Real PL lens advantage

[Rob Ruffo]

Sometimes I wonder if renting Cookes is worth it.

We have a 100% reliable Birger mount - so mechanics are great on Canon lenses.

Aside from mechanics, what have you guys noticed as real advantages for PL mount vs. top-end Canon L glass?

My eyes tell me I see a difference, my producer tells me....

 

[Martin Ubilluz]

well for one still glass is made for a still image they are made differently than cinema glass still glass does not have to worry about constantly focusing and rack focusing.. Still glass works a little different when you rack focus with a still lens your going to see allot of breathing which is not very pleasing at all when your watching it.

 

[Matt Uhry]

Short Answer:

If you are happy and getting shots you like, and your producer keeps wanting to hire you, keep doing what you are doing. The Canon L lenses are optically solid. Image quality, in terms of static shot resolution, contrast, distortion, CA, should be on par with the average modern PL mount lens.

Long Answer:

Good Quality / Well maintained PL mount lenses are designed for motion image work and have some features that make them better suited for it than still lenses like:

-expanded accurate focus scales
-lack of image shift
-lack of breathing
-robust construction
-stepless manual iris
-rock solid mount
-holding focus while zooming
-excellent optical design - sometimes using high cost techniques and materials.
-high speed wide angles

Most of the time you can survive without most of these features. The Birger is an interesting workaround, and helps still lenses punch above their weight on a moving image project. On some productions where you can measure costs in hundreds of dollars per minute, it makes financial sense to have the best, quickest tools available, and to many cameramen and even a few producers those are PL mount lenses.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Short Answer:

If you are happy and getting shots you like, and your producer keeps wanting to hire you, keep doing what you are doing. The Canon L lenses are optically solid. Image quality, in terms of static shot resolution, contrast, distortion, CA, should be on par with the average modern PL mount lens.

Long Answer:

Good Quality / Well maintained PL mount lenses are designed for motion image work and have some features that make them better suited for it than still lenses like:

-expanded accurate focus scales
-lack of image shift
-lack of breathing
-robust construction
-stepless manual iris
-rock solid mount
-holding focus while zooming
-excellent optical design - sometimes using high cost techniques and materials.
-high speed wide angles

Most of the time you can survive without most of these features. The Birger is an interesting workaround, and helps still lenses punch above their weight on a moving image project. On some productions where you can measure costs in hundreds of dollars per minute, it makes financial sense to have the best, quickest tools available, and to many cameramen and even a few producers those are PL mount lenses.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

That's a half true:

Some of high end and expensive still TELEPHOTO lenses have got PL mount just because so called cine lenses for that focal lengths are not existing.

Also thanks to DSLR revolution PL mount is not going to be longer the industry standard mount for some of famous cine lenses:

Carl Zeiss:

Compact Primes CP.2 - Lenses with interchangeable mount

The Compact Prime CP.2 lenses are the latest members of
the ZEISS family of lenses for digital and film cameras. This
second generation of the Compact Prime lenses now delivers
even greater flexibility by introducing interchangeable
mounts that allow the lenses to be used with a wide range
of cameras from traditional cine to HDSLR systems.

- Interchangeable mount allows a mix of HDSLR systems with traditional cine cameras
- Full frame coverage (24 x 36mm) for focal lengths 21 to 85 mm
- Common aperture of T2.1 for the standard lens set
- No need for adapter solutions anymore
- Three different mounts available (PL, EF and F mount)
- High stability due to support bracket, which is included for additional lens stability
- Sweet spot effect with APS-C sensors

Application:

Switching between traditional film and digital PL cine cameras and HDSLR cameras is no longer an issue.
The Compact Prime CP.2 lenses’ improved functionality means
improved ergonomics compared to standard SLR lenses, standard housing dimensions,
standard focus and iris gear positions, a consistent front diameter, a robust construction,
longer focus rotation and a manual focus, thereby providing the flexibility users demand.
With precision and speed - Compact Prime CP.2 lenses are the perfect tool for Independent filmmakers,
professional still photographers expanding their services or large studios using
HDSLR’s as a second camera for TV and feature film productions.



LINK>>>

Angenieux:

Mount for DSLR cameras>>Canon Mount: Designed to replace PL mount, Angenieux’s Canon EF mount allows the Optimo 15-40, Optimo 28-76 and Optimo 24-290 lenses to be used on DSLR Camera.

