C500: Canon 35MM T1.5 Cinema Prime $5200 ETA Dec 2013: Texas Media Systems

[optitek]

For the difference in price between one of theses "EF Cine" lenses and their optically identical still counterpart one can buy a complete electronic lens control system with positive locking mount, pro focus controller and wireless receiver.
For the difference in price between a set of "EF Cine lenses " and their , optically identical still equivalent one can but EFF system and a car, or put down payment on a house.
Why would people buy these "EF Cine" lenses is beyond me...

 

[cowpunk52]

For the difference in price between one of theses "EF Cine" lenses and their optically identical still counterpart one can buy a complete electronic lens control system with positive locking mount, pro focus controller and wireless receiver.
For the difference in price between a set of "EF Cine lenses " and their , optically identical still equivalent one can but EFF system and a car, or put down payment on a house.
Why would people buy these "EF Cine" lenses is beyond me...

A few reasons:

1) They are optically superior to their L series counterparts and are not identical. Side by side tests easily show the difference.
2) They are designed for motion picture capture and mechanically are far superior for motion picture work compared to still photo lenses
3) Electronic components in still photo lenses will fail - it's not a matter of if, just a matter of when. Cinema lenses will have a longer life span.
4) They can be used just as easily on any cheap, "dumb" EF mount without electronic components that, again, will fail eventually

It's up to individual professionals to decide if these things are worth the premium or not.

 

[cowpunk52]

Are these $4500 better than the Samyang/Rokinon 35mm T1.5?

Yes. Especially when you're looking at creating a kit. Better mechanics, better build, better optics. The images theses lenses produce is just nicer than what the Rok's can do, but how much that is worth is always a personal decision.

 

[David W. Jones]

For the difference in price between one of theses "EF Cine" lenses and their optically identical still counterpart one can buy a complete electronic lens control system with positive locking mount, pro focus controller and wireless receiver.
For the difference in price between a set of "EF Cine lenses " and their , optically identical still equivalent one can but EFF system and a car, or put down payment on a house.
Why would people buy these "EF Cine" lenses is beyond me...

Hey, if you are going to push this crap every post, at least become a site sponsor. Otherwise knock it off please!!!

 

[indiawilds]

Lens will remain for a long time and retains its value. Rest all depreciate fast including cameras, electronic follow focus and all.

What is the point in investing tons of money in rigs when the lens mounted is a cheap piece of plastic? The lens along with the camera and operator matters a lot. Knock off one of those and replace by a cheap one and the result gets affected.

If someone is making money, has clients who can appreciate the output or are demanding the use of cine lenses, then how will you use cheaper lenses and still get the job? Do you think in this economy one would be keen to splurge tens of thousands of dollars in cine lenses just for nothing?

 

[optitek]

A few reasons:

1) They are optically superior to their L series counterparts and are not identical. Side by side tests easily show the difference.
2) They are designed for motion picture capture and mechanically are far superior for motion picture work compared to still photo lenses
3) Electronic components in still photo lenses will fail - it's not a matter of if, just a matter of when. Cinema lenses will have a longer life span.
4) They can be used just as easily on any cheap, "dumb" EF mount without electronic components that, again, will fail eventually

It's up to individual professionals to decide if these things are worth the premium or not.

Of course it is.
1.All the tests I've seen and conducted on my test equipment show negligible difference that could easily be attributed to copy to copy variation.
All online tests I've seen are a tossup.
2.Mechanicals mean very little with EFF- they are simply not used.
3.I have personally repaired more cine lenses than most people have or will see in their lifetimes. They fail just as well.
And mostly due to their cost they are never used in conditions that still lenses are used by photogs. And that includes maintenance (or ZERO maintenance in case of photogs) If still lenses failed so easily people would simply not buy them-or buy just the ones that last- such is prosumer/ main stream/ free market premise..
4. See#3
Here is your myth busting for the camera lens realm... :beer:

 

[optitek]

Lens will remain for a long time and retains its value. Rest all depreciate fast including cameras, electronic follow focus and all.

