Does Focal Length Matter?

with the same scene played the exact same way, feel different if the only change between the takes was focal length. We shot the same scene three times to test that out. Once wide, once middleground, and one telephoto. And I've said it before and stand by it. The lens matters more than the camera. Not just to the quality of your image, but to the story as well. Depth of field and focal length are both storytelling tools. Whether you're on a wide or telephoto lens is going to change how your audience perceives the subject in frame. I'm using these Cine Primes from DZO. These are the Arl Primes that they sent over and I have a 14, 18, 21, 40, 135, and 180, and they are gorgeous. Super fast, and a great middle ground visually between clean and character, but I'll get to that later. I'm also shooting on the Blackmagic Pixis 12K that I just got, but I'll get to that later, too. Before we jump to the face, let's look at an object like this door

here. I'm starting on the 135, then I jump to the 40, then the 21 and the 14. In passing, there isn't a massive difference, but it is altering the feel of the shot. And you can see what it's doing most heavily with the doororknob and this candle on the side. At a more telephoto like the 135, the image is flattening out more, everything compressing together. But as you widen out and come closer to the subject, things separate more and give depth, which isn't always a good thing. Down here at the candle, you can see how it's distorting in an unpleasant way with the wider lens. Of course, we are looking at the different effects of these focal lengths. If I was shooting an actual sequence, I would likely use a mix of focal lengths, like if it was an actual doorork knob turning moment. The wider shot is on a 40. Then the closer stays on the 40. We're just pulled in more. And finally, we're on the 18. For me, this is bringing us in until we're inside the moment, wideeyed. With telephoto, I feel like a spectator from afar. But a wide lens feels like it's in my face. So for me here, holding the 18 or 14 mm lens until this last moment is like forcing the viewer to become more wideeyed and hyperfocused over time with this element of danger.

But let's jump to a face since this gives us a much clearer look at the effect each lens gives us. Between the 180 and 135, we aren't getting a massive difference. But the jump from 135 to 40 is obviously going to give us that massive difference. Again, the further back that we are and zoomed in, the more the space in front of the lens is being compressed. So the wall behind him is closer with the telephoto lenses and his facial features more compressed as well, flattening out his face. In the 40, we're seeing a lot more of the room. So we are feeling the environment a lot more. The shot is now becoming both about him and the setting that we're inside of. With the 180, it's really all just about the subject. And this just gets more extreme as we move to the lower focal lengths. And as we move lower, the background moves away. We lose some of it as well. like the lamp starting to hide behind Justin in the 14 mm compared to the 21. So, we're getting more on the edges of our environment, but less of the background. And the most obvious thing is what it's doing to his face. It's a bit surreal at 14, stretching the face out, especially in a closer shot like this. If we back up, it's less so and works well in a room like this, but this close, you're getting that heightened look. Whereas with the 180, it is compressing the features and can be more pleasing. But it's all going to depend on the story that you're telling. Either one of these looks could be the right one depending on what you're trying to convey to the audience. Which is why we shot this little moment on the different lenses so we could see how it's changing the feel. So I sat Josh and Justin at this kitchen island, lit it the same way, shot it the same way with the only change being focal length. Now, this isn't going to be the same shot size every time. It's a smaller area. So while I tried to stay close, it's more based on what each lens can do in that scenario. But I shot overs with the 14, 21, 40, and 135 to see how each element changes the feeling of the moment. But once I got all my shots, it was time to bring them into my system, which is where today's sponsor comes in. So before I show these back toback, let's take a look at these two

docking stations that cover two very different needs. First up is the Anker Prime DL7400 docking station. The world's first triple display charging dock with stable 8K. If your whole life is timelines, email, and a million tiny windows, this thing is built for that. It's got the DL7400 chip and a display link solution, so it can do triple display up to 8K at 60 Hz, which I love because a triple display is what I've been on lately. You can also charge things here. You got four USBC ports, total output of 160 watts with dynamic power distribution, up to 140 watt laptop charging on the upstream USBC when used individually. Plus, the front USBC ports do data transfer too at 10 Gbits per second and 5 Gbits per second. Now, if your priority is just pure speed, the second one is the Anker Prime TB5 docking station. This is Thunderbolt 5 with up to 120 Gbits per second transfer speed. So, with a Thunderbolt 5 SSD, a 150 gig file can move in about 25 seconds, and that's crazy and doesn't hurt when you're shooting Blackmagic RAW. It's also built to handle 8K displays, has Thunderbolt 5 upstream port, two Thunderbolt 5 downstream ports, and it can provide 140 watt high-speed charging for your laptop. It also has built-in power, so it stays compact without that giant external power brick situation. So whether the goal is more screens and clean charging or maximum speed for heavy media, these two docks have you covered.

