Best Cine 50mm

boosh

boosh

Well-known member
I'm in the market for a cinema style 50mm lens. I mainly film high end corporates and documentary films. Currently I use Canon, Sigma, Tamron glass using glimmer glass when filming people to get softer skin tones I would like to give my films a more unique look but retain the quality I get from the current glass I use. With this in mind I'm looking at buying a 50mm cine style lens. I actually have a Leica Summilux F1.4 which gives super unique bokeh. It's beautiful but it's really not that sharp when wide open. Someone has offered me a Zeiss CP.2 Super speed T1.5 for a reasonable price so I'm considering that but wondering how sharp that will be at T1.5. I see there're also CP3's but from what I can see they only do a T2.1 version. I would be keen to get opinions of others on here as to what cine 50mm might be a good choice for me to invest in.
 
The sensor is really important. If you're using stills cameras to shoot video, even a Cooke can only do so much. Which camera?

There are hundreds of tests on YouTube where people are using cheap budget cine glass on Pockets and they look incredible because of the Blackmagic unsharpened processing.

Nevertheless...along with any feedback you receive here/other places, checking out some lens tests during your research might help.

Maybe a comparison vid like Shane's (the one below isn't for 50mm, but there is some info about color, bokeh, sharpness, how lenses may or may not affect the shape of the face, could always learn something): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7If4W9_0_8w

Then there are Phil's great focal length tests, something like this where he's using pretty basic Sigma cine glass but of course on a crazy camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLVEqTwCORo
 
I personally own the Canon CN-E 50 T1.3, as part of a complete set, and it is still sharp WAO. It’s actually kind of seen a resurgence, lately, as a friend that has been shooting a series of interviews has rented mine(along with the 85) several times in the last month (and says how great it looks every time he brings it back), and it’s actually out on a rental this week with someone else.

And in my opinion, the Sigma cine’s have a very similar look and great build quality, with the added benefit of being available from the factory with different mounts and even some of them being user swappable.

I haven’t used the CP.3’s. I know the Tokina’s are very popular, as well, but one of my reps said they had had a lot of QC issues with them.

I’ve always been happy with my Canon’s and everyone I know with the Sigma’s loves them, too(I believe Charles has a set). Honestly, if I was buying from scratch today, I’d be torn between the Canon and Sigma primes.
 
For the most part, I would think you would want to buy a cine style lens for the cine mechanics rather than the IQ. If you are just looking for a different look, I would focus on filters. The Radiant Soft filter is very interesting. I tend to use the Black Satin, but that is very similar to the Glimmer Glass. The sharpest cine 50mm under 20 grand is probably the Sigma 50mm, but it has no character. Maybe grab something like the Great Joy anamorphic which definitely has a different look and is very cheap. If you are looking for sharp but you want the glass to add some flare, the Sigma Classic is almost a special effects lens and is just as sharp as the high speed lens.
 
I think a few people on here have SonyCineAlta lenses, but I can't remember who. I recall people saying that they're sharp, but I can't remember the breathing performance.
 
Id get the 50 that is the diameter front and lensgear as your 25 and 85.

Im not seeing the point of a cine lens.. the purpose of cine lenses that they work in a set and are fast to change and calibrate by the first a/c because of the consistent length diameter and front diameter to take a clip on matte box.

Im extatic to own nikkor 50 and fd 50 lenses that cost $50 and look as good as my talent, lighting or my skills.. they are not the weak link.

--

Further if you want to go down this specialist path you will know from experience what you wnt and cant ask a bunch of randoms on the internet.

I think your desire for sharp wide open and having character might be oxymoronic

Sharp leading to cp3 or canoon cn, character full leading to something two decades older
 
Last edited:
When I do an interview the last thing I'm worried about is how much character my lens has. Lighting, background, audio, conducting a good interview and having a rapport with the subject, filming b-roll to cut to...
 