What is the point in investing tons of money in rigs when the lens mounted is a cheap piece of plastic? The lens along with the camera and operator matters a lot. Knock off one of those and replace by a cheap one and the result gets affected.

If someone is making money, has clients who can appreciate the output or are demanding the use of cine lenses, then how will you use cheaper lenses and still get the job? Do you think in this economy one would be keen to splurge tens of thousands of dollars in cine lenses just for nothing?

Good still lenses are not made out of plastic- they are magnesium or aluminum alloy castings- very high tech , very strong and very light weight. And they still cost 10-20% what their cine counter parts do.
As for performance.. well if you show me a >25-36mpix motion camera we will be getting closer to what still lenses can resolve. They do that just fine on still cameras.
the still lenses eat 8-9 mpix 4K (boohoo!!!) cameras for breakfast....:grin:
Not to mention a 2.2mpix 2K cameras
The biggest problem with still lenses is not their optical or even mechanical performance.
The biggest problem is the owners users that butcher and abuse them with wrong peripherals and procedures and than blame their incompetence on the gear -which can't defend itself obviously. These are the same types that buzz focus and exposure on super speeds and than say "oh if I only had master primes.... " I've met dozens of them during my rental house period...

 

[cowpunk52]

Of course it is.
1.All the tests I've seen and conducted on my test equipment show negligible difference that could easily be attributed to copy to copy variation.
All online tests I've seen are a tossup.
2.Mechanicals mean very little with EFF- they are simply not used.
3.I have personally repaired more cine lenses than most people have or will see in their lifetimes. They fail just as well.
And mostly due to their cost they are never used in conditions that still lenses are used by photogs. And that includes maintenance (or ZERO maintenance in case of photogs) If still lenses failed so easily people would simply not buy them-or buy just the ones that last- such is prosumer/ main stream/ free market premise..
4. See#3

Maybe in your tests they show negligible difference, and maybe that difference doesn't matter much to you. Online viewing certainly masks the difference much, much more. But I've never met a person who didn't prefer the look of the CN-E series over L series that has seem them side by side on set. I work a lot, and use a combination of CN-E's and EF L series. Every director or producer I've ever worked for has seen the difference without me even pointing it out.

Sure, cinema lenses may need repair at some point, but still lenses fail more often. This is just the way it is; the motors inside them just can't last as long as the mechanics in a fully manual lens.

Mechanicals mean little with EFF, they are not used? I have no idea what you're talking about. There are tons of moving pieces inside EF lenses, many more than are inside a manual only lens.

Cinema lenses aren't used by photographers because photographers they typically need and prefer auto focus.

"And that includes maintenance (or ZERO maintenance in case of photogs)" - I don't know what this line means.

I'm not saying that all still lenses fail easily. I'm saying that electronically controlled lenses will, on the whole, fail more often and sooner than fully manual lenses.

I know you want people to buy your adapter and that's probably why you're pushing electronic lenses over cinema lenses so hard. But for motion picture work, cinema lenses just offer greater performance and better quality. There's no way to get around that. Having the option to use electronic still photo lenses, though, is a very nice feature.

Here is your myth busting for the camera lens realm... :beer:

Ha ha - nice try, but no.

 

[optitek]

Maybe in your tests they show negligible difference, and maybe that difference doesn't matter much to you. Online viewing certainly masks the difference much, much more. But I've never met a person who didn't prefer the look of the CN-E series over L series that has seem them side by side on set. I work a lot, and use a combination of CN-E's and EF L series. Every director or producer I've ever worked for has seen the difference without me even pointing it out.

That just doesn't make sense:
How can they see a difference on a 2Mpix sensor or even 8 Mpix sensor if the lenses are made for 20+ Mpix sensors.
I know DPs that see faults in optical VF I can only see in projection but both these have infinite resolution only choked by the viewer.
Digital imaging is limited by the sensor- it's not the same.
I think we both know what this is all about... and that has nothing to do with facts...

