GH5 Big Glass vs Small Glass

Shirozina said:
Light doesn't 'bounce around the lens'. Light travels in a straight line and is refracted by the glass elements in a controlled way. If it didn't the lens couldn't form an image on the sensor. If lens flare or
more accurately 'non image forming light ' is what you define as 'cinematic' then this can just as easily be created in a small lens or a big lens by removing a lens hood or matte box and removing lens coatings and internal baffles and non reflective surfaces.
Click to expand...

Don't take me so literally. It was a completely unscientific statement and it was more about the general feeling of bigger lenses. Calling the images from small M43 lenses 'cheap' looking isn't really the right term. Clinical is more the way they look to me. Devoid of character. People seek out vintage lenses, or some modern lenses because they impart a certain character to imagery. Whether that's the way the light 'bounces' around the lens, or the how multiple lens elements shape image, or the how the number of blades shapes the bokeh, or the coatings affect contrast, or any of the other factors that makes a lens, the smaller, m43 lenses on average just render things plainly. That can be fine if it's what you want. It's not what I look for in a lens.
 
So if I understand @Batutta correctly, he prefers lenses that aren't optically perfect.

My question is, if he likes lenses with character (read: flaws), exactly which imperfections does he look for in a lens?

Mediocre resolution? Heavy vignetting? Starbursts? Cats-eye bokeh with onion rings? Not parfocal? Loads of chromatic aberration? Barrel and pincushion distortion? Coma and astigmatism? Swirly bokeh? Ghosting and purple/green flares? Low contrast? Noisy autofocus?

What would the recipe for an ideal lens be?

I don't believe in magic: the characteristics of a lens are measurable and able to be described. If that were not the case, lens reviews would be meaningless.

Even something as seemingly intangible as music can be evaluated: how closely does the performance adhere to the dynamics and phrasing dictated by the composer, is it legato or staccato, or is the music pushed and pulled beyond all recognition?

For me, a great lens would be fast (f/2 or faster), have high resolution and contrast, good resistance to flare, warm color rendition, little vignetting or chromatic aberration and soft round bokeh with no onion rings.

When looking at footage from vintage lenses, what are the characteristics that stand out and make them more desirable than modern lenses?

I can also appreciate some of the qualities of lenses like the Helios, but I'm not sure I'd want to sit through an entire feature film with swirly bokeh.

Over at cinematography.com, a forum member posted a link to a comparison by Shane Hurlbut of Cooke vs. Leica (the link is dead now I guess), and another forum member commented:

I've watched it a few times and found it extremely interesting. When I first heard about the new Leicas, they seemed like a real lens for the future. Spec-wise as good as it gets. But then as I started to track down and watch productions shot on them I found myself noticing (repeatedly) this strange flatness to the images that somehow felt 'off' to me.

I couldn't begin to pin down what it was about the look of the shows that felt off to me, but after seeing Shane's comparison it became clear to me. The Leicas are just too perfect. In a still image you'd never notice it, but in motion it's there - this almost imperceptible flatness to the image, that seems to rob them of some sense of depth.

I still can't put it clearly into words, but something about the way the Leicas render moving pictures really puts me off. I don't understand why I love the look from Master Primes (which are also kinda 'perfect') and yet the Leicas throw me, but there it is.

I just chose the topic at random, as I know Cooke lenses are supposed to be magical, but what's needed are cinematographers who can articulate precisely what it is about certain lenses that rock their world, not statements like 'they're just too perfect'.

I know some will disagree ('I just tell my client that idea sucks!'), but I believe it is incumbent upon visual artists to be able to explain, articulate and express the aspects of their craft.

FWIW, if as one forum member noted, Hurlbut was indeed comparing a 75mm lens to a 100mm, and if indeed he dismissed it as inconsequential, and viewers were none the wiser, then that is messed up big time as well.

Can anyone imagine the chief optical engineer at Leica or Cooke telling one of their underlings that they've got to strive for more 'je ne sais quoi'? :)

Few would dispute the artistry of Christopher Doyle, who swears by Zeiss, Cooke and Angénieux lenses, but were I to shoot something with any of those lenses, I'm sure my YouTube channel would be inundated with comments saying my images look too digital.

Because most of the magic is in set design, camera movement, focus pulling, focal length, costume design, lighting, haze machines and grading as much as anything else that makes an image look cinematic.
 
Last edited:
Sorry I agree with Batutta

It’s like humans - it’s scientifically shown that while we are attracted to symmetry, were also attracted to imperfection. Bit of a paradox.

Reminds me of interstellar and the whole philosophical plot on love actually being a scientific force we don’t yet understand ... but many people believe in .... so you don’t believe in magic and your idea of the perfect lens is that which you can scientifically quantify...

