28mm Lenses - The Secret Ingredient For Achieving A Film Look - Noam Kroll

NEWSLETTER PODCAST LUTS ABOUT NOAM PORTFOLIO C O N TA C T  "
Search...
"
WELCOME!
BLOG #
NEWSLETTER
PODCAST
LUTS
ABOUT NOAM
PORTFOLIO
C O N TA C T
B LO G / C I N E M ATO G R A P H Y / G E A R / L E N S E S
28mm Lenses: The Secret Ingredient For Achieving A

Film Look
Posted On November 26, 2013
For those of you that follow this blog regularly, you know that achieving a filmic look when shooting
digitally is very important to me and something I often write about. My recent article ‘How To Make Video
Look Like Film’ outlined a lot of basic techniques that when implemented can drastically help to improve
your digital cinematography and truly make it more film like. But something that I didn’t delve into in detail
in that article was lensing choices – specifically wide angle vs. telephoto.
Probably one of the biggest misconceptions about achieving a filmic look, is that long telephoto lenses and
shallow depth of field are a necessary part of the equation. Since the 5D was introduced and razor shallow
depth of field became easily achievable, just about every low budget indie film went down the path of
shooting a lot of long lens shallow DOF shots in an attempt to make their film ‘more cinematic’. The irony
though, is that since so many filmmakers went crazy for the ultra-shallow DOF look and used it to death
over the past 5 years, it’s now become one of the biggest giveaways that a film was made on a DSLR and
probably on a very low budget. Unfortunately, shooting on wider lenses (and for some even normal lenses
like the 35mm) has become a lost art. This is really a shame because one of the most used lenses in the
history of cinema and therefore one of the keys to unlocking a cinematic look when shooting digitally is the
28mm wide angle lens.
Before we discuss the seemingly magical 28mm focal length, it’s important to recognize why shooting long
lens/shallow DOF throughout your film can be the furthest thing from cinematic.
Any 35mm film camera is capable of getting razor thin DOF in just about any circumstance. But how many
blockbuster or large-scale independent films can you remember where every other shot was teetering on
the brink of being out of focus as so many micro-budget films are? Every film is different and every DP has
their own way of working, but in general most substantial films are shot between f4 – f8 the majority of the
time. Shooting at that kind of aperture allows for optimal lens performance and smoother focus pulling
and is a very far cry from shooting wide open at 1.4 on a full frame DSLR. Sure, for insert shots, extreme
SIGN UP FOR THE
closeups, low light, and other specialty shots, there are many cases shooting wide open may be necessary NEWSLETTER!
or the right choice – but not for the majority of the film.
So what is the right focal length for the rest of the film? Where is the sweet spot? Ultimately that is up to Exclusive micro-budget
you as the filmmaker, but for many filmmakers the 28mm lens is the secret ingredient. In fact Spielberg, filmmaking tips sent directly
Scorsese, Orson Wells, Malick, and many other A-list directors are have cited the 28mm lens as one of to you every Sunday!
their most frequently used and in some cases a favorite. And while on paper it may not seem or sound like
the most exciting lens choice, keep in mind that the 28mm lens has been a gold standard in shooting FIRST NAME
motion pictures for over a century, being used to capture some of the most recognizable moments in
cinematic history. And if you are truly attempting to emulate the look of motion pictures, than the 28mm
lens is a focal length that you absolutely can not ignore. LAST NAME
EMAIL ADDRESS
SUBSCRIBE
NOAM ON TWITTER
When we go to the movies we want to have an experience that emulates reality in many ways, but also is
fantastical and surrealistic. That’s where a lens like the 28mm comes into play. It’s just off center. Just
barely wider than our regular field of vision, but not too wide that it becomes distracting. It’s different
enough from a ‘normal’ focal length like the 50mm that it let’s us subconsciously feel like we’re in a new
world, but it’s also close enough to realty that we aren’t lost by any noticeable distortion that we would
experience from a more extreme lens choice, like a 12mm. Conversely, shooting on a medium telephoto
lens (like a 65mm), would also would be just off center from our normal field of vision, but it could never Tweets by @noamkroll
work as universally as the 28mm lens. If you had to shoot an entire film on a single lens, it would be a lot
easier to use a 28mm than a 65mm, unless you’re doing something really specific. The 28mm would allow Noam Kroll Retweeted
for wides, closeups, landscape shots and more, all while maintaining a unique and original look. The 65mm Marcus Mizelle
@MarcusMizelle
would paint you into a corner in some cases, making establishing shots, masters, or medium-wides quite
It’s always a pleasure to speak
difficult. That said a normal focal length like a 35mm or 50mm may seem to be the more natural choice as with @noamkroll and to share
that field of view is closest to human vision, but the 28mm’s ability to add that slight bit of surrealism to the process.
https://twitter.com/noamkroll/sta
the picture is exactly what we want.
tus/1261016510912323584
19h
Noam Kroll Retweeted
Rick Caplan
@rick_caplan
Indie filmmakers: there's so
much to learn from this
interview with @MarcusMizelle
https://twitter.com/noamkroll/sta
tus/1261016510912323584
19h
Noam Kroll Retweeted
Eyes On Cinema
Embed View on Twitter
A final thought that I’ll leave you with is that shooting on a wide lens is a great way to make sure you don’t
get lazy as a DP or Director. If you have a poorly lit scene or a crappy location, it’s pretty easy to just slap
on a long lens, frame out all the ugliness. make the background blur out and get a pretty decent image. But
that’s not always the answer and more often than not it’s the easy way out and won’t yield the best
possible results. You can’t cheat your way out of every shot and you especially shouldn’t attempt to shoot
long lens out of convenience if your scene doesn’t call for it. By shooting with wider lenses you are forced
to take into consideration your lighting, composition, and production design much more thoroughly. And
this is a very good thing for a lot of independent filmmakers who often skimp out in these areas. Personally,
I would prefer to capture a shot with a wide lens and deep DOF that has beautiful art direction to it and
loads of detail, than a long lensed shallow DOF shot where the environment is essentially lost in the bokeh.
The bottom line is there are no shortcuts in achieving a filmic look. Following practices that have been used
and implemented on films since the early days of cinema is the only way to truly achieve the look you’re
after, and one of those practices is making use out of the 28mm lens. And yes that’s might mean setting up
more lights, carefully blocking your scene, and spending time on the art direction so that you can shoot on
your wider lens and still capture a beautiful image, but once you put in the extra time and effort, you’ll be
happy you did.
Keep in mind that in order to emulate that magical 28mm field of view, these lenses are best suited for
camera with a Super 35mm sensor, or APS-C in DSLR terms. A 28mm lens on a full frame camera will
offer a noticeably wider focal length than in the examples above, and conversely on cameras with larger
crops (such as MFT cameras) they will translate to a much longer focal length.
A 28mm lens on a Super 35mm sensor is really the sweet spot, so if you are working with a full frame
camera or a sensor with a substantial crop, you will want to look for lenses that will deliver a 28mm while
taking into account the crop factor.
Here is a rough guide for which focal lengths you might want to look for on several popular sensors:
Full Frame – 40mm
Super 35mm – 28mm
Micro Four Thirds – 20mm

Super 16mm – 14mm
Below are three lenses that I recommend in the 28mm focal length.
#1 – SIGMA 28MM F1.8 – $449 at B & H
The perfect choice for shooters in need of a faster 28mm lens for low light shooting.
#2 – ZEISS 28MM F2.0 – $1283 at B & H
An excellent and beautifully sharp Zeiss lens that is well built and worth the larger price tag for those
looking for a longer term solution.
#3 – NIKON NIKKOR 28MM F2.8 Manual Lens – $539 at B & H

Ideal for Nikon shooters, or any DP who is partial to Nikon glass. This lens gives full manual control in a
rugged body, while producing gorgeous images.
UPDATE: For those of you looking for some more cinematic tools, be sure to check out my 6 brand new
Cinematic LUT packs, all of which have been carefully designed to help you achieve an organic, filmic
look while keeping post-production time to a minimum. Click here to learn more!
Noam Kroll
Noam Kroll is an award-winning Los Angeles based filmmaker, and the founder of the
boutique production house, Creative Rebellion. His work can be seen at international
film festivals, on network television, and in various publications across the globe.
Follow Noam on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook for more content like this!
182 Comments
Xiong November 26, 2013 at 8:05 pm R E P LY
Yeah I also agree about the use of shallow depth of field to “cheat” that film look.
From the article:

“The bottom line is there are no shortcuts in achieving a filmic look. Following practices that
have been used and implemented on films since the early days of cinema is the only way to
truly achieve the look you’re after”
This is the biggest take away for me, there’s a reason why those filmic images stand out so
much and that’s due to the time and effort it takes to achieve them. Now a days with the idea
of everything being so quick and easy to grab with a DSLR: With a hit of a button you can
capture, manage, delete all entire scenes from the camera so fast and quick, that it is in this
philosophy that we have accidentally spliced into our own way of shooting. “We can just
reshoot that, we’ll edit it in post.” there isnt that tension we had with actual film, where every
shot counted, every shot was money spent.
Just my opinion though, just fuel to the fire of conversation
Noam KrollNovember 27, 2013 at 4:54 pm R E P LY
Totally. Sometimes it’s important to just remember that narrative films shouldn’t
always be shot on the fly, documentary style as so many low budget indies are. There
are cases where this can work (for example the film ‘Detachment’), but typically if you
want that cinematic look, it’s all about emulating what’s been done for ages on larger
scale productions.
David Johnson October 5, 2018 at 2:27 pm
Claiming shallow depth of field is a cheat is how self proclaimed pros respond to
being threatened by the development of quality by amateurs, through more
affordable technology.
There are plenty of examples of shallow depth of field being used by

cinematography masters in Hollywood.
Watch the candle lit scene in Barry Lyndon and this scene from There Will Be Blood
– https://goo.gl/images/tAQAmb
Noam KrollNovember 14, 2018 at 5:21 am
I love shallow DOF and use it constantly
Manny March 4, 2019 at 9:21 am
Any idea what The founder used for focal length? Looks wide
Noam KrollMarch 5, 2019 at 5:29 pm
I don’t know unfortunately, but perhaps someone else may be able to respond and
let you know…
Stacy Muller November 26, 2013 at 9:20 pm R E P LY
EXCELLENT points made in this article!

