Cine-mod vs. Cine-lens

[combatentropy]

3 prime lenses is NOT enough to shoot anything

I again feel I must address this.

No, no real DP will tell you this. . . . Young guys who are still learning and thus understand little about real job of a DP (or master DPs talking to such guys) might tell you that but no, no real DP will.

Ironically it's the new guys who think they need every millimeter covered from 14 to 400, as Ken Rockwell reminisced. I myself was one of them. It was from reading about the masters that broke me of it.

As I look again at well-known movies, I see that they seldom strayed from a narrow focal range of 25 to 50 (35 to 75, in full-frame). A surprising number were shot with just one or two focal lengths. The late great Gordon Willis (The Godfather) loved 40mm so much that they called it the Gordy Forty. In fact they say that The Godfather was shot entirely with it. So was Chinatown (another DP). That movie's director, Roman Polanski, also used just one or two lenses. For example, The Pianist used a 27 and a 32, that's it! Orson Wells used 18mm for all of Touch of Evil and 30mm for all of The Magnificent Ambersons. These are not little-known films or films with no "language," as you speak of. Nor are they unusual examples. A more recent example is Dallas Buyers Club, which got several Academy Awards and was shot with only a 35 and 50 (multiply all these by about 1.5 for full-frame equivalents).

I posted that video by Kendy Ty to show what a wide variety of shots you can get with just one lens. His editing, mind you, might be disjointed, and that may be what's influencing you. But as for me, I was surprised it was all shot with one lens. It's hard for me to believe even rewatching it.

I'm not saying that no one should own more than three lenses or even that it's foolish to buy high-class glass. But if you're just starting out and shooting low-budget projects as sole operator (and there's nothing wrong with that) it just seems out of place to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on lenses. Like cpc said, there are better things to spend that money on.

 

[hscully]

I just shot a short and 95% was shot on a 25mm and a 35mm. It was because the director wanted some depth in the frame and wanted us "in the world." We tested and it was just the look she wanted. I used a 21 for an interior wide just to cover one shot then we had one really long shot with a Canon 70 - 200. I think we landed at around 135. That's just two shots. The rest was the 25 and the 35. So I think it's entirely possible to shoot a film with just 3 lenses. Then it's just a choice.. which 3

 

[yoclay]

I just shot a short and 95% was shot on a 25mm and a 35mm. It was because the director wanted some depth in the frame and wanted us "in the world." We tested and it was just the look she wanted. I used a 21 for an interior wide just to cover one shot then we had one really long shot with a Canon 70 - 200. I think we landed at around 135. That's just two shots. The rest was the 25 and the 35. So I think it's entirely possible to shoot a film with just 3 lenses. Then it's just a choice.. which 3

I own a set of CP.2's, but most of the time I use just one lens now.

My Cooke 20-100.

 

[cpc]

Isn't that like 5 kilos or sth? :/
(I have this pair of beautiful Angies 25-250 and 20-120, which I literally never use. These things are heavy.)

And while we are in confession mode, the last short I did was mostly 50mm with a little bit 80mm (3 angles) and a little bit 24-105 in the 30-40mm range (4 angles). On full frame Canon, incidentally.
I like to have extensive options for perspective control (read wide focal length range), and I have way too many lenses. But content will trumple this option any day, and for a solo operator too many lenses will probably be a hindrance. Also, I believe limited lens options CAN be liberating.

Also somewhat related, I used to carry a bag of lenses when traveling (for photos, not video). Nowadays I usually take only one prime lens (35-38mm FF eq, or up to 50mm when I feel adventurous), and only occasionally accompanied by a second lens. I am perfectly happy with the results (not that I shoot that many photos, mind you).

 

[starcentral]

I own a full set of fast Nikons, I'm building a set of CP.2's... and guarantee the 28-70 and 16-50 zooms will be on my camera 99% of the time.

 

[movieman1005]

Well, then its probably best to forget about expensive lenses and get some decent stills lenses.
If you are shooting alone, there are probably better ways to spend thousands of $$ than shelling out for CP2, Xenons, CN-E or whatever.

Would you be able to elaborate more as to why you think this?

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Would you be able to elaborate more as to why you think this?

I can't speak for the OP, but the benefits of cinema lenses are many, but many benefits are specific to the use within a traditional cinema production set. A one-man-band shooter is not that style of shooting and thus you are paying extra for some qualities not necessary.

For one, a one-man-band will be pulling his own focus. The elaborate effort put into some cinema lenses, such as cam-driven (non-helical) focus scale mapping along with precise/accurate witness marks on barrels that turn over 300*, is unnecessary. If operating and pulling focus, you will be focusing by eye. Even a 180* throw on a manual photo lens will likely do the trick for the operator and he won't be looking at all those beautifuly laid out and accurate witness marks.

Of the many benefits of cinema glass, some are luxury to a one man band shooter, while on bigger sets, where time is serious money, it's more practical and necessary. For instance, having each lens have matching front diameter and iris/focus ring placement. On a large set, this allows for lens changes to be much faster as accessories do not have to be readjusted everytime. Over a course of a day, we are talking about minutes of time, and on big productions, they might be spending hundreds per minute. On a small one-man-band, lower budget shoot, the incentive to shave time won't be as severe.



Glass is super important. Trust me, I will be the first to shout that from the roof tops.... but if you don't have good audio, production design or locations, the best lenses aren't going to save you. Perhaps that was the thought process.

Same goes for cameras too!

If you don't have good story, good locations, good acting, lighting, sound etc... your camera, no matter what kind, won't make it good.

An empty white apartment will still look like an empty white apartment... despite using a T2i, Alexa, Dragon or Go-Pro

 

[cpc]

Would you be able to elaborate more as to why you think this?

