Do You Own Cine Glass?

Joshua Milligan

Joshua Milligan

Well-known member
For a long time I've been one to own photo glass and rent cine glass as I have always felt photography glass was the most versatile (lightweight, AF, lens IS, good for photography, etc.) and the least biased, so to me owning stills lenses made the most sense. From there, I rented cine glass when needed. The big benefit of renting cine glass vs owning cine glass was that I could select the cine primes or zooms that had the look I wanted for a particular project, but without ever feeling like I'm "stuck" to one look all the time since I don't own the glass.

Recently DZOFilm released their new full frame Catta 35-80 & 70-135mm T2.9 lenses which can be bought in a kit with a case and accessories for a respectable $5,899. After watching some videos shot on these lenses, I'm really impressed, especially considering how lightweight and affordable they are. They also look really nice aesthetically and are parfocal, geared, have minimal breathing and come with a 240° focus rotation. Here's a link to the kit in Sony E-mount: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._70_135mm.html

This two lens kit is very interesting to me and has me wondering if owning a couple cine lenses might make sense for an owner-op. For reference on the cameras I work with, I shoot with an FX6, A1 and A7SIII.

How many of you own cine glass vs photo glass? What was your rationale? I thought this would make for an interesting conversation.
 
Last edited:
I dont own cine glass.

Proper cine lens sets (read $50k plus) need to be making an income like an investment in stocks and shares - either you need to be charging rental 200 days per year or they need to be sitting in a rental house that is.
Its not a bad plan (the latter) but I dont have $50g for stocks or glass!
Having them rotting at home the 300 days per year you dont shoot is for rich kiddies only.

So cheap stuff 'cine glass'

Im your dierector. First shot of the first day.. the master wide (shooting fullframe) "24mm should do us."

"Oh you cant do a master wide with your new 'set' of lenses?"

So where is your wide, what is it, which case is it in? Oh you got a fancy case but only 2/3 of the lenses is there.. 1st a/c is baffled.

Same at the long end but less so. 180 is handy on ff and macro 100.

Once you break into having a canon fd covering your 24.. you lose 80% of cinelens goodness .. which is less dicking with your focus motor on a lens change.

And zooms are great for live/actuality. starting at 35 not at all, useless - the only zooms that pay are 24-105 or .. well there isnt really any other option on ff.

So these little 'cine' zooms, doubtless wonderful, are basically useless. you need a set starting a 20 or 24 ff.

Personally you have some cameras that auto focus.. you must have a set of af lenses as the defaut you know 16-35 24-70 70-200

You have and then have paid for them ?

Great spend money on your kids, or stocks and shares or a holiday.

Or.. if you must get some MF going on.. get contax of canon fd, in full frame its getting good (no longer that hunt for the matching S35 happy 16 or 18). prime 24,50,85.. the lenses I had when I was a kid allow you to shoot actual whole scenes. You should be good for $2000 probably $500

And you get f2, or 1.2 and can actually make images that will have the cient wetting thier pants.

Hell get two sets.. because if you want to cross shoot you need both cameras on the 50 or 85. Nothing sucks more than 24 and 85 at once.. ask any boom operator.

Real men have two sets.
 
Last edited:
I don’t shoot wider than 35mm all that often. It’s not my taste. Plus, I own wide lenses already, so that’s a moot point.
 
Doesn't seem like a great range on either zoom. But if you don't shoot wider than 35 then hey why not.

I don't own cine glass. But I think the reasons to buy are the same as anything else -- that jt will make you more money either indirectly by improving your product or directly via rentals.

I doubt you'll get premium rental fees off these, but then again they're not very expensive.. Eric Coughlin of blessed memory (he recently got banned from dvxuser for a year) said that buying a set of arri ultra primes raised his profile and made him a lot of money. But those are highly-esteemed lenses and he waa well-positioned at the start of the pandemic to take over shoots in Georgia where he lives that would have gone to dps from nyc/la. So, those clients know ultra primes. And I don't think he even rents them out all the time, but owning them lends him credibility

So, do you want the capabilities? Focus pulling and breathing on photo lenses sucks, as do zoom mechanics. How often are these a problem for you? Would you use these zooms often enough to justify purchase? I try to imagine if I already owned a lens then which lens would I reach for in a given situation, that new lens or a lens I already own. That's how I realized I don't need the gm 135 but will definitely buy a gm 85 1.2 when they release it
 
I don’t shoot wider than 35mm all that often. It’s not my taste. Plus, I own wide lenses already, so that’s a moot point.

I gave you a reasonable perspective based on the business of being some form of DP or professional film maker working as part of typical crews.

A perspective based on both lo budget productions with crappy half sets of lenses spread over two cameras and the most recent production I was on had $200g of cook full frame anamorphic.

If you shoot only through bottle tops. Fine
If you only shoot 35mm. Fine.
If you only shoot F11. Fine.

All of these things may make a signature that leads to success.

If your mind is made up. Fine.

But why then canvas for opinion?
 
I often talk with people about buying (rareley investing - a marketeers word IMO) new kit

And move across two things..

1) the kit you have .. do you want to stamp on it.

2) the kit you have does it look any good .. at sun set in hawaii .. with a couple of beatuties doing something interesting.

If 1 is not true and 2 is true then kit is probably not the answer.
 
morgan_moore said:
[.
But why then canvas for opinion?
Click to expand...

Josh already has every type of prime and zoom in photo form. I think the question is just cine vs photo

Personally I'm not crazy about these focal length ranges. I feel like for doc shooting you typically want to go at least as wide as 24 and at least as long as 105 or maybe 70 if you're staying close range. Or for studio shooting you don't necessarily need wider than 35 but want at least as long as 150.

These seems more just like a matched set of interview lenses for wide/medium and CU
 
What means stamp on it?

JUmp up and down on it, grind it to dust, smash it over the head of the designer and sales person, then drop it in the sea.

You know like tackling a portugese midday shoot with an fs100 with no built in nd.

Like missing shot because your fs7 turned off the cache record.

like tripping over the hdmi sticking out of the side of your dslr

like not being able to read your tilta follow focus screen unless under a black hood

like the movi software update introducing horizon roll and no way to switch it off

like the $2 joystick breaking on your $1000 smallhd

like off of these things happening in fron of clients.
 
Last edited:
All of this being said... if I could buy a 50-85 1.2 or a 35-85 1.2 or 1.4... my God. Probably never exist. But I wouldn't buy it for zooming, just quick reframing
 
Plus, I own wide lenses already, so that’s a moot point.

Not really - you want cine lenses to get whatever might want.. fast flips without moving your focus motors, lack of breathing, smooth iris ramps,whatever.

Then you have all that stuff.. but not on your wide. Makes no sence to me .. or I promise most 1 a/c
 
doc shooting you typically want to go at least as wide as 24 and at least as long as 105

as I said.


Or for studio shooting you don't necessarily need wider than 35 but want at least as long as 150.

I dont get 'what you need' - I get delivering what the client wants.
 
morgan_moore said:
Or for studio shooting you don't necessarily need wider than 35 but want at least as long as 150.

I dont get 'what you need' - I get delivering what the client wants.
Click to expand...

what client wants = what you need. I don't think they typically need 24mm FF for studio shooting. I could be wrong but I don't think so

anyway, considering the spending spree that Josh has been on of late, I wager that the tax man is the real problem. but hey why not get the dzo's and then someday sell and get a superior FF zoom. the $14k angenieux is a 45-135mm FF lens with swappable rear lens group (to convert from 30-90 S35): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1292121-REG/angenieux_ez_1_pack_ez_1_30_90mm_cinema_lens.html
 
For sure a 24 is not coming up much in the studio. And if you run a studio then maybe you dont need a wide, but why deal in half sets unless there is lcear logic.

Start a post.. "i specialise in macro jewelery and am thinking of getting xyx" - its different from expressing an interest in 'cine' glass - cine is mainly drama (or the drama of short adverts for dog food or finanacial planning)

Ive not follwoed the spending spree.

Even that angie is a waste of time alone.

You need the set.. angie understand that, and make the perfect setup for two camera shoots !..

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...m_eng_kit.html

mmm.. look at those matching ring positions, the equalised throw and doubtless loads more goodness. Id say those lenses are worth a chat.
 
yeah cool lenses. only 10x the cost of the dzos :)

studio I meant more like news anchors, talking heads

cine glass isn't mainly drama per se. it's focus breathing, focus pulling, smooth zooms, durability

now, if you simply want to pull off smooth zooms with a decent zoom range then i think the longer angenieux works as it's 3x zoom ratio as opposed to the 2x of the dzos (or perhaps either angenieux, but starting from a 22.5mm is definitely a statement)
 
its pointless having a car with no wheels.

maybe the angie pair actually do a job of work maybe the dzo's dont. so any savings are pointless.

the money is always in the wide be that af lenses , cine zooms or a puddle of used mf nikkors (mine most cost $100, while the wide cost $1000)**

I think my local news starts with a dolly in on a 24 ff equiv. It introduces the scene like 90% of visual story telling.

of course I get what cine glass is.. and is not just for fictional drama. its also for adverts for dog food and financial services that tend to be shot with the 'look' of cinema ('original' story board by 'cool agency'..T2, oof background, m18 with 1/4 straw poking through the window, ethinically diverse family in a house they could not afford, 1/4 blur filter, flare)

**I just checked, those 18f4 are still costy. (the f4 has 180 focus throw, unlike the 3.5)
https://www.graysofwestminster.co.u...nual-focus-nikkor-lenses.php#str-ContentStart
 
Last edited:
Good lord people. First off, I never said I was buying these lenses or any cine lenses for that matter. I’ve got some great GM primes and zooms that I love. I literally was just saying that these were interesting looking lenses at a decent price that had me thinking in general how it might make sense for people, any people, to own cine glass today. I then proceeded to ask who of you owns cine glass vs photo glass and ended by saying I thought it would make for an interesting conversation. That’s literally all I wanted to do, chat with some guys online for fun about who owns cine glass vs photos glass. So please, let’s just have a fun conversation about what lenses you own. That’s literally all I was trying to do.