 

[cowpunk52]

That just doesn't make sense:
How can they see a difference on a 2Mpix sensor or even 8 Mpix sensor if the lenses are made for 20+ Mpix sensors.

Ok, by this statement it's clear that we're not playing in the same ball field. If you can't see differences between lenses at HD resolution, then I can understand thinking that cheapest is best as far as IQ goes. But trust me when I say that you are in the vast minority that cannot distinguish optical characteristics at HD resolution, and I don't see much of a point of carrying on this conversation. I will say, though, that even if you can't see a difference in the images that lenses produce, that doesn't account for mechanical performance in a motion picture environment. Ever tried pulling focus on a Canon 85mm f1.2 L? Beautiful lens, horrible to use for motion picture work.

I think we both know what this is all about... and that has nothing to do with facts...

What this is about is you not knowing why people would buy cinema lenses vs a stills photo counterpart. I told you why. Clearly, you think still photo lenses are superior for motion picture work and visually identical, and you're entirely welcome to that opinion. However, I assert that most production professionals can see and prefer the difference in a quality cinema lens, and for those people that difference is often worth the price. Otherwise, why would they exist? If there were no difference, people wouldn't pay the premium to buy, rent, or use them.

 

[dustylense]

That just doesn't make sense:
How can they see a difference on a 2Mpix sensor or even 8 Mpix sensor if the lenses are made for 20+ Mpix sensors.
I know DPs that see faults in optical VF I can only see in projection but both these have infinite resolution only choked by the viewer.
Digital imaging is limited by the sensor- it's not the same.
I think we both know what this is all about... and that has nothing to do with facts...

You're insane. I rented the CN-E the other week and the difference is night and day. Easily detected by the number or iris blades in the lenses first. I have most of the finer EF glass in my kit and I would gladly exchange a few of them for a set of CN-E's if a majority of my work wasn't stills shooting. One of my most used lenses is the 17mm TS-E and I rented the CN-E 14mm. There was really no comparison when it came down to motion work and the mechanics of the lens. Then when you factor in the price of the CN-E's that only a few years ago would have cost +$10,000 each but today are $4500 or so you realize that the CN-E's are fantastic optics.

You talk about a set costing as much as a down payment of a house? Well, I see it that if you are shooting with a set of CN-E's that they are paying off the rest of the house month by month. By this I mean that if you own a full set that you are a working professional. Now if you have one or two of these lenses to shoot your families day at the zoo then you aren't worried about house down payments because you are a rich ass hobbyist.

Everytime I'm in the camera store I play with a CN-E and have to talk myself out of buying one of them. I'm in the camera store quite often. They are just so delicious to even hold. And I'm a lens hoarder!

 

[Policar]

That just doesn't make sense:
How can they see a difference on a 2Mpix sensor or even 8 Mpix sensor if the lenses are made for 20+ Mpix sensors.
I know DPs that see faults in optical VF I can only see in projection but both these have infinite resolution only choked by the viewer.
Digital imaging is limited by the sensor- it's not the same.
I think we both know what this is all about... and that has nothing to do with facts...

Are you serious? It's about sharpness, not resolution. The C-series cameras don't have 2MP sensors, they have >8MP sensors that resolve sharper 1080p than anything else out there, and 1080p that's really not too far from Bayer-derived 4k as regards sharpness.

Secondly, because something is at >0% mtf at 20MP doesn't mean it's at 100% mtf at 8MP. And the linear difference between 20MP and 8MP is what? A factor of 50%. Plenty of lenses fall around 0% MTF wide open on 20MP APS-C sensors, anyway. Optical differences between lens sharpness are hugely and immediately noticeable on C100 footage and that's JUST sharpness, not distortion, contrast, flare, bokeh, etc.

