Do You Own Cine Glass?

[morgan_moore]

Sorry I was a bit colourful.

(but 70% of what I say is supposed to be thought provoking or add a 'side' to consider or whatever - its only fun!)

I guess some stuff hit a few of my buttons like 'I dont shoot wides anyway'

Im interested in design and think there is a bunch of stuff that should not get off the drawing board.. like lenses that are not a full set, cameras with dangling leads, floppy monitor arms, whatever.

I do have some genuine opinions like 'if you dont hate something keep using it'.. somehow we have to keep in control that if we buy a 600w light this week an 800w light is on the street next week.

Oddly this is not really the case with lenses that deal in linear physics.. so that is a reason to buy lenses (not lights or cameras) but of course af is a significant threat to mf lens pricing.

financially id defo say the good money (maybe a genuine investment) is the canon fd , contax and zeiss even hasselblad - dabbling there could be lots of fun.

 

[Joshua Milligan]

Yeah for me I have a pretty solid lineup of Sony GM zooms and primes. Everything from the classic zooms to the classic primes and they are all great workhorse lenses for me. And I’m truly not into shooting wides all that much. I do it when I have to and have the lenses for it, but my eye is drawn to tighter and more intimate shots. Just my personal taste.

Outside of my paid work, I like to entertain ideas about stuff I’ll probably never buy (although never say never) and one of those is fun lenses. Restored Russian primes, new cine zooms, etc. Things that bring character and fun back into the art side of filming. And since I got into video because I loved creating visual images, naturally I’m going to dream about what’s out there that would be fun or interesting to have.

I am like you in that I too am interested in design and feel there are products that should not get off the drawing board. My current battle has been the Sony FX6 and fixing its design flaws (weak monitor for example). Fortunately after 11 months with mine I’ve finally got mine to where I like it build wise, but it literally took me getting some parts custom made at a machine shop to get there.

 

[NorBro]

A few years back when I was in my, "I want to be a filmmaker" phase, I watched a few of Shane Hurlbut's cine lens comparisons, which compared some of the Xeens to Zeiss', Cookes and Canons.

Here's one (random) but don't think it's the one I watched (but it's worth checking out and learning in general):

People in the YT comments were dissecting each lens and how one was cooler, or one was greener, or one made faces thinner, or one had better bokeh, or one separated the subject from the background - ETC. ETC. - which I'm sure were/are all valid points, but I liked all of them.

And if you showed me all of the shots again, mixed up, a week later, I probably would have forgotten which is which. (FWIW, he was using an expensive RED.)

___

So then I realized that I wanted something different and entertained the idea of finding a few LOMOs for a Blackmagic I had at the time.

The video below was a part of my research which taught me a few more things.

At the end of the day, I didn't buy anything.

Not sure there's a point to this story. ha

 

[ahalpert]

of course af is a significant threat to mf lens pricing.

Yes but then you need to rack focus manually on an AF lens and you're like FML. Which is why I think it could be interesting if sony releases cine lenses with both great AF and MF capabilities plus controlled breathing

Cine lenses generally benefit from the design advantages of a greater weight allowance. But you have to deal with the weight, cost and lack of AF relative to photo lenses (the latter being only a recent concern of mine).

in the cine department I've only owned rokinon ds and Sony 28-135, neither of which is proper cine glass. Which begs the question of what we're talking about-- top-shelf product or simply integrated gears?

Now that I'm in the AF game it complicates the picture.. so do you have separate lenses for manual focus pulling? Hardly practical. How about breathing? Do we give in to the oncoming sony in-camera correction of it? As for zooms, I think there's no question. If you want to zoom smoothly, it needs to be a lens designed for video

 

[morgan_moore]

stuff

In Charles post we see where one needs to be to own cinema glass.

we see..
In both zooms and primes he has full FOV coverage to deliver the coverage requirements of his director.

He has customers that will give him decent rental fees.

