stepping up to cine lenses without blowing the bank account

[J Davis]

no still glass, modern or vintage can give me a steady and even zooming shot

 

[echo9]

@optek and mico: I don't think many readers quite understand why a cinema lens is a cinema lens. Most people here on dvxuser don't shoot material that requires them, and they don't know it.

there is a reason lenses that cost more than a sports car don't have internal motors and other electronic features. The same reason most performance sports cars don't have automatic transmissions...

not a long term investment? Your af100 and F100's (R1'ls too) will be long gone in 5 years, yet all of you are drooling over super-speed lenses from 40 years ago. I think most of you don't need cine-style lenses and that is confirmed by the features and usage many of you desire or describe.

Would you mind expanding on this a bit and listing those reasons? Not trying to be snarky or anything, I'm just curious. I'm definitely not a pro, but I'm sure there's a reason a $20K Zeiss Ultra Prime is worth it. However, from my layman's perspective it seems like the main reason would be for ease of mechanical operation versus any sort of optical superiority.

In other words, a Canon L lens is designed to resolve a sharp, full frame image at well over 20 megapixels (22 MP in the 5D mII for example). Today's best digital cameras (excluding film or IMAX) top out around 13 MP as in the Red Epic-M (I could be wrong on that number). Optically, it would seem that still glass is more than capable for cinema/film production, i.e. if it can sharply resolve at 20+ MP that's more than enough for today's current technology.

As far as lens speed, that's a push as still glass is just as fast if not faster. So I guess the real difference would be in the mechanical aspects of the lens? That is, things such as these: cine glass has a longer focus throw more suited for film focus pulling. It has a mechanical iris with an iris wheel with smooth operation vice clicks to each f-stop. It's a consistent size and barrel diameter across a range of focal lengths (for primes). There is little to no lens breathing.

Are there other reasons I'm missing? No doubt a 20K Zeiss Master Prime is a phenomenal lens. But what makes it so much better than a Canon L prime lens? I'm sure it is (as far as cinema/film is concerned), but why?

A good example/comparison is the Zeiss ZF versus the CP.2s. Optically they are the exact same lens (literally the exact same), but the CP2s have been rehoused to a traditional cine style and the price goes up from $1300 to $4000. The difference is purely mechanical.

 

[olindacat]

Are there other reasons I'm missing?

I'm no pro either but I think the ability to zoom and maintain focus is unique to a cine zoom, due to the way it is built, versus a variable zoom, which doesn't accomplish that.

 

[J Davis]

Are there other reasons I'm missing?

Already told you at post 99 and post 101. Still zooms can't zoom

 

[echo9]

Already told you at post 99 and post 101. Still zooms can't zoom

Right, but what about prime lenses? What about the optical qualities? And that seems like an awfully large premium to pay for a shot you'll use once or twice, if at all (I'm trying to think of the last movie I saw that had a legitimate zoom shot -as opposed to a dolly move- in it), unless I'm mistaken on why else you'd use a zoom. If you're using it so you don't have to constantly change lenses, sort of as a "variable prime lens," then the zoom quality wouldn't really come into play.

 

[BannedinDV]

I will say that lenses are not safe either as far as investment goes. I've been preaching it for a while and now actually starting to get serious about it. Finally have a client big enough to commission this project. Still lenses offer speed, range and weight advantage that Cine lenses won't touch for a long time- if ever. Their optical performance is adequate for 20+Mpix cameras. Their field flatness, unlike motion lens design- is the basic requirement. Price point is unparalleled. On top of that they are already equipped with fast and silent motors, image stabilization, encoder feedback, etc. No cine lens will scratch the surface of these features.
The only issue with the still lenses for motion is the interface. My ProLock system takes care of the mechanical part. Has been working on RedOnes for two years with great results.
As soon as we finish the electronic interface development you'll see the next phase of convergence. The new breed of DSLRs allowed for still/motion convergence of cameras. The next step is lenses.
Your PL glass will be sitting on the shelf and the only time you'll look at it will be to dedust it once a year.
Breathing? please-unless you buy a set of Master Primes and Optimos all the others breathe the same.
So unless you have work now that requires cine glass and will ROI quickly a 20 year investment this is NOT.