Mount for DSLR cameras>>Nikon Mount: Designed to replace PL mount, Angenieux’s Nikon F mount allows the Optimo 15-40, Optimo 28-76 and Optimo 24-290 lenses to be used on DSLR Camera.

LINK>>>


And that's just the beginning of switching process...

 

[Jon B.]

Manual iris control is a must for me.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

CP.2 @ T3.6 is unusable.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

CP.2 @ T3.6 is unusable.

I wouldn't say "unusable", but it certainly can be limiting.

I try to aim for exposures of t/4 for most indoor studio work, so t/3.6 can work quite often. Outdoors during daytime shooting I aim for t/5.6-8 again workable.

Usually I want shallow DoF on nighttime exteriors and close interiors.

So the only place I'll typically call for the 18mm and shallow DoF is the nighttime exterior. Can't use the CP.2 there of course.

If I really need an 18mm prime I usually call for a Zeiss MP t/1.3. Usually however I am content with a wide zoom at that focal length, my favorite being the Cooke S4 15-40 t/2.

 

[Anson Fogel]

Well, to add to this:

Counterintuitively, I shoot mostly action and run and gun, with some studio, and I have finally given up on still glass and invested in PL glass zooms, and rent primes. No more still glass for me. I am exactly the kind of shooter who should be shooting still glass, but I can't get around the PL advantages.

First, my Birger/Impero combo never work right no matter how many combinations of firmware and other factors I try - it works, then it doesn't, then it does...and given both companies status, its not really a long term, reliable on set solution for us.

Second, having on the lens aperture control is key for me - even when the Birger works, I just can't quickly reach over to the lens in a hurry and spin the old aperture ring. Yes, with Nikon glass I can, but then I still have short throw crappy focus challenges, which for action sports on longer lenses is a real skill. See next....

Third, the focus thing. This ground has bee covered here to say the least. But oddly enough again, on run and gun, man, I love those long silky focus rings on cine glass. Impero in theory solves that, but again, in remote environs under the gun, that thing does not compare to the dead reliability of the cine glass focus ring with or without FF.

Fourth, and your main question, image quality - well, its the least of the issue, but yes, my mid price cine zooms look better especially wide open. Not a ton, if it weren't for the above, I would probably not worry about it, as its a minor difference. As well, the consistency of cine glass in my experience is much better than still glass, even my beloved canon L glass, where there is a lot of variance between examples of a single lens model.

 

[R. Schorman]

Now you can put a really expensive Optimo on a really cheap camera. Huzzah

 

[Michael Hastings]

well for one still glass is made for a still image they are made differently than cinema glass still glass does not have to worry about constantly focusing and rack focusing.. Still glass works a little different when you rack focus with a still lens your going to see allot of breathing which is not very pleasing at all when your watching it.

This is true on most cheap still lenses, but many of the higher quality constant aperture zooms also hold focus very well and show minimal breathing. With all that are available, it is pretty easy to find midrange f2.8 zooms in the $1K to $2k price range that perform very well.

Well, to add to this:

Counterintuitively, I shoot mostly action and run and gun, with some studio, and I have finally given up on still glass and invested in PL glass zooms, and rent primes. No more still glass for me. I am exactly the kind of shooter who should be shooting still glass, but I can't get around the PL advantages.

First, my Birger/Impero combo never work right no matter how many combinations of firmware and other factors I try - it works, then it doesn't, then it does...and given both companies status, its not really a long term, reliable on set solution for us.

Second, having on the lens aperture control is key for me - even when the Birger works, I just can't quickly reach over to the lens in a hurry and spin the old aperture ring. Yes, with Nikon glass I can, but then I still have short throw crappy focus challenges, which for action sports on longer lenses is a real skill. See next....

Third, the focus thing. This ground has bee covered here to say the least. But oddly enough again, on run and gun, man, I love those long silky focus rings on cine glass. Impero in theory solves that, but again, in remote environs under the gun, that thing does not compare to the dead reliability of the cine glass focus ring with or without FF.

Fourth, and your main question, image quality - well, its the least of the issue, but yes, my mid price cine zooms look better especially wide open. Not a ton, if it weren't for the above, I would probably not worry about it, as its a minor difference. As well, the consistency of cine glass in my experience is much better than still glass, even my beloved canon L glass, where there is a lot of variance between examples of a single lens model.

