I can't tell the difference between primes and zooms and how primes are 'better'.

Well, I did specify which zooms I like to use and indeed they are cine zooms.

The Fujinon Premier is the series we both mentioned, and they do cost around $90K. The point is not that they will beat still primes, it's that they will match the performance of CINE primes. Apples to apples. And that is a very big deal, as zooms have always been considered secondary to primes in terms of optical performance. Still, consider that a set of Master Primes cost twice as much as that Fujinon zoom (but are two stops faster, however).

You are right that many users here will not be renting let alone buying cine zooms in their future. But there are still many here who do work with PL lenses and it's relevant to discuss. I get a little confused when I read posts that point out how expensive cine gear is and comparisons to luxury automobiles. The former are work tools that earn rental return and are tax-deductible investments. Luxury cars are playthings, not earners.

I happen to own the two Alura zooms (they share DNA with the Premiers as they are Fujinon-designed for Arri) which together cost me around $70K with accessories. I didn't buy them as playthings, I shoot for a living and I invest in gear as a business venture. After a year, they are half paid off which is right on schedule. In comparison, I have owned a single luxury car in my life, a pre-owned Audi A6. It was the worst investment I'd ever made; I decided to sell it a year later and it had depreciated like crazy. Took me 8 months to sell and I lost my shirt. I drive a Prius now...

For those who are doing this for fun or for art, yes, they will probably be using still lenses but the question of zoom vs primes still remains. In the DSLR era I bought a set of Zeiss ZE's and three Tokina zooms. The Tokinas were far less frustrating to use than the Canons since they had hard stops on the focus barrel and they color-matched the Zeiss lenses better, but they were an older optical design and were pretty soft. However, on many of the projects I shot in that period we simply did not have the time to work with primes and I had to live on the zooms far more than I would have liked. Focus racks were diabolical, between the lens breathing and the whole assembly shifting in the EF mount which creates a visible tweak in the frame.
 
Practically. I have a nikkor 35-70, 3.5 its excellent. hard stops long travel, macro at 70, cost $150, my nikkor 18prime cost $700, I wonder how they stack up to a cine zoom?

Philosophy. Where did the concept that 37.5mm is bad come from?

I mean if the camera is a character, then the location of the camera is part of the story and if that frames well at 28.2 then so what?

Far back the camera is a voyeur, closer the camera is an invited guest, closer still and the camera is a lover or a fighter.

Fill the frame with a tele, and you still get the perspective of the voyeur

It is lazy camera to have poor framing or swap thoughtlessly between guest, voyeur and lover, fighter unless there is motivation to do so.. zoom on I say

S
 
Last edited:
That sounds pretty good, and a zoom would save me time. Is there any 8-300mm zooms out there or close that produce a really sharp image? I know it's a big number but that would be my dreams lens.
 
Last edited:
ironpony said:
That sounds pretty good, and a zoom would save me time. Is there any 18-300mm zooms out there?
Click to expand...

If zooms are what you want, I'd recommend three ranges, depending on the camera you are using, the Wife and I use to use 17-35mm (full frame 35mm still...), 24-120mm, and a 70-200mm.

That way we had most bases covered. The 240-120 was sort of 'cheap' relatively speaking, but the 17-35mm was about $1500 new, and I don't recall how much the 70-300 was, but it was also bought new.

That way you are covered for almost any situation, but still may have to change lenses.
 
What camera are you shooting with, ironpony? (any way I can use your real name? I have to say, I don't like screenname forums for various reasons)
 
Canon T3i. Some of my collaborators have others that we use, but that's the main one. I'd prefer if we use m screenname if that's okay.
 
I used to rent lenses depending on the job. But have since stopped doing so unless it's something special that will be included into the production budget and billed back to the client. Things in my market have changed drastically over the last 3 years, and local clients just don't want to deal with the added expense, extra insurance, and shipping involved with renting nice lenses. So what I have done is put together a low end lens solution to cover most of my shooting situations.
A: a set of Zeiss Contax mount primes from 18mm - 300mm with Mutar doubler.
B: PL mount production set, Duclos 11-16mm, Cooke 20-100mm.
C: inexpensive still zoom set, 11-16mm, 16-50mm, 70-200mm.
I find I can shoot in pretty much any scenario with this combo. I also have an old set of Cooke Speed Panchros that I'm trying to complete with missing lenses, but eventually would like to find a set rehoused with PL mounts.
 
CharlesPapert said:
.... and I have not shot a project in years that I can remember where we would have been able to accomodate lens changes.
Click to expand...

Good lord, how long does it take to change a lens?

My AC changes glass in under 2 minutes including filters.
I do some pretty quick work, but I never had the idea, that changing lenses is slowing me really down.

Did I miss something here?
 