As always, Ryan has done a great job describing why cine glass can be an overkill for solo operators.
I will add that you can easily have the benefit of common fronts with a set of still lenses. A lot of sets of still lenses can be standardized over a single front diameter, either native or with step-up rings: Nikon AI at 52mm, Leica R at 55mm or 67mm, Contax at 55mm or 67mm, Canon at 77mm, etc.

And you can do a lot of things with a minimal package. With a set of still lenses you can skip the matte box and use screw filters, if you decide so (generally you can't do that with cine glass, because there is no front filter thread, or if there is one, it is very large). You may even be able to skip the follow focus and the rods support depending on what you shoot.

But it is hard to give specific suggestions on what to spend without specifics on what you are going to shoot. As a general thought, I believe audio is often more important than picture. Great audio can save mediocre image; the other way around - not so much. You can invest in a good rig, if you need one. And obviously everything Ryan mentioned applies: prod design, lighting & grip, acting, etc.

 

[Baddgsx]

more blades is better!!! and to me its a huge difference between stop-sign or round bokeh. if a cheap lens is wide open then the bokeh will be rounder than when stopped down to 5.6


at 5.6 the zeiss CP 14 blades will be still round

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

more blades is better!!! and to me its a huge difference between stop-sign or round bokeh. if a cheap lens is wide open then the bokeh will be rounder than when stopped down to 5.6


at 5.6 the zeiss CP 14 blades will be still round

Are you equating cheap lenses with polygonal apertures?

 

[Egg Born Son]

Round aperture is nice but I personally find odd-numbered polygonal pleasant too. For some reason not even-numbered polygonal though...

 

[movieman1005]

As always, Ryan has done a great job describing why cine glass can be an overkill for solo operators.
I will add that you can easily have the benefit of common fronts with a set of still lenses. A lot of sets of still lenses can be standardized over a single front diameter, either native or with step-up rings: Nikon AI at 52mm, Leica R at 55mm or 67mm, Contax at 55mm or 67mm, Canon at 77mm, etc.

And you can do a lot of things with a minimal package. With a set of still lenses you can skip the matte box and use screw filters, if you decide so (generally you can't do that with cine glass, because there is no front filter thread, or if there is one, it is very large). You may even be able to skip the follow focus and the rods support depending on what you shoot.

But it is hard to give specific suggestions on what to spend without specifics on what you are going to shoot. As a general thought, I believe audio is often more important than picture. Great audio can save mediocre image; the other way around - not so much. You can invest in a good rig, if you need one. And obviously everything Ryan mentioned applies: prod design, lighting & grip, acting, etc.

Yeah I've definitely heard the same thing you guys are saying; there are many factors to making a film good, and sound is one of the most important ones. I've actually picked up a good audio arsenal over the past year (shotgun mics, portable recorder, boom pole, etc.) so I've pretty much got that covered.

My intentions are to make short and independent films with my equipment. (fictional narrative)

 

[Baddgsx]

Are you equating cheap lenses with polygonal apertures?

YES , correct me if im wrong.

 

[cpc]

YES , correct me if im wrong.

A set of Leica Summicron-C cinema lenses is $100k+. They have 8 blades. So do the Cooke s4's. And some zooms in the $50k-100k price range.
And the Samyang "cine" lenses, which are around $2.5k the set. Incidentally, you can buy still lenses on ebay with 16 aperture blades for around $150-200 a piece.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

YES , correct me if im wrong.

A set of Leica Summicron-C cinema lenses is $100k+. They have 8 blades. So do the Cooke s4's. And some zooms in the $50k-100k price range.
And the Samyang "cine" lenses, which are around $2.5k the set. Incidentally, you can buy still lenses on ebay with 16 aperture blades for around $150-200 a piece.

Yup!

Aperture shape in bokeh is a technical and subjective aesthetic matter. Round does not necessarily equal better and outside of aesthetics, super-round does not seem to be the choice of top-end optical designers. Some lens manufacturers have taken it to the extreme, such as the 14 bladed CP.2's or 18 bladed Schneider Xenons. In my limited knowledge of how optics work, it has been a semi-misleading and subjective selling point of many lens manufacturers to boast round-bokeh as if it were better.

I don't know the physics behind lens apertures. I will assume both kinds offer pro's and con's and likely hinge on the specific optical design of the lens being designed. Maybe the round ones sacrifice something in order to deliver round bokeh at closed stops, while the others don't? Who knows. I'm currently investigating the science behind aperture shapes and why they vary and differ so much, as I have heard rumors about why certain apertures, like Cookes, are used. However I've yet to get this verified as truth, so I'll refrain from spreading information that may be false.

Blade design also varies, so we have yet another variable. Some blades are straight edged, some are curved and some, like cookes, have angular bends. So you could very well have a 6 bladed iris that is more round than an 8 bladed, and etc. But if we have been taught anything, it seems more blades in the aperture does not seem to always mean a better image. I would like to assume the folks who make Master Primes, Cookes, Summicrons and other lenses would have chosen these apertures designs in order to improve their performance, not hinder it.



Cooke MiniS4/i's: 8 bladed
Cooke S4/i's: 8 bladed
Cooke 5/i's: 7 bladed
Leica Summicron C's: 8 bladed (number varies actually by design, but this is the main number)
Master Primes: 9
Ultra Primes: 9
Super Speeds mk2/3: 7
Standard Speeds: 6
Red Pro Primes (can't recall, but it's like 7-8)


These are the professional sets of lenses I can think of that have under 10 blades. Most will have a rather polygonal shape when stopped down from wide open, while others not so much... again, depending on design. Bokeh qualities are not *just* deturmined by aperture blade count alone. Many factors including aperture blade shape are also to be taken into account.