Standars Speeds v. Super Speeds v ?

[Tim Duran]

There was a short thread in March-April 2009 discussing these two lens groups. Most preferred the Standards to the Supers. I'm considering buying a set of Supers, II's or III's, but most of the negative comments on the Supers were that they porthole and/or have other problems at the faster f stops. If that's the case, then why bother since the only reason for buying them to me is obtaining the faster speed.

I have a set of Standards (2.1) and Angenieux Rouge's (2.6-.8) but that's it in my arsenel. I don't feel I've ever sacrifced imagry by not having faster lenses, but who knows. Friends have suggested Ultra's, but that's not getting me any closer to 1.2-1.4. There have yet to be any definitive tests on Luminas. Red primes are out (Even Red is using Leica lenses on their photo ops now.)

How many of you out there feel the faster speeds are an absolute "must." Cost is not an issue to me (short of paying $20,000+ per lens!), but functionality and imagry are key.

 

[Richard Foster]

FWIW I do shoot at 1.4 for night scenes in drama situations from time to time and have been very glad to have that speed for certain looks, and in certain situations to be able to use less lighting. For example I shot some night scenes in a recent short at 1.4 and rated at 2400. The only light was very small Christmas lights and a handheld LED 15 feet away and the images came out very well. (Red MX Nikon 85 f1.4)

On the other hand when I am lighting in the studio or location interiors i tend to light for between 2.8 and 4 so the faster glass is not an issue.

NB This is an ungraded image.

 

[Clint Lealos]

I don't see the faster speeds as an absolute must, but I guess that depends on what you shoot mostly and your personal taste. I am of the opinion that super fast lenses are no longer neccessary given the sensitivity of the new digital sensors like the MX sensor. I usually light to a 2.8 or 4 anyway, so... If Red Pro Primes are out of the question, I would suggest the next best bang for your buck is Cooke Panchros. Check out Timur's review for more details http://timurcivan.blogspot.com/2011/04/examination-of-lenses-part-ii-cooke.html, but I like the sound of mini S4s that cover 5K and beyond for a fraction of the cost Sure, they are even slower (2.8) than your standard speeds, but you give up one stop and they get smaller, lighter, and significantly cheaper, while maintaining the quality you come to expect with Cooke lenses. I'll stop, I sound like I work for Cooke Good luck and let us know what you decided!

 

[axel ebermann]

new york skyline at night. actor hopping around in front of it.
you want to shoot that at f 2.8 or 1.4 ?

(well - it is always an option to light the entire city. they kinda did it
on wall street II).

the standards porthole by the way wide open. the super speeds do not.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

If you have been happy with Standards at t/2.1, you've basically answered your own question. I'm gonna guess that you aren't quite happy because you are asking.

I disagree with the notion that the new sensitivity of digital sensors obviates the need for faster glass. I always want to hold my EI down, and noise with it, as much as possible. Even a Red MX or Epic is something I want to shoot around ISO 400-500 when I can.

Unlike your sensor ... your glass is ALWAYS noise free.

When given an option, I'd rather light to t/2.8 - t/5.6 at my chosen ISO.

As Axel pointed out, you don't always have that option. I'd rather open the lens a bit than change the ISO under most circumstances.

Day to day ... you can work at t/2.8, but when you need faster ... you usually really need it. If you've planned properly, this is not an issue - you can just hire faster glass the few occasions you need them.

In my case the lenses where I choose faster than t/2.8 most often are the 85 and the "wide" lenses. Wide shots present the most lighting issues ... and one solution is to just crack open the lens a touch. It has the virtue of speed at any rate. I often choose the 85 as my main close up lens (very traditional I know) and often its these shots where I need to defocus the backgrounds more extremely.

OK ... moving on there is another reason for fast glass. If you are shooting your glass wide open, you aren't getting the best image it can produce. Elsewhere I think David Mullen wrote (and I agree) that most lenses need to be stopped down two full stops to deliver their best image. When Ketch was here with Epic 008, I got to work with the Master Primes quite a bit. Some of the best glass humans have made ... and it looks better two stops down from wide open.

