Lens for low light Video

[Tikcus]

So while photographing a gig on Saturday night, I was asked if I could produce a video clip of it.

 

Previously I'd have had a sony video canera and this was never a problem, I no longer own any Sony gear, and video so infrequently I can not justify buying a dedicated video camera at the minute; however lenses that are also used for photography is a different story.

 

I don't want to get in a discussion about Fujifilm being crap for video, as it is good enough for non professional you tube work (and I aint buying another camera atm)

 

I had my X-T10 and the XF 35mm f/1.4 lens and the XC 50-230.

The camera was tripod mounted and focus was tracking (moving target)

 

At first I used the XC lens to get closer to the act, however the camera spent so much of the time hunting for focus the video was not great, I'm assuming this was down to the aperture being so small, as once I switched to the 35mm F/1.4 the hunting issue went away, and it focussed perfectly.

 

The only issue being the lack of reach on the 35mm

 

 

Preferable for video work I'd normally favour a zoom, but there are only 2 that may be suitable, the XF 50-140, and the XF 55-200, the XF 55-200 is only about 1 stop brighter than the XC, and the 50-140 is a lot of cash, the only other option that I can see from Fuji is the 90mm F/2 a lot brighter than the XF55-200, a stop faster than XF 50-140, but no ability to zoom, in/out (although a lot cheaper than 50-140)

 

what are peoples experiences with these lenses for video in low light or any other lens?

[frod]

I'd imagine that you could buy a perfectly decent video camera for a lot less money than the lenses in question; we haven't seen the xpro2 yet but trying to make existing Fujis into decent video devices is like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[Tikcus]

I'd imagine that you could buy a perfectly decent video camera for a lot less money than the lenses in question; we haven't seen the xpro2 yet but trying to make existing Fujis into decent video devices is like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

Like I said, i'm not buying a video camera

The cost difference is irrelevant for Lenses that double for photography work.

 

it's not pro video work that is being done, and the video quality is good enough.

 

I'm after the experiences of people with the lenses mentioned with low light video work and their experiences with the camera hunting for focus

[davidmold]

My experience has been that manual focus is your friend in this situation - and that would let you keep using the zoom that you have.

[Nero]

My experience has been that manual focus is your friend in this situation - and that would let you keep using the zoom that you have.

 

I would agree. Experiment a little bit in advance with the most acceptable ISO and aperture combinations to balance depth of field to noise/quality in different situations and just go manual focus. Take the autofocus out of the equation and kind of use more of a zone focus. 

 

I haven't tried any video with my adapted Helios 44-1 or 44-2 (58mm), but if you need something that's a touch longer than the 35mm, those might be something to consider. They're cheap on eBay, f/2 max aperture, and they've got unique bokeh under the right conditions, so they can be interesting to have around for photography even if you buy one to try with video.