So I guess an unsteady, breathing wobbly focus motion is acceptable?

 

[J Davis]

@echo9
when an actor is talking on MCU I like to zoom in gradually to add gravity to what he is saying - dolly is a waste of time for this also some times a gradual zoom out can reveal surroundings around an actor to add story. There are a million creative uses for zoom shots other than a kubrick 20x zoom from wide to CU

 

[echo9]

@echo9
when an actor is talking on MCU I like to zoom in gradually to add gravity to what he is saying - dolly is a waste of time for this also some times a gradual zoom out can reveal surroundings around an actor to add story. There are a million creative uses for zoom shots other than a kubrick 20x zoom from wide to CU

Thank you for your reply. I rarely use zooms in my own personal style, but it's always good to hear other people's uses.

 

[J Davis]

Thank you for your reply. I rarely use zooms in my own personal style, but it's always good to hear other people's uses.

 

[David W. Jones]

Right, but what about prime lenses? What about the optical qualities? And that seems like an awfully large premium to pay for a shot you'll use once or twice, if at all (I'm trying to think of the last movie I saw that had a legitimate zoom shot -as opposed to a dolly move- in it), unless I'm mistaken on why else you'd use a zoom. If you're using it so you don't have to constantly change lenses, sort of as a "variable prime lens," then the zoom quality wouldn't really come into play.

Prime lenses can't zoom either.
And not all of us are shooting movies. In my case most of the work I do are TV commercials where there is always a producer who wants to zoom, moans and groans if you want to break out a dolly, does not have the budget for a 1st AC but then bitches that lens changes take too long. With advertising budgets shrinking this happens more than people realize. Hey the days of catered meals at the edit are long gone at my place. Get the spot shot and get it on the air. If a production zoom can help me do this I'm all for it.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I'm on set right now and typing this from my smart phone, but the advantages of a cine-lens are many, sharpness not exactly being one. It's 2011, any professional lens, photo or cinema can adequately resolve a sharp enough image. In fact, with the new super digi-cine cameras, I sometimes feel too much.

With that said, cine lenses are:

1. Color matched. Some sets are matched more than others and sometimes then not enough for some cinematographers standards, but none-the-less, they are matched better than ordering a bunch of older manual nikons from KEH. Color matched can also mean the characteristics of how a lens flares, reproduces contrast, bokeh shape and etc also match. Sure lenses of the same make and series, such as Canon L-series will match better than Canon's made in 1977, but I would doubt it is as much as cine-glass, considering photographers don't have to juxtapose two images together for 'real' life like continuity.

2. Focus witness marks. The construction of the cine lens is usually on a larger scale, thus the area around the barrel can have many many more informative marks to help the AC do his job well... Saving time and risk of error.

3. Long barrel rotation. Most cine lenses have barrel rotation of over 270 or 300*. This allows more control within focusing and allows for more marks. Still lenses have much shorter throws and much less marks.

4. Accurate light transmission. F-stops are formulas, but those don't translate into real life exactly, and can differ between lenses. That's why cine lenses have t-stops. When juxtaposing two images together, say a medium to a close up, exact matching exposure is the best way to ease the jump and create a sense of flawless continuity. Not only do they have t-stops, but many are marked with third-stops. Find a photography lens with the aperture barrel marked in thirds of a stop. Not many.

5. Build. Cine lenses are built tough. They are made to shoot in relatively warm, cold, wet, and dry places. They can handle high-torque motors on the rings. They are built from robust materials and can take a beating, day in and day out. They are made for the tough life of film production. When one needs servicing, they can be sent in for a full repair and cleaning. Try that with some photography lenses. Photography lenses are abused in the field as well, but I would venture to say, most will fall apart if used as often and as hard as cine-lenses.