Jumping right back in, let's take a look at these scenes back to see how the lens changes the feel. And each of these were matched in pacing of the edit exactly. If you place one over the other, they play out identically. You sure about that? You really don't remember? Think hard. The most interesting takeaway for me is that even though these scenes are the same each time, the pacing feels faster in the tighter shots. My takeaway is that I'm less invested in the moment when it's wide. I'm away from the character and their experience, but when we jump in compressing everything, and of course, we're in a close now. I'm inside that character's experience and emotion, which makes me want to live with that more, to be able to read the nuances more. It's also interesting how wrong the 14 feels for this moment. The 21 is passable, but the scene works best on the 40 and the 135 for me, which isn't law, that's just taste. I'm sure some will disagree, but this is about what it feels like to you and what you as an artist are trying to convey. For me, the 14 feels kind of comedic. It takes any idea of tension out of the scene. And the most tension that I'm feeling is in that close, fully pulled in and reading every expression. I still feel like an observer with the telephoto, but a close observer, which I think is heightened due to the overs having the character shoulders in the foreground here. If we remove that and go for a single, it changes the feel dramatically for me. It's more connected and the pace feels even faster. Again, I feel like I want to live with each shot much longer than we're getting here. Another interesting one was the wide in the single. It felt even more comedic than the overs did. There's a very quirky sensibility to it, which could play great in the right moment. And

again, I love these lenses. Like I said before, they're a great middle ground lens. Clean but with character. So, you don't have that boring sterilized quality you sometimes get. And that's a perfect middle ground because you can get everything from doc vibes to commercial and cinematic. So it's a bit of a Swiss Army knife kit in my opinion. So while if I was shooting a feature I would probably reach for a lens that had more imperfections. That's just my taste, but those are lenses that I would rent. This is a lens I would own since again they're an everything lens for me. And I'm really loving the combo of these lenses with the Blackmagic Pixis. I

think there's a whole episode worth of stuff just around this camera, but it's up to 12K in Blackmagic RAW, which you can do internally with CFast cards, but I've been loving the workflow of shooting straight to an SSD, then popping that right into my computer, which I need to get some rigging set up for this. Right now, I'm just velcroing things down. But, you know, you got to do what you got to do. I'm mostly shooting 4K on this, though. Everything you've seen so far is 4K, but the 12K has a lot of advantages, especially if you want to get even closer to an object than you're able to, or if you want to do a really long digital zoom without losing any quality, like with this shot here. It's insane how far you can take it before you can tell that this isn't a proper inc camera zoom. Downsampling also certainly has its advantages, but the 4K looks great and is what I've been on mostly, including for a recent GOI social ad that we shot. It was all shot outside at night. And though I've heard people saying that this camera isn't good in low light, I thought it did great. You top out at 3200 here, which surprisingly I kind of love. And the DZO lenses definitely helped with how fast they are. So I was able to go wide open and that took it a long way as well. But after some tests, I did find that the 4K did much better in low light than the 12K did. You're getting bigger pixels at 4K, so that's playing nicer with less light. It is noisy at first, but cleaned up shockingly well. I also shot the ad in 9 by6 which the Pixus can be set to automatically shift its ratio when you just turn the camera. So I loved it for that too. But shifting back to focal

length, it's not just the distortion of the faces that will shift the feel. It's the environment and focus as well. Not focuses in depth of field, but what you're calling the eye too. Take this shot looking out the window. In telephoto, we are fully honed in on Josh and the mailbox. But just shifting from the 135 to the 40 gives us more environment. And when we jump to the 21, we're getting a lot more of the environment. And this could be advantageous if you want the audience to think someone could turn down the street at any moment. Or we have the 14 here, which gives us the whole scene. This feels entirely detached from Josh to me and is more about the overall than the individual, if that makes sense. I'm also feeling more of a surveillance vibe

from the telephoto and someone just peering out their window with the 21. This is a lot due to cinematic language that we've all become used to, but it's a good thing to analyze nonetheless. And environments as a whole is a big factor with lens choice. This room here is very small. So on a longer lens, you aren't really feeling the environment at all. As we move down to wider lenses, you're able to make the room play a lot more. Then in my back alley, this long stretch feels very different depending whether I'm on a wide like this or a telephoto or on a shot like this here from a balcony. Dallas in the background as the sun sets. The compression that a telephoto lens is giving me really makes this shot come alive in a way you will not get from a wide like you see here. And it's not just far off elements that telephoto does well with. Let's take this moment here. This wouldn't have been half as interesting with a wider lens. This is a small tray with a background that wouldn't really land with the vibe I was trying to get. But going so telephoto compresses the space. And having that very shallow depth of field transforms it into something that works for the moment. So everything from how the face is handled to your environment is altered dramatically by not just your

frame size, but the focal length you put it in. And getting a good sense of that is a big key in telling your story with intention. And it helps to have delicious lenses like these. Everything you've seen in this episode has been shot on these lenses. I've had them for a month or two now, and I'm in love. I told Josh that going from our other lenses to these felt like going from a station wagon to a sports car without spending sports car money. Now, these are around $2,000 a lens, but the image I'm getting looks as good as lenses that are well over $10,000 a piece. So, I'm impressed and you'll be seeing a lot more from these going forward. But that's it for today. I'm curious to know what focal lengths landed for you the most, both in the way it shaped the face and in that little scene. Post your thoughts below and check out the notes for links to everything we talked about today. And as always, if you dug the episode, don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the bell so you know when we put up more content. And until next time, don't forget to write, shoot, edit, repeat. — See you later, tall.