I'm new to DSLR filming and I want to shoot talking head interview style footage, would this lens be good for that or should I get the 35mm?
749846
It also depends on the camera the 85mm will allow a closer shot. But the 35mm will be wider angle.
749847
Fantastic lens for talking head interviews. I've used this exact lens for interviews with a Blackmagic Cinema Camera and results were outstanding.
749848
This is one of the best focal lengths for filming people. 35mm depending on the type of sensor can actually distort how someone actually looks. This is an incredible lens.
749849
If your new to filming. A focal range of 35mm 50mm and 85mm are good lenses to look at. If your new buy something cheap in your price range and learn. Than once you have the skill spend the money on the gear. This rokinon is a great lens and I would recommend this as a 35mm lens its what I use on most of my interviews and shoots for my work.
316099
Sharp lens, at 120mm its longer than the 1.8 45mm, which works out to 90mm. It is a bit slower, but just as sharp. Yes and no, it gets you close from the edges of a room, head shots are fine, its a cheaper alternative to the oly 75mm.The 25mm 1.8 might be more useful, I have the sigma 60. Do it all would be the pro zoom, but its pricy. The sigma would be great on the omd, at the price it'd hard to beat. If you do not have many primes, its a good start.
1974652
I haven't used the 35mm but i can assure you the image quality is better than the 50 f1.8 or the kit lens. This sigma will serve you well as a starter lens and actually shouldn't be something you immediately feel like upgrading. Primes are well and good if you are ready for them but zooms are better for starting out. if you test out different focal lengths you can find out what prime lenses will work best for you. you don't want to buy a 35mm just to find out you'd rather have a 24, etc.
824636
This is a very nice lens and will work very well for all of your shooting. Just understand, it will feel a bit heavy hanging around your neck. Though the quality of your photos will be worth it.
572806
I actually disagree, I'm a music video director and have used this lens a few times on shoots. It's extremely sharp, probably one of the sharpest lenses I have, and it's a blast to use. I wouldn't shoot an entire video with this lens but you can sure do a heck of a lot with it.
2022547
Yes this lens was specifically made for shooting on a camera with a crop sensor like a 7D. It's perfect for shooting video, not as sharp as Canon "L" glass but since canon doesn't make an 11-16 2.8 it's pretty much the go to lens for professional filmmakers on a budget.
1650133
While this lens performs well in a fairly wide variety of situations, I would recommend the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 af-s dx or the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 af lenses for portraits. Either of those will give you much better performance in lower light situations and they are both very sharp lenses. As I said, the 18-55mm is a great lens but if you want to focus exclusively on portraits, go with one of the others instead. I actually prefer the 35mm over the 50mm. Just my two cents though.
2000789
Mindy,For kids couples etc, I love shooting with my 85mm not my 35 mm. 35 is great when traveling and might need a bit of a wider angle but the 85 is the best to get you a little closer than you would usually shoot and get great results.
1398789
It is a great portrait lens! The BEST lens for portraits? It depends on what "look" you like. For the price, this lens is spectacular. Would I buy it again? You know, honestly, I would probably invest the money in purchasing a 35mm 1.4g if I had to do it over again. But if you don't have the grand to throw down on a lens, then this puppy will still give you amazing and beautiful photos. :)
143452
It is a really nice lens. Though if you want portrait or medium telephoto, the 135 f/2 or the 70-200 f/2.8 are both fantastic as well, and maybe better suited.
315157
Pentax crop sensor cameras make the 50mm a telescopic lens. The 35mm is more a normal view that may barely be wide enough for group photos without stepping way further back to get some background. I'd recommend the 35mm first unless you have a wide angle lens at least 28mm, preferrably wider a da 21mm. The 50mm is better for closeups.
709669
The 35mm gives a "normal" view on a DX camera while the 50mm gives a "normal" view on an FX camera. Both of these are great for portraits and will definitely be a step up. The 35mm gives a slightly wider angle. If looking to upgrade to a full frame FX camera, get the Nikon 50mm FX lens, but otherwise the 35mm DX lens is the way to go.