Reminds me of the great results I’ve gotten
using the last lens mentioned on my GH2!
It’s reassuring that zoom lenses that aren’t
that fast (but “fastest” on the wide end)
could work well set to 28mm, while a fast
28mm prime that might be set to a less
fast aperture could work well too!
I’m hoping to achieve some specialty shots

with both the GH2 and Nikon 1 V2 with such
fast primes, and with a power zoom lens on
the Nikon which I believe works better than
any power zoom equivalent on the GH2
(with faster phase detection focus and
stepless aperture) – otherwise I’d use the GH2
for that as well! (Not that I would want to
go zoom-happy on a film-like production).
– Stacy.
Thanks Stacy – glad you enjoyed the read! Using a zoom lens set to 28mm can
definitely be a great option, especially if you already own the glass. I went through a
phase where I would only shoot on primes, but lately I’ve started using zooms again on
many shoots out of convenience and am really happy with the results. A nice zoom lens
on a really good camera can look as good as anything else. I think my next purchase will
be the Sigma 18 – 35 F1.8, which also may be a great option for your GH2/Nikon.
Thanks for visiting!
Kase November 26, 2013 at 11:58 pm R E P LY
Any lens recommendations for an APS-C sensor with a 1.6 crop factor? T3i, 7D, etc?
Actually Kase the ASP-C sensor size is perfect for using a true 28mm lens. The reason
being that full frame sensors (like the 5D) are actually bigger than Super 35mm. The
closest sensor size to Super 35mm film is in fact the APS-C sensor, so a regular 28mm
on there would be perfect!
Kase November 27, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Which in full frame terms is approximately 45mm, correct?
Kase November 27, 2013 at 6:44 pm
Which in full frame terms is approximately 45mm, correct? And thanks for the
response by the way.
Noam KrollDecember 3, 2013 at 9:23 pm
Yes that’s right!
timur civan November 27, 2013 at 3:55 am R E P LY

Deakins cites the 28mm 32mm and 40mm as responsible for a bulk of his shooting. I
completely agree with you. 32, and 40mm are my go to lengths.
Thanks Timur – I didn’t know that, but very good to know. Deakins is one of my favorite
DP’s, so it’s reassuring to hear this.
SteveNovember 27, 2013 at 6:29 am R E P LY
Are you saying that 28mm is the magic length against a full-frame still sensor (a la DSLR), or
were Spielberg et al shooting 28mm against a standard 35mm film frame, which is a 1.59
crop?
Yes in DSLR terms I would say 28mm is the ideal length when shooting on an APS-C
sensor (Super 35mm equivalent). The full frame look can be gorgeous and definitely
has it’s place, but I’ve always found it just a little bit too wide for my taste.
Cavner November 28, 2013 at 1:15 am R E P LY
Many years ago I shot a short on DV. All of the wide angle stuff looked great (back then).
There were people that thought it was shot on 16mm.
Noam KrollDecember 3, 2013 at 9:24 pm R E P LY
I could definitely see that. I shot my first few shorts on the DVX 100 and to this day am
still so impressed with what that camera was capable of.
Wolfgang TröscherJanuary 3, 2014 at 8:08 am R E P LY
Not to forget Orson Welles Citizen Kane! Welles used wide angle lenses and sometimes
larger-than-life props to get a huge depth of field.
Noam KrollJanuary 14, 2014 at 6:36 pm R E P LY
Good point – one of my all time favorite films… I should update this post at some point.
Liam Martin January 3, 2014 at 10:52 pm R E P LY

I know it was a while ago now but I love this article. It’s great to get some perspective when
so many people just think 5D’s are the best cameras out there or spend hours looking at
bokeh. I’m a GH3 user and have the 14mm prime amongst others but rarely use it since it’s
such a pain to focus manually. Do you have any tips on using it properly or any work arounds?
That fiddly tiny little focus ring just stops me wanting to use it.
Thanks Liam, this was one of the most popular of the year. I’m glad you enjoyed it…
Yes the focusing ring can be quite annoying to deal with, but have you looked into
adding a follow focus gear to it? That might help matters a lot!
Jesus Rubio Govea January 16, 2014 at 5:02 pm R E P LY
I’m new to this, I would like to buy the lens Rokinon 14mm T3.1 Cine Lens, any frame used
for GH3? Greetings.
dnguyen June 12, 2014 at 3:44 pm R E P LY
Orson Wells used a Angenieux 18.5 exclusively for a few films for a “modern” look shot on
35mm. When interviewed, it was going for a modern look, and he always shot in singularity.
If everyone was shooting wide, then he’d switch to 75mm for a chance. He was always
exploring what people weren’t. You can’t just say that 28mm is the answer for the film look.
Traditional cinema alone utilizes 28-35-50-85-135. Bokeh is not an issue… it’s just a result.
No one is pulling focus at 1.4 or 1.2. You know how difficult that is? Unless you’re Kubrick
shooting 0.7 for Barry Lyndon. Bokeh is a RESULT. It’s not a conscious decision. That’s what
makes film look like film. Conscious decisions.
Noam KrollJune 12, 2014 at 5:58 pm R E P LY
Very good point and I couldn’t agree more that breaking the rules or going against the
grain is a fantastic way to force innovation. That said, this article isn’t suggesting that
you shoot everything at 28mm or that there is a one size fits all approach to lensing –
simply some food for thought to get the wheels spinning. Thanks for visiting the site.
bradbell.tvOctober 20, 2014 at 9:44 pm R E P LY
The 28mm has both a normal perspective – length of diagonal of sensor – but also replicates
the socially comfortable distances between human bodies. A wider angle would be in the
subjects face, for example, and a very long lens would necessitate a non-social distance.
My problem is with M4/3, a 16mm standard lens is too wide to produce good depth of field,
it’s in people’s faces, and it distorts people’s faces. And the 28mm becomes a bit long. The
Super35 sensor is integral.
NLL November 27, 2014 at 8:59 am R E P LY
Hi ,
Would the 24mm be too wide to give the effect ?
Not necessarily! Depends on your camera’s sensor size… On a MFT camera for
instance, that may be just right.
KeanoJanuary 31, 2015 at 8:01 pm R E P LY
I shoot full frame D750 do would the 35mm be a better voice then the 28mm?
Noam KrollFebruary 7, 2015 at 9:04 pm R E P LY
I think so… I love shooting full frame but the 28mm is a bit on the wide side for my
taste. 40mm would be great.
rohan January 31, 2015 at 11:29 pm R E P LY
so i have the canon 5d mark iii and the sigma 28 lens from this page but can you tell me how
to film a tracking shot and i mean a tracking shot like goodfellas and boogie nights . because
you have to turn the lens while filming that can be quite difficult .
thanks for the help
Hi Rohan – It sounds like you need a 1st AC. For complex camera moves, you would
usually have at least 1 AC on set who would help you to pull focus/roll the iris as you
operate the camera.
AJ May 21, 2015 at 3:16 am R E P LY
I know Scorsese loves the 24mm when he’s moving the camera, so for the 5D I’d
personally use a 35mm lens. The 28mm on the 5D will give more of a Kubrick vibe, but
that could be cool. So for the 28mm, I would slap the camera on a Steadicam, stop the
lens down to F/4, and focus to 3 ft. That way everything from 2 to 6 ft. would be in
focus, and I wouldn’t have to pull focus on the lens; I would just use my feet to get what
I want in focus. With the low light capability of the 5D you should be okay bumping up
the ISO to compensate for the f/4 aperture, even in a dark environment like a club.
Noam KrollMay 26, 2015 at 6:52 pm
Thanks for sharing this AJ – great points all around.
William April 30, 2017 at 2:05 am
I recently did a shoot involving runway models where I incorporated this exact
technique of keeping a 3-5 foot distance from the subject with a 20mm lense set to
f2.8 or 3.4. This was with a M4/3 camera. One model commented that she felt like
she was in a dance with me. She was more right than she knew. As a camera
operator, the importance of footwork is often overlooked. As in dancing, you really
have to practice to get good at it. Anticipating the subjects moves, shadowing,
stopping, kneeling, bending, twisting, leaning, walking backwards and sideways all
while maintaining that 3 foot focus window. I don’t think most folks even think
about what the camera operator did or what it took to obtain a particular shot while
watching a film or video. Which is the way it should be. So yeah, using your feet is a
great technique!
So true! It’s sometimes funny for people who aren’t DPs themselves to watch a
cinematographer at work – especially shooting this kind of material. It very much
feels like a choreographed dance, and there is certainly an art to the movement.
Thanks again for sharing.
Hristo March 4, 2015 at 11:21 pm R E P LY
I still don’t get it.If a have a full frame camera (5d for example) What lenses should i use to be
close to this?
Noam KrollMarch 6, 2015 at 5:27 pm R E P LY
A 40mm would be great on full frame.
Andy ZouApril 21, 2015 at 1:52 pm R E P LY
Hey Noam! Very informative article that aligns with dome research I’ve been trying to do. I
wonder how this article relates to the use of 2x anamorphics. I recently got the SLR magic 2x
anamorphot and am looking for one solid taking lens. Im using a gh4 with a Speedbooster at
4k, do at 16:9 its approximately a 1.6 crop. I like the 30-35mm range for a normal look on the
Speedbooster, but with gh4’s upcoming firmware of 4:3 24fps shooting, I think the crop will
increase a little more so I should opt for something around 28mm on the Speedbooster, or
20ish native mft. I’m guessing these guys used mostly 28mm Ana lenses? Any recs?
Jul July 12, 2016 at 7:29 am R E P LY
I am curious about that too !
HayleyMay 15, 2015 at 12:06 am R E P LY
Great article! I actually bought a 28mm yesterday and then stumbled on this article today
looking for examples of 28mm usage. I’m even more excited to use it now!
I have to agree…I fell for the shallow DOF too but now I’m looking to make my stuff look
different and stand out from what’s out there now so I’m aiming for a very traditional
methodology now. I don’t shoot narrative very often but I did buy the 28mm to shoot a
commercial where I’m trying to emulate a 1960’s look and now I’m so glad I did.
Noam KrollMay 18, 2015 at 12:01 am R E P LY
Glad to hear Hayley! Thanks so much for the note.
Rallo June 21, 2015 at 2:25 am R E P LY
Hey Noam, I really appreciate that your sharing this information with us. I really love the
24mm rokinon lens on the Canon rebels. I think it looks really cinematic based off the
youtube videos i’ve seen that show it’s focal length. Does the 24mm focal length have any
history in cinema and would you use it?
Anytime Rallo! The 24mm definitely has a lot of history in traditional cinema and is a
very standard wide angle option.
Chris 2 July 29, 2015 at 9:36 pm R E P LY
I recently picked up the Zeiss 28mm F2.0 (Canon mount on a RED Scarlet.) I was very
hesitant, especially coming from an L-series zoom lens world. I also wanted something faster
for low light in door shooting, so I was really looking at a Sigma 24mm f1.4. The Zeiss is not
the fastest out there, but there really is something special about this lens. If you can afford it,
I definitely recommend it. It really will add “pop” to your images.
Chris 2 July 29, 2015 at 9:53 pm R E P LY
PS It really has become my favorite lens of my kit.
Noam KrollAugust 14, 2015 at 12:15 am
Good to hear!
Noam KrollAugust 14, 2015 at 12:15 am R E P LY
Great suggestion Chris! I absolutely love that lens… Has an almost 3D quality to it that
you don’t see with most other lenses at that focal length.
Clinton August 9, 2015 at 4:55 am R E P LY
So how did they shoot cinemascope? I know for cinerama they used three cams, and that
now we use anamorphic, but how did they shoot so wide? And does that change is the 28 is
optimum?
I still think that a 28mm anamorphic lens would look excellent and be a great
alternative to a spherical lens. Both will give the same relative focal length, but of
course the anamorphic will come will all of the usual benefits of that format.
Rodger MarionAugust 10, 2015 at 6:06 pm R E P LY
I have a Zeiss Distagon T* 2/28 mounted via an adaptor to my E-mount Sony NEX-EA
camera. It gives a very nice image. My last film was shot primarily with a 35mm Sony E-
mount lens and I often wanted a bit wider or a bit narrower. Next film will be mostly the
28mm and switching to a 58mm for close-ups as that longer lens lets the camera be outside
the actor’s personal space. Good article. Thanks.
Thanks a lot Rodger! Appreciate you sharing this.
gpyoda August 21, 2015 at 6:09 pm R E P LY
Films were/are shot in a Super 35 format (24.89mm x 18.66mm) and then converted.
21.95mm x 16mm is Academy 35mm film.
28 mm (Super 35mm film) is around 39mm (35mm or FF equivalent – crop factor is appr.
1.4).
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35
Aloha.
Why I Shot Most Of The Closeups On My New Short Film On A 28MM Lens | Noam Kroll
November 12, 2015 at 7:50 pm R E P LY
[…] 28mm lens has long been one of my favorites. In fact this is now the second article that
I’m writing about this almost magical focal length, which can deliver so much […]
DerekDecember 18, 2015 at 2:26 am R E P LY
This was a really good read, informative & interesting. I particularly liked that you pointed
out how 28mm is slightly off from our field of view and what likely pulls us into the other
world of a film. I also agree that more time, energy and effort should be put into what is in
the frame instead of relying on bokeh to carry the look. Thanks!
Thanks Derek! Glad you enjoyed it.
Great website and blog December 27, 2015 at 11:16 pm R E P LY
About to buy your cinema tutorial, but here i just wanna get a simple answer. On a sony A7s
mkll full frame when you say a 28mm you actually mean a 28mm lens right not a 35mm.
Sorry but the reply from the guest are all very confusing and I am french so can you imagine
loll.
Hey Jojo –
Sorry for all the confusion! A 28mm Super 35 look on full frame would actually call for
a lens around 40mm or so. In other words, when I say 28mm lens is the secret
ingredient, that’s assuming you are shooting on a Super 35mm camera which is
technically a “cropped” format. Hope this helps clear things up!
Marzio September 22, 2016 at 4:56 pm
I have a question:
I own same camera Sony A7S II, so you say that 40mm is right lens because camera
have full frame sensor…
But if i crop video to 16:9 in 2.35:1, I keep using 40mm lens?
Samyang 35mm cine is good compromise (cropped in 2.35) in your opinion?
Or I must choose different lens as 40mm canon pancake or 28mm lens (keep in mind
2.35 crop)for achieve same results…
Noam KrollSeptember 28, 2016 at 10:09 pm
Hi Marzio! The 40mm focal length is what you are looking for regardless of
whether or not you crop your image to 2.35 in post. That said, a 35mm Rokinon
will get you pretty close to the same field of view, and it’s a great lens. Personally, i
would choose the Rokinon over the 40mm Canon pancake, as I think it’s a better
overall lens.
Sergey January 24, 2016 at 7:11 am R E P LY
What about BMPCC? With 2.88 crop and MFT.