He works with crew and I'm sure has and a/c and focus motors on each camera

The productions have a high enough cost per hour that dinking with a focus motor (for 2mins) on a lens change is a very costly thing

Everything makes those lenses a critical choice in 'the system' they add huge 'production value' - but one has to be 'all in' - one missing fov or dodgy lens gear breaks the whole system.

Indeed a lofty place to be



What irks me is the consideration of a couple of lenses that wont make that established workflow and economic model.. to me a set starting at 35 is like a car whith no wheels.. useless even if it is a Ferarri.

Get in 'the system' or nothing IMO

 

[morgan_moore]

Yes but then you need to rack focus manually on an AF lens and you're like FML. Which is why I think it could be interesting if sony releases cine lenses with both great AF and MF capabilities plus controlled breathing

Im not really sure where MF glass is going but I can see that AF will come to Arri and 'the system' through a bolt on device.

There is not a mood to throw $150g Cooke sets onto the scrap heap Or 19-90 zooms or 17-120 zooms or 2/3 zooms.

The film I recently worked on I was not important enough to be welcome near the monitor but im aware that there was a lot of focus aid going on. The trupmets were feeding distance values to both the handset and the a/c monitor and the lens position was also fed (I think) to both.

The a/c 'just' had to get the focus wheel onto the zone the trumpets were giving him.. all of this was on his monitor and handset.

Seemed one round of programming away from af.

or at least a haptic handset that wobbled when the mesured distance and focussed distance did not match.

Im not across where the tech sits right now.. but my feel is that manual cine glass is not going away.

 

[morgan_moore]

Since I got the c200 ive become 'af' and bought 10-22, 17-85 ,24-70, 50, 70-200 af

Im still sitting on how to store/pack my lenses.

I now have one bag that is my 3 canon zooms and a nifty, and another bag that has my nikon 18 20 28 35 50 55 85 200 and 35-70

This just leaves me in a little hole when I want just to add maybe my 28/2 and 50 1.8 (my fav primes) to a shoot that will mainly be AF.

Having failed to sell my fs7 I find having it bouncing about in a super light build with the 50 and booster is a great grab and go thing

 

[morgan_moore]

For those that care here is what I saw on my recent pro shoot. You may note at the monitor bottom left we have 12-4 and 12-1 reported focus reading and focus distance , there are also blobs across the monitor bottom showing I think a focus gui . On the hand unit we have the setting and the report from the trumpets (the arrow?) . It is not that far from af or just telling the lens motor to follow the trumpets.

Charles may clarify..
udm - what the trumpets think
focus - where the lens is set.

The trumpets being blocked by the top flag is between setups. I dont think there is reason as Id close the top flag over the front element between setups.

 

[morgan_moore]

And just to indulge in some cine lens po__rn. the cooke anamorphic and alexa lf on the movi pro connected by an SMM onset construction to the jib. $150k Ceiling not inclluded.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I've never heard "trumpets" but that is fun. Standard term (in the US anyway) is "horns".

My AC's seem to have all moved onto the Preston Light Ranger 2 which incorporates a monitor overlay that frankly I don't really understand, but makes perfect sense to them (I just haven't taken the term to get it into my brain properly). As I understand it the LR2 can be driven into AF territory, which comes in very handy for situations that are technically difficult and also don't require creative choices (a subject moving very quickly towards camera, like a racecar coming around the track etc).

Your summation of my lens post was pretty accurate, Sam.

About four years ago I took over a series and kept the same lens choices as the previous DP. They were using the Cabrio 19-90 but pairing it with a set of Super Speeds MKII's. The first time I put up a prime against that zoom on separate cameras I was aghast at the difference between the images. The speeds were contrasty yet mushy, which is a strange combination. In addition, they have no consistency between focal lengths in terms of gearing, so every lens change required adjusting the position of the lens motors. It's been years since I used speeds and it all started coming back to me like a bad dream. One of them--forgot which--telescopes the front element when you rack focus, and the iris ring is in that telescoping section, so you need a double-width gear on the iris motor to accommodate that telescoping (the motor stays fixed to the rods while the iris gear is driven away from the motor). What a bloody nightmare. After the second day I returned them to the rental house.

