Shooting a feature/short with lenses that all have the same aperture? (Rokinon Cine)

For those that don't know...
Aperture refers to the opening of a lens's diaphragm through which light passes. It is calibrated in f/stops and is generally written as numbers such as 1.4, 2, 2.8. The more expensive lenses (1.4) tend to have more aperture blades which leads to a more rounded bokeh (think out of focus light circles). Whereas cheaper lenses with less aperture blades will create hexagon looking out of focus light circles.

Rokinon has a sale on their Cine lens set right now for $1,799 ($547 off). You get 4 lenses with the same max aperture..

24mm 1.5
35mm 1.5
50mm 1.5
85mm 1.5

Rokinon 24, 35, 50, 85mm T1.5 Cine DS Lens Bundle for Canon EF Mount
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1107509-REG/rokinon_cine_ds_lens_for.html

This got me thinking, years ago I was testing a kit lens when I first started filmmaking and it had a range of like 4-5.6. I'd go shoot stuff and zoom in and the footage was darker because the aperture was dark at that zoomed in point (5.6) versus wider at 4. So I vowed to avoid zoom lenses unless they were fixed 2.8 across the zoom range, and realized that's why they were so much more expensive. With the fixed 2.8 zoom you don't get that light shift when zooming. The light shift will cause issues when you go to edit, it can be very noticeable if you don't adjust your camera settings or lights to accomodate.

So here I came across this deal and it had me thinking, I just buy lenses that I think look good based on footage I see shot with them. But I never buy a set all at the same aperture. I got a 2.8, a 1.4, a 4, etc. And for the most part when I shoot a scene and switch lenses it tends to work, but I don't switch lenses per location as much as simply moving the camera in or out with the same lens.

Just curious how many people shoot with a lens set that all has the same aperture, where you collected a bunch of 1.8's, or 1.4's, or 1.2's, etc. Or bought a cine set like the above?

I don't know hardly any indie filmmakers that do it that way, it's just sort of buy what lens looks good and try to make it work. We've all been buying mixed photo lenses trying to make it work.

I guess I am just wondering if it's worth the expense to buy a set (lenses with all the same max aperture), or create your own. You could probably collect some cheap 1.8's into a set.
 
Last edited:
I would say a set of lenses starts at 16 or 18 - not 24 - if you want to shoot a feature that has all the normal shot sizes.

Getting consistent iris is very useful - as you can find you need to light to your smallest stop for a sequence.. but you usually pay (big) money to do that.

You will not collect some cheap 1.8s into a set because there is not a cheap 18 1.8

I think the cheapest wide 1.8 is the sigma zoom

S
 
Sigma 18-35 1.8 is around $799, can get a used Zeiss 18mm 3.5 for around $800 as well. I know that's not cheap, but you are right, the 18mm would be the most expensive, but overall the rest of the set could be decently priced in comparison.

I am not sure how I feel about the Rokinon lenses, haven't seen enough shot with them, but what I have seen hasn't been very sharp compared to Zeiss/Canon/Sigma glass.
 
Last edited:
ebay zeiss ze 18mm f/3.5, search on that and you can find it used in the 800-900 range. Even if they list for 1k, could make offer for 800-900 and they'd probably take it. Other sites have it for that range used too through their used dept.

*Sorry mispoke, yes there isn't a zeiss 18mm 1.8 that I've seen either, it's 3.5

Sigma is the cheapest 18mm 1.8 I've seen.
 
Well, it's also likely a set of same brand lenses has a similar look/colour rendition, which in many cases might be more important than them having the exact same aperture... Also, if you use follow focus, the gears are in the same place (in case of the Samyang/Rokinon's that's only true on the mkII/DS versions, I believe), making it quicker when changing lenses.

So a lens set makes sense in many ways.
 
There used to be two reasons for using fast lenses in the cinematography world: for the look (shallow DOF) and for capturing low light levels such as night exteriors. The latter concern has been drastically altered with the advent of faster sensors/improved noise reduction from various manufacturers, so it's now possible to capture low light scenes far more effectively with standard speed lenses. My cine zoom collection ranges from T2.6 to 2.9 but using cameras like the Varicams I don't have to bring in fast primes any more.

On the occasions that I am going for the shallow look, I'll be most concerned with getting fast lenses (i.e. T1.4) in the wider focal lengths, up to around 50mm or so. At that point if budget is a concern (as it pretty much always is), I'll move to medium fast versions (T2) for the longer lenses, because I find the DOF difference between a 1.4 and a 2 on a longer lens is less noticeable and I like to give my focus pullers a fighting chance.
 
Well, it's also likely a set of same brand lenses has a similar look/colour rendition, which in many cases might be more important than them having the exact same aperture... Also, if you use follow focus, the gears are in the same place (in case of the Samyang/Rokinon's that's only true on the mkII/DS versions, I believe), making it quicker when changing lenses.

So a lens set makes sense in many ways.

Yeah the follow focus part in the same place is also something I knew of but didn't mention. That helps so you don't have to shift your follow focus gear as much when changing lenses. So was something I was already thinking of. But never thought about the color rendition shifting, very good point and very good call out on that.
 
I shoot narrative features using prime lenses. My collection of primes is all over the map, still camera glass from the last 20 years, all highly rated in reviews, plus one Rokinon 85mm. The performance/price ratio of the Rokinons has made a believer out of me, as the 85mm is now my go to glass for daily interview jobs. I'm currently looking at buying more of them. Based on reviews I know I want the 50mm and possibly the 24. The 35 is also considered a good lens but I seldom use that focal length. After a lot of research, I'm convinced the highly regarded $2500 Xeen lenses by Rokinon are essentially the same glass in better housings made to endure the rigors of production. Since I do a feature every two years I don't need that durability, so I'm looking at the everyday primes. If you look over the reviews you will find that Rokinon T1.4 glass has a sweet spot around T2 to 3.5, so that's where I will generally shoot at for decent sharpness. All the glass (including Xeens) has a slight yellow/green bias which can be removed in post in a few seconds. Yes, more expensive glass is better than Rokinon, but expressed as a percentage, glass that costs 1000 percent more is maybe 20% better- maybe a bit more contrasty, maybe a bit sharper, but to me not enough to justify the price difference.
 
The set looks like a sweet deal. All are rated in T stops so you know how much light is reaching the camera's sensor. Can't do that with standard lenses like the Canon 50mm f/1.8 which has a t-stop of 2.1 or 1/2 stop less than you would expect.
 
The set looks like a sweet deal. All are rated in T stops so you know how much light is reaching the camera's sensor. Can't do that with standard lenses like the Canon 50mm f/1.8 which has a t-stop of 2.1 or 1/2 stop less than you would expect.

Hmm, did not know that. So you're saying a 1.8 on one lens type could be a t stop less/more than a 1.8 with another lens? That's just great. False advertising?
 
Hmm, did not know that. So you're saying a 1.8 on one lens type could be a t stop less/more than a 1.8 with another lens? That's just great. False advertising?

F stops and T stops are two different things. An F stop is a ratio, T stop is the actual measured light transmission(hence the "T").
 
Back
Top