Anson, have you ever tried Contax Yashica Zeiss lenses on your birger? I started using these when I had the first proto RED/Birger mount (pre-Impero) and was using it as a dumb mount with a C/Y or Nikon adapter (I found the c/y zeiss to handle much nicer than the nikon). Virtually the same optics as the Zeiss compact primes, T* coatings and very smooth, long focus throws as well - at a tenth of the price. And just like the Compact Primes they are made to cover full frame

With all that said, I just had a chance to play with the new Lumatech T1.3 S35 Primes ($27K for the six lens set) and was very impressed. Very good optically and new mechanics and super speed even on the 18mm.

 

[Anson Fogel]

CYZ

CYZ

Michael,

I did look at those lenses, but only superficially as I really need zooms for most of my daily use, and they looked like solid primes...I'll have to check out your other option as well. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Erich Ocean]

Aside from mechanics, what have you guys noticed as real advantages for PL mount vs. top-end Canon L glass?

Not all PL mount glass is good, but since you asked about Cooke glass, I can tell you what advantages I see in Cooke (and the same would apply to ARRI Master Primes, Panavision Primos and similar -- at least from what I've seen).

1. The biggest problem with using still glass for motion work is that still glass is designed to look good on still images (only). In a still image, it's okay to compress the depth within the field of view irregularly (or not smoothly). This is emphatically NOT true of glass meant for motion picture use.

All lenses compress depth differently; this is often a function of focal length. A wide lens increases the apparent depth; a long lens decreases it. Everyone can easily verify this. What most people don't know is that within the frame, the compression is not (necessarily) regular. It depends very much on the arrangement of the glass.

Still lenses, in my experience, are not engineered to compress depth regularly or smoothly. With Cooke glass (and what people call the "Cooke look"), what you're are seeing is very smooth, very regular depth compression away from the plane of focus. This is partly why the focus rolls off so nicely and the bokeh is awesome, not just way off the plane of focus, but 1" off the plane of focus.

With a still lens, this is mostly a non issue. Once the frame is in motion, however, people are moving throughout the depth of the frame within the FOV. That's where things get weird on still glass. Because the depth compression is irregular, people and things moving through the frame look "bad". With Cooke glass, they look freaking awesome (IMO).

2. All lens measurements are for still pictures. It's true that Canon L glass does very well for stills (and they damn well should). But we don't currently have a way to measure a lens' quality for objects that are in motion, except by trial and error and observation. Modern PL mount glass looks great for motion images because it's designed for motion images.

Anyway, that's why I use Cooke glass. I've recently purchased Cooke Panchro/i glass for use with the Stage 2 Epic I've got on order. And I recently bought a PL mount adaptor for my GH1(3) so that I can use Cooke lenses for fashion shoots. I just love the look.

 

[Shawn Booth]

There's also a lot of talk here on REDUSER about using the proper tools to get the job done. Broken down simply:

Stills glass is used for... Stills.
Cinema (motion) glass is used for... Cinema (motion).

Take this along with most of the responses and decide for yourself.

However, Matt's response actually transcends the discussion:

If you are happy and getting shots you like, and your producer keeps wanting to hire you, keep doing what you are doing.

 

[Charles Angus]

[snip]In a still image, it's okay to compress the depth within the field of view irregularly (or not smoothly). This is emphatically NOT true of glass meant for motion picture use.

All lenses compress depth differently; this is often a function of focal length. A wide lens increases the apparent depth; a long lens decreases it. Everyone can easily verify this. What most people don't know is that within the frame, the compression is not (necessarily) regular. It depends very much on the arrangement of the glass.[snip]

I'm not disagreeing, but this is the first I've ever heard, anywhere, of this.

As I understand it, depth compression is a function of camera-subject distance, and nothing else. Wide lenses feel like they increase the depth, because for a given subject size, the camera-subject distance is much smaller.

Can you post some examples of irregular depth compression caused by optical design?

 

[Erich Ocean]

I'm not disagreeing, but this is the first I've ever heard, anywhere, of this.

As I understand it, depth compression is a function of camera-subject distance, and nothing else. Wide lenses feel like they increase the depth, because for a given subject size, the camera-subject distance is much smaller.