It should be 9-10mm or 14mm?
I believe it would be 14mm on that camera.
Oliver February 12, 2016 at 8:43 am R E P LY
Hello, I am new to all of this. This is definitely a cortex stimulating article especially with all
the math involved. If you will, just a few questions to help me out.
1.) Is the sensor size in a digital camera supposed to replicate the width of film?
2.) I f I buy the URSA mini pl with 4.6k sensor (super 35) and I wanted to make a cinematic
movie say something like pulp fiction or 310 to Yuma on a tight budget. Are you saying that I
could use a 28mm lens as the best all in one option?
3.) You had mentioned 2 – 28mm lenses above one is f1.8 and one is f2.0. Is one faster than
the other?
4.) Will the above size specs result in a recording that will be exactly the size of a standard
motion picture film, if not what kind of editing will be involved?
5.) Does the URSA mini have a lens included?
Thank you.
Oliver
Hey Oliver! To answer some questions –
1) Super 35mm digital sensors are very close to real Super 35mm film.
2) 28mm lens is a great option, but you also might consider a 40mm depending on the
aesthetic you are after.
3) F1.8 is faster than F2.0
4) Provided you are using a Super 35mm sensor, then yes it should be the same frame.
5) No, it does not.
Jean February 15, 2016 at 8:33 am R E P LY
This is interesting but I remember in Photo school the 28 mm was considered as a bastard
lens, we used 14, 20,24 ,35, 50, 85, 105, 135.
Haha! That’s interesting… Never heard that, but thanks for sharing.
Jean February 15, 2016 at 8:34 am R E P LY
.. But I like it on full frame ofcourse.
Thomas V. Dahl February 26, 2016 at 10:55 am R E P LY
Dear Noam
Thank You very much for this revelation into Cinematic (hard) work !
However there are still some dummies like me who are in doubt about
the relation between focal length, crop factor and formats ….
Should I understand Your definition of WHEN the 28mm is “Cinematic”

(or “THE secret ingredient”) is WHEN it’s put on a FullFrame-camera ?
At least this is what is claimed here :
techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-canon-wideangle-prime-
lens-1292417
“28mm is the ‘classic’ wide-angle focal length for full-frame cameras,

and it makes a handy 45mm focal length on an APS-C Canon like the
1200D or 70D. ”
But then again Oliver asked You :
“If I buy the URSA mini pl with 4.6k sensor (super 35) and I wanted to
make a Cinematic movie say something like pulp fiction or 310 to
Yuma on a tight budget. Are you saying that I could use a 28mm lens
as the best all in one option?”
Somehow Your answer to that leaves me uncertain; sorry !
If FullFrame has no cropfactor (or 1,0 ?) then cameras like URSA mini
with 4.6k sensor should find a lens on 42mm (28 x cropfactor 1,5 for
EF-mount) to be “Cinematic ” ?
Or is it 18 ,67mm (28 : cropfactor 1,5 for EF-mount) ? And maybe the