If we can worry about all of the other stuff above then it's okay thinking about the character of lenses as well.

It's maybe the least important concern on the list for many, but since many of us would also never conduct an interview while operating a camera - at least nothing serious (and that's a producer's job) - I think there's room to worry about one more other thing.
 
NorBro said:
If we can worry about all of the other stuff above then it's okay thinking about the character of lenses as well.

It's maybe the least important concern on the list for many, but since many of us would also never conduct an interview while operating a camera - at least nothing serious (and that's a producer's job) - I think there's room to worry about one more other thing.
Click to expand...

Damnit Gump! That's the most outstanding answer I've ever.... Well, you get the idea.

But yes. Replies like Peters(no offense Peter, I'm not trying to attack you) that consist of "story is most important/content is king" type answers on forums that lean heavily towards CAMERAS, LENSES(especially in subsections concerning them) and other creative aspects, it just get my hackles up, sometimes. Everyone knows that, already. But on a largely professional forum, where there should be a "division of labor", so to speak, this shouldn't be a part of the conversation when someone is asking about cameras and lenses.

I'm a cameraman. I shoot. Generally speaking, I don't give a rats *** about rapport with the subject, conducting the interview, the answers they are or aren't giving, etc. Basically anything to do with "content". I'm not the one asking them questions. That's not my department. That's not my job. That's the producers and/or reporters job. My job concerns how it looks. And there are many pieces to that puzzle, including: lighting, background, camera choice and lens choice. People and companies don't spend 10's and 100's of thousands of dollars on lenses, because they don't matter or aren't an important part of the visual equation.
 
Hmm. I think they do. Why? to make the production smooth.

be it the 17-135 canon or a matching set of cine glass both bring little to the visual party while a huge load to the schedule or ability to record one time reactions.
 
Run&Gun said:
Damnit Gump! That's the most outstanding answer I've ever.... Well, you get the idea.

But yes. Replies like Peters(no offense Peter, I'm not trying to attack you) that consist of "story is most important/content is king" type answers on forums that lean heavily towards CAMERAS, LENSES(especially in subsections concerning them) and other creative aspects, it just get my hackles up, sometimes. Everyone knows that, already. But on a largely professional forum, where there should be a "division of labor", so to speak, this shouldn't be a part of the conversation when someone is asking about cameras and lenses.

I'm a cameraman. I shoot. Generally speaking, I don't give a rats *** about rapport with the subject, conducting the interview, the answers they are or aren't giving, etc. Basically anything to do with "content". I'm not the one asking them questions. That's not my department. That's not my job. That's the producers and/or reporters job. My job concerns how it looks. And there are many pieces to that puzzle, including: lighting, background, camera choice and lens choice. People and companies don't spend 10's and 100's of thousands of dollars on lenses, because they don't matter or aren't an important part of the visual equation.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you didn't appreciate the "character" of my post.

A lot of people shoot solo now a days...
 
Thanks for the replies all. Lots of useful comments and suggestions. After doing some decent research over Christmas I'm considering the following lenses For reference, I'm using these on a C300MKIII:

Zeiss CP.2 Super Speeds T1.5: Overall pretty good but a softer image at T1.5 which is typically what I film at. On 9th plus side they are relatively inexpensive.

Sigma Cine T1.5: Crisp, clinical and sharp but bokeh doesn't appear offer anything special. Also suffers from focus breathing. Relatively inexpensive but I feel this doesn't give me much more than my current line up of primes.

Tokina Vista One: Loads of unique character, lovely bokeh, pin sharp even at T1.5, no focus breathing but almost double the cost of the Sigma or Zeiss. Also ridiculously heavy so from a practicality point I think its a no go.

Canon Sumire Prime. Like the Vista One, this has loads of character, lovely bokeh and is nice and sharp even at T1.3. Much lighter than the Vista one but again is expensive coming in at pretty much double the cost of the Sigma or Zeis. I'm leaning towards this lens even though it's expensive as I feel I could use this for the next 20 years so would be a solid investment. The offerings from Sigma and Zeiss are appealing at the price point but I just feel like I'd rather pay more to get something real special.
 
