If you could only have one prime lens, what would it be and why?

P

Phalynx

Active member
I am looking to purchase a prime here shortly. I am mostly looking at the Canon Cine and Zeiss CP.2 series due to cost. I am interested in what your opinions are. Let's keep it a little more simple than "money is no object". At some point, you will get to buy another, but it may be a year or so. So "invest" wisely. No, it can't be a zoom. For the moment, believe that you have chosen to go primes only route.

I am interested in brand, focal length, features, etc.

My pick right now would be the Canon Cine 35mm or 24mm because on a C100, it would be the most bang for the buck at $5k. The Zeiss to me look awesome, but I can get a lower aperture on the Canon for the same $$.

Your pick?
 
Fun game spending someone else's money…. in 2014 we can grade just about any glass to match just about any other glass in terms of colour rendition, so that becomes a bit of a red herring, and leaves CA, edge sharpness & falloff, flares, mechanical build, and stops as the points of discussion

for 5K? How much do you need to shoot WFO?

One lens? Not for me… i'd get a useful set of mod'd still glass and sell them on when i see the ROI on real cine glass, or save until I can buy a small set of RPP's or older Zeiss SS's


For 5K i'd look at these options before i would buy one cine lens alone;

Nikkor 24 / 35 / 50 / 85 / 135 / 180 with Duclos Cinemod + Rokinon cine 16 / 35 / 85 for when you need that last little bit of light on the sensor ;-)
-or-
Duclos Zf2 35 / 50 / 85 set
-or-
Or the three Nikon zooms; 17-35 / 24-70 / 80-200 + Duclos Cine Mod
 
Last edited:
My pick….. I have been doing this long enough to know that I wouldn't spend $5K on a single lens if that was all I had to shoot with. I would take the $5K and purchase a set of lesser priced lenses which would cover my shooting needs. Then I would re-invest a portion of the income I made using those lenses back into my business, whether on needed lenses or other gear which would help me turn a profit.
 
You can do a lot with a 35mm lens. So I would buy a 35mm Schneider Xenon. World's first and only true Full Frame cinema glass. Why spend 5k on a rehoused still lens?
 
Very fair answers. I am just blown away at the difference good cine glass makes on the image. The "return on investment" is a very valid argument. I have looked at the Rokinon before but the CA is of concern to me and it just isn't quite the same look as pure cine glass. At least, I haven't found a comparison that showed the Rokinons looking like pure cine glass. That part about it not being "unlimited money" is to bring out these points. I have considered buying a set of Rokinon primes and saving the money on the cine glass.. I have some nice still glass that does look great. There's just something about the quality of cine glass that makes skin look so much better, I can't put my finger on it.

Let's keep discussing these points. I need to be rational in my thinking as well....
 
Cooke Speed Panchro 35mm. Uncoated, vintage look, clean, famous Cooke look, just absolutely gorgeous glass. Some might wish for Master Primes, or other things. I'd take a set of Cookes above and beyond any other glass on earth.
 
Phalynx said:
Very fair answers. I am just blown away at the difference good cine glass makes on the image. The "return on investment" is a very valid argument. I have looked at the Rokinon before but the CA is of concern to me and it just isn't quite the same look as pure cine glass. At least, I haven't found a comparison that showed the Rokinons looking like pure cine glass. That part about it not being "unlimited money" is to bring out these points. I have considered buying a set of Rokinon primes and saving the money on the cine glass.. I have some nice still glass that does look great. There's just something about the quality of cine glass that makes skin look so much better, I can't put my finger on it.

Let's keep discussing these points. I need to be rational in my thinking as well....
Click to expand...

What you listed as "cine" glass is just rehoused stills glass with a little better lens coating. Optically and Mechanically they are the same as their still glass they came from. A canon "cine" prime is just a L series prime in a bigger housing, a CP.2 is just a Zeiss ZF lens in a bigger housing. Same glass, different housings. So you will have the same CA as a L series or ZF. If you want real cinema lenses, you need to look at Cooke, ARRI, Zeiss (NON CP.2), Schneider, Optimo, etc.
 
Joncarr said:
What you listed as "cine" glass is just rehoused stills glass with a little better lens coating. Optically and Mechanically they are the same as their still glass they came from. A canon "cine" prime is just a L series prime in a bigger housing, a CP.2 is just a Zeiss ZF lens in a bigger housing. Same glass, different housings. So you will have the same CA as a L series or ZF. If you want real cinema lenses, you need to look at Cooke, ARRI, Zeiss (NON CP.2), Schneider, Optimo, etc.
Click to expand...

