all.
Those "photo grade" CFLs can get somewhat expensive, what I've had fair luck with is an Smith Victor A100 light (10" parabolic reflector) and a "Bright White" 100w equiv CFL in it. That CFL is close to the color spectrum of the "photo grade" and that combo gives me somewhat soft but still somewhat directional light.
If you can find some "Bright White" CFLs in a hardware store (I got mine a few years ago in Home Depot) you might try replacing what's in the softbox with them and see if that gets rid of the green color.
Bruce Foreman
I am a reforming videomaking addict
Because human vision is more sensitive to green than either red or blue, and because fluorescent lights emit a discontinuous spectrum, lots of household/office type fluoros have a strong "green spike" in their output. This makes them appear brighter to the eye, but cameras tend to 'see' the green differently. Even some of the fancy-schmancy "photo" fluoros can benefit from minus green gels.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
