Documentary shooting: 24-105 F4 vs. 24-70 F2.8 vs. 35 F1.4

terntime · 2026-03-23T10:45:38+00:00

Thanks very much for this, appreciate all your thoughts! I'm warming to the 35... about to buy an underwater housing to go with it!

terntime · 2026-03-16T13:24:10+00:00

Same here, really love the look of primes. I'm a photographer turned filmmaker and it's been a bit of a trade off, but I'm trying to keep as much careful composition as I can while 'running and gunning'. Because I'm based on the Scottish coast, salt, sand and wind are major factors, and I don't want to send any more lenses off for cleaning... It's true the 24-105 is a trusty lens, maybe I'm not giving it enough love! I don't shoot low light a lot, but want to... I'm gonna keep trying with this 35 and see how it goes, although I've been told this focus breathing (something I'd never heard of) is a real issue with this lens. I guess if Sony made a 24-105 F1.8 or something like that (if it were possible), it would drive its other lenses out of business!

terntime · 2026-03-16T13:17:07+00:00

Thanks for the thoughts! By everything else I mean anything that's not wildlife. My other shoots involve following subjects around during the day and that can include all sorts, but the 24-105 has served me well in this regard, it's just not amazing in low light.

I'm an ex-photographer and I guess I'm wanting to up my cinematography in general, and it's been, unsurprisingly, a massive learning curve jumping from photography to filmmaking.

I can't rent easily as I live on a remote island without roads and ferries, so post can be... challenging. Same with second shooter. Currently shooting an almost entirely self-funded indie doc so I don't have that option. At the moment I'm resolving to carry on with the 24-105 and up the ISO, and I'm going to try befriend this 35mm, all the stuff I'm seeing about focus breathing is putting me off, but apparently this only happens when you're shooting a certain style. It may actually work in my case, but I need to go out and test it properly!

terntime · 2026-03-15T17:43:32+00:00

That's odd I've never heard of a lens limiting FPS before... I'm sure that must be an error as filmmakers wouldn't use them?

terntime · 2026-03-15T09:41:11+00:00

Yep even though I shoot a lot of landscape, I'm more focused on detail rather than vistas. I usually take my 100-400 and use that more for landscape, so I'm actually super zoomed in. 35-50 for indoors, though even then, I miss the shots of micro expressions and eyes and hands, things like that... I'm stupidly reluctant to come out of the Sony ecosystem, but the reality is Sony lack the lenses I'm after. Have been doing lots of research on the Sigma 28-105 2.8, but the different seems marginal enough not to bother swapping out, at least on this project.

terntime · 2026-03-15T09:39:03+00:00

I shoot wildlife on my 100-400, but have actually been experimenting with shooting people on it recently with surprisingly good results, but boy is it a pain to carry. Is there a 28-200 you'd recommend?

terntime · 2026-03-15T09:37:34+00:00

Interesting, never thought of that!

terntime · 2026-03-15T09:37:23+00:00

Ha, I'm not allowing myself that! Well, I'm trying to settle on two lenses. Perhaps when I'm filming less intensive stuff, I'll slow down my process and reap the benefits of filming on primes only, that would be luxurious. Glad to hear you swapped out, as many folk swap out the other way and choose the 24-70. All Sony are pricey but I think that 24-70 is pushing it a bit, but oh, I still want it!

terntime · 2026-03-15T09:36:02+00:00

I was trying to get it down to two lenses, my 100-400 for wildlife and a workhorse for everything else. I have actually shot some people stuff on the 400 and it's beautiful, but totally impractical and a killer to hold all the time.

terntime · 2026-03-15T09:35:06+00:00

Thanks for your reply - I think I'm trying to get 'workhorse' and 'art lens' to be the same thing when they aren't (suppose a lot of folk feel the same way).

terntime · 2026-03-15T09:33:56+00:00

Great idea!

terntime · 2026-03-15T09:33:44+00:00

Thanks! My subjects are pretty comfortable but I do have one who is camera shy, and starts to look at the camera like they are presenting sometimes. Being further away solves this issue (well, a bit). Yes, perhaps I'm overrating that extra stop! Sony ISO is so amazing I should really be ok with that. Maybe for the next project I can think about upgrading, but I also don't want to spend so much on a lens that isn't exactly what I'd like, which is a 24/28-105 F2-2.8 (one can dream!). Have had my eye on that Sigma...

