FS7: Difference between 'good and fantastic' lens

P

Publimix

Veteran
Disclaimer: I am a FS7 user, not a professional cameraman. This question is for scientific and personal purpose only.

I have some lenses, old primes, 50mm zuiko 50mm 55 mm zuiko 1.2 a cheap new 14mm prime, an old 50-300 Nikkor zoom and the sony 18-105 zoom.
I believe all pro's who say cheap lenses never have the quality that expensive lenses provide. And now I'd like to see that with my own eyes.
Which 35 or 50 mm lens can I hire to see this difference on a 4K screen? Which (prime) lens is the one that will blow all cheap ones away?



thanks
 
The problem is that everyone's opinion of what LOOKS best will vary from person to person. Some people want warmer, or colder, or softer, or more sharper clinical looking lenses. Once you pass a certain threshold of quality, nobody is right and nobody is wrong. So if your criteria for choosing a lens is the "look" of the lens, you will need to decide for yourself.

But there are other standards that must be met for a lens to pass MY qualifications:

1) It must have a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8 . . . or f/4 if it is a long telephoto lens.
2) If it is a zoom lens, it must have a constant maximum aperture throughout the entire focal length range.
3) It must have smooth manual focusing with a large turning radius.
4) The focus ring must turn the standard direction for broadcast and cinema lenses (Nikon lenses are out)
4) I prefer that the lens not have any auto-focusing capability. It is almost always the case that if a lens has AF capability then manual focusing will suck.
5) I only want to invest in lenses that are very likely to hold their value.

If a lens meets these criteria, it may be a fantastic lens . . . for me.
 
Last edited:
Most " old soft " lenses looked great with Kodachrome 64 - which completely out resolves any non raw video camera and probably all raw ones.. Imo the lens is rarely the weak link
 
Doug: I understand and agree. I once had a Zuiko 90mm F2.0 macro lens that had all three quality's, (image quality, build quality, operating quality), that you named, and it kept its value. It still does I think.

But for this question I am targeting image quality only.

Ben: thanks.
I saw the local store has this lens in stock. And I can compare it with my very old zuiko 55mm 1.2 (first remove mold and dust).
 
Publimix said:
But for this question I am targeting image quality only.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand that, but if you read the first paragraph I wrote above I'm trying to say that "image quality" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Different people have different criteria.

But if you want a really good lens that won't break the bank, test drive one of the three Sony primes that originally shipped with the F3 kit. I kept mine when I sold my F3 and I love 'em. they are my default lenses on my FS7 and get used constantly. I'll put them up against my Cine Xenars in most situations. If I didn't own the Cine Xenars I'd invest in a set of the newer Sony prime lenses immediately. That's my opinion, but I'm sure others would disagree because they have different criteria.
 
Ben Scott said:
Otus 55mm f1.4
Click to expand...

Indeed, basically a Master Prime for a fraction of the price.

Of course, you need to decide between manual aperture with reverse focusing (Nikon mount) or electronic aperture with normal focusing (Canon mount). But the Nikon versions cine-modded with the Leitax Canon mount are on my wish list for sure.
 
Doug Jensen said:
The problem is that everyone's opinion of what LOOKS best will vary from person to person. Some people want warmer, or colder, or softer, or more sharper clinical looking lenses. Once you pass a certain threshold of quality, nobody is right and nobody is wrong. So if your criteria for choosing a lens is the "look" of the lens, you will need to decide for yourself.

But there are other standards that must be met for a lens to pass MY qualifications:

1) It must have a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8 . . . or f/4 if it is a long telephoto lens.
2) If it is a zoom lens, it must have a constant maximum aperture throughout the entire focal length range.
3) It must have smooth manual focusing with a large turning radius.
4) The focus ring must turn the standard direction for broadcast and cinema lenses (Nikon lenses are out)
4) I prefer that the lens not have any auto-focusing capability. It is almost always the case that if a lens has AF capability then manual focusing will suck.
5) I only want to invest in lenses that are very likely to hold their value.

If a lens meets these criteria, it may be a fantastic lens . . . for me.
Click to expand...

That's a great list Doug, and definitely what a lot of people feel would qualify a lens for use on a professional set. Lenses aren't just about image quality - after all, affordable still lenses can shoot 50 sharp megapixel stills. But it's about your ability to nail focus on a shot in which the subject and camera may both be moving. Sharpness of a lens doesn't matter if you can't keep your subject in focus.
 
If all things are equal the difference between a good cinema lens and a great one is depth rendering. The very best lenses Separate the subject from the background in an almost 3D like way. Cooke S4s are renowned for their depth rendering.
 