Ursa Mini 4,6K EF is another cropfactor like 1,6 ? Or the PL-version ?
So TechRadar is right/wrong ? The UM4,6K EF is “Cinematic” with ?
Thanks for You great articles anyway !!
Thomas
Hi Thomas. I think the short answer to this is that both are true. I think in photography,
a 28mm lens can work beautifully on a full frame camera – especially as a walking
around lens for street photography. For film though, I prefer to use 28mm on a
Super35mm sensor. Keep in mind, before the DSLR revolution, no one really referred
to S35mm film as “cropped”. It is of course cropped on a technical level, but even
though the relative field of view is different than a full frame camera, 28mm lenses still
seem to work beautifully on an APS-C or S35 sensor. Hope this makes sense!
Keith Hammond May 16, 2017 at 12:25 pm
Actually its not cropped at all, in the cinema world its normal sized and the 35mm in
enlarged. Referring to everything relative to 35mm is not accurate either as before
that was 5/4 and 6/8. Too many people are obsessed with full frame equivalence.
I agree with you Keith – it gets confusing since FF is of course from the
photographic world.
Thomas V. Dahl February 26, 2016 at 1:50 pm R E P LY
Hi Noam – I think I got it now ! (Just dish my previous notice)
Have now read the comments closer and can see You mean 28mm for an APS-C …
Since there appear to be different cropfactors for different cameras with APS-C
(some say 1,6 for Ursa Mini 4,6K and 1,5 for C-100) does this affect the result ?
1,6 x 28mm equals approximately 45mm & 1,5 equals 42mm, both less than our
standard view of field at 50mm . So if the “Cinematic/surreal” look is based on
42mm on FF, then 1,6 would demand a 26mm (42:1,6) … A 24mm would be too
wide at 38mm (24 x 1,6) on Ursa Mini 4,6 K .
Thanks for great articles
Thomas
Exactly! And thank you!
Sheridan May 13, 2016 at 11:00 am R E P LY
Hello Noam,
Very interesting article.
I know that you had to clear up what you were initially saying by referring to 28mm being
ideal for a crop sensor, but I must say that I find it very satisfying on a full frame. I never feels
‘too wide’ on a full frame, and even close ups don’t look too distorted.
On a 1.5 crop factor it’s not far off being a 50mm, which is still very nice, but a bit too tight
for a lot of indoor shooting? I mean, I found the 28 to be a little tight within itself indoors. It’s
the focal length where it seemingly mimics the anamorphic look ( on a full frame camera).
24mm for a crop sensor would feel more ‘Hollywood’
Noam KrollMay 16, 2016 at 7:36 pm R E P LY
Good points Sheridan! Thanks so much for sharing this.
Steven NorquistMay 18, 2016 at 6:35 am R E P LY
Great article. This is something I have learned myself as a Micro Four Thirds user.
I do exclusively landscape and architecture and have found over time, after using may focal
lengths and lenses, that the Voitlander 15mm Super Wide Heliar III which produces a 30mm
field of view in 35mm equivalent terms which is very close to 28mm. For me it is the perfect
wide lens focal length on M4/3. It is also distortion free which is very rare in such a wide
angle lens.
What I have found is that it most perfectly represents the field of view of my eyes. I came
more and more to understand this. I would look at a composition and pull up my camera to
frame and be surprised that 30mm was that exact composition. I did not have to back up or
move forward. What I saw from where I stood was exactly what the lens saw. Additionally
the 30m focal length performs an important artistic function. It renders the scale of a
composition with the drama the eye sees it. If a skyscraper seems huge, at 30mm it looks
huge, but at 21mm it looks smaller, less dwarfing. Again, 30mm is capturing the scale as my
eye sees the scale. In another sense you might say the 30mm focal length is a large scale
portrait lens. A large scale object is rendered correctly at 30mm in the same way that a
50mm or 85mm lens renders a human face in correct scale.
You can view my 30mm Heliar work here: https://500px.com/stevennorquist
Samuel July 16, 2016 at 10:28 pm R E P LY
Hi !
I would like to ask you a question.
First of all, congratulations for your wonderful work .
Sorry I use Google Translation and I hope you understand me
I own a Sony A7RII and if I had to choose a lense, what have I to take ?
I think that filming with the Super 35 crop mode, a 28mm lens could match my expectations.
If I understood correctly , in the full frame: 28mm equivalent to 40mm ?
On the Sony A7RII , with the ability to shoot in Super 35 crop mode or full frame, it would be
the ideal goal , right?
What do you recommend ? Do you have a lenses not too expensive that might suit my Sony
A7RII ( to get a “cinematic look”)
Thank you very much for your answer.

Noam KrollJuly 19, 2016 at 2:02 pm R E P LY
Hi Samuel,
You are correct. A 40mm lens is what you would be looking for on the A7R II if you are
shooting full frame. Have you looked at the Canon 40mm F2.8 pancake lens? It’s only
about $200 USD and should deliver pretty good results, although you would need to
use an adapter to get the EF lens to work on an E Mount. You could also use the A7R II
in Super 35mm crop mode, in which case you could use any other 28mm lens out there.
Hope this helps!
Samuel March 30, 2017 at 10:10 am
Hi Noam,
Many thanks for your help and recommendations.
I am very happy with this Canon 40mm F 2.8 pancake.
It’s perfect !
Noam KrollApril 3, 2017 at 12:16 am
Awesome! Very happy to hear that Samuel.
28mm Lenses: The Secret Ingredient For Achieving A Film Look – Peter Molnar
August 10, 2016 at 11:56 am R E P LY
[…] URL: noamkroll.com/28mm-lenses-the-secret-ingredient-for-achieving-a-film-look/ […]
Kashif August 17, 2016 at 8:14 pm R E P LY
HI
I completely agree with 28mm – good article
What do you think which would do better with 28mm
A 50mm or 85mm
Noam KrollAugust 23, 2016 at 10:28 pm R E P LY
I would say 50mm! So versatile, and my personal favorite focal length… In addition to
28mm of course.
Sam August 24, 2016 at 12:19 pm R E P LY
Im not sure I got it Naom… If I buy Nikon Nikkor 28mm F2.8 for GH4 will I get that focal or
do have to combine it with speedbooster?
Or
Can I just buy 20 mm (Micro Four Thirds – 20mm) and I will get same focal? Please correct
me if I am wrong
Noam KrollAugust 25, 2016 at 7:15 pm R E P LY
Hi Sam! If you are using a speedbooster, a 28mm should work well on the gh4.
Otherwise a 20mm (with no speedbooster) will get you close when you consider the
crop factor. Both could work, but the speedbooster might be preferable since it will
also have an affect on your depth of field, not just your field of view.
Steve September 3, 2016 at 7:38 pm R E P LY
Hi Noam,
Great read.
I don’t work in narrative, but I can see some good applications here for the commercial and
editorial work I do. I’m a huge fan of tilt-shift optics (when used judiciously, not for goofy
miniature effects). I shoot an fs7 rig with some standard sony glass but my question for you is
what (if any) tilt-shift optics might fit the bill.
Noam KrollSeptember 6, 2016 at 5:32 pm R E P LY
Hey Steve! Thanks for the note. I haven’t shot much with tilt-shift lenses, but I will
definitely look into this and get back to you in the future if I can make any suggestions.
Santhosh Nataraja September 12, 2016 at 7:59 am R E P LY
Hi its a great article ..
But I have a doubt Plz clarify me I own a camera sony a6000 & lens 16-55 if I fix my lens on
28mm can I able to bring the same effect as equal to the 28mm lens u r talking abt ? or is
there an any difference? if its there any difference how negligible it is ? I don’t have budget to
buy new lens But however I want a make a short film with film look … apart from 16-55 I own
canon 50mm lens as well ..
Thanks Santosh! You should definitely be able to get close by setting your zoom lens to
28mm. The A6000 has a Super 35 sized sensor, so you will get a similar field of view
and focal length as you would on a proper cinema camera.
Good luck!
Dee October 3, 2016 at 6:29 am
You might want to know that this other guy has pretty much plagiarized this article,
including the photos: https://www.slrlounge.com/secret-making-images-cinematic-
28mm-lens/
Noam KrollOctober 5, 2016 at 12:42 am
Thanks for the heads up Dee… Will look into this.
Matthew finnigan October 5, 2016 at 10:54 pm R E P LY
Looks like someone copied your article.
https://www.slrlounge.com/secret-making-images-cinematic-28mm-lens/
Noam KrollOctober 6, 2016 at 5:05 pm R E P LY
I’ve had a couple people flag this. Will need to follow up with them. Thanks for letting
me know!
Vishal November 4, 2016 at 10:18 am R E P LY
Hi Noam
Have just ordered a canon 70 d kit with 20.2 MP 18-135 mm IS STM lens for shooting our
short film, will try shooting at 28 mm zoom on its 26.7 mm APS-C sensor. Will they blend
well (28mm zoom with 26.7mm sensor).
Besides what aperture in normal daylight settings shall I choose.
Is there also a way to maintain a little film grain look before going to post production for
achieving that cinematic look.
Kindly advise.
Thanks and Regards