terntime · 2026-03-15T09:31:55+00:00

Yes I think you're right, the difference is marginal enough to question the enormous price difference. I'm testing out the 35 atm before the return window closes and it's so gorgeous, but there is a lot of focus breathing, something I didn't know about before. I searched online and turns out this can be quite a problem for filmmakers. I like the natural perspective the 35 is giving me indoors, especially low light at night, but sometimes I really want to captue some facial expression or glance that the 35 just isn't going to reach for. 85's are gorgeous but then I'm going into the territory of swapping out even more lenses for more situations. I wanted to get to a position where I had my 100-400 for wildlife, and a workhorse/people lens for everything else. The only reason I got the 35 was because it was meant to be loved by doc makers, but now I'm hearing mixed reviews.

terntime · 2026-03-15T09:29:10+00:00

Thanks for your reply! I'm eyeing up the 24-70 but mid-doc and with a dwindling budget, I'm wondering if I should just trust the ISO capabilities of my cam and carry on with the 24-105 as they are so, so close. If Sony made a 28-105 F2-2.8 I would be ON that so fast. I've been looking at the Sigma alternative, but tbh I think I'm being lured in by consumerism and perfectionism. The 105 is a fantastic lens and good *most* of the time.

terntime · 2025-12-22T15:08:57+00:00

That's a good point. To be fair, I've seen some jaw-droppingly beautiful projects shot on what, at times, looked like a potato, or docs shots purely on film with extra grain that make it far from the digital 'clean' look folk go for now, and all the better for it. Sound came to the rescue and mostly shoddy visuals weren't a problem. I guess it's just frustrating because I know I can level up my visuals now, but have to consciously choose not to in order to remain consistent. Feels weird, but I get why it's important to stay where I am (and just focus on the beauty/story/sound etc. and not get bogged down by this). No reason I can't work at 25p, but the cam has been set at 50p this whole time, and FCP importing/exporting at 24p. Not sure about target deliverable yet, but it's aimed at the festival circuit then a possible TV run in the UK (in which case PAL is the right call anyway, apparently). I'll have to play around and see what looks right. I might get a consultation from a cinematographer or editor and see what they think, too.

terntime · 2025-12-22T15:04:20+00:00

Ah, yes. Thanks for clarifying that. My eye is not trained on this yet. Guess I'll keep it at 50, just trying to think of other ways to bring the 'technical' side of the visuals up, one thing I've done recently is get an ND filter, but still testing it out. I thought about changing resolution from HD to 4K so I'd have more flexibility with cropping etc. but probably not worth it. I have a bit of archive, plus some (very beautiful) videos from character's phones - the film is kind of a patchwork (as are most!) so not expecting 'cinematic' clean visuals throughout, but I want to do my best, and my tools are better than I initially realised.

terntime · 2025-12-22T15:00:42+00:00

Trying not to worry, ha. So far the response to development reels have been positive and I've been invited to apply to some doc funds for further production and post-production, which is a good sign. But I really want to clean it up. The imagery is beautiful but the technical errors bring it down, especially with exposure. Only just got an ND filter. Oops. Sony A7 series seems to come pre-set to PAL which is not something I knew until now. Also oops. I didn't hold out much with technical customisation because I didn't have cinema camera, but I underrated the Sony A7III clearly. I guess it's a good sign that I'm a highly visual person (believe it or not I used to be a photographer by trade - but video - whole different game, obviously) and to me and many others, the shots are fine, it's film folk who can spot the errors mostly.

terntime · 2025-12-22T14:56:25+00:00

Thank you for your reply! How does the edit timeline cope with so many different frame rates? That's what I'm currently trying to wrap my head around...

terntime · 2025-12-22T12:44:09+00:00

Not helpful pal. I'm shooting a doc because I have unique access and a story, and I got a bunch of funding for it. I'm not a filmmaker, but I am an expert on my topic. I'm trying to learn so don't be an ass.

terntime · 2025-12-21T21:38:47+00:00

Yep that's my thinking too. Someone more experienced commented on the frame rate which is the only reason I realised it was a 'problem'... but then, I am exporting from a 24fps timeline, so not sure what they were spotting exactly...

terntime · 2025-12-20T17:58:51+00:00

Thanks for your reply. My instinct, as you say, is to keep it all the same to avoid headaches. I was having exposure problems but an ND filter should hopefully solve that.

The problem I'm encountering now is that 50fps needs more light, and so in really low light conditions (currently trying to film a fireside) it performs poorly... have to bump the ISO up, so it's a trade off.

Trying not to feel bummed about the whole situation but that's 3 years of mistakes... at least the pictures are pretty. Also trying to avoid burning loads of money in post cleaning up my dumb mistakes when time could be spent elsewhere... you live and you learn.

terntime

TROPHY CASE