6. Internal Motors, no thanks. Having motors inside the lens would be a very unwise idea. Cine motors will vary (Hyden, M1, etc) with the remote ff or fiz system being used, thus one size does not fit all. Additionally, motors are replaceable. If one dies or malfunctions in the field, you can get another motor on in 30 seconds. If internal, you would have to open the lens housing up and repair/replace the motor, or leave the lens inoperative or disconnected. When so much rides on production moving forward, internal motors are potential show stoppers.

7. Breathing... Cine lenses are designed to capture moving images, so some things have to be paid attention to that photography lenses can otherwise ignore (exact color matching), breathing, accurate and well placed focus witness marks, very accurate aperture stops, and etc are seriously attempted for. This also goes into the build with uniform size, length, aperture, front diameter, and etc. For ease of accessories and use. Photography lenses like to try and keep the front diameter uniform for filters, which is nice.

8. Perspective: Cine lenses also tend to produce wonderful flat field perspective. Photo's can get away with some image warp because it can be hard to notice still... But move the camera and oh wow you can see it. Compare most common wide photography lenses to modern high end cine lenses.

9. Flange distance. The PL flange distance is a curse and a blessing. It has a few design short comings shallower flange lenses don't have to deal with, but because it is soooo deep, (52mm) it can be adapted to almost all mounts. It's like blood type O, universal.

As I said earlier, Cine-lenses are not for everyone. They are not for weddings, news, event videography, most corporate work and etc. It's mainly for cinema use... ala, why they are called cine-lenses. If you aren't shooting cinema, don't really worry about it. There are plenty of good lenses out there. I love some of my old stuff.

 

[J Davis]

Thanks for making the effort Ryan. I'm feeling your pain.

Earlier I wrote "Actually I want a cine zoom so I can zoom" from a Droid2 and it was such a pain in the ...

 

[echo9]

Thanks for the replies guys! :grin:

 

[optitek]

... So things photography lenses can ignore (exact color matching), breathing, accurate and well placed focus witness marks, very accurate aperture stops, and etc are seriously attempted for. This also goes into the build with uniform size, length, aperture, front diameter, and etc. For ease of accessories and use.

ok, before this little keypad falls apart, I think I hit the big points. Sorry about the spelling and grammar. I can't revise or type well on this phone.

With all due respect Ryan,
Most of these issues are either irrelevant (for electronic aquisition)or easily rectified given the right user interface.
T-stop for example- why do you need it with electronic camera? Do you expose by T-stop not in camera scopes? That seems very risky. It's IMO one of the most critical skills for digital cameras- the ability to use waveform to expose correctly.... Film is very forgiving in that aspect and that's why you can use light meter and t-stops to expose.
Color matching- why would that be different for modern still camera lenses? If anything still photographers are more discriminating when it comes to color correction.
Weather proofing/ built quality? Most modern still lenses are weather proof including o-rings and such- no cine lenses have this features. Build quality/robustness? do you think that still photographers are easier on their gear than cine production? I think not. Jungle, desert, cold, wet- the still cameras and lenses work there every day. And these lenses
hold up fine...last very long time...

But that's not even the point. My clients have all the cine lenses in the world, S4s, S5is, Master primes, Ultra primes, Optimos, etc, etc.
For what they do cine lenses are too big and heavy, zooms don't have the range needed, they are too cumbersome to setup. In short- cine lenses don't meet the requirements. Plain and simple- they can't. The only lenses that possibly can meet the specs are still lenses. End of story. No money will change that. This is why we are doing it.
The good news is that the industry will benefit. And will change their ways. This is the time.

