Importance of Lens selection more than camera selection ?

X

xhridhar

Active member
Nowadays, when I see videos or movies, it seems to me that selection of lens is as equally important if not more than the selection of the camera.

It seems to me that equally lovely images can come out of the top range of cameras when top cine lens are used but when the quality of lens varies, the image quality deteriorates significantly.

Am I right in this perception? Is it possible to use lens such as sony cine primes or much cheaper ones such as rokinon shooting RAW with Alexa / epic and match the look of ultra primes shooting RAW with Alexa / epic?

I saw recently a video from a top cinematographer who claimed that canon C500 produced better images than Alexa through a test. As far I could see the images from both looked excellent but was wondering what the impact of a cheaper lens would be ?
 
xhridhar said:
Nowadays, when I see videos or movies, it seems to me that selection of lens is as equally important if not more than the selection of the camera.

It seems to me that equally lovely images can come out of the top range of cameras when top cine lens are used but when the quality of lens varies, the image quality deteriorates significantly.

Am I right in this perception? Is it possible to use lens such as sony cine primes or much cheaper ones such as rokinon shooting RAW with Alexa / epic and match the look of ultra primes shooting RAW with Alexa / epic?

I saw recently a video from a top cinematographer who claimed that canon C500 produced better images than Alexa through a test. As far I could see the images from both looked excellent but was wondering what the impact of a cheaper lens would be ?
Click to expand...


Cine-Lenses are very important to a film, yet only half of the importance you see in the image. Yes, the top-shelf cinema lenses are of optical excellence, and have qualities that make them better for cinema use, however, the other half of the cine-lens advantage benefits the actual production. They serve as a tool which allows the camera assistant to work faster and with less errors. They also allow the cinematographer to use them confidently with increased success. This saves time and time on a big set is lots of money! (Not to mention saving time in post too!)

Big movies, although difficult and stressful, are also a product of increasing return for a cinematographer. What I mean by this, is perhaps a slightly false idea of why bigger films look better. Of course the better optics and bigger tools, such as technocranes, increase production value and image quality, but I would argue the vast reasoning behind superior looking images from big films would be the talent pool and experience. For instance, an amateur can look at his first $50,000 indie feature and then look at a Cohen Brothers film, and say, "well I used Nikon photography lenses and they used Master Primes... that must be why my image looks worse." Simply not true. Yes, the MP's are better lenses for cinema work, by huge leaps and bounds, however, the Cohen Brothers had Roger Deakin's who is experienced, surrounded by top notch crew, has decent resources/tools/budget at his service, and more. Although being a top notch cinematographer is never easy, it is easier in some regards versus those starting out with horrible (if any) set design, no-budget, cheap/ horrible locations and plagued with slow and inexperienced crew.

At the level of a big DP, your production design, locations, gaffer, lighting package, etc.... are all larger in scale and the people are experienced and talented. So I would argue that although Cine-lenses are the way to go, you can't just look at a Roger Deakin's film and say "Ah, it looks beautiful because he is using Cooke S4's or Master Primes". Truth of the matter is, he's a highly experienced and naturally talented bloke with a team of equally experienced and talented crew behind him. Look at the film "The Assassination of Jesse James" which he shot as well. He used vintage (and at times, even purposefully misaligned/damaged) lenses mixed with beautiful cinema lenses (Cooke S4's) to get a certain look for many shots.... and it worked great. Arguably one of his best shot films ever. Point is, he made the right decision, which wasn't to use the optically 'best' lenses.

Someone once said, I believe it was Freddie Francis, BSC, "There are three types of photography: good photography, bad photography, and the right photography. The right photography is what tells the story best."

The same goes for camera choice. Some people want filmic. Some want clean. Some want noise. Some want video. It all depends on what tells the story best.

What I suppose this rant is about, would be to once again prop up the idea that it is the man/woman behind the camera more than anything else. It's also about making the right decisions to tell the story the best way visually. The selection of lens set is very important, but it's not quite as important as the creative decisions cinematographers make every shot in deciding which exact lens to use and where to set the camera. I'd rather watch a bunch of crappy photography lenses used in conjunction with brilliant and effective composition, than a set of beautiful Cooke's slapped on a camera with no thought put into the composition to serve the story.

As a cinematographer, you must first master the art of successful storytelling with lighting and composition. Once you do that, the nice lenses will follow. It's not the other way around.

So for the next project you find yourself on, simply get the best set of lenses production can afford that contribute to your desired look. If you can find these optical qualities in a cine-lens set and you can afford those, by all means get those lenses as they will help your AC's do their jobs successfully and that will save time and money in both production and post.

At the end of the day, the script, actors, locations, production design and lighting are far more important to me than lenses. And if anyone here knows me in real life, they know how much I love lenses and must know that I must really mean the above!
 
Last edited:
Lenses, just like framing, camera moves, lighting, staging and many, many other factors show - as Ryan pointed out - your sensibility as maker. There really is not right or wrong answer. There IS wrong answer to your or me. If Ryan was asked to recommend a DP his choices would be vastly different than mine because we all come from a tremendous variety of circumstances. We differ in our upbringing or interest, hobbies, fascinations, thus what we care about truly in life differs. That influences what the final recommendation would be. Who would be right or wrong? Again, nobody. Depending on a WAST number of circumstances you could presume that one's opinion would matter over another but in reality it wouldn't. The fact that there is no right or wrong answer doesn't give you immunity not to come up with such answers though. YOU have to find what makes sense to YOU at particular time. That's why it's so vital, probably more vital than ever before, to find right people for the job.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
At the end of the day, the script, actors, locations, production design and lighting are far more important to me than lenses. And if anyone here knows me in real life, they know how much I love lenses and must know that I must really mean the above!
Click to expand...

I share that view 100%

If it seems I obsess about things like lenses and cameras a lot more than about all the other stuff, it is not because they are more important, it is because it is me who has to obsess over those. But it only works because somebody else is obsessing about all the really important stuff.
Also, it's much easier to have a technical discussion about lenses or cameras or settings in these boards than it is to have a discussion about, say, actors. If I don't know the ones you're working with, there's not much I can say about them.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that lenses and the field of view depend on the size of your sensor, so just picking a lens, or a camera won't work. You have to pick the lens for the camera so that you can get the composition that you want. A 24mm on a 5D will have a different field of view than on a Red, a 7D or a MFT like BMCC or GH2. The smaller the sensor, the longer the lens will appear. Go to a local camera store, camera rental house, etc and check this out for yourself. It's important that you be familiar with how the framing feels to you and how that works for your story telling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top