Expensive Lenses and Video... Do They REALLY matter?

I have all 7 of the original CP's, 18/21/25/28/35/50/85, and in the ZF's I've got 18/25/35/50/85/100.

How do these manual lenses work with your in camera light meter, or do you have to use an external meter and a visual monitor to get your exposure?
 
How do these manual lenses work with your in camera light meter, or do you have to use an external meter and a visual monitor to get your exposure?

They work exactly like you'd expect -- on the GH2, as you adjust the iris, the over/under meter moves and the histogram changes, live with the change. On the AF100, the waveform and zebras and the iris meter update as you move the iris. It's effortless. Of course, the iris on the CP's is just exquisite, infinitely variable and with super-slick motion. The ZF's are un-Duclos'd, so they have clunky half-stop increments.
 
I always keep Barry's original DSLR 1080p (or lack thereof) chart test thread top of mind when considering glass for my 7D. In this test he showed that the 5D and/or 7D don't even resolve to 1080P (2 MP), so a lens that can resolve 24 MP is slight overkill. Sure enough, my old 70's era Nikon-s lens, especially when wide open at f1.4 for maximum softness, tends to look best! It even has a slight glow effect (no fungus!), so I love it sometimes for close-up video of people or beauty shots.

Sure, there are other factors to consider, but most of those can be fixed in post. That's why an 18-135 kit lens for instance, is a fine lens for video and if you're talented, you won't be much ahead by shooting with a fancy prime. The only time when fast primes look better is when they're wide open, and you have a very shallow depth of field, which is more of an aesthetic choice. Instead of buying fancy glass, you'd be better off instead with a follow focus or something that can really make the difference in a shot.
 
Back
Top