"Untraditional" focal lengths with intention

[AaronChicago]

There 's a 28mm built into the Sigma 18-35mm.

Very true, and that's my fav current lens. I don't own any vintage lenses though so I've been looking out for one to pick up.

[Jonesy Jones]

Very true, and that's my fav current lens. I don't own any vintage lenses though so I've been looking out for one to pick up.

So then my thought would be to explore the different focal lengths using that lens. Its got all the ones you mentioned, 21, 24, 25, 28, 30, 32. Then buy the primes in the focal lengths you really like. When it comes to vintage glass though, in the end you are going to find that the Sigma is as sharp or probably sharper, and with better coatings. Vintage glass yield beautiful and unique images though, but it's an expensive addiction. If that's something you can afford then cool. I'd love to still have my set of Leica R's.

[Jonesy Jones]

I am glad you like it. 

There is a simple formula: horizontal FOV = 2 * atan(0.5 * sensor width / focal length)

But there are plenty of online calculators like this one: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

Here are some on FF:

20mm --> 84deg

28mm --> 65deg

35mm --> 54deg

50mm --> 40deg

85mm --> 24deg

 

Don, this is great. Is there such a thing that factors in anamorphic? Recently when that Revenant trailer came out everyone was talking about the big 65mm sensor plus anamorphic whatever and how a 40mm was equiv to a 20mm or something and I was lost. I'd love to know how to do this. Thoughts or tips? Btw, I don't really have the desire to shoot anamorphic, but I'd love to know how to convert the FOV to reference some of my favorite movies.

[Don Kotlos]

Don, this is great. Is there such a thing that factors in anamorphic? Recently when that Revenant trailer came out everyone was talking about the big 65mm sensor plus anamorphic whatever and how a 40mm was equiv to a 20mm or something and I was lost. I'd love to know how to do this. Thoughts or tips? Btw, I don't really have the desire to shoot anamorphic, but I'd love to know how to convert the FOV to reference some of my favorite movies.

Its easy, just multiply the sensor width by the anamorphic extension (i.e. 1.3X, 2X...). 

For example a 50mm on FF with a 2x adapter has a 72 deg FOV. 

[sunyata]

true but arent most of his features shot on S35? I guess I shouldn't prefaced by saying S35 cameras.

He said on his website's forum several years ago, I no longer have the link, that in the Barton Fink days he was shooting with a 1.66 film gate and composing for 1.85. Now he uses the Alexa and shoots open gate, i.e. full sensor.

[jgharding]

I don't work in full-frame equivalents, as I've only shot APSC and S35 for the most part.

28mm is indeed my favourite. The old Zeiss 28mm F2 to be precise. A lovely feel, for some voodoo reason!

it works with very close focus and wide aperture enabling a closeup separated-background feel as well as broad views.

50-60mm is your punch in 'saying something really important' view.

21mm is establishing and small-room shots. Not for much more unless you're stuck for framing in general. Unless of course the piece demands everything be wide... 

it's so personal and relies so heavily on the material you're trying to express visually, you've got to be honest, trust your guts and do what you think feels right. YMMV of course!

 

[Liam]

was just testing a little bit. think for me, as a normal lens, for closeups, 28mm (44.8mm equiv) is a little too wide. I get in the article they were saying slightly wide to make things subtly weird, but imo, at closeup distance at least, it is no longer subtle. 35mm flattened it out a lot more, not that flatter is always better. 31mm seemed to be a sweet spot for my test in terms of focal length going unnoticed, which is basically my exact 50mm equiv - hadn't really seen that for myself before as being the perfect middle ground, and it's a little dissatisfying that it's where I landed really, but makes sense for certain shots that you don't want to accidentally make stylized. Of course when everything is further from the lens, wider becomes acceptably subtle, and maybe 28mm even for closeups could work for the "film look", but in storytelling terms, this is where I'm leaning. (fyi - kit lens distortion may have rendered my opinion completely meaningless)

[richg101]

my personal favourite unconventional focal length is the 58mm biotar / Helios on full frame, set to around f4.  Nothing comes close.  so on s35mm a 40mm at f2.8 would be my first choice.    

S35mm/aps-c shooters should give the Konica Hexanon 40mm/1.8 a try for their 'normal lens'.  cheap, and a magical unconventional focal length/aperture combination.

conversely, the 40mm on full frame or with a aps-c and speed booster is very close to the fov of a 28mm on true s35mm

[TheRenaissanceMan]

was just testing a little bit. think for me, as a normal lens, for closeups, 28mm (44.8mm equiv) is a little too wide. I get in the article they were saying slightly wide to make things subtly weird, but imo, at closeup distance at least, it is no longer subtle. 35mm flattened it out a lot more, not that flatter is always better. 31mm seemed to be a sweet spot for my test in terms of focal length going unnoticed, which is basically my exact 50mm equiv - hadn't really seen that for myself before as being the perfect middle ground, and it's a little dissatisfying that it's where I landed really, but makes sense for certain shots that you don't want to accidentally make stylized. Of course when everything is further from the lens, wider becomes acceptably subtle, and maybe 28mm even for closeups could work for the "film look", but in storytelling terms, this is where I'm leaning. (fyi - kit lens distortion may have rendered my opinion completely meaningless)

Oh, I would never use a 28mm for a close-up. They're more for medium/wide shots composed in depth or Spielberg one-ers. Wide without being distracting. 