Vishal
Noam KrollNovember 12, 2016 at 6:22 am R E P LY
Hi Vishal! Congrats on the new camera. To answer your questions –
Your aperture in daylight can really be set to any value. It all depends on the look you
are going for, since different apertures will give you different depths of field. That said,
if you are shooting wide open in daylight, you will also need ND filters to keep your
exposure in check. You’ll also want to set your white balance to approximately 5600K.
As for film grain, you will be best off adding some grain in post, during the editing
phase. I am actually releasing some film grain stocks soon through this blog, so be sure
to check back soon!
Ryan TaubertNovember 7, 2016 at 8:16 pm R E P LY
Hi Noam,
I’ve recently purchased the Sony a7sii, which has a APS-C setting, and I’m wondering if all it’s
really doing is creating a digital zoom to mimic the crop factor. What I’m trying to
understand is, would a 28mm with APS-C set to on and a 40mm full frame still look different
due to perspective, or does the crop factor influence the perspective? Is it the perspective
that gives the cinematic look with the 28mm, meaning background gets pushed further back
compared to the 40mm on full frame?
Sorry I know this is a noob question. Just trying to figure out the difference in using the APS-
C ,zooming 1.5, vs using a 40mm on the Sony a7sii.
Thanks,
Ryan T
Great question, Ryan. I would say that if you want the most “authentic” 28mm look,
you would want to use a 28mm lens on the APS-C setting. There will be some visual
differences between a 40mm on full frame and a 28mm on an APS-C sensor, in
particular with regards to depth of field. That said, difference won’t be dramatic, and I
would argue that a 40mm on a full frame sensor is still going to look really great and
will give you a nearly identical field of view. If you own an A7S II, I might recommend
going with the 40mm as it may be more universal for you, especially if you alternate
between full frame and APS-C often.
Hope this helps!
By the way – are you the same Ryan from Anomaly? If so, great work on that film! I did
an interview with Jens a while back on the blog too… I was super impressed with what
you guys were able to pull off.
Mikkel November 25, 2016 at 12:51 pm R E P LY
Hi Noam
The retrofocus lens design (longer physical length, than optical length) was patented by
eastgerman Carl Zeiss Jena, and french Angénieux in 1950. Before that time It was normal
to use short tele lenses for movie making. Take a look at films from the thirties and fourties
and try to analyse the angel, and you will see. It was due to the (rolling mirror) shutter who
occupied space and prevented use of shorter (focal length) lenses. I know all this is way back
in a other millennia, but it is an example of how technical development changes esthetics.
You are absolutely right about the popularity of the “Hollywood” lens (Distagon 2/28), but
apart from the angle, maybe also the “Zeiss pop” (spacious qualities) and the beautiful Zeiss
colors made it a winner.
Kind regards
Mikkel
Very interesting stuff Mikkel! I didn’t know this… Appreciate the note.
Sam December 1, 2016 at 9:00 pm R E P LY
Hey Noam
I’ve spent ages trying to research this and read through the comments but i fear i’m still a bit
confused so i thought it best just to ask. I have a canon 600D with a APS-C sensor, and i own
a 28mm that i use with an adapter, as it was designed for a SLR, full frame Olympus camera.
Is this the desired effect i want, full frame lens on a crop sensor giving me something
equivalent to 45mm, or am i right in thinking i need to buy a EOS lens designed for my
sensor? sorry for the stupid question i just didn’t want to get the wrong idea in my case.
Thank you very much,
Sam
Hi Sam! If the lens you are using is a 28mm lens, you should be getting the right field of
view on your APS-C sensor. For the most part, all lenses use the same naming
conventions for their focal lengths. A 28mm full frame lens is the same as a 28mm APS-
C lens. The only difference is the full frame lens will be compatible with the larger FF
sensor size. But in short, it’s good news – the lens you have should work perfectly for a
true cinematic 28mm look.
Russell BoldingDecember 7, 2016 at 11:19 pm R E P LY
Hey Noam! So, I was sort of skimming this article a little earlier and as I was skimming, the
main thing I noticed was everyone talking about DSLR cameras as well as movie cameras.
But here’s my question. I’m pretty new to all of this stuff, too, and my main tool for
filmmaking is my iPhone 6S. I recently purchased a Beastgrip Pro with DOF adapter. I know I
can use DSLR lenses with my iPhone now and I know it’s possible to get a very filmic look
from all of this. I’m on a budget, unfortunately, but I still know that Golden film like look that
everyone is looking for can be achieved on a budget.
That being said, my assumption, based on pricing I did today for 28mm lenses, achieving a
28mm lens might be a long process. I’ve been looking at 50 mm lenses with an f stop of
around 1.8. To make a short story even longer, what would you recommend, on a budget, to
achieve the look I’m going for? Thanks in advance for your speedy reply.
Hi Russell – first of all, good for you for taking the tool you have (an iPhone) and
making it work for your needs. If you are trying to get a true 28mm look, I would
recommend looking into a low budget DSLR or mirrorless camera with an APS-C sized
sensor. Something like the Sony a6500 might be a good option as it has a Super 35mm
sized sensor and can adapt lots of great 28mm lenses from different manufacturers.
Hope this helps!
Kyle January 1, 2017 at 3:45 am R E P LY
Hey Noam,
This is incredibly helpful information presented succinctly and efficiently, so thanks for the
post!
Do you think the Canon 24mm f2.8 pancake could pull of this “look.” It’s a bit wider than that
sweet spot of 28mm of course, but with optics that good at a mere $130, it’s hard to pass up,
especially on a budget.
It’s certainly possible! I don’t think there would be a world of difference between the
two, so I’d say of for it…
Dan January 23, 2017 at 5:58 pm R E P LY
Hi Noam,
Superb article (as usual!).
Any idea of the “right” lens for this particular cinematic “wide-normal” look for the Panasonic
GH5, which will now use the entire width of the micro 4/3 sensor for 4k video? Glad I
skipped the GH4 since its 4k read-out had a fairly severe crop factor.
I currently have a Samsung NX1 (and it does have a very close to Super-35 sensor), but
Samsung decided to drop out of the camera market (no support or updates now – Argh!) and
its limited 8 bit depth and baked-in “looks” are killing me when it comes to color grading in
post.
Would you still recommend something like the new Metabones Ultra Speedbooster for
micro 4/3 mounts? I’ve also been interested in the new-ish Veydra micro 4/3 cine style
lenses for their price vs. performance compared to Rokinon’s to go with the GH5 instead.
Your thoughts or comments or your real world experiences (or all of the above) would be
most appreciated.
Thanks Dan! To answer your question –
I definitely still think the Metabones Ultra Speedbooster is a great product for MFT
users. At the same time, if you don’t own a lot of Canon glass, going with the Veydra
lenses might be an even better solution. Personally, I don’t love using adapters and
always prefer to use native glass whenever possible. I’ve used the Veydras a few times
and have been extremely impressed by them… I’d say rent them for a weekend if you
can to test them out, and hopefully that will help make your decision for you!
Guy DuckrFebruary 12, 2017 at 9:32 pm R E P LY

Hi Noam,
A very interesting and well written article, thank you.
I do feel the need to make a couple of points, however. I’ve directed films on 16mm and
35mm and my general experience going back 15 years or so is that my DPs have tended to
favour stops around T.2 or 2.8, rarely getting past T.4. But that’s just my experience.
I also have to say that while many of my favourite filmmakers are wide lens directors, there
are also some notable exceptions. Kurosawa used to work wonders with long lens master
shots and Ken Loach never shoots wider than 35mm, preferring to move the camera around
the location, rather than capture it all at once. Paul Greengrass too seems to favour the long
end of the zoom, as does Michael Mann.
This is not to disagree with your point; I think your article is a good corrective to the
excessive used of shallow DOF. However just because long lenses and shallow DOF are
abused, does not mean that they are intrinsically uncinematic.
Noam KrollFebruary 23, 2017 at 2:07 am R E P LY
Great points Guy! I agree with you that long lens/shallow DOF is a great technique
when used tastefully. My point with this article was really to speak to some of those
budding DPs/Directors that feel like everything needs to be shallow and on a long lens.
It’s really all about choosing the right look for the scene or mood you are trying to
capture, and understanding how different lens lengths can affect the viewers
emotional perception. Great points and thanks again for sharing.
matt hatton February 17, 2017 at 7:51 pm R E P LY
Hi Noam,
Stumbled on this article and just wanted to say great stuff! Both the article itself and your
answers in the comments are fantastic. I’m a technical idiot, and I appreciate that it’s the
focus (haw!) of the article and all, but hopefully it’s not too presumptuous (and
late/redundant) of me to take slight issue with the approach.
My personal argument would be that it’s a bit dangerous to be talking all these lenses and
specs without properly prefacing them with what I would say is the REAL reason that old
stuff looks cinematic. Which is that both the directors and great cinematographers then and
now are not thinking lens lengths first. They’re thinking story, character and tone, and that is
what dictated the technical considerations all the way down the line. And that THAT is what
makes a movie feel ‘cinematic’ more than any ‘general’ approach to lenses and dof. And I
agree with Guy that great directors like Kurosawa can turn the generally accepted thinking
on its head.
You almost/began to get into it when talking about reality/heightened reality and
“fantastical and surrealistic” (oof – fantastic and surreal wouldn’t have said precisely the
same thing? Sorry for the nitpick) approaches. But the thing is why and when to me. Context
and intended tone. And while sure, directors like Spielberg who have a flashier approach may
favour a slightly wider lens even for general use and dialogue scenes, I’d argue that those
decisions still come from an inherent sense of tone and narrative.
And of course you’re right this can be abused as in the DSLR example. But I would say the
problem is precisely because people are looking at lengths and numbers first so they can
mimic something – but not looking at why those technical choices were made in the first
place. And would also offer that’s why we get standard tropes where even now the usual
thinking about action is to shoot low angle wide lens like a Bay film. Which is as abused as the
long lens bokeh thing. And again Kurosawa shows it doesn’t have to be that way.
And if this piece can be considered a tutorial, I always find the best are the ones that tell you
why, not just what and how. I just felt when reading that maybe saying there’s a “secret” and
then implying it’s a technical thing rather than a creative and narrative approach manifested
in use of certain tools, is in danger of people just accepting a new/different set of parameters
to the last instead of really saying *why* it might be more inherently cinematic.
Anyway my apologies if this all seems quite arrogant. Especially for my first comment! I just
work with many technical people from pre to post and feel it’s very easy to miss the forest
for the trees, let the tail wag the dog and so on. So I always feel the creative and narrative
concerns cannot be overstated. Personally I jumped headfirst into the digital and technical
worlds in my own small capacity back in the day, but it’s only ever been a technical means to
a creative end to me.
Thanks again so much for the great piece, and I’ll definitely be coming back now I’ve
discovered the site! Cheers!
Thanks for the note Matt! Great points here, and I fully agree with virtually everything
you’ve written. I am all for making creative choices that serve the story and characters
best, and that is certainly how I approach my own work. At the end of the day, some
scenes will be best served on a 28mm lens, some a 135mm, some a fisheye, and so on.
Lens choice for any given scene should be made with the intention of capturing the
most powerful and appropriate visual language, not relying on a certain focal length for
purely technical reasons.
I often write articles on this site that are completely non-technical, but also write many
that have a heavy technical bias such as this one. My goal is always to help the reader
expand their mind a bit and broaden their horizons, not necessarily tell them what will
look good or bad. My intention for this piece was to speak to those filmmakers that
may rely too heavily on one approach (most commonly the long lens, shallow DOF
look), and provide a different perspective… Although your point is certainly noted that
even in this context it is important to reinforce how technical choices should be driven
by creative intentions.
Either way, appreciate the thoughtful note and hope to see you around soon!
Cristo April 3, 2017 at 10:39 pm R E P LY
Hi Noam,
I really enjoyed this article. Well done!!
I am a keen photography I have started to use 28mm focal length to emulate the cinematic
look in my pictures. I am seeing great results!
Just a question Noam regarding cropping in post editing:
If I take a picture using 28 mm focal length I generally crop my photos to 16:9. Will this have
a bearing on the end result? How does cropping what ever the ratio affect the 28 mm look
and its field of view? And can you please explain the reason for the answer given?
Thank you Noam and really enjoyed your clear concise explanatio in your article. Well done!
Cristo
Noam KrollApril 6, 2017 at 11:22 pm R E P LY
Good question Cristo – and thanks for the kind words!
I’m not sure what camera you’re shooting on (and which sensor size), but assuming you
are shooting on an APS-C sized sensor and simply want to crop your photos to 16:9
from 3:2, you can still absolutely go with the 28mm lens. The field of view would be the
same as if you shot video in the 16:9 ratio in camera (which would crop it internally).
Hope this helps, and good luck!
Howie AlexApril 4, 2017 at 8:03 pm R E P LY
FIrstly, great discussion. Wrestling with focal lenth “looks” of 40mm v 50mm, I wonder if
aspect ratios throw another variable into the mix.
Does a wider aspect ratio (2.35) “enable” a 50-60 lens which might seem too claustrophobic
in a squarer 1.33, 1.78 frame?
Similarly, does a shorter 35-40 lens have a diminished effect in a wider 2.35 frame than it
would have in a squarer 1.33, 1.78 frame?
Howie AlexApril 4, 2017 at 9:51 pm R E P LY
Should focal length choice be adjusted when there’s an aspect ratio change from 1.78, 1.85,
2.35, etc..?
Does a 2.35 aspect ratio “enable” a 50-60 lens which might seem claustrophobic in a squarer
1.33 frame? Similarly, does a 35-40 lens have a diminished effect in a wider 2.35 frame ?
Great question Howie. Your aspect ratio may or may not dictate your lens choice, as
really what it comes down to is the framing of your image. In other words, if you want
to capture an image in 2.35 and leave a ton of negative space on one side and have an
actor on the other side of the frame, you could effectively achieve that look with
almost any lens. With a wider lens you could be physically closer to the subject, but you
could have a similar framing (although different look) with a longer lens if you would
just step back. I know that’s a pretty basic answer and I’m sure you already understand
this, but my point is that in most instances your framing choices will have a larger
affect on the aesthetic when compared to the relationship between lens/aspect ratio,
since that can always be adjusted by re-framing your image.
CristoApril 10, 2017 at 2:59 am R E P LY
Thank you Noam,
Good to know their is no effect if I post edit crop.
I am using my 28 mm with excellent results!!!