I think your view is really common. Mathematically, with a pinhole camera model, it's absolutely true. But modern lenses are not pinhole cameras.

I do a lot of work with 3D renderers, which simulate pinhole cameras and use math to calculate the light paths. I wanted the renders to look "real", and it turned out the problem was that actual lens systems do a lot more to light paths than you would think. Each lens looks different, I've come to believe, *primarily* because of near-to-far distortion, not left-to-right or top-to-bottom distortion (which is what most lens tests measure). The distortion affects the size of objects, which in turn affects the bokeh. When you see bokeh differences between two lenses, you're seeing the effects of non-linear near-to-far compression (among other things -- the blades themselves affect objects at a distance, but that's a different effect).

Can you post some examples of irregular depth compression caused by optical design?

You can easily see it for yourself, with your own lenses. Take any two lenses of the same focal length, put your camera on a tripod, and take a picture at the same F-stop. Examine the resulting images by placing one over top the other in Photoshop and switching between them. You'll observe two things:

1. They don't match geometrically. They will match most closely in the center image (and ideally, will be identical at the very center of the frame). As you move towards the edge, the locations of objects in space are different, as are the sizes. (In other words, it's not just left-to-right or top-to-bottom distortion; the objects are literally different sizes on the frame depending on the depth they are in the frame, even though the FOV and aperture are identical.)

2. The amount of bokeh is different *on the same objects*. For example, an object 1 meter back from an in-focus object in the center of the image will be out of focus differently on each lens. Bokeh is both a result of the relevant mathematics AND by the lens elements themselves as they bend light paths from a larger scene around to project them onto the sensor. Each lens bends light paths coming in differently, and those differences manifest themselves as *apparent* near-far depth compression in the lens (in addition to the normal focal length effects of a wide or telephoto lens).

In 3D renderings, a 3D world description is projected on a 2D plane. There are lots of different mathematical ways to do this, and they all modify the apparent depth. Most computer transformations (called projections) are linear, because we use matrixes. But a linear matrix won't match any "real world" lens exactly, because real world lenses have non-linear projections. These non-linear projections vary from lens to lens based on the optical elements inside.

Less empirically, we all know that prime lenses from different manufactures at the same focal length look "different". We tend to think the primary differences are a function of the coatings, the internal bounce control, etc. and manifest those differences as either (a) sharpness/contrast, or (b) distortion at the film plane (which you can see with a test chart). But the reality is that near-far-distortion plays an even larger role.

The truth is that lenses distort both left-to-right/top-to-bottom (which you can easily observe on a test chart) AND they distort near-to-far (which is what motion picture glass does really well at, and still glass, not so well).

Hope this helps!

P.s. The pinhole camera model used in 3D renderings looks bad. The bokeh is like a super-even gaussian blur, reminiscent of the spinning ground glass plates used by 35mm adaptors.

UPDATE: I didn't make this clear, but the near-to-far depth compression issues mostly manifest as depth/bokeh differences NEAR THE PLANE OF FOCUS. I don't know why, but that's where you see it the most. Lenses seem to vary a lot in that range.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I'm not disagreeing, but this is the first I've ever heard, anywhere, of this.

As I understand it, depth compression is a function of camera-subject distance, and nothing else. Wide lenses feel like they increase the depth, because for a given subject size, the camera-subject distance is much smaller.

Can you post some examples of irregular depth compression caused by optical design?

And in particular, examples of inappropriate depth compression from high quality stills glass?

Since the compact primes from Zeiss are basically the same optics from the Contax/Yashica Zeiss lenses which became the ZF lenses which became the CPs - do they exhibit this same problem?

I agree that something can be happening as something like what you describe occurs quite a bit with anamorphic lenses, but I thought it was mostly from the optically unusual anamorphic element and wasn't aware of it on more "normal" lenses.

I don't mean to be antagonistic but I'm from Missouri (originally) - the "show me state", so I press for more info on something like this.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

25 years in biz

25 years in biz

And never heard of it(uneven compression!???) It's a good story and well told however-much better than some recent theatrical productions.:thumbup1:

 

[Erich Ocean]

And never heard of it(uneven compression!???) It's a good story and well told however-much better than some recent theatrical productions.:thumbup1:

Okay, I'll take that as a complement. Next week, I should be able to do some test images (I don't have glass for the same camera with the same focal length to take pictures with at the moment.)