So the real question is if those Standard's at t/2.8 are producing satisfactory images.

Given an unlimited budget ... I think I would choose a full set of the Leica Summilux-C lenses as my day to day lenses,. I think I like the size and weight more than the Master Primes or the S5/i lenses. For the most part they'd never get opened past t/2.8. You know ... two stops from wide open.

On the few days I need more speed (or when the 75 comes out in that set) I could open to t/1.4.

Now, we come the Cooke Panchros /i They aren't super fast at t/2.8, but being far newer lenses offer a better over all design than the older Zeiss glass. The Panchros do look better at t/5.6, but they look better at wide open at t/2.8 than Mk3 Standards look at t/4.

The Ultra Primes are nominally the same speed as the Mk3 Standards. Again, and for the same reasons, they look much better at t/2 than the Mk3 at t/4. It goes on... The Master Primes look just as good at t/1.3 as the Ultra Primes do at t/2, and better than the Mk3's at t/4.

Its hard to see this level of difference. Your clients may miss it entirely. I know I'm just learning to see it. You may not be able to see it now or ever- and even if you do see it, you may judge it acceptable.

Coming back to the Red Pro Prime lenses .... I wouldn't read too much if anything into the choice by Red to use Leica lenses when showing their camera. Epic is the best camera on the planet, and you can really see the difference most clearly when some of the best glass in the world is on the camera. Leica is making glass every bit as good as Master Primes and S5/i in my opinion, but with the key advantage of being smaller. The size of Epic is a key advantage of the camera - so it makes perfect sense to me that Red would select Leica over Cooke and Zeiss in this circumstance.

 

[Tim Duran]

Alexander and folks. Very worthy comments. Thanks to all of you for your imput.

 

[axel ebermann]

I would like to add that the Red Primes are actually a great bang for the buck. Very sharp. Pretty fast at T 1.9 and
a nice bokeh.


Unfortunately I travel a lot.
And I know it sound kind of weird but being able to carry my set of Zeiss superspeeds in a small case on board
vs. having to check in a huge box full of 6 pounders is a big thing for me...

 

[Adam Eden]

MKIII super speeds have been my best investment to date. However they are very expensive these days $40-$50K for a set. Standards are around $15-$20K

 

[Clint Lealos]

new york skyline at night. actor hopping around in front of it.
you want to shoot that at f 2.8 or 1.4 ?

(well - it is always an option to light the entire city. they kinda did it
on wall street II).

the standards porthole by the way wide open. the super speeds do not.

Agreed. I guess I should have said super fast lenses are not needed 95% of the time. If you live or work in NY, and need to shoot at night a lot in front of the skyline than your choice is easy If you shoot mainly in controlled environments like a studio then your choice becomes a little more difficult.

I agree with most everything Alexander said, except I usually shoot at ISO 800. Good luck with whatever you decide! I know its a tough one

 

[Jose Lomeña]

I have standard, and are great. But for night or studio I prefer Supers, at least from 16 to 32mm. When you open 16-32 at t2.1 it has a lot of character (soft and dark corners), better at t4. For 50mm - 180mm standard are great in night and day.

 

[Tim Duran]

None of you seem to complain about portholing or "milky" images as was mentioned several times in the 2009 thread. Jose, if you use your Supers at 2.1, why not just use your Standards at 2.1 instead?

Adam, there have been comments that the Supers don't work that well unless stopped down. to me, if you have to shoot at f4, then what's the point in having Supers? What's your experience at 1.3?

Again, thanks for all your participation in this thread.

 

[Adam Eden]

I don't get any milkyness in my MkIII wide open, it is a little softer at 1.3 with ND1.2 to ND 1.5 added. But the look is great for arty stuff/ music videos. I finish to 1080P so you really can't see the softness at that res and I personally think it adds to the "cinematic" look.