You are quite alone in the halls of great cinema history. The best lenses have a je ne sais quoi.

Now that sterile character less feel may be true of some m43 lenses - the voigts come to mind, they aren’t sterile. But they don’t have that big glass feel. So there’s something more going on. And there’s plenty of characterless large glass, too.

I’m not saying there’s not a scientific explanation btw I’m just saying it’s there and we may not know if, but that doesn’t make anyone who can’t explain it wrong. That’s the difference between an artist and an engineer. Many artists have an intuitive sense of highly mathematically precise things without the ability to scientifically articulate them.

I can’t imagine the lens engineers being that way, nor can I imagine the lens engineers becoming the next great producer of cinema magic.
 
Last edited:
jonpais said:
I know some will disagree ('I just tell my client that idea sucks!'), but I believe it is incumbent upon visual artists to be able to explain, articulate and express the aspects of their craft.
Click to expand...

Yes, we should be able to explain, but I'm not a scientist and I don't have to the tools to disassemble and run various lenses though a battery of tests to determine why lens X looks different from Y. Some differences are obvious, some are not. We mostly just go by our eyes and what feels right. I can only say which lenses I tend to grab most out of my bag, and they tend to be heavier ones with bigger elements. That's not only the most expensive. The lens that gets the most use from me, especially when shooting handheld, is an old f2 35mm Nikon AIS lens you can pick up for less than 200 dollars on eBay.
 
filmguy123 said:
Sorry I agree with Batutta

It’s like humans - it’s scientifically shown that while we are attracted to symmetry, were also attracted to imperfection. Bit of a paradox.

Reminds me of interstellar and the whole philosophical plot on love actually being a scientific force we don’t yet understand ... but many people believe in .... so you don’t believe in magic and your idea of the perfect lens is that which you can scientifically quantify...

You are quite alone in the halls of great cinema history. The best lenses have a je ne sais quoi.

Now that sterile character less feel may be true of some m43 lenses - the voigts come to mind, they aren’t sterile. But they don’t have that big glass feel. So there’s something more going on. And there’s plenty of characterless large glass, too.

I’m not saying there’s not a scientific explanation btw I’m just saying it’s there and we may not know if, but that doesn’t make anyone who can’t explain it wrong. That’s the difference between an artist and an engineer. Many artists have an intuitive sense of highly mathematically precise things without the ability to scientifically articulate them.

I can’t imagine the lens engineers being that way, nor can I imagine the lens engineers becoming the next great producer of cinema magic.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood my post. I'm merely asking for clarification: which properties are considered desirable in vintage lenses as opposed to modern ones.

If someone just describes a lens as organic, it tells me little or nothing, just as much or as little as the words soulless or sterile.

And yes, I think it's important for visual artists to be able to express themselves not only in images but in words: especially in a collaborative medium like film.

In the example I cited, the commenter did not even appear to be aware of the effect that two different focal lengths would have on his perception of the image.

And there are instances where viewers mistakenly believe one image to be sharper than another, when in fact, the one that seems sharper actually has more contrast but less resolution.
 
Last edited:
One other thing not sure it's been mentioned, on m43 systems, native lenses are automatically corrected for distortion by the camera electronics, so this may flatten out the images and get rid of those imperfections we often find interesting about a lens. They also add additional sharpening beyond the manual control, which may add to the 'cheap' feeling.
 
jonpais said:
I think you misunderstood my post. I'm merely asking for clarification: which properties are considered desirable in vintage lenses as opposed to modern ones.

If someone just describes a lens as organic, it tells me little or nothing, just as much or as little as the words soulless or sterile.

And yes, I think it's important for visual artists to be able to express themselves not only in images but in words: especially in a collaborative medium like film.
Click to expand...

Another perspective would say that expressing lenses as organic, soulful, lifelike, 3D or the lack there-off (sterile, sharp, flat, clinical) is expressing oneselves in accurate and effective words - just not mathematical, engineering language of terms such as CA and astigmitism.

That's largely my point - many, many artists tell you what looks good. Engineers dissect why. Both are ways of expressing and one could easily argue that the artist's way of expressing is not only more accurate but more meaningful, depending on your practical interpretation of the word(s), and personality and/or philosophical leanings.

As it is, the irony here, is I find myself as the artist WANTING to understand the engineering aspect. That's what my post was, if you recall. I'm asking you all to help me quantify in engineering terms why. So I don't inherently disagree with your values, in fact, I am seeking them out.
 
