OVERVIEW:
This article is the antithesis to a video I posted on YouTube about my Top 3 Budget Lenses for Filmmaking. That was focused on my favorite BUDGET options, but NOW we're going to focus on a few "dream" lenses that I still bought for a pretty good price, but which where not a good idea. I wanted these lenses for quite a while (maybe because everyone else seemed to want them). The 3 lenses were a 50mm F/1.2 (I tried the Canon FL 58mm, then found a Porst for a really good deal, made by Fujica) the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8, and a 70/80-200 F/2.8 (I had both a Canon EF, and an older Nikon).
ABOVE: I tried two vintage 50 F/1.2 lenses, the 1st was the Canon FL 58mm, the 2nd a (minty) vintage 50mm Porst made by Fujica, but ended up liking my Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-D #ad (with a Viltrox NF-M43x speed booster #ad ) better.
What Lenses Didn't I Like? (on Micro Four Thirds):
THE FAST FIFTY (I don't usually need F/1.2, even INDOORS)
SIGMA 18-35 1.8 (I'd prefer a SHIFT adapter, with an 11-16)
70/80-200 2.8 (too heavy to use on my 2-camera rig)
DREAM LENS 1 THE FAST FIFTY
It seems like everyone dreams of owning an F/1.2 50mm. They're bigger, cost more, and let in more light (wide open, at least) than less expensive 1.8 versions, so they must be better right? I was convinced in theory, until I tried one, then another. They were both terrible at F/1.2, and though I'd heard people say they would be, somehow I didn't believe it. So, I ended up shooting at 1.8 or even more. It turned out, even with small M43 sensors, that I didn't often need more than F/1.4 (even INDOORS)...and the amount of bokeh (blurred background) was plenty (yes, even with a Micro Four Thirds sensor). I began to think buying an F/1.2 wasn't worth it. I know you can get better results from a $1500-ish Canon L-series 50 1.2, but aside from that, the vintage options I was able to afford were not usable at F/1.2.
Also, I came across a strange (but unfortunately common) problem of flicker, which occurred when under certain LED lighting (in a restaurant). I tried fixing it by changing the shutter speed, but letting in more light (even at 1.4) actually made the problem worse. I just couldn't get the right exposure with the given variables. Then, I started testing a Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-D #ad with a Viltrox NF-M43x speed booster #ad (which renders something around F/1.2 if needed, wide open). The results were so much better than the 1.2 lenses wide open, I haven't looked back.
ABOVE: The high contrast and sharpness of the Sigma 18-35 1.8 make capturing good dynamic range difficult outdoors (though my custom camera settings do improve it).
DREAM LENS 2 SIGMA 18-35 1.8
This next lens is a favorite of many. My first reason for not liking it may be a personal one, but that's because I like to use a SHIFT adapter (especially for WIDE shots) as often as possible. (I hope to write an article about shift and tilt shift adapters soon, but the bottom line is that it allows you to correct the perspective and not angle the camera upwards.) The problem with using this lens on a shift or tilt/shift adapter though, is it's too heavy, which puts strain on both the lens mount and the adapter (as there can be a some play m budget adapters). Also, because 18mm is not wide enough (at times) for a WIDE shot, and because I can't add a focal reducer/speed booster to the SHIFT adapter to increase the field of view, I don't like it. What I do instead is use a Tokina 11-16 2.8 (on that shift adapter) to get a wide enough angle. Lastly, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 isn't really a good OUTDOOR lens in general, not only because the F1.8 max. aperture isn't needed outdoors, but also because the high contrast and sharpness of this lens isn't a good match for many of the lighting situations we (sometimes) face outdoors.
ABOVE: I rented a Canon EF 70-200 2.8 (used on a Metabones XL 0.64x speed booster) and also purchased an older Nikon AF 80-200 2.8, but both were too heavy, clumsy.
DREAM LENS 3 70/80-200 2.8
Now, I'm going to talk about a lens I used to love, as that had served many of us well when film (and sensors) just needed more light; the fast 2.8 tele. I wrote an entire article just about why I think the less-expensive 70-300 lenses are now (often) a better way to spend my money (see the article here) and if you start by looking at the prices of 70-300 lenses vs. 70-200 2.8 lenses (new or used) you'll see where I'm going. The average price of a (vintage) 70-300 is around $100 US, while a 70-200 2.8 optic is well over $500. To me, this is an important point, but because this article is focused on "dream" lenses, we'll kind of ignore this to start with. However, one point that is REALLY big for me, is that the 2.8 versions are also HEAVIER lenses. Not only does this make your camera backpack heavier, but also makes it difficult for me to use this lens on lighter-weight ball head tripods (it takes several adjustments each time to get the image framed up right). Yet worse, is that to mount it to the top of one of my 2-camera rigs #ad (an important part of my workflow) is impossible, making lighter 70-300 lenses the clear winner.
CONCLUSION:
So, if money were NOT an issue, would I still avoid these 3 lenses? Yes. I think there are just too many workflow problems they introduce, so I figure why pay more, for more of a headache, just to get an extra stop of light and a non-variable aperture? You wouldn't be zooming while shooting anyway, right?
Comments