I also have a set of compact primes (T2.1) which are very very sharp and I need to add a 1/2 or 1 ultracon to be able to use them as the images at 1080p are way too sharp. I also have the new Zeiss LWZ which is T2.6 and that is also way too sharp.

The thing is I really prefer the super speeds as they flare nicely, look very cinematic, lightweight and match really well with my new LWZ lens. The flares on the compact primes are pretty ordinary but the lenses are great for steadicam and tv commercials.

I just shot a music video for a band called Sparkadia the track Mary. This was shot all T1.3-T2 320 ISO on my superspeeds on my RED MX and I had some crane shots with my LWZ. As soon as the record label approves the clip I will post a link and you can make the decisions yourself.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I just don't get why would anyone want to spend $40K for 20+ year old set if they can buy a brand new set of Illuminas for less with presumably new tight mechanics and current optical design.
Is that a case of piss-poor marketing of Optar vs" brand that sells itself" -ARRI? Elitism? Predictability of results (with ARRI) vs unknown quality(Illuminas/Optar)?
What does everyone think?
I've said before and still maintain that a lens choice is an "artistic choice" more than anything else so pure performance is a secondary consideration for ANY reasonably good (optically) lenses..

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I don't get any milkyness in my MkIII wide open, it is a little softer at 1.3 with ND1.2 to ND 1.5 added. But the look is great for arty stuff/ music videos. I finish to 1080P so you really can't see the softness at that res and I personally think it adds to the "cinematic" look.

I also have a set of compact primes (T2.1) which are very very sharp and I need to add a 1/2 or 1 ultracon to be able to use them as the images at 1080p are way too sharp. I also have the new Zeiss LWZ which is T2.6 and that is also way too sharp.

The thing is I really prefer the super speeds as they flare nicely, look very cinematic, lightweight and match really well with my new LWZ lens. The flares on the compact primes are pretty ordinary but the lenses are great for steadicam and tv commercials.

I just shot a music video for a band called Sparkadia the track Mary. This was shot all T1.3-T2 320 ISO on my superspeeds on my RED MX and I had some crane shots with my LWZ. As soon as the record label approves the clip I will post a link and you can make the decisions yourself.

I can't say I agree with Adam - but I support his position.

We disagree about what looks good though - and that's why you hire different cinematographers. It's also why all the advice in the world still leaves you having to make your own decision.

FWIW, I'd take the Compact Prime and the LWZ and their sharpness any day over softer lenses. I like sharp images. If I photograph a knife ... you had better check yourself for bleeding when you watch it.

I agree super sharp isn't always the look you want. I can add a filter to soften sharp glass ... you can't make soft lenses sharper. If I liked soft images like Adam, I'd still be inclined to use the sharpest lenses I could, and just soften them to taste

As to the "milky" look, I object to that word. What happens is that contrast is reduced at open apertures. You get other aberrations, like CA as well - but those vary a bit set to set. In any case you get decreased contrast with the Mk3's wide open. Both the standards and the supers suffer from this. So, if you want the best sharpness from Mk3's, then you need to close the iris two stops. So, shoot your superspeeds at t/2.8, and your standards at t/4.

That goes for Master Primes and Ultra Primes as well ... its just they start from a much higher contrast than the Mk3 lenses.

 

[Adam Eden]

I can't say I agree with Adam - but I support his position.

We disagree about what looks good though - and that's why you hire different cinematographers. It's also why all the advice in the world still leaves you having to make your own decision.

FWIW, I'd take the Compact Prime and the LWZ and their sharpness any day over softer lenses. I like sharp images. If I photograph a knife ... you had better check yourself for bleeding when you watch it.