Thanks for all your hard work and time in answering our questions.
Take care,
Cristo
My pleasure Cristo!
Tomas April 20, 2017 at 9:49 am R E P LY
Great article and discussion… thanks for setting it up.
Could you pls explain what the difference would be on the GH5 between the lumix vario G
12-60, set to a close zoom or some suitable 20mm pancake lens?
would the look you describe be similar or would it be better with the 20mm?
if so, what would you recommend for the GH5 ?
thanks,
Tom
Good question Tomas. If you are set to 20mm on the Lumix Vario, you should have
nearly an identical image to the pancake lens. The only exception is that on the 20mm
pancake, you can open up the aperture a bit more if you want a really shallow depth of
field. In terms of field of view though, they should both look really close!
SheldonApril 26, 2017 at 11:57 pm R E P LY
Hi Noam,
Great article! Loved the read.
I’ve recently purchased the GH5 and just order 3 Veydra Mini Prime lenses for the camera.
I ordered the 12mm, 25mm, and 50mm. I read that you’ve worked with the Veydra’s before
and was wondering if there are any other lenses I should look into.
Other options include the 16mm, 35mm, 85mm. Your thoughts on the best 28mm Super
35mm equivalent?
Congrats on the GH5 Sheldon, and thanks for the note! I would suggest picking up the
35mm out of the three that you mentioned, as that will fill in a nice gap between the
25mm and 50mm. The 85mm would be awesome too, although will likely not be used
as frequently since it’s a relatively long lens. As for 28mm lenses, you would be looking
for (approximately) a 14mm lens… I would suggest checking out the Rokinon 14mm
Cinema lens, or even something like the Tokina 11-16, which will be really versatile and
will allow you to zoom into the 14mm focal length.
Good luck!
SheldonApril 27, 2017 at 10:30 pm
Thanks! Appreciate the response. I will definitely check out the 35mm Veydra and
will look into the Rokinon 14mm and the Toking 11-16mm. Thanks again!!
Any time Sheldon!
William April 30, 2017 at 1:13 am R E P LY
Hello Noam,
As others have stated, this is a great article. I use the 20mm LUMIX lense amongst others
with my AF100. Yes, that’s right AF100. For me it’s an oldie but goodie. I have in addition to
the 20mm a rather complete set. The 15mm PanaLieca, the 25mm PanaLieca, 42.5 Nocticron
and the 45-175 LUMIX. I almost returned the 20mm… But as time went on, it has become my
most often used lense. It’s surprisingly sharp. Something about that 40mm focal length that
just looks good. I must admit that I have my eyes on the Veydra series of lenses for the
declicked iris as well as the 300 degree focus throw. I know that this is purely subjective, but
how would you rate the Veydras vs. the PanaLeicaLumix lenses in terms of a cinematic
signature? Not sure how else to pose the question… Aesthetically speaking. More aperture
blades help with bokeh rendition, but is there an intangible quality that the Veydras have
that others do not in its price range? Apologize for the long winded post. I do enjoy your take
on things and writing style.
Cheers!
Hey William – thanks for the note! And great question with regards to the lens
comparison. Although the lenses are very different physically (the Veydras are true
cinema lenses, and the PanaLeicas are not), they both do produce amazing image
quality. I would say that the Veydras have a bit more character to them, but that
doesn’t necessarily make them better or worse. From my experience the PanaLeicas
are very neutral, but still organic looking which makes them really versatile. If you’re
happy with them, I’d say stick with them! But when you are ready for a change the
Veydras are an excellent choice and will add some interesting/unique qualities to your
images.
Louis June 15, 2017 at 7:47 pm R E P LY
Thanks Noam,
Funny enough I had the exact same 28mm nikon lens you listed that I adapted on my a6300,
which I naturally gravitated towards when deciding to try out my mother’s older nikon
lenses from her photography days.
I’m wondering however to emulate 35mm lens film look on the A6300 APS-C, would I just
get a 35mm lens?
Yes, absolutely use a 35mm lens since the sensor size (as you said) is APS-C, which is
very close to Super 35mm. Good luck!
Ken June 16, 2017 at 4:26 am R E P LY
Noam, Your post is rippling into 2017, man. Well done.
I got what I needed. I am not technical, but I have spent 10 years searching for the kind of
story I want to tell, and the way I need to tell it. After two full years, I have finished my first
script.
Now I face the reality that what Ive written is so unconventional, no one with money is going
to help me make this thing. And I enter the world of technicalities, which is so difficult for me
to begin with, because I think best visually and conceptually. I need someone who has that
knowledge of application, to simply tell me to use a 28mm, and thats all I need. Personally, I
dont need to know why. I just need the right tool for the right look.
Heres a question, if its not too much to answer: My plan involves making my own set up to
make short films that are montage, Malick-like shorts. What set up would you recommend?
For a budget of 3 to 4,000.
Thankful for your post.
If youre interested in reading a fresh 100 page script, I dont believe youll be disappointed.
Just putting it out there.
Hey Ken! So glad this was helpful. In terms of your setup, you might want to consider
something like a Canon C100 or URSA Mini as those types of cameras will help you
achieve a nice cinematic look, but will also offer the ergonomics you’ll need for that
handheld style it sounds like you are after… Best of luck with your script! Feel free to
send it to info@noamkroll.com if you’d like.
Patrick July 6, 2017 at 9:56 pm R E P LY
So I have the Sony 28mm f2 and an a7ii, which means I would need to set the camera to crop
mode to achieve the look?
Noam KrollJuly 22, 2017 at 2:40 am R E P LY
Exactly – you would want to shoot in Super 35mm (APS-C) mode.

msnyderfilmz July 22, 2017 at 3:52 am R E P LY
Great article. I use a Canon 6D for my journalism DSLR vid work (primarily with the 24-105
L) and a BMPCC with just recently obtained Leica R lenses for the rest. Main lens there ( for
now ) is the 28-70 Vario- Elmar. It will be the brain on a Steadicam Merlin 2 as soon I get
them balanced. I read with interest your opinion on the Rokinon 14, and will likely grab one
to test. This was a very pleasant blog to read!
Noam KrollJuly 26, 2017 at 5:02 am R E P LY
Thanks so much for the feedback! Appreciate it, and best of luck with your work…
ibrahim August 12, 2017 at 11:54 pm R E P LY
Many thanks Noam for your informative article.

Does this mean that on my canon 5D mark III I should shoot long shots preferable at 40mm
(for it to look like its shot at 28mm on super 35mm camera)?
Does this mean that the corresponding focal length on a canon 600d with the crop factor 1.6
is set at a focal length of 25mm?
Yes, you are correct that a 40mm on the MK III would be closer to a 28. You could also
go with a 25mm on the 600D, but a standard 28mm should also work since the
difference in crop is so minimal. Good luck!
M August 18, 2017 at 9:47 pm R E P LY
great article. Thanks.
Thank you!
Jos September 15, 2017 at 5:50 pm R E P LY
Great article. Thank You.