I will agree that the terminology I'm using leaves something to be desired; I'm open to suggestions. By depth compression, I'm talking primarily about our impression of depth using the out-of-focus visual cue (aka bokeh near the plane of focus). Still, in the meantime, I thought of another thought experiment to help gentle readers who remain skeptical:

Everyone (I'm certain) agrees that two different lenses of the same focal length and aperture have different degrees of sharpness at the plane of focus. What I'm saying is that those lenses also vary in how quickly and evenly they become out of focus relative to the plane of focus, as well as what they actually do to the light rays away from the plane of focus (aka criss-cross them, smoothly adjust them, etc.)

That's all I'm talking about -- nothing more. So ask yourself this: do you really believe that every lens differs at the plane of focus in sharpness, but not anywhere else away from the plane of focus? Of course not, now that you think about it. This (in addition to color, contrast, light control and actual sharpness) is what makes a Cooke S4 look like it does and Canon L glass look like it does. At the plane of focus, they're both equally sharp (and the Cooke might even be softer). I'm arguing that the Cooke S4 handles objects away from the plane of focus better than Canon L glass, and that it does so because it matters in cinematography and doesn't (as much) in stills. It matters most nearest the plane of focus in my experience, so long as hugely out-of-focus stuff in the background doesn't look absolutely terrible.

How things go out-of-focus affects our impression of depth, which is why I talked about "irregular depth compression". When the change in focus doesn't match our experience in life (too fast, too slow, general unevenness or other badness), we perceive the image as "bad". When it matches our experience, we perceive it as "good". This is very similar, philosophically, to how all of the depth cues in 3D movies need to match. When they don't, we get headaches and think the image looks fake and/or bad.

But wait! There's more: the patented Nikon 135mm f/2 DC. At the same aperture and focal length, you can adjust the bokeh (aka how the stuff away from the plane of focus makes its way through the optical system. It's pretty fun, and can produce some truly crappy bokeh (that looks a lot like that cheap kit lens that came with your SLR) or some truly beautiful stuff.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

well for one still glass is made for a still image they are made differently than cinema glass still glass does not have to worry about constantly focusing and rack focusing.. Still glass works a little different when you rack focus with a still lens your going to see allot of breathing which is not very pleasing at all when your watching it.

I know about this, but many L lenses (albeit not all) in fact hardly breathe at all.

And, again, Birger solves the mechanics issue

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Not all PL mount glass is good, but since you asked about Cooke glass, I can tell you what advantages I see in Cooke (and the same would apply to ARRI Master Primes, Panavision Primos and similar -- at least from what I've seen).

1. The biggest problem with using still glass for motion work is that still glass is designed to look good on still images (only). In a still image, it's okay to compress the depth within the field of view irregularly (or not smoothly). This is emphatically NOT true of glass meant for motion picture use.

All lenses compress depth differently; this is often a function of focal length. A wide lens increases the apparent depth; a long lens decreases it. Everyone can easily verify this. What most people don't know is that within the frame, the compression is not (necessarily) regular. It depends very much on the arrangement of the glass.

Still lenses, in my experience, are not engineered to compress depth regularly or smoothly. With Cooke glass (and what people call the "Cooke look"), what you're are seeing is very smooth, very regular depth compression away from the plane of focus. This is partly why the focus rolls off so nicely and the bokeh is awesome, not just way off the plane of focus, but 1" off the plane of focus.

With a still lens, this is mostly a non issue. Once the frame is in motion, however, people are moving throughout the depth of the frame within the FOV. That's where things get weird on still glass. Because the depth compression is irregular, people and things moving through the frame look "bad". With Cooke glass, they look freaking awesome (IMO).

2. All lens measurements are for still pictures. It's true that Canon L glass does very well for stills (and they damn well should). But we don't currently have a way to measure a lens' quality for objects that are in motion, except by trial and error and observation. Modern PL mount glass looks great for motion images because it's designed for motion images.

Anyway, that's why I use Cooke glass. I've recently purchased Cooke Panchro/i glass for use with the Stage 2 Epic I've got on order. And I recently bought a PL mount adaptor for my GH1(3) so that I can use Cooke lenses for fashion shoots. I just love the look.

thank you, I learned a lot from your post - you put into words and defined what I could not put my finger on.