Let's talk lenses

[JMtheDP]

Let's say for arguments sake we will limit this discussion to lenses which can be either natively used on or modified to work with the F35/65 - that gives us a frame work for discussion.

feel free to start another thread about cine-worthy photo glass, it is certainly an interesting topic in of itself but it is good to maintain some sort of focus

 

[Aaveum]

Of course, the other side of the debate is that F35 quality can be had for $3,200 in August...

I don't think this is the other side of any debate. We are talking lenses here. And lenses for the F35 and F65.

But, are you going to proclaim that based on numbers on a paper? Sorry, but I have seen this claim way too many times. Come release day and hands on reviews, who is to say it won't be like it was with the Blackmagic cameras, F5, F55, FS7 and all the cameras that had a huge hype behind them before release and then fell from the tree?

And, when even the F65 doesn't fully beat the F35 in all levels, it's really hard to believe a DSLR will. Now if you are in the camp who doesn't see a difference between the FS7 and F55 or between the F55 and F65, then you might as well say the a7s has already done it.

Furthermore, this type of debate is fruitless and unproductive. I will wait till the "miraculous" camera is at least out before reaching conclusions and get back to talking lenses, which is the intent of the thread.

 

[Aaveum]

If Sony had made a lens wider than 20mm in their line up, I would have bought a set of them no question.

it is the wide end which separates the men from the boys.

True. And the reason for this is of course cost. But it's hard to blame Sony for being cost conscious when most would rather buy the handicapped CP.2s over their set just because of the Zeiss name.

Having said that, for narrative I find 20mm to be plenty wide and I would only go wider than 18mm if I'm looking for an "effect". In that case I would be in the same boat as with high-speed in cameras. I would rent the specialty lens for the given shot.

But styles are individual and very unique.

 

[JMtheDP]

I generally find people like an 18 as their wide. I have a real fondness for the 16mm length - in fact there was no 18mm standard wide and I don't believe there is an 18mm ultra wide either. I got my Master as an 18 but I didn't have a choice, otherwise I would have got the 16.

 

[Harry Lime]

I know more than one DoP who counts that as their favourite (zoom) lens. It genuinely falls into the category of "could shoot a whole feature on this", for certain uses.

Apparently it's a favorite of Deakins, although these days he appears to shoot everything with Master Primes.

 

[JMtheDP]

Yes - he used standard and super speeds until the Cooke S4s came out, then used them until the Master Primes came out and has been a staunch supporter of them since. I believe he used both on one shoot, probably using the masters for night stuff.

 

[Paul F]

Unless I'm being blind, it seems to me that DVXuser does not have a specific lens discussion section,.......

There is a lens forum, but it is hard to find. I had the same problem finding it as have others. Currently, the lens forum is a sub-forum and resides under the Cinematography forum.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Hi James:

I own the four Alura zooms and have been using them exclusively on my shows. As you noted, they are very solid and well-crafted modern lenses. They have great flare resistance (I had my 30-80 shooting alongisde an Optimo 28-76 on a city street night exterior, and the Optimo had a much harder time with headlights) and color consistency. Because of their lineage they will color match with the Zeiss line, Master Primes etc. and have similar contrast. They have been solid workhorses for me and I have no complaints. 90% of what I shoot has to be on zooms for working speed and these fellas have come through for me.

I'm not one to mess around with vintage lenses unless the project calls for it, again for working speed, so when desired I will use filtration to emulate the softer/more flared look. I've been using the Glimmerglass series on the last couple of shows, and had some nice results with the Pearlessence also. I am of the mind that you can always "hobble" a sharp, clean lens but you can't do it in reverse.

The additional lens I've had onboard to allow the second camera to shoot beyond 80mm or for longer lens handheld has been the Zeiss compact 70-200. Again the color matching is quite good to the Aluras, and those Zeiss lenses are more than sharp (I have been told they bench test amazingly well). My two complaints are that the T2.9 rating doesn't quite match the Aluras, I feel like it is closer to T3.2 wide open, and it does breathe notably during focus racks (a compromise made by Zeiss to keep the weight and cost down). I have heard nothing but good things about the 28-80 Zeiss offering and the full-frame compatibility of those lenses is a fantastic feature for future-proofing.

 

[DLD]

... But, are you going to proclaim that based on numbers on a paper? Sorry, but I have seen this claim way too many times. Come release day and hands on reviews, who is to say it won't be like it was with the Blackmagic cameras, F5, F55, FS7 and all the cameras that had a huge hype behind them before release and then fell from the tree?.

No. The hypothesis, as it were, is that cameras are computers and, as science advances, so does their performance and, while there's often a presumption of excellence fails under the real world tests, it's not a stretch to suggest that a computer can be purchased on specs. FS7 failures, such as they are, are also reflected in its specs and F35 superiority over other cameras of its era can be quantified similarly, with 444 and so on.

Furthermore, as I have mentioned the "perceived quality", an oversampled 4K in the hands of a decent operator should beat the oversampled 1080p in the hands of the same operator and that nostalgia for old equipment is fine and dandy - there are plenty of audiophiles and guitar players who love the old tube amps - but the progress marches on.

And, with that, I can leave this forum to those with much pricier toys.

PS. As Lieutenant Colombo was fond of saying - one more thing, which should pertain to this thread at least marginally. Someone who buys F35 in 2015 is more likely to use Rokinon than Fujinon and that's because there's a dearth of options in between..

 

[Grug]

CP.2s and GL Optics are the scrap bottom of PL cinema glass, at least new. But I agree they definitely belong in this discussion. Being PL they will be used on PL cameras. I don't think many people with E-mount or EF-mount cameras would buy them in PL to use with a PL adapter. So they are basically shooting the same types of jobs as other higher PL lenses are or would if they didn't exist.

Having said that, CP.2s are not lenses I like or want to shoot with. I would much prefer a set of GL Optics converted primes if I had to choose. They are at least cheaper.
The look, the all over the yard apertures, the quality of some lenses in the set, all drive me away from the CP.2s. The Sony set have them beaten in basically everything but the brand name, which in my opinion is the strongest reason CP.2s seem to sell well.

As for Schneiders, they are definitely interesting for many reasons. But they seem to take what I dislike the most in Zeiss lenses a step further.

As someone who's spent the last two and a bit years invested in a set of CP.2s I'd have to say I find it hard to agree with much of the criticism that get levelled at them - for the price the only (non-ancient) lenses that are competing with them are the Canon cine primes (basically an EF-only version of the CP.2 stills glass concept) the Schneider Zenons and the (seemingly owner-operator-only) Sony Primes.

Yes the inconsistent apertures are a bit frustrating, but since most people seem to have got rid of their 18mm T/3.6 lenses, most sets are simply T/2.1 across the board with the exception of the widest lens, which will be either the 21mm or the 15mm, which are both T/2.9 - and dealing with a single lens with a 1-stop difference isn't too big of a deal.

Mechanically and operationally, there's really no comparison with any still lenses out there. The CP.2s are leagues ahead. And with a long focus throw, accurate focus marks and excellent construction, they make pulling focus, and repeating focus moves incredibly easy - my main reason for purchasing them was to speed up things on set, and the precision and control that they allow absolutely speeds up the process, there's no dicking around with small and not always precise focus marks, they just work.

Add to that beautiful image quality (they really are lovely bits of glass, I've never had anything but ecstatic feedback from clients) and I honestly think the CP.2s make for a solid set of cine lenses. Are they on the same level optically as UPs or S4s? Of course not, nor should they be for the price. But for the price, there really aren't any better options around IMO (the Canons, the Schneiders and the Sony are all on the same sort of level optically, each with it's own particular strengths and foibles). If you step up in price a fair way you get to the Illuminas and S4 Minis, and they're superior lenses, but again - you pay for the improvements.

At the end of the day, I'd take an F5 or C500 with CP.2s over an Alexa/Epic with stills glass each and every time, until the end of time.

 

[JMtheDP]

Yeah the CP.2s are interesting lenses and I think show what is needed from a cine lens - also the cost involved in making one from a stills lens. Prices vary but at the moment a brand new set of CP.2s is about £10-£14,000, depending on which ones you choose. Assuming a five piece set. Illuminas are about £24,000 right now, for the five piece set and s4 minis are £28,000 but for a six piece set.

Obviously exchange rates have a great impact on prices, this is how I wound up buying Zeiss and not Cooke!

 

[Harry Lime]

Yes - he used standard and super speeds until the Cooke S4s came out, then used them until the Master Primes came out and has been a staunch supporter of them since. I believe he used both on one shoot, probably using the masters for night stuff.

I was working for a company that was doing VFX for what may have been the first show he shot on the Cooke S4s. We ended up having to borrow one of the Cooke from production, because we couldn't get our old in house Super Speed primes to cut with the S4 footage.

I'm a big fan of Cooke primes. If I could pick a modern set it would probably be the S4 or S5.

 

[Harry Lime]

Has anyone shot with the new Leica Summicron-C?

 

[Hunterqual]

This is exactly the kind of thread that my pocketbook doesn't need. Thanks, James.

Love the look of those Super Baltars--I had seen that Chanel spot before that Harry posted, and thought it was magnificent. Beautifully done.

Most of my work is one to two person crew documentary filmmaking all over the world, in an industry where clients are not used to paying for equipment rental, so I balance the realities of lightweight, flexible, and image quality with cost effectiveness. Would love to have Leicas, Cookes, or even those Zeiss Variable Prime zooms, but either cost or weight has kept me from seriously considering them.

The set I use with my F35 are Mk I Zeiss Standard Speeds: 16, 24, 32, 50, 85. I also carry a Schneider Arriflex-Cine-Xenon 75 f/2. I got the set from a production house in Portland for a screaming deal, and they fit well with what I do. If you're in a studio environment, these will frustrate you mechanically. I often have them locked off during an interview set up, so I don't have to deal with their downsides much. They are old. They are super tiny. Like the Mk IIs, the focus gears butt up against the PL mount, which makes them fiddly to use. They make the F35 look like it's missing a lens. Mine came with clicked irises. But they are a matched set, T2.1 across the range (although the 16 is T2.2), they allow me to use 77mm filters (stepped up from an average thread size of something like 46mm) and leave a bulky matte box at home, they travel well, they are pretty low-contrast, and they take the digital edge off of the image.

Overall I'd give their image quality a B+ and their mechanics a C-. That sounds like faint praise, but you choose the lenses that work for your needs, and these work.

Here are some stills showing the lenses from a recent shoot:
A. We're often using the lens as our master shot A cam--I like what it does to faces, and the T2.1 means we don't have to bring a lot of lighting equipment (a set of Dedos and sometimes a 1x1 LED panel is always enough).

B. The 16mm will vignette in the corners at some f stops -- I believe it was made for 35mm and not S35mm.

C. Their early T* coatings do flare pretty easily, which lowers the contrast of the image even more, so you have to watch overall contrast when light hits the front element. Usually I like the effect.


Hunter Hampton borrowed them to do a really beautiful shoot with the F35 a couple years ago. Check it out here for a good example of what they can look like in the hands of someone really talented: http://vimeo.com/67413204

 

[JMtheDP]

No problem Jon I started off ten years ago with an FX1E (not even a Z1!) and the built-in lens... now I have an F65 and Master Primes. One day I will start a thread telling you all I've jacked it in and spent it all down the Ferrari dealership!!

Jon you might find that 16mm is not vignetting, but portholing. If it goes away when you stop down, it is portholing. I believe it has to do with the angle light hits the sensor. The F35, having a CCD, is much more immune to this than REDs - which having a CMOS were generally more succeptible. I also believe standards were design for 35mm "academy" - ie. not the silent/super aperture. Super Speeds do not have this issue and is one reason they command a premium.

I only noticed portholing a couple of times on my standards, apparently the 24 was worst and I never had one of those. Really you need to have a very flat object to notice it.

 

[JMtheDP]

Has anyone shot with the new Leica Summicron-C?

I have not, but what i've seen from the Summiluxes doesn't seem to do it for me. They are very flat, technically excellent, but render quite cold even by Zeiss standards in tests I have seen.

I am also baffled by the fact that they do not have LDS. I have never really used it, but when I'm spending that money on a lens, I expect it.

 

[Harry Lime]

Thank you for your kind words, Hunter.

 

[Harry Lime]

I have not, but what i've seen from the Summiluxes doesn't seem to do it for me. They are very flat, technically excellent, but render quite cold even by Zeiss standards in tests I have seen.

I've heard that about the Summilux on several occasions. Technically close to perfection, but sterile and flat. Hurlbut shot a side by side comparison of the Lux and Cooke S4 and personally I agree that the Cooke look a lot more pleasant.

https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/03/why-do-we-want-flat-glass/

That said the technical perfection of the Lux may make them ideal for VFX greenscreen work. Color fringing looks to be non existent even at f1.4

The Summicron-C appear to be more traditional in their design. I don't think they use aspherical surfaces, so they may be rounder with more character.
They are $100k for the set, which is twice as much as the Cooke Mini S4 T2.8 (~$45k).

 

[JMtheDP]

Yeah the Summicrons are priced similarly to Ultras, the Luxes are even pricier than Masters. Notable though that there is an appreciable difference between T1.3 and T1.4, nearly a third of a stop. Masters also cover a large imaging circle which may or may not be of importance depending on the camera you're using.

I have seen a few of Hurlbut's videos which I am not in agreement with. I am on the fence about the guy in general. In particular, some videos the models definitely move and the lighting has definitely changed in some shots. Look at that side-by-side of the 21mm lenses - the light in the background moves an awful lot between the two and the white balances look very different. That is not a "quickly swap the lenses and compare" shot - a lot changed between those two shots.

 

[JMtheDP]

Also observe the two 100mm comparisons. Look at the edge of the grey card - those are two different exposures. No wonder one looks nicer than the other.... I am pretty sure Cooke and Leica both get their stop markings right.

It's not even a fair test... the S4 and Summilux shouldn't really be considered competitors - the 5i series should - or compare Summicrons to the S4s...