 

[ahalpert]

I took away something different from your lens post, Charles. You said that you use the Cabrio 19-90 90% of the time and would consider buying a 2nd. Therefore it would seem prudent to get a similar midrange zoom for starters if Josh is adding on to the kit he has. I don't think it's an all-or-nothing situation unless he's trying to take on new business that would necessitate also having a wider and a longer cine zoom. So, it seems like he could accomplish a lot, following your lens logic, by having a cine midrange zoom and a couple of fast wide-angle cine primes. He already has all other needs covered by photo lenses.

Incidentally, the Sony 28-135 is the exact same range as the Cabrio 19-90. Not that it's a particularly good lens, nor does it have good zoom mechanics or manual focus capability.

The canon 18-80 seems like the best option for a midrange zoom amongst cheaper lenses, but of course it only covers S35 and it's a stop slower than your Cabrio.

A good zoom is expensive and heavy.

S35 Cabrio 19-90 T2.9 is $25k, 6.8 lbs: https://www.fullcompass.com/prod/24...8S5L-wWqDrKhTioVpGYaQQSbnKQ47X4IaAhOMEALw_wcB

FF Zeiss 28-80 T2.9 for $22k. 5.5 lbs (much shorter telephoto end): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...2008_988_28_80mm_t2_9_compact_zoom.html/specs

Musashi Optical System Takumi 2 29-120mm T2.9 Full Frame PL Cine Zoom Lens for $30k, 16.75 lbs - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...hi_optical_system_takumi_2_29_120mm_t2_9.html

Fujinon Premista28-100mm T2.9 Large-Format Cine Lens (PL) for $43k, 8.38 lbs - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...00mm_f_premista_28_100mm_t2_9_full.html/specs

And then the DZOFilm Catta 35-80mm T2.9 E-Mount Cine Zoom Lens (White) is only $3.1k and 3.4 lbs

If the Catta is a good lens, then it's interesting. But is it really enough of a zoom range to be useful as a zoom? I'm unconvinced. But again it depends on what you need it for

 

[morgan_moore]

'depends what you need it for'

There is no 'depend'.All filmmaking is the same..

(s35)
Master wide 19mm (ideally 16-17)
Mid/over shoulder 35 x2
ECU 85 x 2

|f you cant do this you cant make films.

If you cant do this with one lens and no lens changes you cannot make doco.
If you cant do this without fiddling with a focus motors you cant make corporate/commercial fast enough to be comercially viable

This is why the 17-120 canon, 24-105 ff canon and sony, 28-135 ff sony 18-110 s35 sony, 19-90 cabrio, 18-80 canon are part of a small group of lenses that can be used for viable film making.

Any other single lens you cannot make a film.

Even the zeiss s35 20-120 is a flop because it is not wide enough for the first shot.
FF 28-80 struggles

Obvisouly all film making is not requiring this, but from a commercial point of view I consider that very much to be the start point unless the director specifically wants something different.. like a advert for jewels with macro lens on some bellows.

In terms of tooling up for commercial work I strongly think this is the case.

At that point having a t2.9 zoom without full FOV range and a 'fiddle the motors' wide you are better off with three primes of t2 ... or a fouth if you need it.

(my tounge is mainly but not completely in my cheek)


Other rules for commercial film making..
have a lens wider than the directors iphone
have a fps higher than the directors iphone
never not be able to do what the director has just rehearsed on thier iphone.

 

[morgan_moore]

to offer a counterpoint. I just found nelson nutmeg that I shot a bit ago. its a low budget (but had a budget) kids film
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Killed-Nels...o%2C157&sr=1-1

this I shot using this..