767674
Oh, and the larger aperture allows you to play with depth of field and shoot in low light conditions without having to crank up the ISO and the associated noise. It's really nice for portraits. If you are looking for top quality in a "normal" lens(like a 50mm was in film formats) you can pay alot for the great Pentax 31mm or (right now) about the same as the 50mm for a DA 35mm that is still a very nice lens. BTW: Pentax is planning on putting out an "improved" series of fixed lenses at a higher price so you might want to take advantage of the clearance sales now.
2193895
These are completely different animals-- a 35mm lens is a wide-angle lens and usually has an F-number (meaning "speed") greater (meaning a smaller number), than a normal to telephoto (55-300) zoom. The F on this excellent lens is 4.5, as it should be. If your 35mm F is a smaller number (2.8 perhaps?), then the answer is no, the zoom is not as fast. But speed is not why you would buy this. You would buy this because you want a telephoto lens.
1398788
It is a great lens for portraits. That's what I primarily use it for. Another good option is an 85mm.
2256736
I have the Fujifilm 23mm and really like it, but it I had just one lens, I would select the 35mm because in the 35mm film format, this would have the same angle of view as a 52.5mm lens. The standard lens for the film cameras was a 50mm to 55mm lens. This provided a more natural perspective to the human eye. Wide angle lens. like the Fuji 23mm, somewhat distort the view making things further away than they actually are. The 35mm will also give you are better head and shoulder shot. When shooting the landscape, the 23mm will give you a broader view, but the details of the Grand Canyon will be lost. Both lenses are optically very good. Both are fast - f1/4, but the 35mm is $300 less! I have the Fujifilm 23mm and really like it, but it I had just one lens, I would select the 35mm because in the 35mm film format, this would have the same angle of view as a 52.5mm lens. The standard lens for the film cameras was a 50mm to 55mm lens. This provided a more natural perspective to the human eye. Wide angle lens. like the Fuji 23mm, somewhat distort the view making things further away than they actually are. The 35mm will also give you are better head and shoulder shot. When shooting the landscape, the 23mm will give you a broader view, but the details of the Grand Canyon will... » Read More I have the Fujifilm 23mm and really like it, but it I had just one lens, I would select the 35mm because in the 35mm film format, this would have the same angle of view as a 52.5mm lens. The standard lens for the film cameras was a 50mm to 55mm lens. This provided a more natural perspective to the human eye. Wide angle lens. like the Fuji 23mm, somewhat distort the view making things further away than they actually are. The 35mm will also give you are better head and shoulder shot. When shooting the landscape, the 23mm will give you a broader view, but the details of the Grand Canyon will be lost. Both lenses are optically very good. Both are fast - f1/4, but the 35mm is $300 less! « Show Less
1037163
I have to respectfully disagree with the recommendation for a 16-85mm VR. I have that lens, use it with my D90 and it's great for outdoor situations. Indoors, the 16-85mm is fine if you are using a flash. I can see using the 16-85mm for some interior church shots, but most of wedding shots are going to be of people. things, little details like bouquets, etc. You will want a lens that can handle low-light and can isolate a subject well (subject in focus - remaining areas blurry). You should check out primes. Fast zooms are nice, but they will defintiley set you back a lot of money. Look into these lenses: 1. Nikkor 50mm 1.8 - The poor man's lens for low light, decent bokeh, depth of field interestingness. $100 Everyone should have at least one fast lens and since this one is cheap, it's a good place to start. 2. Sigma 30mm 1.4 More money, but since it's wider than the above lens, a little more versatile, especially with DX sensor. $300 or more 3. Nikkor 85mm 1.8 - Like the 50mm but is more telephoto, so this is good if you are standing far from your subject but want to fill the frame with your subject. Good for concerts, theater, etc. 5. Nikkor 85mm 1.4 - This is a money-making lens for pro wedding photographers and portrait photographers. People fall in love with and worship this lens. Do a web search and you'll find out why. Very, very pricey. $1K but worth it. One thing about primes is that there is a definite learning curve to using them - especially at the wider apertures since the depth of field is SO narrow. You have to really work on learning to use them to maximize the number of keepers you have. BUT, these fast lenses help you to examine more work more critically, to look at your composition, technique, etc in ways that your kit lens never will :) Good luck with your photography!