I do not know absolutely if that is the case. I saw an A-B comparison of the Canon L series vs Canon Cine series on 50mm and it was very different. I will admit I don't know for sure. But I do know what I saw in that 1 case.
 
To be honest, I could post shots taken from both cine and good still glass, same focal length & same T-stop, and you would not be able to tell which was which. You would just be guessing.

I do feel that Cine glass has an advantage over still glass in certain situations in the mechanics department, but high end still glass is just as sharp as cine glass, and modern lens coatings are very good. As a matter of fact, the shorter focus throw of many still lenses can be advantageous in certain Run-N-Gun situations. I also have to wonder why you would limit yourself by saying "it can't be a zoom"? For example, The Alstar Lite re-housed version of the Sigma 18-35 zoom is very sharp, and at T1.9 just as fast as many good cine primes for only $2950. That leaves you $2050 for a matte box and filters, or what ever.

In the end, only you know what type of shoots you are doing and which focal length lens works best in that situation. To have someone from an internet forum pick your lens without knowing any more would be folly.
 
Last edited:
Spend alot of time in a grading suite like i do and i see favourites appear, Angenieux+Epic is one, Ultra Primes+Alexa is another, where the inverse glass/camera combo's do not seem to work as well straight out of the box

But at the end of the day it's only a few button twists to make either one match the other, the best post gear is that good now.

Light years from when the only control of contrast was the glass, lamps & art direction when working with a lab finish

When i left the grading suite to shoot a low-budget feature, i went with a pair of the Angenieux 28-70 t2.6 still lens from the 80's as my main lenses, just about every shot in this trailer (other than the stock footage and one shot from an NEX5/Sony 12mm) is from those
http://www.shorelineentertainment.com/movies/DrakulaXO.html

Definatly on the low contrast train, but the two i have are sharp… contrast is easly controlled in post

Should be able to find the 28-70 in the $1,500 range, and the matching 70-210 for about 1K, both built like a Angenieux should be, all metal construction
 
Last edited:
Phalynx said:
I do not know absolutely if that is the case. I saw an A-B comparison of the Canon L series vs Canon Cine series on 50mm and it was very different. I will admit I don't know for sure. But I do know what I saw in that 1 case.
Click to expand...
Same exact glass different coatings. They both breath the same, both go past infinity with witness marks, both can't be PL mount. (dulcos fixed that) Used both of them on set, not worth the extra costs.
 
Dermot said:
When i left the grading suite to shoot a low-budget feature, i went with a pair of the Angenieux 28-70 t2.6 still lens from the 80's as my main lenses
Click to expand...

You can also get the Tokina version for much cheaper. It's parfocal and the length stays constant just like the Angenieux. Here's a video comparing the two: http://vimeo.com/38152106 . In addition to the conclusions posted under the video, it looks like the Tokina has a bit of breathing.
 
Joncarr ain't just whistling "Dixie." The Schneider Xenon FF's just came out, cost no more than CP.2's, and seem better.

If it were my money, I would get a manual-focus Nikon or something like that for a couple hundred bucks. Although a good lens can be a good long-term investment, I wouldn't spend my last dime on one. If I had $50,000 lying around, yeah, I might buy a $5,000 lens.

And don't listen to those telling you to get a zoom. Fixed Lenses Take Better Pictures.

Roman Polanski and others often shot whole movies with just one or two focal lengths. Here are examples of how much variety you can get: https://vimeo.com/15489260 https://vimeo.com/61518487 https://vimeo.com/28454865
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
And don't listen to those telling you to get a zoom. Fixed Lenses Take Better Pictures.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should mention that to Don Burgess, Jonathan Sela, Clark Mathis, Peter Suschitzky, Declan Quinn, Harris Savides, Yorick Le Saux, Rodrigo Prieto, David Mullen, Ross Berryman, Emmanuel Lubezki, Barry Ackroyd, Sam McCurdy, Stephen GoldBlatt, Salvatore Totino, John Toll, Eric Edwards, Bruno Delbonnel, David Boyd, Eduardo Serra, Jim Denault, Thomas Kloss, Chris Menges, Stephen Windon, Brian Pearson, Dion Beebe, Alwin Kuchler, Bruno Delbonnel, Jeff Cronenweth, Florian Ballhaus, Eigil Bryld, Matthew Libatique, Dean Cundey, Adriano Goldman, Andrew Lesnie, Simon Duggan, Danny Cohen, Claudio Miranda, Bill Pope, Daniel Mindel, Conrad Hall, Guillermo Navarro, Dariusz Wolski, Roberto Schaefer, David Eggby, Oliver Wood, Tim Orr, Masanobu Takayanagi, Roger Deakins, Martin Ruhe, Andrew Dunn, Jim Denault, Ueli Steiger, Andrew Lasnie, Tom Stern, Matthew Clark, Elliot Davis, Ben Seresin, Janusz Kaminski, Don McAlpine. Just a short list of DPs who have shot feature films using zoom lenses. Select the correct lens for the job at hand. Sometimes a zoom lens is the appropriate choice.