(s35 bmc camera .. check those highlights!)

18mm masters
35-70 everything else

To be fair of course I used my 50 1.8 at night and what not. But basically run the scene as a wide then swap in to the 35-70 and do everything else.

A good procedure and sensible shooting order can make a 35-70 work really well and with no silly wide open you focus on story not what it particualrly looks like

S

 

[Run&Gun]

Somehow I missed this thread over the last few days. But I wanna play, too.

Still lenses, especially modern still lenses, generally suck to shoot with, despite actually being very good glass.(leaving AF out of this equation). I have a bunch of good Canon still lenses, but the only one at this point that still makes the occasional appearance on a real camera of mine is the 100-400, for obvious reasons.

I own a (nearly) complete set(missing only the new-ish 20) of the Canon CN-E primes consisting of a 14, 24, 35, 50, 85 and 135. With the exception of the 14 and 135, all of the rest(including the 20 I don’t own) are T1.3 or T1.5. They all cover up to “FF” and are clean with a touch of warmth and they render skin tones beautifully. 11 bladed apertures, so oof highlights render nice and round when wide open. Mechanically, they are solid with well dampened focus and iris rings in the same place. 300 degree focus throws and witness marks on both sides of the barrel for focus and iris. Metal bodies. The one thing that I can’t figure out, though, is why the iris throw is so incredibly short. I mostly use mine on interviews and my most used lenses of the bunch are the 135 and 85, followed by the 50, when I need a wider interview frame. I’ve been saying for a few years that I was going to add the Sigma 105/T1.5, but I just can’t ever seem to pull the trigger.

On to the real workhorses, the zooms. I own two Canon Cine-Servo’s, the 17-120 and 25-250. I do a lot of, I guess what could be best described as, Doc style and Sports Doc work. For that and my general style of shooting, a zoom is necessary. The 17-120 is probably the de facto s35 zoom lens in this world. Nothing else like it exists. 17 is just wide enough to give you a good establishing shot and for up-close follow work. 120, at reasonable distances, can let you pick off detail shots or decent mediums from a distance. It also has pretty close focus and a macro function. It’s really the Swiss Army Knife of s35 zooms. You can put it on a camera and never take it off and be covered for most “reasonable scenario” work. People love to knock it for not being a constant aperture, like the Fuji19-90 that started this class of lens, but the Canon actually gives you the same aperture(for all intents and purposes, T2.9 vs. T2.95), in a wider range 17-90, before it starts to ramp(at 91mm). And for me, I’ll take that trade off for the increased range that gives me the wider back-end and longer top-end.

The 25-250 is my newest lens and it’s an absolute beautiful beast. It’s the cleanest and sharpest lens that I’ve ever owned. What Canon managed to make, in a package this size and weight and for the cost, is nothing short of astounding. Even with the 1.5x extender engaged, which gets you out to 375mm, you can’t see any image degradation(I’ve actually gotten a little burned a few times, because I’ll forget it’s in). Yes, it’s great on a tripod doing long lens work, and you can get beautiful stuff with it, but it’s at home on your shoulder, too. My first shoot like five days after I got it, was shooting college football on the sidelines and then doing motorsports ‘sports doc’ stuff the next day, which was probably 85%-90% handheld. I’ve also used it a lot to shoot promo material on big shoots and interviews, too. It’s neither here nor there, with regards to this discussion, but I’d love to see a head-to-head comparison/review with a modern Angi 25-250 and see how well it stacks up and also the Fuji 85-300(as they’re really in the same class more so than the Angi).

So I guess to answer the question, yes, I own Cine glass.

 

[CharlesPapert]

ahalpert, I think that is probably a pretty good assessment actually. A mid-range zoom plus a handful of fast primes. If had to choose two focal lengths I find myself at more than others, it would be 28 and 40.

Run&Gun, good to hear about your success with the Canons. I do admit my bias against the iris ramping in the 17-120 because in a narrative setting, I'd always be fearful of a director yelling out mid-take "go a little tighter!" and the operator pinching past the ramp point and I'm suddenly scrambling to compensate via ISO...or just suffering. I had that experience with the Zeiss 70-200 which is claimed to be a continuous iris lens but isn't (ramps a good half stop starting at 160mm or so). If Canon had worked out a way to install a mechanical stop in the 17-120 so you could keep it in the 2.95 range then just "unlock it" when you have the stop to allow for it, I'd be good with it, especially gaining the extra two mil's at the wide end. That said, the Fujinon color-matched better to my existing Aluras so it was still a better choice for me. But, I think for a lot of people, the 17-120 will cover nearly all scenarios.

I forgot one more lens that I use so rarely that it is out of sight out of mind, and that it is the Tokina 11-16 (original Duclos conversion). Between the wide end of the 15.5-45 Alura and the 14mm Sigma I'm pretty well covered but every now and then we just need to squeak a mm or two wider because the camera is up against a wall or something, like what happened on this project, at 2:40. That was around 13mm and I was super impressed how well it held up against the Master Primes I used on the rest of the piece.

 

[Run&Gun]

It's kind of funny, Charles, all of my 2/3" HD ENG lenses are Fuji Premier series. I always preferred the feel of the lenses over Canon's ENG lenses. I just kind of fell into the Canon cine lens world. We all jumped on the original C300 bandwagon and then the Canon CN-E primes came out and they were, at the time especially, a good bang for the buck. Good looking image and reasonable cost. About the only other lenses like that then, were the Zeiss CP.2's. Then we all said we need a real, native s35 servo zoom lens and Fuji answered with the 19-90. Good looking lens and built like a tank, but it just didn't have the back-end and reach that so many of us needed to make it versatile enough in a doc, sports, news world. I was at a Fuji lens event several years ago and I was talking to Tom Fletcher and I told him that I love Fuji lenses and have like $90K worth of their 2/3" ENG zooms, but they just were not building any s35 lenses in the focal and zoom ranges that were as useful to me as what Canon was doing.

I don't know if you pull the servo grip off of your Cabrio, Charles, but if you leave it on and and your guys use those servo's to change focal length, then the Canon could work for you. I'm pretty sure the Canon's have a similar feature that my Fuji ENG lenses have, where you can set end stops on the front and/or back end of the lens. They aren't physical stops, just setting a window for the servo travel, but serves the same purpose. I used to use it when I had a matte box on my W/A in certain scenarios, so that I wouldn't zoom out too far and vignette.

 

[ahalpert]

'depends what you need it for'

There is no 'depend'.All filmmaking is the same..

Right but a shooter doesn't necessarily handle every type of shoot. If you're a wildlife shooter, your regular lens needs are totally different than if you primarily shoot interviews.

If you want to handle a range of work, including all the various needs of a feature film, then I agree that you want to run the gamut of FOV.

But if you know what you'll be shooting on a regular basis and you know you'll be primarily using a certain type of lens, why not focus on that purchase first.

And when we're talking about a zoom lens, the discussion doesn't only concern FOV requirements. The discussion also concerns shooting situations where you don't have time for lens changes. (Or where you want to use zoom shots in the edit.)

Ergo, if you have a midrange zoom that you're happy with, then maybe you can afford the time for lens changes if you don't need ultra wide or super telephoto shots that often.

when I was an AC, most S35 lens sets I worked with didn't go wider than 21mm or 18mm. I don't think 16mm and lower is an absolute requirement.

but for my money, I'd rather have multiple cameras rigged and ready with different primes!

 

[morgan_moore]

A wildlife shooter is a parralell of my jewelery shooter. I do know that there are jobs that are not made up of a wide and two tights.

I just learned and adhere to a way of shooting that I know cuts into short or long shots, can handle script dumping etc etc.