May sound silly, but that time really adds up when you are shooting a TV series with a limited budget.
For example... if you were to average 5 min per lens change 24 times during a 10 hour day, you are looking at 10 hours of lens change per week of shooting. Try explaining that you need to budget an extra 130 hours of time into the production costs because you want to shoot on primes instead of zooms. That's 13 days of lens changes!
 
Absolutely. Everything adds up. I think one needs to be a detail obsessive.

Last shoot I did - one scene - one location - I did the opening dolly reveal with the 18, a master with my 14 and the rest of the day was on my 35-70

S
 
Postmaster said:
Good lord, how long does it take to change a lens?

My AC changes glass in under 2 minutes including filters.
I do some pretty quick work, but I never had the idea, that changing lenses is slowing me really down.

Did I miss something here?
Click to expand...


It's kind of silly, I agree.

I am an AC and a DP, and I've been on some bigger sets. Lighting tweaks, blocking, makeup touches, etc... changing a lens is FAST. If you hire 2nd AC's, a fast lens change can take 30 seconds or less. When you call for a lens, the 2nd AC should be standing close to the lens box, they grab it, carry it over where the 1st is already holding the previous lens with one hand and covering the port cover with the other. You do the handoff, put the lens back on and done. Swing the mattebox shut, and since you're using cinema lenses, (same sized front, similar length) they require little adjustment after the change, and there you go. Faster than makeup can likely do re-touches, or a director can finish giving notes.

The only time I think zooms are essential are with some music videos or shoots where reframing during the shot is needed, where the cameraman and director watch something like a performance, and they can just snap in and grab CU's then come back out. Smash and grab shooting. Works for interviews, and other applications too. A great way, and really only reason to utilize a zoom other than using the zoom in a shot.

I see the convenience of zooms, but I shutter when people dismiss primes because they take too long to change. They take too long because the producers probably hired just one AC, a random assortment of photography lenses of all different sizes, and a DSLR so buried in zacuto accessories you have to get an excavation team to the lens. Of course a lens change will take awhile!
 
Last edited:
Well add a 2nd AC at $350 a day and that adds up to $22,750 to a 13 week production. If you are running two cameras on the series that's an extra $45,500 added to the budget of your low budget TV series.
 
.. before you feed insure, accommodate, move, manage, administer him(/her)

but good crew can cut time and pay for themselves..

S
 
Last edited:
Postmaster said:
Good lord, how long does it take to change a lens?

My AC changes glass in under 2 minutes including filters.
I do some pretty quick work, but I never had the idea, that changing lenses is slowing me really down.

Did I miss something here?
Click to expand...

Changes glass in under 2 minutes, while punching in on the zoom takes about 3 seconds. Sure, we're not talking about much here, but if you can afford an optimo 12:1, you're giving so much time to the AC's to do other stuff. You almost gain a guy who would be busy with lens changes all day.

So maybe the thing to think about is not how long it takes while he's doing that lens change, but the other things he could be doing instead.

Then again, good zooms are expensive and like Ryan said they aren't absolutely necessary unless you're shooting something thats either a music video where you'd like to reframe during the shot, or you're shooting some sort of reality show. Or maybe the feature you're on just dictates a zoom instead of primes. I usually opt from primes, not for a creative reason, but just because they're cheaper.
 
And those who advocate zooms for convineince, often forget about other tradeoffs.

I was just on a shoot with two optimo DP's. Great small zoom lenses, but guess what? I still had to change lenses! Sure it saved some lens changes, but 16-42 wasn't an all solution zoom lens, neither was the 30-80. Frequently we'd do a wide around 18/25mm and the tight around 50/75. Required a lens change EVERY TIME, when done that way. Only saved lens changes when we could get away with a 30mm wide.

Sure, there are all purpose lenses out there, lenses that cover 90% of what DP's typically want in a lens range, like the Optimo 24-290 (12:1), Cooke 18-100, Optimo 17-80, Alura 18-80 and others. But if you want to talk about saving time on set, these zooms can work against you. First of all, they are not as handheld or steadicam friendly as primes. It can be done, but it's not that fun. Also, I'd like to say, from experience, that unless you are wheeling around on a peewee or fisher all day long, These one-purpose zoom lenses can also slow you down between setups. Have you ever man-handled an Arri Alexa with an Optimo 24-290 (12:1)? It requires extra long rods/dovetail, 6x6 MB, and etc... ALL DAY LONG? Phew! If you don't have a dolly, moving these cameras around (typically on top of a set of Ronfords and an O'Con 2060) is a workout/nightmare. By the end of the day, the 1st AC will want to soak in a hottub, and lord knows there better be a 2nd AC on that job. (throwing back to whomever was discussing NOT spending the extra money on a 2nd!)

Anyone from the film days can relate, except now the weight is mainly from the lens! Not the loaded 1000' mag on a panaflex!

Anyhow, the point is, that sometimes the super 'convenient' zoom lens can save time on changing focal length but it's much easier to move an Alexa with a 2.2-2.6lb Zeiss Ultra Prime!