Second off, ahalpert, I have not been “on a spending spree”. Recently I finally upgraded from my 5 year old Phantom 4 Pro to a Mavic 3 Cine which is something I’ve been waiting on for several years and I’ve sold some old kit to give me some cash to buy some new prime lenses, but that’s it. How is that a spending spree?

Lastly, I really only post in dvxuser because I work alone for most of my video work and like to chat with guys on here about video since I don’t get to do that much anywhere else. So if I’m creating a thread about who owns cine glass just to strike up a conversation, hop on and enjoy talking shop with me. But leave it at that; a fun conversation about something we all enjoy, in this case who owns cine glass.
 
Last edited:
Ok well, as per Joshua's request, I will hop on down from my lofty perch and share my lens collection with you guys. I'm being a little facetious on the lofty, (mostly for morgan_moore's benefit), I'm just a working slob DP who is fortunate enough to be shooting episodic TV and commercials, and I opt to own equipment which makes up upwards of 40% on my income. To be honest I'd be happier not owning any of the standard goods at this point, I do have a fair amount of specialty gear and mods that I've designed to fill in the cracks which I have some attachment to. The rest of it is simply a moneymaker. And here's my dirty secret (bucking the current wave): I don't really care much about lenses other than they do the job I need them to do, which is to be physically efficient on set (which knocks out a good amount of vintage lenses) and deliver a good image. When a job calls for it, we'll rent different lenses. More often than not, they don't.

My workhorse is the Cabrio 19-90, which covers probably 90% at least of everything I shoot. I've also go the Cabrio 85-300 for when we need to go longer.

I have the Alura 15-45 and 30-80, along with the 45-250 studio zoom. Of these the 15-45 comes out the most when we need the wider end of a zoom. I'd sell the 30-80 in a heartbeat and probably the 45-250 at this point (and buy a second 19-90), but they aren't showing much value any more in the used market and it's better just to have them. I feel that S35 will continue to exist along with FF so I'm not considering these obselete just yet. The 45-250 is a great range to have on B camera but it's a lengthy rebuild between these and the lightweight zooms so it is a bit of a liability in that regard.

I own a 9 lens set of Sigma Cine primes, from 14-135. Of these, the most used are the range between 20-40 when I need to throw the focus shallower to differentiate from the zooms. I have used the 85 only a few times and the 135 I'm not sure has ever come out of the case so I'm probably going to sell it at some point.

I have an A7III that I mostly use for still shooting and the very odd cine job (as an additional camera on stunts etc) and have the PL adaptor for that, but for running around I have the Sony 28-70 and 70-200 and the Sigma art 24 (my "poor man's Leica"--I do like the look of shallow wide angle). Back in the heyday of DSLR's I had a bunch of EF lenses for my Canons, including Zeiss primes and Tokina zooms, which were all manual or manual-adjacent (the Tokinas had a funky clutch to switch modes). I never responded well to the still lens drive-by-wire modality for shooting motion. By using my Preston FIZ on these lenses the issue of short barrel throw for focus was eliminated, so they were as close to cine lens functionality as they could be.
 
Joshua Milligan said:
Good lord people.
Click to expand...

I thought we WERE having a fun conversation, Josh. :) At least I was having fun. Plus I always love trying to decipher Sam's colorful lingo. I didn't mean to offend you about a spending spree, I just thought you were on a run of upgrades, some of which make me very jealous like that new bird of yours. I agree with Sam and, it seems, Charles that the tool you buy needs to be purpose-fit so the question is what you'll be doing with it
 
ahalpert said:
I thought we WERE having a fun conversation, Josh. :) At least I was having fun. Plus I always love trying to decipher Sam's colorful lingo. I didn't mean to offend you about a spending spree, I just thought you were on a run of upgrades, some of which make me very jealous like that new bird of yours. I agree with Sam and, it seems, Charles that the tool you buy needs to be purpose-fit so the question is what you'll be doing with it
Click to expand...

Oh ok, sorry man. I misread you then. Sam did seem like he thought I was a nut job or something haha. I just wanted to chat about who owned cine lenses, so comments about wasteful purchases directed toward me didn’t make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top