[Liam]

Oh, I would never use a 28mm for a close-up. They're more for medium/wide shots composed in depth or Spielberg one-ers. Wide without being distracting. 

I agree, just responding to the article. pretty flexible but not perfect all arounder

[TheRenaissanceMan]

I agree, just responding to the article. pretty flexible but not perfect all arounder

In a pinch, I could shoot a short with nothing but a 28. I'd rather pair it with a 50, but it's doable if you frame a little wider. 

[Andrew Reid]

I say untraditional in the sense that primes sets are usually like 16, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135.

I'm very guilty of using those set focal lengths and also using the opposite ends of zooms, 17-55, 12-35.

I've been reading some interviews with cinematographers that really like using odd focal lengths such as Deakins with 21mm, and Speilberg, Scorsese, Malick with 28mm.

http://noamkroll.com/28mm-lenses-the-secret-ingredient-for-achieving-a-film-look/

I'm going to start experimenting with using some of these untraditional focal lengths myself with intention. Not sure if it will make a noticeable difference but I'm very curious.

Does anyone else have a certain focal length that they love for a specific reason?

That's a good article by Noam.

For me the lens draws attention to itself when it is wider than 24mm on full frame.

He seems to like very deep DOF. I am not a shallow DOF junky but I like a gentle roll off of focus, with the background a little bit back... not completely blurred out. I find deep DOF too 'flat' looking on digital. It's ok on Super 16mm (Digital Bolex for example) if the c-mount lens has a lot of character but it looks a bit sterile with modern lenses. Lenses that give me the gentle focus roll off and a shallower DOF control at wide angle are cinematic and three dimensional. Go too wide & slow and you have a very 'flat' look where infinity focus starts at 3m.

On full frame 35mm F2.0 is definitely a sweet spot.

28mm on Super 35mm = 42mm, not too far off.

28mm on the 1D C in 4K is interesting...you get 36mm in APS-H 4K, then can crop to 42mm for the Super 35mm look in post without losing much resolution. You can't really do that with 1080p.

Then in stills mode of course it is a 28mm. Like having 3 lenses in one!!

The Zeiss Distagon 28mm F2.0 is a lovely lens. They don't call it the "Hollywood" for nothing. Shoot with it wide open.

When I was shooting with the GH2 I used to prefer longer lenses. Favourite focal lengths were 35mm and 85mm. 14mm and 50mm didn't do it for me for some reason. On the 1.86x crop sensor 35mm and 85mm were practically telephoto in full frame terms compared to what I use the most now!

On Super 35mm, the Zeiss Jena DDR 21mm F2.8 and Canon 24mm F1.4L are a nicer look than a 16mm or 17mm for me. Less flat.

By the way the edges of the lens are as important as how they render the field of view.

I think a slight vignette wide open is very attractive and also bokeh that curves at the edges slightly makes for a more immersive, dreamy picture, and it doesn't have to be extreme - just subtle.

The easiest way to lose the magic is to take a vintage c-mount lens and crop out just the centre. Or take a full frame 24mm F1.4 shot and crop into. It isn't the resolution loss or just the deeper DOF that makes it look bad. You lose the character of the edges of the lens and the overall rendering of field of view that it was designed to do, artistically.

[AaronChicago]

This turned out well. I've got a few new to try. One focal length that I use alot on the Canon 24-105 is 70mm. I won't even look at the focal length when framing, but after I say "that looks nice", sure enough it's 70mm.

[bamigoreng]

 

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM on a 1.62 crop factor body is really nice (39mm FF equivalent FoV).

[Nikkor]

This turned out well. I've got a few new to try. One focal length that I use alot on the Canon 24-105 is 70mm. I won't even look at the focal length when framing, but after I say "that looks nice", sure enough it's 70mm.

It's also a good focal length to use 2x anamorphics on FF. My favourite one is the bronica nikkor h-c 75 2.8, its a pain in the ass to adapt because you have to diy but it has the original zeiss planar design and gives this very prominent bokeh, the zenzanon 80 2.4 is also nice but it's smoother.

I havent tried the voigtlander 75 1.8 but it might be worth it.

[Don Kotlos]

I am between the 40 - 28 degrees (50-70mm range on FF). 

I found that most wide FoV lenses in MFT give me too much distortion. 

Also since I cannot manipulate the scene that I shoot, I get the framing that I want much easier with the normal-telephoto range. 

Now with the A7rii I will give the ~55 degrees another try. The nice thing is that it will also become a normal in the S35 mode. 

[Bioskop.Inc]

Meyer-Optik Lydith 30mm f3.5 - not the sharpest or fastest lens, but it has that something. Filmed with it recently on the BMPCC+RJ focal reducer & it really did the business - colour rendition was just amazing. Also, has a pre-set aperture so it renders perfectly round bokeh all the way through. Half-way between 28 & 35 - perfect.

