Glass - Worth it?

KyleProhaska

KyleProhaska

Veteran
I own a bunch of old Nikon glass that I could use on this feature I have coming up. I've used them many times and they're very sharp, most of them are fast, and overall they perform well. Some purple fringing can happen but that doesn't bother me too much.

My question is, on this feature, I have the option of Canon L Series glass. I know logically the glass is better, but my eye has a hard time seeing it.

My nikons:
28mm F2.8
50mm F1.4
55mm Macro F2.8
85mm F2
200mm F4

If I was going for some Canon glass, I already own the 24-105 F4 IS, and I would add to it the 70-200 F2.8 IS and maybe the 24-70 F2.8 no IS for the speed but not sure it's necessary.

How beneficial do you think the Canon glass will be? Image stabilization is one thing to consider but the film for the most part doesn't require shots where IS would help much. Do you think it's really that worth it for me to invest in them and not use my Nikons.

Can anybody shed light on the real benefits of glass like this over what I currently own? It's really hard for me to see the difference when I playback my footage. I can see one minor benefit with the zooms being composing a little faster and moving quickly because I don't have to swap out primes constantly.

C300 is likely a 2012 purchase so that's another reason the Canon glass might be worth investing in and using on this film.

Thoughts?
 
My thoughts... Using different brand lenses my give you a different look, but is that look better than the look of the other lenses, or just different? It's all subjective. Hey, I'm a lens whore, but I don't know that investing in Canon glass is going to give your next feature any real edge over using Nikon glass.
 
I shoot on old Pentax glass and could shoot on L if I wanted (I have a set I can borrow), but I don't. A LOT of people shoot on L glass. I'd rather look "different".
 
Talking to a friend, it's possible that my Nikons are part of the reason I haven't liked the look of my AF100 footage as much. I love warmer tones which my Canon 5D and my old Canon XHA1 always gave. I know Canon chips tend to be redder to begin with but almost all my AF100 footage has been more magenta and cooler even when I set the white balance properly. Pushing towards the oranges/yellows in post always gives me something pleasing...but I think my Nikons are giving it that purple tinge.

I know I get purple fringing with the Nikons sometimes so they definitely affect my color. I wish the adapters to put Canon glass on the AF100 weren't so expensive...or else I could try it out.
 
I'm like you in that logically you'd think you'd see a difference. I know I did when I rented the 85 f1.2. but that was due to shooting it wide open at a stage. It was pristine. I own older pro Nikon glass and use it extensively. I finally bought an L lens ( the 135 f2), but it hasn't gotten much use. and it may not in video, only because I think my older Nikon stuff is that good. While I'm at it though I will plug a lens I really like and that is my voigtlander 40mm f/2. It is sharp and in a good range FOV wise.
 
Kyle.... give strong consideraton to Canon FD S.S.C. lenses. I had a 9 lens set I sold. Biggest mistake ever.

So warm. Probbaly why I like cookes so much.
 
I sold my FD set as well including the 24/1.4 ... biggest drawback was it was really hard to go fast wide and not a great match with the tokina.
Nikon AI's matched better with the tokina
 
KyleProhaska said:
Talking to a friend, it's possible that my Nikons are part of the reason I haven't liked the look of my AF100 footage as much. I love warmer tones which my Canon 5D and my old Canon XHA1 always gave.
Click to expand...

Does this really matter when you color correct? I color correct and color grade everything... if I want it warmer, I just make it warmer. Done. Who cares what subtle coloring tint the lens adds when I can change it?

I ask because I haven't gotten my AF100 yet, it's in the mail. But I have a Minolta adaptor coming and a bunch of old Minolta lens from the 70s that were great glass at the time and in good shape. From my dad. I'm wondering, is it even worth investing in new glass if these lenses take in plenty of light and are sharp? Don't color tones and contrast all end up getting changed in post anyway (at least for a computer heavy workflow like I have)? Is there any advantage to upgrading to all new glass anyway?
 
It matters cause your starting point will inevitably yield better results when its "almost" there.
 
I think his point is that if the footage you shoot has great skin tones and the colors achieve the ultimate look you're after, you don't have to grade it at all. If I'm incorrect I apologize.

It's a different school of thought from the "shoot raw and make it look how you want in post" and I think its harder to manage unless you can shoot ALL of your footage in all conditions with the same level of control. It seems easier to shoot raw and make everything look consistent later. It also doesn't bode well if you decide that the look you thought you wanted at the start has now changed when you get to post production.

I prefer the raw/flat approach since I believe I have more options using that route. Baking in a look is too final for me.
 
When you light and set exposure on the shot you should use a profile similar to your final look. Check white balance against it, etc... Then you switch to Cine before you roll. Then a base S curve will get you close and you tweak from there.
 