I agree super sharp isn't always the look you want. I can add a filter to soften sharp glass ... you can't make soft lenses sharper. If I liked soft images like Adam, I'd still be inclined to use the sharpest lenses I could, and just soften them to taste

As to the "milky" look, I object to that word. What happens is that contrast is reduced at open apertures. You get other aberrations, like CA as well - but those vary a bit set to set. In any case you get decreased contrast with the Mk3's wide open. Both the standards and the supers suffer from this. So, if you want the best sharpness from Mk3's, then you need to close the iris two stops. So, shoot your superspeeds at t/2.8, and your standards at t/4.

That goes for Master Primes and Ultra Primes as well ... its just they start from a much higher contrast than the Mk3 lenses.

That is why I have 2 sets of Lenses Alex!

I just don't get why would anyone want to spend $40K for 20+ year old set if they can buy a brand new set of Illuminas for less with presumably new tight mechanics and current optical design.
Is that a case of piss-poor marketing of Optar vs" brand that sells itself" -ARRI? Elitism? Predictability of results (with ARRI) vs unknown quality(Illuminas/Optar)?
What does everyone think?
I've said before and still maintain that a lens choice is an "artistic choice" more than anything else so pure performance is a secondary consideration for ANY reasonably good (optically) lenses..

I 100% agree with what Jacek is saying about lens choice is an "artistic choice" I suggest to anyone wanting to buy any lens to go and hire for a while and decide for yourself what you like then buy that.

My quote for the day.." Opinions are like arseholes every one has one! " so hire and play with as many lenses as you can get your hands on

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

That is why I have 2 sets of Lenses Alex!

I slightly hate you right now. Just slightly.

I may get over it ... but probably not until I have at least one set of proper lenses to call my own.

 

[Tim Duran]

Jacek, if there was more trustworthy info on Elite, Lumina or any of the other lens companies out there that have fast lenses below the $10,000 each range I would consider other lenses. But I've read and read blogs, reviews and literature and can't find anything definitive. Lots of info on Masters. Lots of info on Super Speeds. Zilch on anything else.

As to why I'm willing to buy a 20+ year old product, my Standards are lightweight, short, allowing for quick pans and flexibility in movement, and have been very trustworthy in the years I've owned them. I've heard mixed reviews on the Super Speeds, that's why I started this thread.

If you can direct me to literature of competent test comparisons of the lesser known lenses compared to Supers, Standards, Ultras, etc, please do.

Alexander, I used the term "milky" only because that term was used throughout the April, 2009 thread.

If Evin et al were willing to update his great SALT thread, I would be more than happy to donate some scratch to help finance any rental charges.

 

[Martin Stevens]

I use Zeiss T2.1 Standard Speeds because I love their look, and particularly the look of their lens flares.
I made the decision to use Zeiss T2.1 Standard Speeds because modern glass does not flare in a way
that looks as nice as these older lenses.

Also, with the Epic looking good even at 2000 ISO, all I need is T2.1.

 

[Adam Eden]

If you want to talk about interesting glass... I regularly shoot with a hassleblad to PL adapter and shoot on 1960's Hassleblad glass. I have 50, 80, 120 and a 250. The look is like nothing else you have ever seen. Very low con but razor sharp with a nice softness at same time. Again I will post this when the record label approves the edit as these lenses mix very well with my Zeiss.

Imagine shooting with glass made for a 2.5 inch square neg. When used on RED you are always shooting within the sweet spot of the lens. The bad part is that they are not wide at all.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

If you want to talk about interesting glass... I regularly shoot with a hassleblad to PL adapter and shoot on 1960's Hassleblad glass. I have 50, 80, 120 and a 250. The look is like nothing else you have ever seen. Very low con but razor sharp with a nice softness at same time. Again I will post this when the record label approves the edit as these lenses mix very well with my Zeiss.

Imagine shooting with glass made for a 2.5 inch square neg. When used on RED you are always shooting within the sweet spot of the lens. The bad part is that they are not wide at all.

Now I think you are just rubbing it in

Actually that does sound very cool. Make sure and PM me when you get images up somewhere!