request for well shot video with cheap lenses

D

dop16mm

Well-known member
I appreciate what Barry and the boys are doing with their short, all kited out with zeiss lenses and the like. But that is out of reach of a lot of us here. I want to see a scene with good lighting using nikon or canon fd cheap 2.8 primes and pany lenses for wides. Even the Zeiss zf's are out of my league so don't go there.

The price point for the body is in line with the adaptor and dslr market, so I want to see footage using the same lenses that would be used in that market.

I understand that a lot of pro shooters can afford a set of PL's, and that is not a bad investment, as good lenses can last a lifetime, but not everyone is in that market. Those guys can get the AF100 because it is the first one available, and if they need/want the sony f3 they'll get that too.

It has been said that the Pany is the cam you'll own and the Sony is the one you rent, but what about lenses. If you are going to rent lenses why not just rent the whole kit. I'm not going to compare non-existent cameras, but based on price they are directly comparable if you feel you need to own pl lenses. Lets assume that the sony lenses are zeiss in cheaper housings. No reason why not as sony has a long licensing relationship with zeiss. The only way you can get those lenses is packaged with the sony. No discount PL lenses for the Pany, need at least cp.2 at the same focal lengths. So if you add the price of the Hot Rod PL mount and 3 zeiss Cp.2 lenses you are at the same price point as the Sony F3.

Pany really needs to leverage leica to unbrand their new PL's and make a cheap panasonic version. That would be cool.

In the mean time, the AF100 is only truly revolutionary at the price point if it can perform with affordable lenses, I remain positive that it will, based on most of the gh1 footage out there.
 
I'll be testing all my Nikons and others as soon as I get my unit. A few of what I'll be testing:

nikon 50 1.4
nikon 35 1.4
nikon 85 1.8
nikon 60mm 2.8 macro
nikon 24-70 2.8
nikon 70-200 2.8
nikon 14-24

pana 20mm 1.7
pana 14-140mm
pana 7-14

olympus 14-42

voigtlander 25mm .95

tamron 300mm 2.8
 
Count me in, I'm frankly skeptical (to a point!) of the benefits of ultra-expensive lenses on video cameras. Granted there is more to a good lens than resolution, but still.

What I'm trying to say is - I have never seen a picture from a video camera that makes me say, "I NEED that lens".
 
already seen the pancake 20mm 1.7 against the zeiss in leo ticheli's video and pancake seemed even better or dead even at best to my eyes. i honestly doubt zeiss is all that noticeably better
 
Lyris said:
Count me in, I'm frankly skeptical (to a point!) of the benefits of ultra-expensive lenses on video cameras. Granted there is more to a good lens than resolution, but still.

What I'm trying to say is - I have never seen a picture from a video camera that makes me say, "I NEED that lens".
Click to expand...

I know this isn't a review using video cameras and different lenses. But the premise remains.
http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/
 
Thanks for the link, Marc - it strengthens my position! (Too bad the other full size comparison image has been deleted, though - it gives a 404).

In the first image (red cliffs), I would have a hard time choosing one of those images as better than the other if both were graded to match. The Zeiss one appears more contrasty and therefore more saturated, but anyone can easily replicate the effect with video filtering. In fact, the Zeiss lens actually seems to have higher chromatic aberration (red fringing around the cliffs), even although it's tiny. What is the price difference between those lenses?

And that's with STILLS. With resolutions as low as 1080p HD video, I'd imagine any difference in resolution to be totally worthless since almost any lens would outresolve the sensor. This all just seems like a fools' game to me.

Of course, I can totally understand the need for fast lenses in low light scenarios.
 
Different lenses have different character though.

My FD Canons look way different than the 14-140 or 20 1.7. I would say it isn't so much resolution you lose or gain, but different color characteristics and highlight handling etc.
 
Resolution is one thing, but there many other qualities to a lens. Take Leo's video for example. In the scene with the candles, the 20mm pancake, and the Zeiss lens, exhibit very different qualities with regards to the halos. It comes down to preference. I agree though, more expensive doesn't mean better. Also, cine lenses do offer other conveniences, like non-clickable aperture, constant outer ring size, and follow focus rings.
 
I am suggesting to my rental house that they get a PL to M4/3 adapter. I think they will get some AF100's - they just got an Arri Alexa so I don't think the AF100 price point will scare them away.....

But having that option of renting a nice PL set will be great.
 
