Do You Own Cine Glass?

I reached out to John Brawley on facebook to ask him if he thought that modern zooms had gotten so good that he or his colleagues were using primes less.

He said that he started out using zooms a lot but has drifted into using primes more and more. He carries zooms and uses them but shoots 80-90% of the time on primes. For Network TV he said it might make more sense, but less so for streaming.

He says that he works fast TV, and lens changes are rarely what people are waiting for on set, since they can swing primes in under 90 seconds. Meanwhile, changing to and from a zoom costs 10 minutes because of the additional support and balance issues, negating the time savings from zooming.

And with the proliferation of remote heads and gimbals due to covid, it may not even be possible to balance a zoom on the remote head.

The longer lens length also limits how close you can bring the camera to a car window, for example.

Zooms don't offer the same degree of look and customization. His current show is using Panaspeeds that were custom-tuned to his specifications, and he's usually shooting them between T2 and T2.8 (on Mini LF's). (Phil, can I go back to stroking my beard now? ;) )

He admits that the choice largely comes down to personal taste and job-to-job workflow.

All this being said, I think that the Cabrio is short enough and lightweight enough that you could probably use it in most of the circumstances he described. And that it has enough range that it might be the only lens you need for, let's say, 75% of your scenes. And if you're shooting S35 and plan to shoot at T2.9 or higher, then you're all set
 
Iteresting to see the counter point between CP and JB..

And that is really it. Those who know what they are doing have a relationship with the director who has a releationship with the AD who has a relationship with the producers.

And those producers will want to crank it out (cabrio) or feel the possibility of a slower shoot with primes is worth the wait

(on waiting I was told I only need to be faster than art department or make up. anyway.. just not be the department that is up progress)

Everyone knows Deakins uses one camera.. (probably BS on action) and considers him worth the wait compared to those tonking out 'double over the shoulder' 17-120 content (like the 8 parter I worked on)

So back to the original question which we seem to have upgraded to 'are cine lenses worth it' the answer is probably.. "it depends".

Which also rotates to my more manic question 'do you want to stamp on it' - basically if the status quo (plastic lenses, no nd, focus motor torque wobbles, only one set of lenses but two cameras..whatever) is ruining your day you will be well aware of the upgrades you desire.

And if you are not aware of the upgrades you desire.. save the cash and stick with the status quo?
 
I'm with John Brawley. 100%. I use my zooms when I need to but find it much easier to find the secret sauce when I use my primes.
 
ahalpert said:
I reached out to John Brawley on facebook to ask him if he thought that modern zooms had gotten so good that he or his colleagues were using primes less.

He said that he started out using zooms a lot but has drifted into using primes more and more. He carries zooms and uses them but shoots 80-90% of the time on primes. For Network TV he said it might make more sense, but less so for streaming.

He says that he works fast TV, and lens changes are rarely what people are waiting for on set, since they can swing primes in under 90 seconds. Meanwhile, changing to and from a zoom costs 10 minutes because of the additional support and balance issues, negating the time savings from zooming.

And with the proliferation of remote heads and gimbals due to covid, it may not even be possible to balance a zoom on the remote head.

The longer lens length also limits how close you can bring the camera to a car window, for example.

He admits that the choice largely comes down to personal taste and job-to-job workflow.
Click to expand...

John's points are all good and make sense. It does indeed depend on the show and the schedule. John works in drama, I work in comedy, and while there are exceptions to the rule it's a very different world. I am accustomed to situations where the 90 seconds to swing a lens vs punching in may result in a frustrated director or producer. I also think about the number of times an actor will slightly change blocking and we can accommodate that with a little grease of the focal length vs having to move the camera and all that may entail.

I don't really agree about the concern of using most lightweight zooms in a remote head situation. We have had the Cabrio and similar zooms on an R2 and Movi, on the OG Mini and Varicam LT (both heavier than the LF) with three motors and Light Ranger. Any other remote head will have greater capacity than those. The rebuild to those zooms from primes is not particularly long but yes in general it's easier to stick with whichever modality you are in. If one is to start talking about that switchover though, in terms of rebalancing, it's only fair to point out that there is zero downtime to change lenses and rebalance when using a good range zoom vs primes (it doesn't really take much longer to balance a gimbal when changing from a 6 lb lens to a 3 lb, vs a 3.4 lb to a 3 lb, it's just a difference in travel on the fore-aft adjustment). I think 90 seconds is pretty optimistic to swap out primes AND rebalance on a gimbal (and that's the gimbal's fault...the latches and levers on the R2 for instance are shockingly poorly designed).

