Best Lenses For Video - Nikon Cinema
Nikon posted this to be about lenses for video, but the groupings seem a good discussion of lenses for general purposes too. It does not mention DX or macro lenses, but the rest are here. I liked the article.
Now of course, I do tend to argue with all authority (and am arguing with myself here), so I can point out that the article has one flaw for the average Nikon DSLR user, which by number, mostly use DX cameras. This article is all referring to FX, and the FX viewpoint. For example, 50mm is referred to as a standard lens, which is of course FX, and for DX, it would be about 35mm. So the DX omission seems odd for video, particularly Nikon video. DX is slightly larger than a 35 mm movie film frame (21x15.3mm). The exclusive FX viewpoint seems puzzling, but still, it is a good article, with meaningful groupings, also useful for still photography.
It omits a few words I would have added.
Regarding video: One advantage of using a DSLR for video is that the large frame (and corresponding longer lenses) have significantly less depth of field than little camcorders, allowing the Hollywood type shots with very limited depth of field (camcorder and compact cameras are tiny, and have much more depth, hard to get rid of it).
And a DSLR has larger pixels for better noise of course.
Canon camcorder, R300 class (near $400). 2.92mm X 2.16mm sensor, 1920 pixels, 1920/2.92mm is 657 pixels/mm.
Nikon DX DSLR, about 24x16mm, even 24 megapixels is 6000 pixels, 6000/24mm = 250 pixels/mm (larger pixels)
Re f/2.8 lenses. These are the ultimate, and high dollar, but most cases are as sharp or sharper than the best prime lenses (which usually cost 1/3 or 1/4 as much).
Re: zoom lenses: They say "A 24-70mm lens would then become 70/24 = ~3x. This means the multiplier is 3x—the higher the multiplier doesn’t necessarily mean you have a better lens, simply one that has a longer zoom capability from its base focal length."
True, but "doesn’t necessarily mean" does mean that a 11x or 13x zoom is becoming lesser quality. They can't say that, but it is asking too much, miracles do not occur. Little camcorders tend to have these huge zoom values though (they don't have interchangeable lenses of course). They just don't have the resolution to show the lens limitations.
Nikon posted this to be about lenses for video, but the groupings seem a good discussion of lenses for general purposes too. It does not mention DX or macro lenses, but the rest are here. I liked the article.
Now of course, I do tend to argue with all authority (and am arguing with myself here), so I can point out that the article has one flaw for the average Nikon DSLR user, which by number, mostly use DX cameras. This article is all referring to FX, and the FX viewpoint. For example, 50mm is referred to as a standard lens, which is of course FX, and for DX, it would be about 35mm. So the DX omission seems odd for video, particularly Nikon video. DX is slightly larger than a 35 mm movie film frame (21x15.3mm). The exclusive FX viewpoint seems puzzling, but still, it is a good article, with meaningful groupings, also useful for still photography.
It omits a few words I would have added.
Regarding video: One advantage of using a DSLR for video is that the large frame (and corresponding longer lenses) have significantly less depth of field than little camcorders, allowing the Hollywood type shots with very limited depth of field (camcorder and compact cameras are tiny, and have much more depth, hard to get rid of it).
And a DSLR has larger pixels for better noise of course.
Canon camcorder, R300 class (near $400). 2.92mm X 2.16mm sensor, 1920 pixels, 1920/2.92mm is 657 pixels/mm.
Nikon DX DSLR, about 24x16mm, even 24 megapixels is 6000 pixels, 6000/24mm = 250 pixels/mm (larger pixels)
Re f/2.8 lenses. These are the ultimate, and high dollar, but most cases are as sharp or sharper than the best prime lenses (which usually cost 1/3 or 1/4 as much).
Re: zoom lenses: They say "A 24-70mm lens would then become 70/24 = ~3x. This means the multiplier is 3x—the higher the multiplier doesn’t necessarily mean you have a better lens, simply one that has a longer zoom capability from its base focal length."
True, but "doesn’t necessarily mean" does mean that a 11x or 13x zoom is becoming lesser quality. They can't say that, but it is asking too much, miracles do not occur. Little camcorders tend to have these huge zoom values though (they don't have interchangeable lenses of course). They just don't have the resolution to show the lens limitations.
Last edited: