Examples of different types of lenses?

J

j1clark@ucsd.edu

Veteran
Is there a site, or set of sites, that have examples of different lenses, either 'official' cine linses, or better, comparisons between cine lenses and some of the still lenses that are currently being used on the HDDSLR's.

And... with good enough clarity on the examples that we can see the difference just from the lens, and not some additional post processing...
 
oh, good question. I've been wondering this as well.

People speak of the "cine look" that "can't" be obtained without cine lenses. I'd like to see side-by-side comparisons between cameras with cine glass and still glass to see just how different of a look they produce and then how to adjust still glass to look as close to cine glass as possible.
 
Thanks, however that's not quite what I would personally like to know. I'd like to know how to make still glass look like cine glass. Specifically, how do I reframe my shots and/or choose the still lens to mimic the same shots on cine glass.

I understand the FOV and crop factor aspects but matching these between cine and still glass produces a different looking result. I'd like to figure out the formula to get a similar result.

I was hoping at least somewhere that there would be a side-by-side comparison of pics/vid between lenses on the same camera.
 
The difference between stills glass and cine glass isn't in the look. It's in everything other than the look. It's in the construction and the mechanics and the size and the smoothness of operation.

In fact, the Zeiss Compact Primes are pretty much exactly stills glass (from the ZF line) but rebuilt as cine lenses. Only imaging difference between them is that they replaced the standard iris with a 14-blade iris. Well, that plus they're color-matched so that you can easily use any of the lenses and it'll deliver the same coloration and contrast as any of the other lenses in the set.

When you start spending the big bucks, that's when you start getting other aspects such as hyper-fast irises across the whole range, and ultra-fast ultra-wides. Look at the range of Master Primes and Ultra Primes as an example.
 
Although I do understand the mechanical/haptic differences between the lenses, I've read over and over about the different look of the lenses and how cine glass seems to put some kind of *look* on the picture. I assumed this was due to being designed differently than still glass, maybe fewer optics for lower light loss?

In response to the Zeiss lenses, are you sure it's not that the still glass isn't a copy of the cine glass and not the other way around? I've heard, because I cannot afford, that they just *look* different than other lenses when used as well. Of course this is hearsay from a photog friend of mine who has tried them compared to nikon stills.

So if still glass is the *same*, then why the big fuss over getting cameras modified and adapted for cine glass? Why aren't the little guys clamoring for still glass? It's not going to matter to me, I can't afford cine glass anyway and I don't do enough work(read: make enough money with it) to warrant investing into cine glass. I'm just looking for the poor-man's way to use my still glass in a way to give me better results. Trial and error has gotten me much closer than I used to be but something is missing.

Just for the record, I've secretly done the whole geeky *try to emulate a frame from a movie* thing. I've found out more by doing that in my spare time then I have reading books so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top