Lyris said:
Count me in, I'm frankly skeptical (to a point!) of the benefits of ultra-expensive lenses on video cameras. Granted there is more to a good lens than resolution, but still.

What I'm trying to say is - I have never seen a picture from a video camera that makes me say, "I NEED that lens".
Click to expand...

If you have never had the opportunity to shoot with top glass and to experience the "difference" I think you will be very surprised when you do.

From your comment I assume that you think it makes a difference on film cameras but not "video cameras".

So why would that be? Do you think that light knows the difference between a film camera and a "video camera"?

I assure you... good glass makes a difference on any camera and bad glass can make a great camera look like an ordinary camera.
 
I have a host of EOS (APS-C) lenses that I'll be testing immediately as well--Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, etc.
 
LoganMackay said:
Different lenses have different character though.

My FD Canons look way different than the 14-140 or 20 1.7. I would say it isn't so much resolution you lose or gain, but different color characteristics and highlight handling etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly Logan! Lenses have character, and that is very important to take into consideration. I believe there is a lens comparison between a Cooke lens and the new sony(?) lenses. They definitely exhibit unique characteristics, character. They each handle high lights, color, skin tone differently. And it is completely evident in the footage. Despite the fact that the test was uncontrolled and there is some bounce/light that is not there on the Cooke lens. I'll link the video when I get to my computer.
 
Shooter said:
If you have never had the opportunity to shoot with top glass and to experience the "difference" I think you will be very surprised when you do.

From your comment I assume that you think it makes a difference on film cameras but not "video cameras".

So why would that be? Do you think that light knows the difference between a film camera and a "video camera"?
Click to expand...
The lower resolution and dynamic range of video equipment are the differences I have in mind. I understand that it can be a stylistic difference, but I am yet to see a comparison between two lenses that makes me go "Wow, sold".

That's not to say that there is no difference - just that I've never been shown one.
 
In my mind one of the biggest differences in lenses is how the OOF looks, at different f-stops.

Cheap lenses have 5 leaf irises and they don't produce circular OOF but pentangles as you stop down. This has always bothered me on video cameras with built in lenses.

A nice lens creates nice soft OOF even when stopped down. Some lenses have really harsh uneven OOF. Look to make sure you get nice soft gradual circular out of focus light points, not doughnut shapes with harsh edges.
 
Lyris said:
The lower resolution and dynamic range of video equipment are the differences I have in mind. I understand that it can be a stylistic difference, but I am yet to see a comparison between two lenses that makes me go "Wow, sold".

That's not to say that there is no difference - just that I've never been shown one.
Click to expand...

Well its very easy to see and to test ...and it is not much to do with Resolution and dynamic range of "video cameras".

You shoot a Lens Test chart (and or a test shot) with various lenses!

I have seen litterally thousands of lens and camera tests ( I ran a film lab and it was a function of ours to evaluate the lens and cam test for the ACs)

As a DP for well over thirty years I have also seen the evidence of better glass over average and bad glass.

Subjectively , top glass has far more contrast than crap glass due to less abberations and impurities combined with sophisticated lens element design and polish. Light is pure and organic and it needs to be passed thru pure glass that does not bend and diffuse it on it way to the "sensor" .

Extreme example would be the bottom of a coke bottle compared to an Ultra Prime.
 
This reminds me of a story a DP told on another forum. This DP is well known and an ASC member who was on a shoot where a RED One was being provided by a young, inexperienced owner/operator. The DP had specified particular high end lenses and when the RED owner arrived, he said to the DP, "are you some sort of lens snob?"

I think the point is that at a certain level, especially if renting glass, high quality Cine lenses make sense for many reasons, optically, mechanically and durability wise. A
seasoned DP knows the image characteristics of certain lenses, similar to different film stocks and how they can impact the look/feel of the story they are shooting.
 
One thing to be aware of is that often it is not so much how sharp the glass is, but rather how it is coated. Zeiss's reputation is built around their chemistry/coatings. The glass is often manufactured elsewhere and then they make sample checks as to quality. A typical Zeiss lens has 6-8 coatings on each ELEMENT. As a result the light transmission is often better. Further, their lenses display micro-contrast qualities far and above many others. By that I mean that a given area of a picture may appear to be more detailed and therefore sharper, because it is less diffused, however the whites and the blacks are not blown out or crushed at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top