Lenses For Redrock (most still camera lenses don't work)

Neurodancer

Neurodancer

Well-known member
This may not be new information, but I hope it may be useful

I just came from a shoot where an M2 was being used with Zeiss cinema primes. I learned from the DP that still camera lenses "breath" (change focal length) when focusing, and are fairly useless if you are following focus.

I checked with the Nikon and canon lenses I owned, and this turned out to be the case. The Canon lenses changed focal length a lot less than the Nikon's.

The good discovery is I owned a couple of EOS USM lenses. These are 2.8 zoom lenses (16-35mm & 35-70mm) When I installed them on the M2 they showed no "breathing" at all. They were as stable as the Zeiss primes. The main issue is that the aperture does not operate and stays full open at 2.8. Another issue is that the full focus range is only 1/3 turn of the focus ring. This may be a problem with a follow focus device. I have an email in to Redrock about it to see what the gear ratio is. It may be fine with the rather large focus ring on these lenses.

This does not seem to be a problem since lenses are used wide open most of the time to get the shallow depth of field. The added feature with these lenses is that I can now zoom as well. I am planning to look for a lever to place on the zoom ring.
 
What this is referring to is a "parfocal" lens, one where the focal length does not change as the zoom level changes.
 
No, Parfocal means that the focus will not change as you zoom through the range of a zoom.

With a parfocal zoom lens you can zoom in, focus and zoom back out again and keep the focus.

If the lens is not parfocal you will have to refocus when you zoom out, otherwise the image will get soft.

What he describes is called "breathing" where the lens seems to zoom a bit when you change the focus.
 
Last edited:
Only zooms breath as you describe. It is a problem, but not a big one. I have not heard of many reported problems with this. Most use primes anyhow, which are often faster lenses and favored over zooms. I understand your concern, but the statement "Most still camera lenses don't work" is fairly inaccurate and unintentionally misleading. Perhaps "still camera zooms may not work" might be more appropriate, although many still use them..... so they work, but can have breathing issues.
 
Last edited:
=Prodigy= said:
Only zooms breath as you describe. It is a problem, but not a big one. I have not heard of many reported problems with this. Most use primes anyhow, which are often faster lenses and favored over zooms. I understand your concern, but the statement "Most still camera lenses don't work" is fairly inaccurate and unintentionally misleading. Perhaps "still camera zooms may not work" might be more appropriate, although many still use them..... so they work, but can have breathing issues.
Click to expand...

My experience is different from what you are describing. My EOS USM zoom lenses are the only ones I have tried so far that do not "breathe". I have tried 2 Nikon and 2 Canon prime lenses. All these lenses breathed significantly enough to make them worthless in this application.

I think that a list of primes that do not "breathe" would be very helpful to people contemplating buying a 35mm adapter. My suspicion is that list will be rather small.
 
If this is coming up just now, what have people done in the past to stay in focus? Did they all just happen to be using lenses that didn't breathe? If you are saying these lenses are worthless, how have people been able to get acceptable and accurate focus pulls with their still lenses thus far?
 
'Breathing' has noting to do with inacurate focusing or being parfocal.
It is about lenses slightly changing their magnification as you rack focus from close to infinity.
A parfocal zoomlens can 'breathe' as well.
 
Wow, I did not know! Prime lenses breathing is new to me. I learn more everyday. I have never heard anyone report problems nor have I ever seen it. I will have to look more close I suppose. Thanks for the info. Although I still wonder how all these 35mm adapter users are doing so well with these breathing lenses. Any ideas?
 
This breathing issue, while significant, has been blown out of proportion. Most lenses (including many cine lenses) breath to some extent -- but this is usually only apparent when large, sudden racks occur, which is a small minority of shots.

A modest amount of breathing certainly does not make a lens "useless" for cinematography, though it is something that a careful DP must be aware of and learn to work around.


BW
 
"Breathing" can easily be hidden in camera moves like pan or tilts.
And the effect can seem very slight.
It might only be obvious when doing long focus racks on a static image.
 
I didn't notice it to be a problem on my film. I have seen it on some stuff and it appears mostly in areas with lots of detail and obvious points of convergence. Most of the rack focusing on my film were from subject to subject with the background out of focus. So the points of reference in dectecting the breathing were not that obvious.

That being said, on my 8 foot projection screen I can see the breathing on major motion pictures when there is a rack focus. I can also see some of the lens distortion in pans around a center axis in a room.

Rack focusing is a very unnatural to normal human vision. It can be very distracting and draw the viewer out of the moment. So it's a stylistic endeavor in which there is no perfect answer. Deep depth of field provide the viewers the most accurate view of a scene as they can shift their attention around the scene at their own discretion. So it calls less attention to itself. You motivate the "rack" by action not lens.

I for one love stylized representations of reality. I think a lens flare can be used to great effect. I like the ability to control what the audience sees with camera movement and lens choice. I am not a big fan of documentary style films or films with heavy improvised scripts (M*A*S*H being an exception) because they seem awkward and not as powerful.

My point being that anyone who claims a certain lens that breathes a little is useless is talking about something subjective not technical and should be treated as such. Lens choices are very subjective and part of the artform.
 
holditnowfilms said:
Rack focusing is a very unnatural to normal human vision. It can be very distracting and draw the viewer out of the moment.

My point being that anyone who claims a certain lens that breathes a little is useless is talking about something subjective not technical and should be treated as such. Lens choices are very subjective and part of the artform.
Click to expand...

What really startled me was the extent of breathing with the longer Nikon lens. It was not so pronounced on the Canon lenses and would probably not be noticeable enough to stop me from using them.

I do however feel that this is an issue that has been somewhat overlooked.
 
The iris limitations of EOS lenses and thier build quality makes them a bad choice for 35mm adapters or Red unless rehoused. I also feel the quality of EOS wide angle lenses is quite inferior to Nikkors like the 17-35mm 2.8 or 28mm 1.4. Of course this my opinion. Breathing is not an issue on any lens in this price point.
 
Neurodancer said:
What really startled me was the extent of breathing with the longer Nikon lens. It was not so pronounced on the Canon lenses and would probably not be noticeable enough to stop me from using them.

I do however feel that this is an issue that has been somewhat overlooked.
Click to expand...

I agree it should be noted --it's how it's discribed that counts. I would avoid zooms and use primes if at all possible.

I was very unhappy with the look and sharpness of the Nikkor zoom I used. 35-105mm it was so damn slow I could only use it in full sun. It just seemed too soft wide open.

When you say longer lens what is your definition of longer? Certainly you are not rack focusing a 300mm lens are you? That seems like a very odd situation should it arise.
 
The 35-105 is a crappy consumer zoom. Use primes, the manual focus AIS lenses are legendary. Especially the 15mm 3.5, 18mm 3.5 20mm 2.8, 24mm 2.8, 28mm F2, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 or 1.4 and the 105 1.8 & 2.5 + 135mm f2.
If you can find it on ebay the 25-50 f4 is an amazing MF zoom.

In AF try the 14mm 2.8, 17-35mm 2.8, 28mm 1.4 and 80-200 2.8 (The two ring is best)
 
evinsky said:
The 35-105 is a crappy consumer zoom. Use primes, the manual focus AIS lenses are legendary. Especially the 15mm 3.5, 18mm 3.5 20mm 2.8, 24mm 2.8, 28mm F2, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 or 1.4 and the 105 1.8 & 2.5 + 135mm f2.
If you can find it on ebay the 25-50 f4 is an amazing MF zoom.

In AF try the 14mm 2.8, 17-35mm 2.8, 28mm 1.4 and 80-200 2.8 (The two ring is best)
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree wholeheartedly. My two work horse lenses were the nikkor 50mm 1.8 and the 105mm 1.8- I sometimes used an 85mm 1.8 but I really loved the 105mm. The 50mm proved to be a solid sharp lens that was very versitle in most situations including handheld. If I needed anything wider i went with the stock HVX lens. You won't get sharper than that no matter what you use. I just wish the barrel distortion was less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top