If we are talking photography lenses:

- Zeiss Milvus lenses, you feel the quality in your hands. The flares are nice and the image looks beautiful on the viewfinder/monitor. The
weather sealing is a good plus.

- Leica M lenses: They give you that creamy feeling and that special look. Some LOVE it...some don't.


****************

Cinema lenses:

- Cooke S4 looks "Fantastic" you can borrow a PL mount for your FS7 and try the lens at a rental house and see the difference. For instance how the lens acts while moving focus between foreground and background, how the lens deals when you flare it and so on.

- Zeiss Ultra Primes and the old Super Speeds I personally like them more than the more expensive Master Primes. Just my taste.


At the end of the day its all personal preferences and it would be nice to hear what are the favorite lenses for other members here as well
 
Optically, it's going to require test charts to see any significant differences between stills and motion glass. It's really not the optics that are significant, but the operation and mechanics of the lenses for allowing consistent and repeatable focus that matters IMO.

So if you want to test the differences between the lenses, you need to setup a test involving some complex focus pulls - that'll really show off the differences between the glass.
 
Actually I don't think that's true. Re Sharpness perhaps yes, but motion picture glass is usually better corrected for CA, especially Longitudinal green /magenta CA. That's what I've noticed anyway. Of course there are some less expensive MP primes like Zeiss CP's that are rehoused still lenses. There may also be other qualities by I have noticed the CA .
 
Lenilenapi said:
Actually I don't think that's true. Re Sharpness perhaps yes, but motion picture glass is usually better corrected for CA, especially Longitudinal green /magenta CA. That's what I've noticed anyway. Of course there are some less expensive MP primes like Zeiss CP's that are rehoused still lenses. There may also be other qualities by I have noticed the CA .
Click to expand...

With the highest-end Master Primes and Leicas, certainly. But CA handling on Zeiss Ultras or Cooke S4s is hardly mind blowing, and those lenses still cost a fortune. And as soon as you jump back a generation to Superspeeds, K35s etc. it gets worse much quicker.
 
The Newsshooter gang had a big pow-wow at the NAB - Bennett, Charters, Boyle, et al - and many thought that the modern cameras resolve too much, the top modern lenses lack any character and that it's best to match new cameras (since one has little choice there aside of film) with the vintage glass. Zeiss/Sony seemingly were targeting 8K in the near future, so they were going for a clinical purity but others thought that imperfection is what sets one look apart from another.

(That was beside the focus pulling, etc)
 
It is worth considering my opinion that sharp lenses can bring out problems with the FS7.. purple fringing on hard edges.

--

Also I feel that lens sharpness is not what will help you make films. Many of the attributes outlined by Doug will help you make films..

-smooth focus (I dont know any modern af lenses that dont 'claw' as you start a focus pull)
-zoom range and appropriateness
-size clearance et al..
some still lenses are so short they are difficult to hand focus without seeing your hand and hard to attach a FF unit
-set sizing, if you use a FF you want pretty (or ideally identical) sizing
-parfocality.. but forget that in stills lenses

For example use the tonka 10-24 which wins no points on paper..
but I have found it has a good range
and it is long enough to not see my mic unlike an 18 prime, for example, whose front element sits further back

I also use the non constant aperture 28-85 nikkor but with a 'booster it off a good mid range, manual iris and focus - another lens that gets null points on paper.

I would concentrate on lenses for film making not on lines per inch.

S
 
I agree with Nirv that depth rendering and how the transition from sharp to blurry looks is so important. Sharpness, distortion, vignetting, contrast, flaring, ghosting and all those other measurements are so subjective and can work in both directions depending on taste and what you are shooting. But no-one likes a lens where you cant see where the focus is supposed to be.
 
Reiterating the Otus as the benchmark for stills glass. Resolves almost as well as a master prime. Practically zero CA (better than MP) and more flare resistant coatings etc. Beautiful focusing, especially if integrated with Zeiss' focus gears. Micro contrast out of this world. I'm picking mine up in an hour so will shoot some tests at some point.


Looking pretty bloody good on 8k Weapon.



I've been a proponent of old glass on modern sensors for years and love what 'imperfect' can do for an image, in the same way that an imperfect musical instrument makes you fight it bit and get more out of it. Even though I've recently offloaded a bunch I still have a skeleton crew of Contax glass.

But sometimes you want precision and control over and above what an old lens can offer.

Roger Deakins was heavily involved in bringing the Master Primes to market and uses them all the time, and nobody has ever suggested his images were cold, sterile or too sharp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top