photo lenses Vs. video zoon lenses for small camera (scarlet)

M

maltess2

Well-known member
Hello

I wan to invest in a scarlet for documentary work. In the past I have use semi pro cameras, like Z1 or dvx 100. Now I have start using a 5D, I dont really know the diffrences and benefits between photo lenses and video lens. In the scarlet I want to decide between canon mount or PL mount, ot course the PL option would be more expensive and I would like to know the real benefits over the photo lenses. It would be either canon mount with a canon zoon, or the Pl mount with for example, a red zoon, maybe I could find second hand. I guess a more expensive option like PL and red zoom or similar is probable better , but would like to know why


Thanks a lot
 
Last edited:
This topic has been tendered a few times around here, but no worries.

The biggest difference between still photo lenses and cinema lenses is mechanics. A high quality still photo lens has quality optics, as does a cinema lens. However, cinema lenses need to meet mechanical standards in the field that still photo lenses simply do not.

PL Cinema Lenses -
  • Have long focus throw - around 300 degrees is great - for precise focus, whereas still photo lenses often have a piddly 70-100 degrees, since AutoFocus takes care of most critical focus situations for a photographer
  • Are more durable, often made of metal bodies instead of plastic or rubber. Film sets are difficult places for any equipment. A PL lens could be unboxed, mounted, cleaned, unmounted, stowed, and be exposed to all kinds of elements in a day's work, whereas a photographer's lens may never leave the camera body and just hangs around the neck.
  • Have a much more secure and durable mount (positive-lock) over the likes of EF or Nikon F.
  • Do not have excessive lens breathe, whereas a still photo lens will likely breathe. This is a design concern for cinema lenses because a focus pull can be executed during a shot, so the field of view needs to stay the same, but a photographer concerns himself with still images, so that's a moot point.
  • Do not have a rotating or telescoping front element, if the lens is a zoom. Again, not a big deal for photographers, since you haven't strapped a Matte Box and a Follow Focus onto your lens and don't need everything to stay put during the action.
  • Are color-, contrast-, and sharpness-matched across a set. Cinema Lenses are usually purchased as a set (16mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, etc.), and T4 on the 16mm needs to look like T4 on the 35mm in terms of color and contrast, etc. This is critical because the WIDE shot needs to match the CLOSE-UP, as time spent in post adding adjustments to get every shot in a scene to look the same costs money. Bokeh also needs to be consistent, so the lenses in a set all need the same aperture and blade profiles.
  • Tend to be sharper and more contrasty than photo lenses, but this isn't the case for every X:Y lens comparison.
  • Do not have a clicked aperture ring like still photo lenses. Not always a big deal, but since motion picture photography deals with a fixed shutter, the aperture ring on a cinema lens is not hard-stopped; i.e., you can dial in your exposure ad infinitum between the stops set on the aperture ring.
  • Are mostly made to cover a super-35mm sensor, whereas still photo lenses may need to cover a full-frame 35mm photo plane, so corners are cut in the design of the still photo lenses in order to keep size, weight, and price down. For example, a still photo lens may telescope or have a rotating front element or not have a constant aperture in order to cover the sensor of a 5DII and not cost a fortune.
  • Are often matched in size - width, front element diameter, etc. - which saves time on set when you are adjusting the Matte Box and Follow Focus, etc.
  • Are far more expensive because of all they above - they need long focus throw, durable design and mount, need minimal breathing, need to stay put, need to match the other lenses in a set, need to be tack sharp, and need to have a smooth, dampened aperture ring - and because they appeal to a much, much smaller market. The Still Photo Hobbyists probably outnumber the entire film industry 10:1.

Those are just a few of the differences. Things like Parfocality of a zoom, sharpness of the optics, and are points of interest but can be argued in either direction.

So, you can think of it as 'PL Lenses are made for the cinema world by the cinema world. They are an investment and will last you from cine camera to cine camera. They will outlive you and will make you money through jobs and rentals. They are not electronic, so worrying about autofocus confirmation chips and EXIF data recognition chips in the mounts is just not a concern for you. EF Still Photo Lenses, however, are made for you and pro photographers. They will try to straddle the needs of a cinema professional and a photo professional, but they are Still Photo Lenses FIRST and video lenses second. The only EF lenses designed specifically for video are the new C Series PL's arriving soon.'

Either way, you will get a great image. EF lenses will cost you less upfront, but may not be the best investment in the long long-term, whereas PL lenses will cost much more but will work from camera to camera. EF is still not a mainstream cinema mount, although it's certainly becoming more widely adopted, it's just not PL.
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot, is a very usefull information, I start to understand diffrences and I have more to invetigate now, I will try to go for the Pl lenses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top