 

[Amr Rahmy]

comparing

old primes
new still primes
new cine primes

a lot of old primes have some of these in common:
soft at their optimum focus point, much softer then new still zooms (something like the newer-ish canon 70-200) - they seem almost half focus.
no edge to edge sharpness
the more vintage ones breath more than usual even when fresh out of service
less focus wobble(focus shifts from middle - not talking about breathing) then some still primes
color tint(not talking about colder and warmer lens look) - most times darker than usual and a lot of times add too much color(green or orange/brown)
slight vignetting - not as much as some people's idea of color correction in post

some of the newer cine lens:
color matching - good cine look be it warmer or colder (some things when they are not in the footage source information, they can't be really 100% achieved in post - post is not a magical place, it still have limitations)
no focus shift
edge to edge sharpness
no vignetting
smooth focus and long focus rotation
small focus distance
small lens (relatively)
small to no breathing
more quality control (much better than still lens)
really impressive bokeh and out of focus - that's the second best feature to me
better to no ca, or any imperfections

all in all i would rank lens:

affordable vintage still - it's affordable for a reason
entry level vintage cine - offers more problems to the image than still lens
better still lens - great image quality, with some inherit problems associated with new motorized still lens
more affordable cine lens (comapct primes and panchros) - it makes more sense than renting really expensive lens
really expensive rental lens - it just feels right.

 

[optitek]

I have first hand information having projected all of these in lens room over the years and this info is just not accurate, another urban legend, sorry.

 

[J Davis]

so optitek, i appreciate all the info you are sharing, but how do I do my zooming shots that I mentioned earlier with still glass?
my current fave is an eos 17-55/2.8

edit: quote myself

when an actor is talking on MCU I like to zoom in gradually to add gravity to what he is saying - dolly is a waste of time for this also some times a gradual zoom out can reveal surroundings around an actor to add story. There are a million creative uses for zoom shots other than a kubrick 20x zoom from wide to CU

 

[Rick Burnett]

I don't think the original poster was asking for a discourse on still lenses versus cine lenses. I can also say that this topic has been beaten to death over and over again here and nothing being said is any different than the same arguments everyone has made on both sides of the fence. Everyone has different needs, everyone has different budgets, everyone has things they can or cannot live with.

I think we should try and stay on topic here. If the original poster wants cine lenses with all the good and/or bad (based on perspective) of what that comes with, then let's talk about those options and where they can get into some cine lenses without breaking the bank. If you want to contribute to talking about how to obtain these lenses, that I think that is where the discussion needs to go.

 

[optitek]

Most modern still zooms are parfocal. You may run into a poor example but that's the case with cine lenses as well. I've sent brand new (cine)lenses back to manufacturer for this reason many times. I would venture to say that, in my experience , 90% issues with focus falloff has to do with inadequate lens/camera calibration. There is a massive amount of misinformation on the forums about it and, consequently , massive confusion, especially by owners/operators for the first time dealing with removable lenses, back focus, flange depth, etc. Terms they are not familiar with since they have never needed to be...
I can also tell you that 90% of image shift issues are caused by inadequate lens mounting to the camera. Since I started making the Nikon ProLock for Redone I have dozens of testimonials from customers to prove it. The image shift either went away or decreased greatly once the lens was positively locked.
Now note that I'm not talking about old worn out still primes that have never been serviced . That's a wear, tear, service, maintenence problem completely separate from engineering. Not trivial, as many users don't have the funds to maintain lenses, but have high expectations and, consequently, disappointments that reflect their posts and create urban legends like this one... Some points are definitely valid and for some genres cine lenses are the best choice. But they are not the "snake oil" cure for everything.

In order to get the performance from still lenses you need to maintain the same precision as in cine lenses. Most still lens users don't because they simply can't afford it. and that's the biggest issue here IMO....

 

[J Davis]

no your not getting me, its not the image or parfocal, its the mechanics - they cannot move smoothly or have a gear to control the movement

@Rick, thanks I'm the original poster and I don't mind this discourse but after opitek answers me I agree we should wrap up this off topic soon