I have a Sony A7s II and a sony FE 28mm f2 lens, it means I have to set the camera in APS-c
mode to achieve this film look. What would be the difference with a 40mm in APS-c mode?
Thanks again!
Noam KrollSeptember 22, 2017 at 1:59 am R E P LY
Yes! If you set it to APS-C mode you will achieve this exact look. The 40mm will be
really close too, but you may see some differences in terms of the depth of field at
certain distances/F-stop settings.
Paulo Paixão September 28, 2017 at 3:22 pm R E P LY
Hello Noam!
Nice article and nice blog. Brand new to it, but i’ll surely continue to follow.
So, let’s see if i understood the article. For Micro 4/3 sensor the equivalent to a 28mm look
(super 35mm) is a 20mm? I have a GH5 that’s why i’m asking this.
Thanks Paulo! I believe on the GH5 you would want to use a 14mm lens, since the crop
is about 2x. I know the crop is based on full frame cameras, but by that same token a
28mm lens is technically longer than 28mm even on a Super 35mm camera. Make
sense?
Jonas September 29, 2017 at 2:31 pm R E P LY
Question – I’ve got normal Canon FD (I guess Full Frame) Lenses – also a 28 mm and a 50 mm
lens – can I use Thema on apsc like a6500 as 28 and 50 or more like on a a7s II oder C100 as
28 and 50 mm?
Yes, you can absolutely adapt these lenses to mirrorless bodies like the Sony a6500,
although I don’t think it would be possible on the C100…
Otis January 23, 2018 at 8:46 pm R E P LY
There are standards for this in cinema, and these can be applied for photos since we are
usually viewing photos on the same devices.
THX standard ideal distance and SMPTE standard ideal have an average of 1.235 screen
widths combined.
I calculated that this is equivalent to:
5″ mobile at 14cm viewing distance

10″ tablet at 27cm
23″ monitor at 63cm
48″ TV at 131cm.
Now, we need to calculate what focal length gets this horizontal angle of view. If we use this
lens, the screen will become our natural window to the world. The lens projection will match
the angle of viewing of our eyes in the screen area.
On a full frame camera, the lens I calculated is 43.8mm

On a Nikon crop factor camera, the lens is 28.9mm.
On a Canon, it’s 28.6mm.
So, the old standards are indeed not wide enough for our age of big screen and immersive
viewing. 35mm on a crop factor is not wide enough, and 50mm on full frame is also not wide
enough. If the distance of viewing becomes smaller, such as in architectural photos printed
on large sizes, we technically need to go wider.
Note that is the ideal focal length for cinema. At most homes the TVs are set to greater
distances (double the ideal in most cases), so greater focal lengths are normally required for
TV shows, News etc.
Thank you for this, Otis! Appreciate you sharing it here for everyone.
Otis January 23, 2018 at 8:59 pm R E P LY
Actually, 1.235 is SMPTE combined with 20th Century Fox (calculated to be 44.1 degrees).
There is also CEDIA’s at 43 degrees (even wider).
I couldn’t find an exact ideal for THX, but all standards appear to be wider than the
photography standard.
And this too
Maya NogradiFebruary 1, 2018 at 8:35 am R E P LY
Hi Noam,
I have a little bit of a cheeky question: I have a Canon 5D mark iii, in this case following your
advice it’d be good to get a 40mm lense to macth the 28mm film look. However, I do think
that in other cases it might be more useful for me to own the 35mm lense, so I thought of a
solution that might be creative or it might be crap:
If I have the 35mm, isn’t it an option to shoot with it on the full frame camera, and then in
post-production crop the extra width this lens gives, thus create the 40mm/28mm look?
Thanks so much for your opinion,

Maya
Hi Maya – I think that’s a great idea! At the end of the day, every sensor size/lens
combo is always going to give you a slightly different look/field of view. The 35mm
cropped in post should definitely give you the best of both worlds – the 28mm
(equivalent) look when you need it, but the versatility of 35mm for other purposes too.
Good luck!
Matt February 4, 2018 at 5:01 pm R E P LY
Does the design of the lens have to be considered for “equivalent focal length” conversion?
Canon EF-S lenses are designed specifically to focus the circle of light onto a cropped sensor,
so there is no crop-factor (if I understand this correctly) — a 21mm EF-S lens on an APS-C
sensor should look identical to an 21mm EF lens on a full frame sensor. Wouldn’t it be a
similar case that Steven Spielberg used cinema lenses designed for cinema cameras and film
formats (not full frame lenses)?
If this is true, then a 21mm lens designed for full frame camera would not project the same
size image as a 21mm lens designed for a Super 35 camera. Meaning, a 21mm lens designed
for full frame photography on an APS-C sensor would not produce the same results that
Steven Spielberg got using a 21mm cinema lens.
Yes or no?
I believe most lenses actually use the real focal length, not an equivalent. For instance,
my 8MM film camera uses a 6MM lens, which is equivalent to a much longer focal
length (I believe about 24mm), but it is still labelled as 6mm. There may be some lenses
that adjust their labeling for the crop factor, but none that I’ve ever used!
Matt March 3, 2018 at 7:45 pm
Thanks for your replies and expertise (and patience).
So to understand this better — a lens has a set focal length and creates a constant
|perspective|, but the resulting |framing| depends on the sensor size, right?
i.e. You are standing in one spot and snap a shot with a 35mm lens on a full frame
camera. Then you snap a shot with a 56mm lens using a 1.6 crop sensor camera. The
resulting images will be framed the same, but the perspective will be different?
Conversely, if you take a picture from one spot with each camera, this time both
using the same 35mm lens, the perspective will be identical, but the framing will be
different?
Noam KrollApril 2, 2018 at 3:47 am
Yes – I think that is actually a great way to put it! There will be differences in the
image characteristics in many ways (most notably depth of field) based on the
sensor size, and the perspective will always be a little different too, based on the
camera and lens combo. And to add more confusion, two different lenses of the
same focal length (let’s say 50mm) will likely look a bit different from each other
with regards to perspective too… It will be more subtle, but no two lenses are
identical, even when shooting them on the same format.
Allan February 10, 2018 at 2:22 am R E P LY
Hi Naom
Thank you so much for your excellent article. I am about to shoot my first drama feature film
on a budget. The film has a lot of locations and actors. I own the Zeiss 35.50 & 80- 1.5
compact lenses and I am thinking of selling them and buying the new Sigma 18-35 T2 and 50-
100mm zooms to speed up shooting times. Half the film is to be shot on stationary gear on
tracks and the other half on the New Movi Pro gimbal. In light of what you have said on the
28mm lens, do you think I am on the right track. I don’t want the problem of different lens
coloring, hence selling the Zeiss compacts (also their larger dia isn’t so good on gimbals.)
Your comments will be very much appreciated.

Allan
Congrats on getting your feature off the ground! I definitely think the Sigmas are the
way to go. I used them on my feature last year and loved working with them, and as you
said – they match beautifully. As long as they can balance okay on your gimbal, you
should be good to go!
Matthew Herbert August 28, 2018 at 2:41 am R E P LY
Many thanks, Noam. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge.
Noam KrollSeptember 14, 2018 at 8:28 pm
Thank you Matthew!
The D March 18, 2018 at 11:41 pm R E P LY
Interesting article. Some random thoughts:
I know Deakins is a fan of 28mm. I *think* he means as far as spherical lenses on super 35,
too.
I have the F2 28mm Zeiss ZF in the article. It’s a good lens. I know the Contax Zeiss 28mm F2
is considered the ultimate 28, did you ever try it? There’s some controversy over how
different it is optically to the ZF/ZF.2 one. I think it’d make a great ‘normal-ish’ lens on the
BMPCC/BMMCC (Speedboosted) or 5D Mk IV.
Voigtlander make/made a great 28mm. I feel it actually looks more 3D, even stopped down,
than the Zeiss.
I think the Micro 4/3, the closest lens to this look is the Voigtlander 17.5mm on GH4/BMCC.
It’s about 40mm with the 2.3x crop. Probably not too much less with GH5 and IBIS active.
None of the other M43 lenses around that length even compare as far cinematic look, IMO.
Do you ever use the lens at 28mm as a wide on full frame? I can’t really get into it for
photography, though it’d probably be good for street. Moviewise, I do think it’d be good for
tracking behind the subject style wide shots.
Noam KrollApril 2, 2018 at 4:04 am R E P LY
I have used the Contax Zeiss 28mm and love it. As for full frame, I love the look of
28mm on a large format… I don’t use it often (and don’t shoot FF often for that matter),
but it certainly works well when you need something super wide, or as you said for
tracking shots!
TranMarch 26, 2018 at 9:34 pm R E P LY
Hi Noam Kroll,
I hope you still reply to this thread! Awesome article, helps a lot!
I have one question would like to ask. I have a Canon 5D (full frame) so does that mean the
movies’ 28mm is my 40mm lens?
I’m only an amateur photographer, I like movie screenshots and cinematic photographs, so
I’m looking for my ideal set up to learn.
Thank you beforehand for your answer!
Noam KrollApril 2, 2018 at 4:13 am R E P LY
Yes, you are correct Tran. 40mm on FF is more like a 28mm… Hope this clears it up!
Oli Laf April 18, 2018 at 3:30 am R E P LY
I’m by no means an expert (lots to read and gather here!). But if a lens is labeled 28mm say
for Full Frame sensor, and another lens is labeled 28mm for APS-C. Are they engineered as
the same focal length? What I mean is, optically, are they the same? Because here’s what I’m
thinking : is the crop factor a zoom? Because we’re comparing the FOV from the same
distance. Ex.: to get a 50mm FOV of a full frame camera with a 2x MFT camera at the same
distance, we need a 25mm.
But the optics of the 25mm are they not different from a 50mm? To get the equivalent of a
28mm Super35 “look and feel”, shouldn’t we use a 28mm, and compensate by physically
reframing (with distance)?
To answer your main question – a 28mm lens is a 28mm lens, no matter if it’s for Full
Frame or Super 35. The only difference is that some 28mm lenses may not cover Full
Frame (if it’s designed for a smaller format), but both lenses placed on the same smaller
format body should look nearly identical. Hope this makes sense
Jim LazosMay 18, 2018 at 11:55 pm R E P LY