I carry primes for the times we need them (close focus situations like John mentions) and for when we want them (throwing out background for aesthetic reasons). Much in the same way John carries zooms, but in reverse. Maybe one day I'll get a show where the situation allows me to stretch in that direction, but it has yet to happen.
 
Good thread topic Joshua. And many good points in here. Those starting out would do well to read Sam's posts as he makes some very valid points - while being entertaining :laugh:.
While we all may dream about shooting drama - I'd say there's not many on here that do (at least in well paying gigs).
And to answer the original question - I don't own any cine primes. Only rent when needed - which similar to Liam continues to be less and less. I mostly do corporate work these days - and probably 75% is industrial and then Pharma and other. Just finished a 3 camera shoot and can't tell you the number of times over 2 days that the director said - now push in for a tighter shot - after starting around 30mm. The 18-105 f4 Sony isn't sexy and I'd resisted it for a long time, but boy has it paid for itself many times over. Do I wish it went to 200mm or longer. Yup. Do I wish it were 1.8? For sure. Do most of my jobs pay me the kind of rate that such a lens would cost - or would they be happy if I had to switch lenses every fifth or six shot? Nope.
I have both Canon L and now Sony and Sigma glass (more lenses than I certainly need) and a couple of Rokinon primes (but not a set).
With the ever increasing "demand" for higher resolution (and I say that with tongue certainly in cheek), and AF technology becoming more and more "usable for certain situations", one could certainly make the argument, that now might be a terrible time to buy a Cine set - unless you already have a gig and deposit down for that gig - that you're sure you need it for.
 
More entertianment.. and a massive thread jack maybe.

I was most suprised on the feature I sneaked onto recently that the movi pro was flying the arri mini LF and the cook ff 2x anamorphics* and various gubbins like one motor at least. A suprising amount for a tool,while which I own, would not think of as a cinema ready 'head' (pic below check the pile of counter mass)

Over the next few dark days Im gonna brush up a little on my Movi setups as I assist someone a little with some property work (they often fly the drone to do interiors - Im not sure I can argue with the flexibility of that!)

On these property shoots (done between paying guests) speed is all.. ill probbly looking at putting my r5 on the movi gimbal .. losing remote monitoring, remote zoom ,remote coffee making and remote audio, with the 24-105 lens f7.1 zoom lens.. it is the farthest I own from a cine lens but maybe closest to getting that job done

Ill also be playing with dropping the built movi striaght onto my slider to cut out any rebuilds and a lot of levelling.

BTW talking crup on these threads does help my thinking on how to prep for certain jobs.. so thanks all.

S

*https://www.cookeoptics.com/lens/ana...ll-frame-plus/
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5727.jpg
    IMG_5727.jpg
    87.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
More the cause of the operation; I can't help but think all these rigs that take weight off your back and shoulders simply transfer the load to your hips. You don't feel it in your hips until it's too late. At least, that was the case for me.
 
I think most of this comes down to "What sort of work do you do?" Clearly for Sam his choices make sense, but even in the world of large crew studio productions we can see that Charles has a different view from John. No one is "wrong" here, simply what is most appropriate. Some of that answer is what makes sense for how you prefer to work and some is what your clients expect from you. Sometimes these are not always perfectly aligned so you better have solid reasons for your choices.
 
Liam Hall said:
Sam, that picture reminds me of the hip operation I had in March.
Click to expand...

It a tricky one.. I hate this setup.. but as Mitch is saying its about what works for the client and what works for you.

Ed is a fit chap but still cant handhold for as long as required.. this is a feature set so you really have to hold the shot while makeup do 'checks' and the director has a chat with the producer about the shot. Whenever possible my boss, the key grip,took the rig.