TimurCivan said:
It matters cause your starting point will inevitably yield better results when its "almost" there.
Click to expand...

We are talking about very subtle differences in color, and I´m with filmguy, is it really such a big deal if most guys shoot "flat as possible" or S-Log and than grade to taste anyway?

I doubt it.

Frank
 
Yeah, and I want to clarify as well that my point isn't to debate with any old-schoolers or purists if it's better to shoot for look or grade in post. I already know I'm "young blood" and a computer nerd that will always shoot flat to grade. I always grade. No. Matter. What.

So my question is, simply: is there anything ELSE that one may be missing or desiring in an upgrade from say, very good vintage glass (i.e. minoltas from the 70s) to modern glass? Subtle differences in sharpness and color (matters of preference) - is that pretty much it?
 
Postmaster said:
We are talking about very subtle differences in color, and I´m with filmguy, is it really such a big deal if most guys shoot "flat as possible" or S-Log and than grade to taste anyway?

I doubt it.

Frank
Click to expand...

As I see it, one of the big benefits of digital is the 'late binding' that one can do to the look... in the olden days one could either 1) do bleach by pass... permanent and one had to live with results, for
better or worse, or 2) do some sort of interneg processing, which was expensive, and may not yield the desired results anyway...

There are a few things that if one wants the effect, one has to do it during shooting... the iris 'pattern', 'dof'(for certain types of setups...), color aberrations specific to the lens and visible light sources.

For me I want lenses to be as sharp as possible for a given 'digital' camera. As for coloration... I want it to be as 'neutral' as possible... but if I had to choose... 'cool' over 'warm'. (But then most of my stills stuff was Black and White, and I tended to 'cool' B&W papers, rather than the silly 'warm portrait' papers... If I wanted 'warm', I'd tone... If I wanted 'mush'... I'd put a crinkled cellophane cigarette wrapper in front of the
enlarger lens... or nose grease...)
 
filmguy123 said:
Yeah, and I want to clarify as well that my point isn't to debate with any old-schoolers or purists if it's better to shoot for look or grade in post. I already know I'm "young blood" and a computer nerd that will always shoot flat to grade. I always grade. No. Matter. What.

So my question is, simply: is there anything ELSE that one may be missing or desiring in an upgrade from say, very good vintage glass (i.e. minoltas from the 70s) to modern glass? Subtle differences in sharpness and color (matters of preference) - is that pretty much it?
Click to expand...

Well if you grade everything no matter what you're gonna want the most neutral lenses you can get. You will have a great time with modern lenses. They tend to impart little to the image. This way you can make the choices yourself.... however there are certain things you can't recreate, flares that react to light and movement, certain highlight roll off charachteristics, color reactions in the glass, etc.

Though with some of the new software....amazing things can happen.
 
If you're grading the film yourself, who cares if your lenses don't match...

...Unless you are aware that that is time added in the post pipeline to match the wide to the two-shot to the close-up. Even though every shot will be graded, the same LUT can't be applied to each clip without some tweaking.

One of the (many, many, many) reasons why sets of cine lenses are so incredibly expensive is that they are truly "matched." In a controlled environment, the color reproduction from the 16mm to the 25mm to the 35mm Master Primes will be identical, as well as contrast, etc., at the same T-stop. This is important because matching images in post costs time and money. Grading sessions at a famous post-house here in Dallas are $1,200/hour base.

It's funny to me that matching every shot in a scene in a feature film is not as imperative as it is in broadcast commercials, since commercials only have about 15-30 seconds on air, yet can cost as much as an indie feature, so everything better look "perfect" to the client.

Again, though, if you know how each of your lenses behaves, and you're not doing a commercial spot with a 24-hour turnaround, then it doesn't really matter if they match in-camera. I know, for example, my Nikon 28mm is very contrasty compared to my other lenses, and my 50mm is very flat compared to the others. My 85mm is a tad warmer, and my 35mm is almost a "neutral" - thus my favorite :)

Like Timur said, there are idiosyncratic effects from lenses that you can't get in post, unless you are willing to spend the time and money. Even cameras can add funny properties to the shot as light passes through the lens - the gate flare from the Epic is the strangest thing I've ever seen, but it's kind of elegant and beautiful if used right, too. Definitely not something you can achieve in post consistently, if you were to flag it off on set.
 
Some of it will depend on the camera and recording format.

With cameras that record in a highly compressed format, use 4:2:0, only 8-bit color, etc., the camera is making assumptions about the footage in order to determine what information to throw away. The closer you can get while shooting to what you intend to have in the end, the less likely you are to have thrown away the data that is needed to get a clean grade later on.

On the other hand, with cameras like the REDs, or which use a higher bit rate for output, there is more room to adjust things later without losing overall quality, so you can afford to be further off with the colors and still end up with good results after grading it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top