Oh boy... I am looking forward to it Ryan. That ought to be a lively thread!!
Why We Need Cinema Lenses
- Thread starter David G. Smith
- Start date
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
My computer crashed when I was writing it and now I've got to re-write half of it. This will be posted hopefully by this time tomorrow. I gotta walk away because I might throw my MBP through my window.
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
Been there before. 'Cept it happened at work while using my MBP to take some of the workload off the main computers that were rendering AE comps. Only time I've cursed Macs and was glad I had a PC...
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I guess it's been a year since we had a huge debate on this topic again 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
This article will be quite enlightening.
The argument after will be cannon fodder.
But not this type of canon fodder.
The argument after will be cannon fodder.
But not this type of canon fodder.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Absolutely, they are superior, no question about it. They are just prohibitively (for me) expensive to buy, and out of the budget range of most of my shoots to even rent. If I could afford $4K per lens I wouldn't be shooting on a DSLR.
David W. Jones
Veteran
The growing trend by lens manufactors as of late is to brand still lenses as cine lenses.
Take a CCTV lens, rehouse it in a body with a popular mount, paint a sexy racing stripe around the barrel to get attention, and puff, you gotta cine lens.... Not! But people are like cattle and once someone posts how bitchen the lens is with a low res video everyone wants one.
Sorry I digress.
Take a CCTV lens, rehouse it in a body with a popular mount, paint a sexy racing stripe around the barrel to get attention, and puff, you gotta cine lens.... Not! But people are like cattle and once someone posts how bitchen the lens is with a low res video everyone wants one.
Sorry I digress.
WhiteMonkey
Well-known member
looking forward to it
edit: Great read and reference.
I've got the Tokina 11-16mm and the Tamron 17-50mm for run and gun and low-budget. Both f2.8.
Friends rented the Compact Prime 2 set. I think that's what we're going to do to with our productions too. The images were impressive.
edit: Great read and reference.
I've got the Tokina 11-16mm and the Tamron 17-50mm for run and gun and low-budget. Both f2.8.
Friends rented the Compact Prime 2 set. I think that's what we're going to do to with our productions too. The images were impressive.
Last edited:
AwakenedFilms
Veteran
+1
Jason
Jason
Consistent accurate focus marks - the big one.
Parfocal.
Often faster, but not always (t-stops vs f-stops is mostly irrelevant in the digital age).
Better/longer focus throw.
Geared for follow focus / zoom motor / FIZ use.
Stronger mount - no shifting during focus and superior durability.
Color matched - of debatable importance since zooms and primes from different manufacturers are often mixed.
Consistent size from lens to lens within a set - both body size and front diameter (not all cine lenses meet this goal, especially older ones).
Lack of breathing (not the case with all older cine lenses, especially zooms).
Internal focus (again not attained by older cine lenses).
All manual/mechanical operation including aperture.
Clickless aperture - much less important than the internet claims.
Everything else that comes with expense but not necessarily with cinefication, including sharper images @ wide open aperture.
Did I miss anything?
As mentioned, if you can afford cinema lenses you should probably be shooting with a real movie camera, not a DSLR.
Sorry for jumping the gun, 20 hours is too long for me to wait for ANYTHING lol
Parfocal.
Often faster, but not always (t-stops vs f-stops is mostly irrelevant in the digital age).
Better/longer focus throw.
Geared for follow focus / zoom motor / FIZ use.
Stronger mount - no shifting during focus and superior durability.
Color matched - of debatable importance since zooms and primes from different manufacturers are often mixed.
Consistent size from lens to lens within a set - both body size and front diameter (not all cine lenses meet this goal, especially older ones).
Lack of breathing (not the case with all older cine lenses, especially zooms).
Internal focus (again not attained by older cine lenses).
All manual/mechanical operation including aperture.
Clickless aperture - much less important than the internet claims.
Everything else that comes with expense but not necessarily with cinefication, including sharper images @ wide open aperture.
Did I miss anything?
As mentioned, if you can afford cinema lenses you should probably be shooting with a real movie camera, not a DSLR.
Sorry for jumping the gun, 20 hours is too long for me to wait for ANYTHING lol
Last edited:
Moseph
Veteran
More iris blades
Body size consistent means no readjusting the follow focus gears
More travel in the focus ring more more precise focus pulling
David W. Jones
Veteran
How does the old joke go... Something like, how many ACs does it take to put on a cine lens.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
On the fora I like to push the other argument !
Now I know sometimes in business you have to just buy the right tool
Over the years I have bought some tools, a 4002.8 when I was photographing football as a 'kid', a Sound Devices recorder when doing a series of interviews with a DSLR, a hasselblad H and lenses for my photographic studio, what about a proper cine zoom ??
With my FS100 I have been ripping myself apart with still lenses
Bad focus travel , growing zooms that hit the filters in your matte box, pinging nuns knickers.. it all sucks
I can see and feel every little thing that makes cine glass wonderful
Now its to me an economic decision.
You and your crew have X hours in the day and Y dollars in the bag
Every move of a follow focus, readjustment of the matte box, bum focus pull - it all costs you in your day
Reduces the productive footage shot - cine lenses save money
Now I really thought about this, but it seems that 98% of shoots have other things that they could spend their money on
Better art, more time, a better location, more lights and grip
Honestly I think cine lenses just don't add up on a lot of shoots.. of course they do on some
A well selected set of old still glass really is, however, a very good choice in many circumstances
S
Now I know sometimes in business you have to just buy the right tool
Over the years I have bought some tools, a 4002.8 when I was photographing football as a 'kid', a Sound Devices recorder when doing a series of interviews with a DSLR, a hasselblad H and lenses for my photographic studio, what about a proper cine zoom ??
With my FS100 I have been ripping myself apart with still lenses
Bad focus travel , growing zooms that hit the filters in your matte box, pinging nuns knickers.. it all sucks
I can see and feel every little thing that makes cine glass wonderful
Now its to me an economic decision.
You and your crew have X hours in the day and Y dollars in the bag
Every move of a follow focus, readjustment of the matte box, bum focus pull - it all costs you in your day
Reduces the productive footage shot - cine lenses save money
Now I really thought about this, but it seems that 98% of shoots have other things that they could spend their money on
Better art, more time, a better location, more lights and grip
Honestly I think cine lenses just don't add up on a lot of shoots.. of course they do on some
A well selected set of old still glass really is, however, a very good choice in many circumstances
S
Andrew Luczenczyn
Active member
dont forget constant F-stop throughout the zoom range!!
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
That's not just on cine lenses, my Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 17-50 both have constant F-stop through zoom.
.
That's not a cinema lens feature, that's just a non-crap lens feature - and according to Canon, not a requirement for cinema lenses at all! I disagree with them on this point and believe it severely cripples the Canon 30-300 cinema lens.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
So do the Lumix 7-14, the Olympus 16-35 and 35-100, the forthcoming Lumix X 12-35 and 35-100, and some of the Nikons (I think the 17-35 and 17-55 are both fixed 2.8 throughout). I'm sure there are many more.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I only buy lenses with constant F-stop now. The 7D kit lens drives me crazy which is why I RARELY use it.