Batutta said:
One other thing not sure it's been mentioned, on m43 systems, native lenses are automatically corrected for distortion by the camera electronics, so this may flatten out the images and get rid of those imperfections we often find interesting about a lens. They also add additional sharpening beyond the manual control, which may add to the 'cheap' feeling.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely part of it and why I shoot with Voigts or other manual glass. But this is also what brought up my question: Even the sigma 18-35 has a distinctly "bigger" look than the voigts. As if the images have more detail and pop off screen better. They look "less small".

Are these scientific terms? Nope. So if someone knows what I am referring to and can explain the reason, that would be lovely.

The shots where I did this were in a kid's classroom and I frankly cannot share that footage, if I have time to shoot more back to backs I will as it would make this easier but I'm often writing these posts in downtime on a phone or before running to a shoot (as I am about to do now!). Then, many people already seem to know exactly what I am talking about, too, and there is plenty of footage online (though unfortunately non as specific as a GH5 Mivlus vs GH5 Voigtlander vs GH5 Sigma, I admit).
 
Okay, here's another quick comparison between the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art and Leica Nocticron. Before playing the video, cover the lower left corner of the screen with a book or something to hide the name of the lens used and see if you can tell which lens is used for each shot. :)

https://youtu.be/AQXqANfbrcE
 
If anything, I'd say Leica 42.5 has a slightly 'bigger' look to me, even though it comes from the family of 'small' m43 lenses (using filmguy's terminology). Sigma, while looking great as well, doesn't have that 3D look.
 
I've heard this argument for 30 years except the word M43 was "stills" and the "big lens" was "cine lens". Exclusively PL mount -like that had anything to do with the optical performance. Grandioso stand is certainly a big part of this industry and has been as long as I know it and probably longer...
 
Guys, we need some hard comparisons, or this thread will go nowhere.

I don't have to the tools to disassemble and run various lenses though a battery of tests
Click to expand...

Don't do that.

1. Just take a lens you like and a lens you find unimpressive (cheap, sterile, whatever).
2. They must be the same focal length
3. They must be set to the same f-stop (preferably f2.8-f8, not widest, because we can all agree that many lenses are inferior at their widest stops, no proof needed there).
4. They must be on the same camera, same ISO, same white balance, same grade.
5. They must be the exact same distance from the subject
6. They must be of the exact same subject, preferably at the same time, or moments apart
7. Don't post a video, just post two still shots, side by side.

Underneath the shots, describe the best you can what you see in one lens that you don't see in the other. Draw circles and arrows on the shots to point to exactly what you're describing. Maybe draw on a second pair of photos, so that we can gaze at a them untouched.

Don't point them at charts. Don't measure the resolution at the center and edges (unless you want to). Point them at a person, or people, because the human brain is optimized for looking at faces and seeing differences among them, better than, say, a fence.

You don't have to do any of this. But I am genuinely curious if you're seeing something I am not.
 
I've got big glass and I've got small glass, I've got good glass and not so good glass. I have got good small glass and not so good big glass and vice versa. This is the first time I have heard anyone say that a lens has a 'bigger' look. I must look out for this next time I'm shooting - whatever it is?
 
I like it combat. I'll bite.

That said I need a little time. I'm probably best equipped to do this as the thread starter and a GH5 with manual m43 voigtlanders, electronic m43 panasonic lumix + leica lenses, and a speedbooster with Canon, Zeiss, and Sigma lenses.

I'll get around to it, soon-ish / eventually! Promise!
 
I wouldn't be too surprised about the Zeiss Milvus primes standing out.
This is some of the best glass available today especially the 25 1.4, 35 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4 Milvus are really remarkable. They also haver a ton of Zeiss micro contrast that gives the images a very 3D like rendering.

filmguy123 said:
I like it combat. I'll bite.

That said I need a little time. I'm probably best equipped to do this as the thread starter and a GH5 with manual m43 voigtlanders, electronic m43 panasonic lumix + leica lenses, and a speedbooster with Canon, Zeiss, and Sigma lenses.

I'll get around to it, soon-ish / eventually! Promise!
Click to expand...
 
Shirozina said:
I've got big glass and I've got small glass, I've got good glass and not so good glass. I have got good small glass and not so good big glass and vice versa. This is the first time I have heard anyone say that a lens has a 'bigger' look. I must look out for this next time I'm shooting - whatever it is?
Click to expand...

Same here. And while I much prefer the Olympus 45mm f/1.2 Pro to the Leica Nocticron, I challenge anyone in a blind test to determine which lens uses in-body optical correction and which does not when shot on my GH5. And all of my Veydra mini primes cover an APS-C sensor, but I’ve never heard anyone say they look better than some of the PanLeica or Oly lenses just because the latter only cover an MFT image circle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top