The thing about, especially actualliy, is being able to do the 18mm shot and then move fast to the 35 0r 50mm because it holds consistency. I get why one wants a zoom to recompose.

The story is always the same 'here we are' 'this is a detail what is happening' that detail might be a wedding ring a nuclear trigger or pizza - all the same

sure in the edit one can flip it or exclude bits to add tension or mystery.

I said I enjoyed the 35-70 on nelson nutmeg, but that is a £100* lens so it doesnt really matter if it doesnt fit into some form of bigger strategy - it did have a strategy - do the master wide then move to the cu's one lens swap per scene. that works for fiction but not live

Maybe the OP can afford a few k of kit that is not in a strategy.. I cant

I found this old wedding (no fee for a mate) its the horror story 18-50 sony on my nex5 but seeing what I do with that £45 zoom .. it does show the dance from wide to tight in a live moving situation
https://vimeo.com/52802266 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_E_18-50mm_F4-5.6

As for 18 or 21 primes.. yep I came from stills and had 20mm FF by 1998 so maybe im spoiled. I do note that 'proper' s35 cine glass is available wider and matching
https://www.zeiss.co.uk/consumer-pro...me-lenses.html




*(hey buy a £100 lens they are great)

 

[ahalpert]

The thing about, especially actualliy, is being able to do the 18mm shot and then move fast to the 35 0r 50mm because it holds consistency. I get why one wants a zoom to recompose.

Right, so then why not buy the Catta if Josh doesn't often go wider than 35mm? (BTW you can do a lot for wides with a 35mm, especially by panning to cover more area. Not everyone or every shot wants a real wide-angle perspective.)

Or the Sony 28-135. Which maybe he already has? But the problems with the 28-135 are that it can't zoom quickly, the focus is not true manual and lags in operation, and it's not T2.9 (which is maybe less of an issue). So, if you want to stamp on the 28-135 for any of those reasons, and you can see yourself kicking ass with the limited range of the 35-80, then the Catta might make sense

 

[morgan_moore]

I guess it depeds on your weath and place in the industry. Im at a level of poverty that if Im gonna spend $5k on something I need it to be a 'commercial tool' that will pay for itself.

Im suggesting that if your lenses are to be a 'commercial tool' then you need to deal in sets that match physically and optically starting at a minimum of 18s35 or 24ff, ideally 15/2s35 20ff.

If you dont do this directors will leave your lenses gathering dust and rent something (or someone) else.

Now if one is doing something special (sport, jewels, lions and tigers) one may not need this 18+ set and still be a commercial offer.

If one is 'the man who shoots everything with a 35at2' - then one may not need this 18+ set.. and still be a commercial offer

If one is doing self funded art (i forget people have $5k for art) one can buy whatever one wants because there is no rationale.. but if I were doing art id probably be getting old anamorphics or some t1.4 primes or something tilt and s_hit. And not worrying about coverage.

In none of these situations do these 'cine' zooms fit.

I feel quite strongly.. having peddalled throgh a bit of YT and cvp lens page that there is being a lot of fools gold sold - lens 'sets' that will not make a return and leave the buyer in a bad place financially.

I feel maybe these 'sets' are not given the bad press they might need as YT, Cined and Newshooter have become commercial echo chambers with only good things to say about bad things.

It is a tragedy to be coining for fools gold when there is a worlds of appreciating contax, fd and nikkor to dabble in that one can own for free. (where cost = purchase price minus sale price)

I did watch a dzo video which had a pair starting at 20. That is quite an interesting thing. But the chap pumping them up made me feel ill.. like 'you will get noticed haveing white lenses' 'no one will notice the reflections' - I spend my time trying not to be noticed.. and everyone director, mother, client, will see reflections.

Starting at 20 you can do a thing that might be quite intimate.

My strenght of feeling is an attempt to help other users keep thier money safe. It comes from the best place.