"Breathing" of image using still camera lenses

[Ralph Toporoff]

A year ago I started trying still camera (mostly Nikon) lens with my RED ONE MX. First lens I acquired was a 28 to 70mm F2.8 zoom. Had great success with it. The zoom tracked and the focus pulls were rock steady, no breathing even after a year of use. . I was encouraged enough to go try a few long primes, (135, 200) and wide angle (24mm F2.8) The results have been disappointing. Images are sharp and clear (Nikon makes great glass) but all have a tendency to breath on focus pulls. Anyone have suggestions for a cure above the obvious one; don’t use still camera lens with a motion picture camera. Seriously interested

 

[Bob Gundu]

No cure other than animate scale in post unfortunately.

 

[Ralph Toporoff]

Thanks for the post production suggestion but I’m basically trying to find some way of repairing, rehousing or something that can be done to correct this mechanical problem with the lens. Do new lenses suffer from this problem or is it a matter of a period in time over use? I'm very satisfied with the image quality of these lenses

 

[Bob Gundu]

Still lenses will not change these characteristics over time. They were never intended to be used for video. Cinema lenses generally cost more because they have been designed to combat breathing issues. Also, some lenses are just better than others when it comes to breathing.

 

[D Fuller]

Thanks for the post production suggestion but I’m basically trying to find some way of repairing, rehousing or something that can be done to correct this mechanical problem with the lens. Do new lenses suffer from this problem or is it a matter of a period in time over use? I'm very satisfied with the image quality of these lenses

It's inherent in the design of most still lenses. Breathing doesn't matter in stills, so correcting for it is not a design parameter. The solution of rehousing is theoretically possible, but very expensive. Cine lenses correct for breathing (some more successfully than others) that's one of the reasons they cost so much more than still lenses.

Edit: I see Bob beat me to it.

 

[Mike P.]

I recently used a 25-250 Cooke from like 1970 that had - by far - the worst breathing I've ever experienced (still lenses included). It was like an additional 10-20mm on the zoom; I'm talking perfectly framed head shot, to scalp-chopped off just by pulling focus.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Ralph, the new Sigma 18-35 is one of the lowest breathing still lenses around! Try it and let me know!

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I recently used a 25-250 Cooke from like 1970 that had - by far - the worst breathing I've ever experienced (still lenses included). It was like an additional 10-20mm on the zoom; I'm talking perfectly framed head shot, to scalp-chopped off just by pulling focus.

Haha, yes. Longer focal length range cinema zooms of that era had some issues. To be fair, that lens came out in 1978, which is 35 years ago. It's also a high quality (at the time) 10:1 zoom with perhaps one of the fastest apertures for a 10:1 zoom at the time; point being I assume the breathing was a trade off of designing a lens that performed at such range, quality and speed. Anyway, I have used both Cooke and Angie 25-250's, Angie 12-120's and other longer range 10:1's from that era, and they all are pretty frustrating compared to modern cinema zooms. The 12-120 angie front barrel telescopes and rotates when in use, which makes me want to murder someone as you can't use a clip on (rotates (so no pola or GradND's)) or a rail mounted (extending front.) It's silly, yes, but that was pretty good for a 10:1 zoom 35 years ago!

That said, Anginieux just announced their new 25-250 Optimo that will bring back that famous 10:1 length in a modern lens. Pretty cool. Now if only Cooke would make a zoom!


The Sigma 18-35mm zoom, by contrast is roughly a 2:1 zoom! 10:1 is some serious optical magnification.... If the Sigma was a 10:1, it would need to be 18-180mm and I'm sure you'd start to see design complications begin to arise, even in 2013.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks for the post production suggestion but I’m basically trying to find some way of repairing, rehousing or something that can be done to correct this mechanical problem with the lens. Do new lenses suffer from this problem or is it a matter of a period in time over use? I'm very satisfied with the image quality of these lenses

Lenses don't change properties over time. Breathing is inherent in the design from the start. Some stills lenses breathe more, others less. It's a tradeoff one has to accept when purchasing affordable still's lenses. They won't all be ideal for cinema...many of them are "good enough", and others are excellent.

And as you've noticed yourself...optically...many of them are superb, yes!

 

[Nick Gardner]

Most simple prime lenses consist of a lens "Cell" that has the optics. A 50mm is a little pile of lenses in a metal tube. They don't move in relation to each other. The mechanics of the lens move that cell back and forth to bring it closer or further from the image plane focusing different parts of the image. As you move the lens closer or farther, it obviously changes size slightly. That's breathing. Now, an 18mm has a much shallower depth of focus than an 85mm, so it has to move much less distance, hence the 18mm hardly breathes at all, while the 85mm has a much deeper depth of focus and has to move more to focus, hence breathing more. Longer lenses are always going to breathe more for that reason. Personally in 25 years of working in the industry I really gave a shit about breathing maybe twice. Floating elements and other fancy wizardry can correct for breathing in ultra modern fancy ass cine lenses.

Nick

 

[Nick Morrison]

Most simple prime lenses consist of a lens "Cell" that has the optics. A 50mm is a little pile of lenses in a metal tube. They don't move in relation to each other. The mechanics of the lens move that cell back and forth to bring it closer or further from the image plane focusing different parts of the image. As you move the lens closer or farther, it obviously changes size slightly. That's breathing. Now, an 18mm has a much shallower depth of focus than an 85mm, so it has to move much less distance, hence the 18mm hardly breathes at all, while the 85mm has a much deeper depth of focus and has to move more to focus, hence breathing more. Longer lenses are always going to breathe more for that reason. Personally in 25 years of working in the industry I really gave a shit about breathing maybe twice. Floating elements and other fancy wizardry can correct for breathing in ultra modern fancy ass cine lenses.

Nick

Mr Gardner, as always...a breath of fresh air.

I raise a glass to you, sir.