Meyer-Optik Orestor 100mm f2.8 - much better than the Lydith (sharper & faster). Maybe its something to do with Meyer-Optik lenses - no, it is exactly this. Love this lens.

Helios 44-2 58mm f2 - need i say more...

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

I mostly used my 7D with a Sigma 30mm f1.4, but I hated jitters and I would love it to be a bit wider for video! This hold me from using the 7D for video... Plus the 12 minute clips and the overheating!

[TheRenaissanceMan]

For me the lens draws attention to itself when it is wider than 24mm on full frame.

Completely agreed. Even 24mm is right on the edge.
 

He seems to like very deep DOF.

I think it's more that he recognizes that deep DoF is as important a tool as shallow DoF. 
 

I am not a shallow DOF junky but I like a gentle roll off of focus, with the background a little bit back... not completely blurred out. I find deep DOF too 'flat' looking on digital. It's ok on Super 16mm (Digital Bolex for example) if the c-mount lens has a lot of character but it looks a bit sterile with modern lenses. Lenses that give me the gentle focus roll off and a shallower DOF control at wide angle are cinematic and three dimensional. Go too wide & slow and you have a very 'flat' look where infinity focus starts at 3m.

This is where the other methods of highlighting your subject and creating dimensionality come in: camera movement, blocking, composition, and light. For example, these shots all have very deep DoF, but also create an immersive sense of depth and look 100% cinematic. https://vimeo.com/94628727

On full frame 35mm F2.0 is definitely a sweet spot.

28mm on Super 35mm = 42mm, not too far off.

39.2, actually. Super 35 is a 1.4 crop. But that 35-40mm range is definitely my favorite. Wide enough to be useful, standard enough not to draw attention to itself.
 

28mm on the 1D C in 4K is interesting...you get 36mm in APS-H 4K, then can crop to 42mm for the Super 35mm look in post without losing much resolution. You can't really do that with 1080p.

Then in stills mode of course it is a 28mm. Like having 3 lenses in one!!

Nice, innit? That's what I like about using the BMPCC and the GH3. I can use the same lens with a 2x crop, 2.9x crop, and 6x crop (ex tele mode) and never lose HD. 
 

The Zeiss Distagon 28mm F2.0 is a lovely lens. They don't call it the "Hollywood" for nothing. Shoot with it wide open.

Just don't focus and recompose wide open. It has significant field distortion, which is both a problem and a big reason for its cinematic reputation. http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/19/zf28distagon/
 

When I was shooting with the GH2 I used to prefer longer lenses. Favourite focal lengths were 35mm and 85mm. 14mm and 50mm didn't do it for me for some reason. On the 1.86x crop sensor 35mm and 85mm were practically telephoto in full frame terms compared to what I use the most now!

Same! 35mm and 58mm have become my mainstay focal lengths on M4/3. Never would've guessed I'd enjoy shooting that long, but they just don't render as brutally telephoto as on S35 and 135. 
 

By the way the edges of the lens are as important as how they render the field of view.

I think a slight vignette wide open is very attractive and also bokeh that curves at the edges slightly makes for a more immersive, dreamy picture, and it doesn't have to be extreme - just subtle.

The easiest way to lose the magic is to take a vintage c-mount lens and crop out just the centre. Or take a full frame 24mm F1.4 shot and crop into. It isn't the resolution loss or just the deeper DOF that makes it look bad. You lose the character of the edges of the lens and the overall rendering of field of view that it was designed to do, artistically.

This is something we've never seen eye to eye on. While edge aberrations can sometimes be nice, especially on anamorphic, they undercut the reality I'm working so hard to make my audience buy. If I want to use the corner of my frame, that corner needs to be usable. Otherwise, the audience is going to miss out on important information. 

You can have a sharp, neutral frame all the way across and still look cinematic as hell. The proof is in almost every Hollywood film ever made. PL mount lenses are specifically designed to cover a larger area than S35 so that the edge problems are cropped out. Weird bokeh and cool artifacts may entrance us artist types, but the audience doesn't give a toss. It doesn't endear them the way it endears us. 

The key to cinematic lenses lies elsewhere, IMO. Among other things, low global contrast, good resolving power, and control over CA are far more important. The GH4 and Blackmagic cameras don't use the edge of SLR Magic lenses, but, used correctly, they still produce the most cinematic images I've seen out of either camera. https://vimeo.com/100916003 https://vimeo.com/110024810 

Cruddy corners just don't give me as many options as a clean frame I can dirty up in post, with filters, or by cranking the lens wide open. 

I think a better explanation for that crop looking bad is that shots cropped in post-production generally weren't composed with that field of view/rendering in mind, so it ends up looking sloppy. 

To each his own.

[bamigoreng]

39.2, actually. Super 35 is a 1.4 crop. But that 35-40mm range is definitely my favorite. Wide enough to be useful, standard enough not to draw attention to itself.

Agreed. 24mm on FF is too wide. Different opinion - Gnarly Bay Team: http://www.gnarlybay.com/blog/2013/08/a-gnarly-travel-bag.html