I have tested both the Tokina's and the Sigmas, but not the Zeiss or the Canon. I don't think the standard Canon CN-E's are worth the price because they are based on the older Canon L lens designs which I used to use and had too much CA for my taste. The Sumires are a much more interesting lens, though. The Sigma is a sharper lens than the Tokina wide open, but the slight decrease in sharpness of the Tokina is probably a feature more than a bug. The bokeh of both the Sigma and Tokina are very similar with the Tokina looking a little over corrected when wide open. Both have onion skinning to a similar degree. The Sigma has lens metadata in both ef and pl mounts which can be useful on the Canon cameras. The Sigma's focus breathing problem is vastly overstated and I would guess is very similar to the Super Speed's and the Canon's. The Sumire does not have metadata, which is a bit bizarre since the standard lenses do have data and Canon has implemented pl/i in some of their lenses already. The Canon will have far more pronounced CA and will be quite a bit softer than the both the Tokina and Sigma wide open.

But, again, if you aren't buying a full set of the lenses to help with quick change overs for a mattebox and follow focus gear, I'm not sure what getting the more expensive cine glass versions of these lenses gets you. I would just buy some older Zeiss, Russian, or Japanese lenses and save some money.
 
Thanks cpreston. I found some great tests online with all these lenses. See images below but looking at the bokeh, I think the both Canon's Cn.e and Sumire have a great looking Bokeh compared to the Sigma which feels like it has less character to me. Also seems to hold up well in term of sharpness. The Summit seems to retain the detail but soften the bokeh. Anyway, images below to see for yourself (name of each lens in the top right corner). I'm definitely like the look of the Canon's most in regards to bang for buck
 

Attachments

  • photo130971.jpg
    photo130971.jpg
    38.6 KB · Views: 0
  • photo130972.jpg
    photo130972.jpg
    41.8 KB · Views: 0
  • photo130973.jpg
    photo130973.jpg
    41.2 KB · Views: 0
  • photo130974.jpg
    photo130974.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 0
  • photo130975.jpg
    photo130975.jpg
    39.5 KB · Views: 0
  • photo130976.jpg
    photo130976.jpg
    43.2 KB · Views: 0
cpreston said:
The Sigma's focus breathing problem is vastly overstated.
Click to expand...

Ha well, EVERYTHING about lenses is vastly overstated at this point as far as I'm concerned...who is to say what makes a particular flaw "interesting" and another one undesirable? Maybe breathing actually provides "character", and flares are boring?

In any event, I agree that the breathing "issue" with Sigmas isn't much of a concern. Breathing is rarely visible unless the frame is locked off and the focus rack is considerable. When that does happen, it's a simple matter of blowing up the image a few percent and creating a counter-zoom by tracking. Chances are that if the frame is moving enough that there is motion blur or it's hard to track, the breathing won't be visible. Here's one I did in Resolve a few years ago: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwybll33ah...0rack.mov?dl=0
 
Last edited:
cpreston said:
Yeah, the Sigma's have no character. The Sigma lens design is newer than the Canon's and has less noticeable aberrations like the cats eye bokeh. The Sumire is also more interesting than the CN-E. I was just looking at this video which has some more comparisons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ErgUGVyQw
Click to expand...

I own a set of CN-E’s and have a client who owns some Sumire’s and I can’t say that from what I’ve seen shooting with them on miLF’s and Amira’s that the ~75-90% price jump over the CN-E’s is worth it, in my opinion. Especially since the Canon PL mounts are dumb.
 
Technically speaking, Zeiss Otus isn't a "cinema lens" and, beyond that, it's a 55, not a 50.

But its prices came down and some can be had second hand. In Canon EOS mount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top