FS7: Difference between 'good and fantastic' lens

[Nirv]

For example use the tonka 10-24 which wins no points on paper..

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

S

I have only ever noticed image artefacts like the purple fringing with modern lenses like the Nikkor 24-70 which aliases for fun on the FS7 so much so I only use it diffused down.

This very good Photo Blog explains why numbers are no measure of how 'good' a lens is. He has some excellent examples of the 3d pop in his gallery.

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop

I wholeheartedly agree with the writer's conclusions and find the character and flaws of the Nikkor 28-85 and 80-200 f4 (30 yrs ago these were Nikons best ever zoom lenses) to be more than compensated by the depth the image has along with the detailed yet organic feel to the image. It's the same story with the Nikkor AI-S Primes I own, they all add something to the image.

If you want corner to corner sharpness, low CA and low vignetting then that comes at a cost and the image becomes a very flat surface. The very best cinema glass is sharp, has low CA etc but also retains the 3D pop, this is the difference between merely good glass and great but it doesn't come cheap.

With such high performing camera gear and lenses available to all in sundry I think it's important to try and find a differentiator and lenses offer that first contact with the incoming light to define your 'house look' and look beyond the numbers.

 

[morgan_moore]

Ive not used the OTUS or whatever they are called, however in my opinion most modern AF glass, irrelevant ot CA, LPI, or whatever is just sh_it because of the claggy focus feel, the little break of friction between the focus wheel being stationary and starting to move just puts a bump into your shot.

So once one crosses that major flaw off.. you are stuck with old glass.. (or modern cine glass/tv zooms or manual glass of course)

i dont know what the new semi tv canon 18-80 is like

S

 

[Ben Scott]

With the possible exception of a Sigma 18-35 as a stopgap, I don't touch AF glass. I have the Otus in my hand right now - it's got an electronic Iris in ZE mount but is all manual focus - and the focus is exceptional. Clearly built with motion in mind. Next time you're up this way give me a shout and you can have a play with it.

But I appreciate for some people AF and IS is all they know and all they want. And they want AF and IS and clean 12800ISO. If they can create magic with that formula then good for them, but to me it sounds like a recipe for real horrorshow footge. I've seen great doc stuff shot on a 25-105L but it tends to be reportage style with missed focus and wobbly camera work. For shooting in a controlled environment and especially for narrative/promo/commercial stuff the mechanics are as important as the optics.

Apropos of nothing, I watched a video on here the other day of someone saying their Sony A6300 was better than an Alexa and people were agreeing with them. What do you say to that? Where do you even start?

 

[Doug Jensen]

But I appreciate for some people AF and IS is all they know and all they want.

You are correct.
I have a theory on this after talking to students at the variouls workshops I teach. 9 times out of 10 when I meet someone who says that can't focus manually and need AF -- it turns out their experience has been limited to AF lenses with AF turned off. And I have to agree that that is awful experience. But they wrongly assume that a full-manual focus lens would offer the same experience, but they don't know, because they've never experienced one. Once I give them the chance to operate a cinema lens or old SLR lens that has zero AF focusing ability, and teach them how to use peaking, they never want to go back to their other lenses. My rule of thumb: If a lens has an AF mode, it will be terrible for manual focusing. The only exception I've found is with a lens like the 28-135 or Sony's XDCAM EX lenses where you can pull the focus ring back to disengage the AF gearing. Those lenses do have decent MF but still not as good as a fully MF lens. Bottom line is that if you think you need AF -- you owe it to yourself to get a MF lens and wean yourself off that AF tit. AF is for stills, not for video.

 

[Ben Scott]

Thing is we are at the crossroads tech-wise of narrative and factual shooters alongside DSLR-only and Vloggers and youtubers and each sector having disposable income to spend. Whether you like it or not those are the people making the content that people now watch. A lot of youtube channels now have more views per show than flagship tv shows and they are reaping the financial rewards. And if they have a show or channel born out of the bedroom where autofocus ruled and they were/are a one-man band they will most likely want to continue that ethos as they expand. I can't really blame them but at the same time when I work alongside these people (very often) it's clear that while we ostensibly use the same kit we do very different jobs. They tend to have never had an ounce of training outside watching tuition videos online and their only goal is to CAPTURE ALL THE THINGS.

They don't have an interest in having a pleasing shot and it's hard to argue against their returns..

I'd much rather they learned the etiquette of not ruining other people's shots than they learned to use manual focus!

I'll be doing 6 days at Gamescom this year again in Germany with 10s of thousands of the little shits getting in the way...

 

[morgan_moore]

1993 Oxford University Varsity Hockey Match. Stills assignment.

SMM (The Cherwell Newspaper).. 300 2.8 manual nikon FM2
David Ashdown (The Independent Newspaper) 500 f4 AF Nikon F4

The next day I knew that AF was it on its way! And there was a reason David was Sports Photographer of the Year and I wasn't. (Actually he had major talent too of course!)

The same will happen with video/motion.. but probably not for a while.


S

 

[Clermond]

The same will happen with video/motion.. but probably not for a while.

It sounds a bit like "hopefully not for a while.."

It's already there. If you have ever shot with a Canon C Series M2 with focus tracking you will ask yourself why it took so long. I'd be jumping at it immediately. I even was thinking of switching to the C300M2 after the price drop but I am not willing to sacrifice 4K60p for the AF tracking.

 

[Ben Scott]

And how do you rack focus cleanly and organically between two elements with AF mid-shot?

There's a reason why not one single theatrically released film is shot with AF.

 

[morgan_moore]

Dont ask me.. Im not a technical developer.

Also clearly there is a big difference between pumping out docs/corporate solo and being on a movie set with a 20+ years puller and actors that have heard of marks

I see AF coming first to tele/sport/nature work..

S

 

[Clermond]

And how do you rack focus cleanly and organically between two elements with AF mid-shot?

There's a reason why not one single theatrically released film is shot with AF.

1st manual focus isn't banned from the camera for these shots

2nd like me thousands of "filmmakers" will probably never work on theater movies. But there is a huge market of motion pictures outside from theaters.
I see a lot of these "silverback" loosing this business because they stick on what they always did. I prefer any technical help which accelerates
my work. FCPX, AF are two of them. (and a small a6300 as B/C-cam too)

 

[dmitrizigany]

And how do you rack focus cleanly and organically between two elements with AF mid-shot?
There's a reason why not one single theatrically released film is shot with AF.

On the other hand 99% of video shot is not theatrical releases or even narrative stuff. So one could argue that that is special situation filming. So manual lenses will more and more be for the 1% while the rest is served well by auto focus lenses.

I love the face recognition feature with my FS700/A7S and Sony lenses. I tend to have the camera in manual focus and then hit 'push auto' when needed to tell the camera to do an auto focus with face recognition. Works really well in surprisingly many situations.

I can see a near future where lenses have smoother focus motors (the sony ones go in increments that are visible in slow motion) and when you can focus by telling the camera to "rack focus to face three". Or by dragging from one face to another on your iPad in the speed you want the focus to happen.

 

[Viddovation]

It's one thing to compare image quality between lenses in a controlled testing environment and come to the conclusion that relatively affordable still photography lenses compare admirably or even outshine expensive purpose built cinema glass.

We can say that we're only interested in image quality, but once you're in the field, your image quality is impacted by virtually every other element of how the lens was constructed. A short focus throw will make your image quality soft or jumpy because you can't find the focus. A click stop iris will make fine-tuning your exposure more challenging, particularly if you need to do so while recording. A lens that telescopes or has barrel rotation may impede a matte box, changing how you opt to frame a shot.

Arri UltraPrimes are excellent. I have a set. But, if you're looking for the absolute best bang for the buck in terms of optical quality and mechanical performance to price - look at Zeiss DigiPrimes. They're made at Master Prime level engineering and housing, and a set of 8 can be purchased for under $10k USD in the current market because no one is shooting 2/3" cinema. You can convert them to Super35 with the $5,000 HDx35 mkII B4/PL adapter, for a total cost of $15k to have a set of 8 superb primes. To be clear - at original retail these lenses were something like $25k each. Now - keep in mind, the lenses are T1.6 native, but through the adapter it's something closer to T3.5 wide open. But since we're talking Master Prime grade engineering, they're razor sharp wide open.

 

[Nirv]

On the other hand 99% of video shot is not theatrical releases or even narrative stuff. So one could argue that that is special situation filming. So manual lenses will more and more be for the 1% while the rest is served well by auto focus lenses.

I love the face recognition feature with my FS700/A7S and Sony lenses. I tend to have the camera in manual focus and then hit 'push auto' when needed to tell the camera to do an auto focus with face recognition. Works rather well in many situations.

I can see a near future where lenses have smoother focus motors (the sony ones go in increments that are visible in slow motion) and when you can focus by telling the camera to "focus on face one". Or by dragging from one face to another on your iPad in the speed you want the focus to happen.

I do agree that Auto focus will rule the day in the future. Machine vision and AI are two technologies that will combine to make AF more like a digital focus puller. It's not far off because the drone developers are making huge strides in computer vision for video recording applications especially with arbitrary shape tracking.

The problem for me will be that if Sony brings this technology to the party it will mean using their less than stellar E Mount lenses which will be constructed cheaply and have to rely on firmware to straighten out extreme distortion too. This thread is about the difference between merely good lenses and fantastic lenses and not many would rate any Sony lens as a great lens. Great lenses are going to be the manual end of the spectrum and there's always going to be the argument for using the best glass you can afford to get the best image possible. I cannot see Cooke producing an AF version of their lenses any day soon.

I use Nikkor 30+ year old AI-S manual lenses and they are an absolute dream to focus with, buttery smooth long throw focus on a push pull mechanism is just a great way to operate the lens. I do not shoot for theatrical release!