The lightest lens from the typical all purpose cinema zooms listed above weighs as much as 4x Ultra Primes.... Maybe the new Fuji 19-90 T/2.9 lens at 5.6lbs, will alleviate this old paradigm (cine lenses with big range = big size/weight), but I have a feeling there will be some optical sacrifices to make this happen considering the Alura 18-80 was made by Fujinon not very long ago, and it weights 10lbs+.

Who knows.

If you want cinema zooms that get close to matching the performance of cinema primes and gives you a range to save from lens changes, you start messing with some beastie lenses.
I'm not against zooms at all! I'm just playing devils advocate.
 
Last edited:
Zoom Break.

Coming back to cheap cams/lenses that is why I dont like the 17-55 lense because my typical sequence is..

18, 35, 70, 35, 70, 35

Here we see the 17-55 saves one lens change. Could have been prime

whereas

18, and 35-70 need one change for that sequence(and mainly a re-light at that point too!) and the 18 and 35-70 combo are far higher quality than a 17-55

I understand 18-85 18-100 etc but I dont get those 14-40 35-xx combos, maybe good with two cams?

BTW I think the fuiji compromise is 19 not 18 - makes a big difference

S
 
morgan_moore said:
.. before you feed insure, accommodate, move, manage, administer him(/her)

but good crew can cut time and pay for themselves..

S
Click to expand...

That's the point, isn't it? :)

One electrician can set up all the lights... but four do it faster. A 1st AC can do all the jobs of a 2nd... setting up camera, moving cases, lens changes, filter changes, cleaning gear, arranging pickups and drop offs, dropping marks during blocking, camera reports, slating, moving sticks, changing mags, running mags to DIT, etc. But the 1st AC will take much longer doing it, become fatigued, irritated and will probably quit to take a lower paying job that has a 2nd AC.

:P
 
Last edited:
Addressing the suggestion of zooms only being necessary on shows where you have to reframe, like music videos or reality/doc, as well as the "how big a difference can two minutes make"? question:

By and large, the economics of this industry have been on a steady downward squeeze that got accelerated in the dual whammies of the writer's strike and the housing crash. Budgets have been stripped to the point where every minute becomes accountable (no exaggeration). In the past year I've done several shows (by this I mean, legit features and episodic television) where there is no allowance for overtime so there is a specific length day indicated, i.e. 12 hours. If we go over one day, we have to make it up by going short on another day. A feature I did this summer had mandated 10 hour days, which was insane. I had to drive the crew every day to work their asses off to bring in several days under 8 hours so we could "bank" for more difficult days. Created some morale issues, as they were not happy (rightly so) about working like maniacs to make less money. On the pilot I just finished, we shot 38 pages with four musical numbers in 4 days, ranging between 40-55 setups a day, with a 12 hr cutoff, with solid production values...

In this "every minute counts" landscape, every decision I make when assembling the camera package has to be about speed first, creativity second, unless production signs off on the reverse, which is a battle that has to be won (and you have to pick your battles). Lens changes are only one of the factors in saving time; there's also the notion that the blocking changes after a camera move is built, and you need to tweak focal length to maintain the original shot design. Combining setups into the shortest possible shot list is a mandate and if we can clean up the wide shot that is only needed for the head of the scene with a medium wide that plays best for a later section by doing a repo zoom at the appropriate moment within a take, we've won. And a savvy director will "steal" a closeup by keeping the camera rolling, calling for a snap-in and running an additional take or two in the tighter size. Not to mention that many shows now use zooms as a look (think action film, procedural series, doc-style comedy a la The Office or Modern Family).

Agreed that a 12-1 Optimo on sticks is a beast. It's part of the reason I went with the Aluras. However I do spec a dolly for nearly every job--on all but the lowest budget webby type things, I can make a compelling argument that I can get the camera from here to there much faster even for shots that don't require movement (those who have leveled Mitchell sticks before know what I'm talking about).

But the bottom line is that the equipment has to fit the job. If, say, you are shooting with an F3 or C300, you only have one AC, you will need to rig the camera in various ways (the difference in weight will allow for smaller/lighter support gear), you don't have a dolly etc., it may make more sense to stick with primes.
 
40-55 set ups a day! That very impressive. That is no budget, hand held music video territory. I take it you were on a stage?
 
David G. Smith said:
40-55 set ups a day! That very impressive. That is no budget, hand held music video territory. I take it you were on a stage?
Click to expand...

Nope...location. Two cameras most of the time; studio mode, Steadicam, handheld. Included several night exteriors and mini-moves, too.

Sadly, those kind of stats are no longer surprising to me. Personal record was on a web series earlier this year where we averaged 83 setups a day. That one was 105 pages (plus alts and improv) in 8 days. It was indecent.



On jobs like these, if I'm not thinking (and passing out lighting notes) at least three setups ahead at all times, we go down in flames. No room for error--no sleep until Brooklyn. *sigh*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top