All the Best!

Dave
 
One lens huh?

Well it would very much depend on what was being shot... but....

If on S35mm or very close I would use:

Vintage: Cooke Speed Panchro 40mm
Modern: Cooke S4 40mm OR 21mm
 
David W. Jones said:
Maybe you should mention that to Don Burgess, Jonathan Sela, Clark Mathis, Peter Suschitzky, Declan Quinn, Harris Savides, Yorick Le Saux, Rodrigo Prieto, David Mullen, Ross Berryman, Emmanuel Lubezki, Barry Ackroyd, Sam McCurdy, Stephen GoldBlatt, Salvatore Totino, John Toll, Eric Edwards, Bruno Delbonnel, David Boyd, Eduardo Serra, Jim Denault, Thomas Kloss, Chris Menges, Stephen Windon, Brian Pearson, Dion Beebe, Alwin Kuchler, Bruno Delbonnel, Jeff Cronenweth, Florian Ballhaus, Eigil Bryld, Matthew Libatique, Dean Cundey, Adriano Goldman, Andrew Lesnie, Simon Duggan, Danny Cohen, Claudio Miranda, Bill Pope, Daniel Mindel, Conrad Hall, Guillermo Navarro, Dariusz Wolski, Roberto Schaefer, David Eggby, Oliver Wood, Tim Orr, Masanobu Takayanagi, Roger Deakins, Martin Ruhe, Andrew Dunn, Jim Denault, Ueli Steiger, Andrew Lasnie, Tom Stern, Matthew Clark, Elliot Davis, Ben Seresin, Janusz Kaminski, Don McAlpine. Just a short list of DPs who have shot feature films using zoom lenses. Select the correct lens for the job at hand. Sometimes a zoom lens is the appropriate choice.

All the Best!

Dave
Click to expand...

Yeah, most features carry a set of primes and zooms. You'll see many many major film shot with either Zeiss or Cooke primes, with angie zooms to boot. Television productions shoot with zooms at higher frequency for obvious reasons.

Either way, primes do produce better* images; it's a matter of physics as long as we are discussing lenses of equal technological achievement. Obviously a brand new cine-zoom from today would be better optically than an ancient cinema lens from the earliest days of cinema. However, modern zooms and primes are so very advanced, it is no longer as large of a concern as it has been in the past. In the 1980's and earlier, zooms were rather noticeable in terms of quality to the top cine lenses. Today's zooms are of much higher quality and are being used more and more without hesitation.

Zooms have their advantages and disadvantages. This thread was asking about primes, so I'll stick to primes.

* better.... By better, I mean the typical qualities lens manufacturers strive for their lenses. Accurate and high level reproduction with as little distortion, aberrations, and other effects as possible. I understand better can sometimes mean vintage looking and etc.
 
Last edited:
If it is one lens, then I would buy the 35mm CN-E. That would fall within your budget and it is a lovely lens. Don't listen to people who say that it is a rehoused lens and how Canon has thrown an extra blade or two into it.

The Schneiders have the tons of chromatic aberrations. However, the owners and the dealers like that. If that is what you want to buy, then you can buy them used as owners who don't like for whatever reasons have started selling. Check the buy and sell in the sister site reduser.

Lenses retain their values over a period of time (provided you don't buy into the hype of certain lenses). Before spending 4-5k on a lens, I would strongly suggest that you either borrow or rent a lens and test it based on your subjects/normal shooting conditions.

As far as primes are concerned, I was watching a video of one DoP by the name Roger Deakins who loves shooting with primes. :) If I remember right, he said that with primes you won't be lazy and move front or back with your feet. If you use your ingenuity, then you can make the one good cine prime help make your work shine. Again, better to sit down quietly and visualise your shooting situations. You will have the answer. You are the best judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top