Ive worn such and binned it in the first hour because at my height you are scraping the ceiling and ripping down the practicals. but then Ive had offers of jobs (ike an 'as live' show) where I knew handholding the Movi was not on the cards because youd be in the rig for 3 hours, not with the tally light on thogh. and do wonder if i have to go down this horrid route.

Overall handing the rig off is IMO far better safer and more comfortable.

Im working on my own poor mans trinity and trad steadi vest.. but that is a different story :)
 
Charles, did you ever consider the Arri Alura 18-80? At 4.7kg vs. 2.3kg, is it just too heavy?

In my local market, DPs under a certain age will argue that primes are absolutely critical to the look. And by look I mean on set rig photos.

Separate to pros making informed decisions, I think part of why younger people at the lower level push so hard to hire the most expensive or wacky vintage lenses (often eating into their own pay), is to mask a severe lack of lighting skills.
 
rob norton said:
Charles, did you ever consider the Arri Alura 18-80? At 4.7kg vs. 2.3kg, is it just too heavy?

In my local market, DPs under a certain age will argue that primes are absolutely critical to the look. And by look I mean on set rig photos.

Separate to pros making informed decisions, I think part of why younger people at the lower level push so hard to hire the most expensive or wacky vintage lenses (often eating into their own pay), is to mask a severe lack of lighting skills.
Click to expand...

Well I am not going to disagree with you on any of this. In my youthful shooter days I dutifully followed the trends, whacking out the edges of the frame with swing and tilts, torturing the filmstock, shining flashlights down the eyepiece and the like. Once you've been around for a bit to see trends come and go, you start to take the longer view and work to your own preferences. At this point I get kind of irritated by forced flares and mushy edges when I'm taking in a movie or show, especially when it feels like a crutch.

On the 18-80--I used to own one, but once I started using the 19-90, I sold it. Not enough reason to justify the weight difference (I wasn't having my operators lug that thing around on Steadicam or handheld). Shot most of Key & Peele on that lens though.
 
Liam Hall said:
find it much easier to find the secret sauce when I use my primes.
Click to expand...

Do you think there's more to the secret sauce than difference in maximum apertures? I would definitely struggle to see the difference between a prime and zoom of the same focal length and brand/series e.g. sigma ART if they had matching apertures. Do you have any examples?

At the cinema lens level, part of the primes being perceived as better quality is the greater variety (Mitch's point about zoom manufacturing being expensive). if each company was forced to make zoom equivalents of their prime sets, it seems like size and aperture would realistically be the major selling points.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I am accustomed to situations where the 90 seconds to swing a lens vs punching in may result in a frustrated director or producer.
Click to expand...

Now that's time pressure!

I got the sense that when John was referring to using zooms that he was speaking mainly about the 24-275 Panavision Primo, which is a 20 lb behemoth! I think that it probably has a telephoto range and a large zoom ratio that distinguish it from primes.

The other issue here is shooting large format. He said that his midrange zoom is a 24-80. It seems like the midrange zooms available in large format have a smaller range than those available for S35, probably because they're trying to maintain a T2.8 while keeping the weight down. A FF 24-80 is way less useful than a S35 19-90!

Lastly, he's shooting at those fast stops. If you wanna go there, then it basically precludes using zooms
 
rob norton said:
In my local market, DPs under a certain age will argue that primes are absolutely critical to the look. And by look I mean on set rig photos.

Separate to pros making informed decisions, I think part of why younger people at the lower level push so hard to hire the most expensive or wacky vintage lenses (often eating into their own pay), is to mask a severe lack of lighting skills.
Click to expand...

Yes, John Brawley is such an upstart poseur with infamously poor lighting skills ;). It seems that he submits lens and camera tests to the showrunner comparing tools he's considering and they make a decision on what to use based on those tests.

Also, who said anything about vintage lenses? Prime lenses don't mean vintage lenses. But I don't wholly disagree with your point
 
ahalpert said:
Yes, John Brawley is such an upstart poseur with infamously poor lighting skills ;). It seems that he submits lens and camera tests to the showrunner comparing tools he's considering and they make a decision on what to use based on those tests.

Also, who said anything about vintage lenses? Prime lenses don't mean vintage lenses. But I don't wholly disagree with your point
Click to expand...

I think you only read parts of my sentence Abe :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top