There's a new breed of shallow DoF hero that wants to shoot at F1.2 all the time that seems to rely upon AF to maintain critical focus but with a bit of gumption and selecting the right DoF for the scene manually focussing with a good manual focus lens gets perfectly decent results. Maybe I couldn't guarantee focus of an oncoming runner at F1.2 but I could do in F4 or F5.6 and no one would complain.

 

[Ben Scott]

On the other hand 99% of video shot is not theatrical releases or even narrative stuff. So one could argue that that is special situation filming. So manual lenses will more and more be for the 1% while the rest is served well by auto focus lenses.

I love the face recognition feature with my FS700/A7S and Sony lenses. I tend to have the camera in manual focus and then hit 'push auto' when needed to tell the camera to do an auto focus with face recognition. Works really well in surprisingly many situations.

I can see a near future where lenses have smoother focus motors (the sony ones go in increments that are visible in slow motion) and when you can focus by telling the camera to "rack focus to face three". Or by dragging from one face to another on your iPad in the speed you want the focus to happen.

Well. 99% of filming is camera phones. I thought we were having a conversation about what professionals do. You could argue that Super 35mm sensor cameras are the 1% of filming, or Film/Video cameras with interchangeable lenses are the 1% of filming.

I'm not interested in what amateurs are doing unless what they are doing improves what I am doing. I'm interested in control and smoothness of function and its effect on the image.

Foolcontrol for Red does what you're asking for there, and motors in lenses are improving in the low end market, but nothing can replace the organic nature of a human pulling focus in a shot. The choice whether to lead ahead of it, to slowly wander behind the subject, to follow and be tack sharp on the eyes or to move from eyes to hands to ears as the subject moves around the room on various focal planes. We are talking about craft and experience as well as technology. In shooting terms, there's not been a computer yet that knows what I want and can implement it faster than I can myself. I don't miss focus and I can anticipate action better than a camera.

As for the future, the best lenses out there are huge and unwieldy as a byproduct of physics as opposed to tech. That quality at that T stop with those characteristics = that size. The size of motors needed to move elements round in a top quality cine lens are pretty substantial. Look at what it takes to incorporate a motor on a Fuji Cabrio, which is a lightweight professional zoom

All that aside, there is plenty space for other types of shooters to use AF but having worked in all the fields and areas I have worked in over the years from Current Affairs to Docs, to lifestyle, to narrative, promo and commercials, as well as live broadcast and events stuff, I have never once needed or wanted AF.

 

[Viddovation]

Since we're now discussing tracking and auto-focus and controlled focus and how technology is evolving for those things - one thing I've been developing - and that I have a working prototype for - is a software setup that works in conjunction with a motor system (like Kessler Second Shooter), and pre-programmed coordinates of where the slide/pan/tilt are in relation to a real world focus target, and using this combined data to continually refocus many times a second to the exact distance between the points. With a little more revision, it will be possible to use a joystick or other interface to intentionally lead or drift in front or behind the target. The system also allows a zoom lens to maintain a constant field of view at a requested frame height for the distance. While the setup involved isn't sensible for every moviemaking scenario, it potentially saves significant amounts of time for controlled shots that need to dolly in or away from a close focus target. The consistent repeatability means a director can focus on directing talent and not worry that takes will be botched because the dolly grip and the AC were out of sync.

 

[Ben Scott]

Motion control of that type certainly has it place in production if it works. I can envisage all sorts of applications for it. But it's not a replacement for an AC. A Director should be Directing the scene, and a DP should be either watching or operating.

 

[Viddovation]

Motion control of that type certainly has it place in production if it works. I can envisage all sorts of applications for it. But it's not a replacement for an AC. A Director should be Directing the scene, and a DP should be either watching or operating.

Absolutely. Not a replacement for an AC in the slightest, although it does fill the focus/zoom/iris pulling role for the specific shot. And in fact, it essentially is something that requires an additional special tech to manage. The saving come from better consistency for the director. As I get some samples out in the world I'll definitely be sharing. Right now I've been developing with Kessler Second Shooter, but I'm hoping to move to Cinedrive for increased performance.

 

[Ben Scott]

I don't know if you're on Reduser at all, but you should speak to Björn Benckert who does exceptional work with motion control - his site is ://www.syndicate.se/syndicate-milo-motion-contr/

 

[Viddovation]

I don't know if you're on Reduser at all, but you should speak to Björn Benckert who does exceptional work with motion control - his site is ://www.syndicate.se/syndicate-milo-motion-contr/

Cool! I'm definitely in a different league. I'm trying to take the $2,500 to $25,000 off the shelf very simple moco options like what Kessler has, and use custom written software to tap into capabilities the hardware has but aren't implemented. I'd like to provide Moco that's accessible to indie productions.

 

[Ben Scott]

tbh it's probably worth posting over there in the off-topic section and he'll no doubt chime in. Would be a great person to give you some pointers. All the best with it.