Thirdly, I rented the Dark Knight blu ray.... and there was a dramatic difference in sharpness between anamorphic 35mm and IMAX at 1080p. Just because your distribution medium doesn't capture all the resolution doesn't mean it can't capture enough SHARPNESS to make a difference.

Think of the area under the MTF curve of the system, NOT the point at which MTF equals 0!

 

[optitek]

Ok, by this statement it's clear that we're not playing in the same ball field. If you can't see differences between lenses at HD resolution, then I can understand thinking that cheapest is best as far as IQ goes. But trust me when I say that you are in the vast minority that cannot distinguish optical characteristics at HD resolution, and I don't see much of a point of carrying on this conversation. I will say, though, that even if you can't see a difference in the images that lenses produce, that doesn't account for mechanical performance in a motion picture environment. Ever tried pulling focus on a Canon 85mm f1.2 L? Beautiful lens, horrible to use for motion picture work.



What this is about is you not knowing why people would buy cinema lenses vs a stills photo counterpart. I told you why. Clearly, you think still photo lenses are superior for motion picture work and visually identical, and you're entirely welcome to that opinion. However, I assert that most production professionals can see and prefer the difference in a quality cinema lens, and for those people that difference is often worth the price. Otherwise, why would they exist? If there were no difference, people wouldn't pay the premium to buy, rent, or use them.

Yes I've tried to pull focus with the 85mm and it works great- that's actually the best lens to showcase the EFF potential-works like a dream.
Tell me- where do you see the difference between these lenses: resolution? MTF? I bet you they render the same numbers on the test equipment- and that's at 140 lppmm that translates into roughly 15Mpix or 5.5K image. How can you see that at 2K image? You clumped together 2.5 pix into 1?!!
mind boggling... And that's PRODUCERS that see that?!!! Bwahahahaha!!!

 

[optitek]

Are you serious? It's about sharpness, not resolution. The C-series cameras don't have 2MP sensors, they have >8MP sensors that resolve sharper 1080p than anything else out there, and 1080p that's really not too far from Bayer-derived 4k as regards sharpness.

Secondly, because something is at >0% mtf at 20MP doesn't mean it's at 100% mtf at 8MP. And the linear difference between 20MP and 8MP is what? A factor of 50%. Plenty of lenses fall around 0% MTF wide open on 20MP APS-C sensors, anyway. Optical differences between lens sharpness are hugely and immediately noticeable on C100 footage and that's JUST sharpness, not distortion, contrast, flare, bokeh, etc.

Thirdly, I rented the Dark Knight blu ray.... and there was a dramatic difference in sharpness between anamorphic 35mm and IMAX at 1080p. Just because your distribution medium doesn't capture all the resolution doesn't mean it can't capture enough SHARPNESS to make a difference.

Think of the area under the MTF curve of the system, NOT the point at which MTF equals 0!

Thank you!!! You are proving my point (I think) - although , I suspect, inadvertently.
With few small corrections:
0% MTF means NO image. It means that the luma difference between white and black colors is zero. You can't make out anything in the picture.
It's like trying to see HD detail in a SD image. It's just not there...
As far as I know the C300 delivers 2Mp image so that's all you'll ever see. Period. Binning, scaling, fusion, thermo nuclear reaction 2Mpix is all you ever see.
The rest of your post is a bit unclear- sorry

 

[optitek]

You're insane. I rented the CN-E the other week and the difference is night and day. Easily detected by the number or iris blades in the lenses first. I have most of the finer EF glass in my kit and I would gladly exchange a few of them for a set of CN-E's if a majority of my work wasn't stills shooting. One of my most used lenses is the 17mm TS-E and I rented the CN-E 14mm. There was really no comparison when it came down to motion work and the mechanics of the lens. Then when you factor in the price of the CN-E's that only a few years ago would have cost +$10,000 each but today are $4500 or so you realize that the CN-E's are fantastic optics.