Hi Noam,
I never realized how popular wide angle lenses are in cinema. I can’t help but wonder about
the risks of getting distorted faces even in moderately close shots. I would think that
theoretically a telephoto used from a distance would give a healthier compression of both
people and environments. Is there something I’m not getting?
Noam KrollJune 13, 2018 at 3:30 am R E P LY
No, you are correct – there is definitely some distortion on faces at 28mm… But I think
that’s the appeal of the lenses too. The distortion can be subtle and gives the image a
unique quality, different from the standard 35mm look.
Uli May 23, 2018 at 3:13 am R E P LY
Just came across this article and read various posts after all this time. Glad you’re
responding to questions after five years. I just purchased an almost brand new Sony F3,
and was looking into getting CineMod Zeiss ZF.2 lens. Though, from what I see its a full
frame lens. Knowing that the F3 is Super35 with a 1.6 crop, would I need to get 18mm to get
the 28mm equivalent? Thanks in advance for responding to this question.
Actually, since you are shooting Super 35 all you need is a standard 28mm lens! It’s
only if you are shooting FF or a larger crop that you might want to adjust your focal
length. Your sensor is the same size as motion picture film.
AndersJune 1, 2018 at 3:44 pm R E P LY
Keep in mind that you can use Sony’s “clear image zoom” to magnify footage on full frame
cameras without loss of quality up to 2x. That means you can buy a 35mm lens and magnify
1.2x to get to 42mm which is virtually identical to the magical focal length Noam is
describing (28mm on APS-C). So you don’t need to buy a 40mm lens… just buy a 35mm if
you’re on a Sony full frame system and you can get that magical distance easily without loss
of quality.
Cool suggestion, Anders. Thanks for sharing.
Bruce SearlOctober 18, 2018 at 7:54 pm R E P LY
Hi, I’m getting a new Nikon z7 Full Frame Z mount, I’ll have the adapter. From what I’ve been
able to gather, a 42mm Full frame F mount lens should get me the look of a 28mm on Super
35 that you are talking about… but all I can find on the Nikon range of lenses is their 40mm f
2.8 macro lens. Is the difference between it and the new 35mm 1.8 S ( Z Mount and much
better video focus when in auto focus mode) that much different? I can’t find a 40 or 42mm
1.8 or faster lens than the 2.8. So… will I be fine with the 35mm or is that really too wide for
the look you are talking about here? Oh, I mostly shoot music videos actually but having a
good film look kit of lenses is probably a good idea. Thanks! Bruce
Hey Bruce! I think the 35mm will look great. It won’t be identical to the 28mm look, but
it will be close. And at the end of the day, it’s all about how you use it!
Charles January 27, 2019 at 4:46 am R E P LY
Wanted to say thanks for this story, really took the pain out of lens selection.
I wound up buying the Canon 28mm f2.8 image stabilized lens for my C100 II and it is
fantastic, makes every actor look like a star, and image stabilization gives a very nice floaty
look to handheld shots.
Thanks again.
Amazing, so glad to hear it worked out for you Charles!
Silvan February 5, 2019 at 10:29 pm R E P LY
I have a question: If a full-frame sensor on a DSLR is more or less the equivalent of 35mm
film, why would you use a 40mm lens instead of 28mm to get „the 28mm look“? Why not just
an 28mm lens? Isn‘t the crop factor the same with full-frame and 35mm?
Mainly because the 28mm look I’m referring to is on a Super 35 camera (which is a
crop). So technically 40mm on FF is actually the same as 28mm on S35.
Link February 16, 2019 at 7:46 pm R E P LY
I know this article is old but here is the correction for Super 16mm:
Super 16mm sensor sizes are 2.88, not 2x (hence your 14mm recommendation).
Therefore the lenses should be 10mm, which wouldn’t just look right. However, typically it’s
best when combining with a Speedbooster of say .58 to this sensor, which turns the crop
factor into 1.75x.
As a result, Super 16mm + Speedbooster becomes 1.75x which means 16mm would be an
ideal lens to achieve the 28mm focal length film look.
Does this make sense?
Figured I’d leave this here for future micro users as Super 16mm sensors can be confusing
when it comes to math with speed boosters. Thanks for the article by the way!
Lutz Leonhardt April 20, 2019 at 8:08 am R E P LY
Hi Noam
I’m wondering what lens was used for that famous shot in “north by northwest”. I think its
much wider than a 28mm lens (which is 40mm in super35) If you look at the picture, almost
everything is sharp, from the foreground to the two actors until the very last telegraph pole.
This cannot be a 40mm equivalent. Must be something wider. And there is a lot of room
between the two man, there is even more space at the side of each of them. I would guess it
is a 25mm to 28mm lens (FF)
I don’t know for sure, but will keep an eye out for it next time I watch the film… Which
will hopefully be sooner than later I’m a big Hitchcock fan.
DavidMay 5, 2019 at 2:26 pm R E P LY
Hi Noam!
Superuseful and interesting article master! What do you think about using the sigma 16 1.4
qith the sony a6500? I am using at this moment the sigma 30 and I felt I needed something
wider for achieving the cinematic style.
Thanks man and great work!
David
The 16mm is a great lens! Definitely try it out if you think you need a wider angle…
Don’t own one myself, but have only heard good things.
Sebastian Jo April 2, 2020 at 10:03 pm R E P LY
Would you go with a 28 and a 65 if you had two prime lens? 65 on APS-C
Thanks for the outstanding article
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name* Email* Website
POST COMMENT
© Creative Rebellion, Inc. | Privacy Policy ' & % $

28mm Lenses - The Secret Ingredient For Achieving A Film Look - Noam Kroll

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

28mm Lenses - The Secret Ingredient For Achieving A Film Look - Noam Kroll

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEWSLETTER PODCAST LUTS ABOUT NOAM PORTFOLIO C O N TA C T  "

28mm Lenses: The Secret Ingredient For Achieving A

Noam Kroll Retweeted

Noam Kroll Retweeted

Embed View on Twitter

Full Frame – 40mm

Super 35mm – 28mm

Micro Four Thirds – 20mm

#1 – SIGMA 28MM F1.8 – $449 at B & H

#2 – ZEISS 28MM F2.0 – $1283 at B & H

#3 – NIKON NIKKOR 28MM F2.8 Manual Lens – $539 at B & H

Xiong November 26, 2013 at 8:05 pm R E P LY

From the article:

Just my opinion though, just fuel to the fire of conversation

Noam KrollNovember 27, 2013 at 4:54 pm R E P LY

David Johnson October 5, 2018 at 2:27 pm

There are plenty of examples of shallow depth of field being used by

Noam KrollNovember 14, 2018 at 5:21 am

I love shallow DOF and use it constantly

Manny March 4, 2019 at 9:21 am

Noam KrollMarch 5, 2019 at 5:29 pm

Stacy Muller November 26, 2013 at 9:20 pm R E P LY

EXCELLENT points made in this article!

I’m hoping to achieve some specialty shots

Noam KrollNovember 27, 2013 at 4:58 pm R E P LY

Kase November 26, 2013 at 11:58 pm R E P LY

Noam KrollNovember 27, 2013 at 4:59 pm R E P LY

Kase November 27, 2013 at 6:42 pm

Which in full frame terms is approximately 45mm, correct?

Kase November 27, 2013 at 6:44 pm

Noam KrollDecember 3, 2013 at 9:23 pm

Yes that’s right!

timur civan November 27, 2013 at 3:55 am R E P LY

Noam KrollNovember 27, 2013 at 5:01 pm R E P LY

SteveNovember 27, 2013 at 6:29 am R E P LY

Noam KrollNovember 27, 2013 at 5:02 pm R E P LY

Cavner November 28, 2013 at 1:15 am R E P LY

Noam KrollDecember 3, 2013 at 9:24 pm R E P LY

Wolfgang TröscherJanuary 3, 2014 at 8:08 am R E P LY

Noam KrollJanuary 14, 2014 at 6:36 pm R E P LY

Liam Martin January 3, 2014 at 10:52 pm R E P LY

Noam KrollJanuary 14, 2014 at 6:37 pm R E P LY

Jesus Rubio Govea January 16, 2014 at 5:02 pm R E P LY

dnguyen June 12, 2014 at 3:44 pm R E P LY

Noam KrollJune 12, 2014 at 5:58 pm R E P LY

bradbell.tvOctober 20, 2014 at 9:44 pm R E P LY

Would the 24mm be too wide to give the effect ?

Noam KrollNovember 27, 2014 at 8:25 pm R E P LY

KeanoJanuary 31, 2015 at 8:01 pm R E P LY

Noam KrollFebruary 7, 2015 at 9:04 pm R E P LY

rohan January 31, 2015 at 11:29 pm R E P LY

thanks for the help

Noam KrollFebruary 7, 2015 at 9:05 pm R E P LY

AJ May 21, 2015 at 3:16 am R E P LY

Thanks for sharing this AJ – great points all around.

William April 30, 2017 at 2:05 am

Noam KrollMay 2, 2017 at 4:08 pm

Hristo March 4, 2015 at 11:21 pm R E P LY

Noam KrollMarch 6, 2015 at 5:27 pm R E P LY

A 40mm would be great on full frame.

Andy ZouApril 21, 2015 at 1:52 pm R E P LY

I am curious about that too !

HayleyMay 15, 2015 at 12:06 am R E P LY