You talk about a set costing as much as a down payment of a house? Well, I see it that if you are shooting with a set of CN-E's that they are paying off the rest of the house month by month. By this I mean that if you own a full set that you are a working professional. Now if you have one or two of these lenses to shoot your families day at the zoo then you aren't worried about house down payments because you are a rich ass hobbyist.

Everytime I'm in the camera store I play with a CN-E and have to talk myself out of buying one of them. I'm in the camera store quite often. They are just so delicious to even hold. And I'm a lens hoarder!

Do you have any frames that showcase the "day and night"? Just not with buzzed focus on the EF lenses which is usually the reason for complaints.
Can you really tell the difference between an octagon bokeh and 25% rounder one (11 blades) in an OUT OF FOCUS area while watching narrative?
If you do that just means that the director did a poor job in keeping the viewer's attention where it belongs- on the IN FOCUS action.
As for the mechanics - you are just using the wrong gear to control these lenses- that's all..
BTW I can think of a few things more delicious to hold than lenses

 

[cowpunk52]

Optitek, you're getting a bit obnoxious and obviously trolling at this point. But, I'll tell you where I see the biggest differences:

1) Bokeh on the CN-E's is much nicer than L series. The rounded 11-blade aperture makes a big difference, and gives a more three dimensional appearance to the image
2) The CN-E's exhibit far better contrast & more sharpness at wide open apertures vs their L-series counterparts (stopped down, sharpness is equal at HD resolution)
3) Color is rendered slightly more accurately and natural, especially in skin tone and with luma roll-off
4) The lenses in the the range match in color and contrast much more precisely

There's a lot of knowledge to be gained by using lenses consistently on set in real world environments that charts cannot reveal.

 

[optitek]

Please refrain from personal insults and labels- I do. There should be plenty of samples of that "far better contrast & more sharpness" whatever that means.. Can you point me to them? I won't comment on the "more dimensional appearance " because there are only two dimensions in it- factually.. But I understand the power of personal perception and suggestion...
I'm not trolling- just trying to separate facts from, well- fiction and hype although I realize we are in a "fiction" industry...

 

[AndreeOnline]

I find the discussion interesting. Here are two frames grabbed from my 1Dc in 4k mode. They are part of the frame, 100% crops:

SAMPLE A

SAMPLE B

I welcome your comments and thoughts!

EDIT: By the way... if you want to actually see them at 100%, then open the images in a new tab and click the magnifying glass to make sure you are at 100%. They get resized in the forum.

 

[cowpunk52]

I'm not trolling- just trying to separate facts from, well- fiction and hype although I realize we are in a "fiction" industry...

Look, you're the one who wanted to know why anyone would buy cinema lenses vs still photo lenses. I told you why. You obviously think I don't know what I'm talking about - perfectly fine. I don't think you know what you're talking about. We'll live in two different worlds, and I'll continue making my living as a person that uses this stuff for every day, and you can keep trying to sell your EF adapter.

 

[Policar]

Thank you!!! You are proving my point (I think) - although , I suspect, inadvertently.
With few small corrections:
0% MTF means NO image. It means that the luma difference between white and black colors is zero. You can't make out anything in the picture.
It's like trying to see HD detail in a SD image. It's just not there...
As far as I know the C300 delivers 2Mp image so that's all you'll ever see. Period. Binning, scaling, fusion, thermo nuclear reaction 2Mpix is all you ever see.
The rest of your post is a bit unclear- sorry

Unclear to you because you don't have a basic understanding of what you're attempting to talk about. Resolution and sharpness are very different things. What was your small correction of? Your misreading of my argument? I never wrote anything to imply otherwise about 0% mtf.

Most film scans from the past ten years have been in 2k. Are you tell me that the lenses used to shoot all these films don't matter, because there's no detail beyond 2k (2048X1080 for 1.85:1, btw), and so any lens would be good enough? I can't think of any lens that resolve 100% MTF at 2k (or 1080p) wide open. YES YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LENSES AT 2k/1080P!

Please stop talking out your ass, it's embarrassing for you and your company.