Master Super Duper Cinema primes vs. Prosumer primes

[Steve Gibby]

There is a vast array of genres Red is used for, and Epic and Scarlet will be used for, which are not narrative cinema, which use lightweight hybrid camera setups, a hybrid field workflow, use 35mm stills lenses for low weight and mobility, with shooters that eye focus the camera (no AC), and usually don't use matte boxes or follow focus units.

Some of these genres are alternative sports, wildlife, tourism, lifestyle, cultures, documentaries of various types, nature, travel, and on and on. In fact, in terms of sheer numbers of productions worldwide, the number of these non-hardlined EFP genre productions each year absolutely dwarfs the number of narrative cinema productions.

The "right" way to lens and accessorize a Red One (and Epic and Scarlet to come) depends on what genre you're shooting that particular day. A cine-centric, "mine is the right way" approach to the lensing, accessorizing, and using a Red camera, may work for those who just shoot cine-style, but not for the huge number of others who use the camera.

35mm still lenses are used widely on Red for certain genres, crew compositions, and field workflows. Yes, there are nuances and workarounds involved. But in experienced hands, knowing the limitations and strengths, and for certain genres, they are a cost-effective, optically excellent alternative.

The biggest challenge to using Red is for users to have broad enough minds and and skill sets to match the capability and utility of the camera.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Consider your lenses are cigars... Your average person has no clue what a good cigar looks like. They don't even care. They may buy a cigar and think, "oh... this isn't bad." And they will be fine with what they have tried.
But for the people who are experienced and know what they are doing, they've tried the cheap cigars and they've experimented with oddities. But in the end they want the best cigars, they buy the good ones.

OK...to build upon your analogy, there are some highly experienced cigar smokers who've learned when to light up a top-quality cigar - and when to go for an everyday cigar. They simply match the cigar to the occasion. They save their best cigars for the best occasions. They've learned that certain near name-brand cigars can give them real satisfying taste and aroma for much less cost. They're also not influenced by what others think they should be smoking - they know their choices, and they could care less what others are smoking as long as their own cigar choice works for them on that occasion.

Then there are those who smoke a certain brand cigar just so their peers will know they have good taste in cigars. This group can include impressionable new smokers wanting to be accepted as a "real" smoker by emulating their heros, and "set in their ways" veterans who've been smoking the same brand cigar throughout their life and aren't about to try another brand.

Bottom line: simply match the cigar brand to the occasion and puff away

 

[MichaelHalsell]

Gibby,

I couldn't agree with you more. There is alot of non-cine work (using non cine glass) being done successfully on a regular basis. (ie. getting bills paid) As we all know, unfortunately many of these productions are not as high profile as film industry projects.

It is my belief that if the hollywood machinery didn't throw around as much money as it does, the 'absolute ideaologies' would have an adjusted perspective. The hollywood factory (films, tv, etc.) has a set of tools to crank out product on a regular and profitable basis.

So the Great Glass Debate has less to do with optical performance (exclusively) but broadly has to include nature of the production (ie. budget, expectation and other intangibles).

 

[Steve Gibby]

Definitely Michael...

I understand your points really well. Those are some of the reasons that throughout my career I've chosen to work in about every genre of production except narrative cinema. I do some high-profile, multi-million dollar television projects - but I also choose to do many moderate budget projects, and even some small ones that interest me.

Alternate genres of production provide some amazingly cool opportunities for travel, learning a wide variety of skills and equipment, self-fulfillment, and with time and experience they can be very lucrative. I've always felt that is someone's heart is in their work, and they do it well enough for long enough, that good revenue naturally comes as a by-product of their passion for their work.

Professional life in this industry is full of choices - its a smorgasbord out here. Those who want to do features and high-end narrative TV should do exactly that. But those who choose alternative career paths should do that too. With each choice comes pluses and minuses, and different skills and equipment needs. That's fine - and that's the way it should be.

Personally, I love maximizing technology while also minimizing expense. That's one of the reasons I adopted Red so early. Using very lightweight, mobile Red setups enables me and my crews to get images others can't because of their traditional rigs and crew compositions. I like that

For certain genres, budgets, and their resultant crew and workflow needs, 35mm stills lenses on Red cameras are an excellent solution. For other genres, budgets, and crew needs 35mm still lenses aren't the best choice.

 

[David Rasberry]

What about maintenance and servicability? I would expect top of the line still lenses to be reasonably amenable to routine service disassembly for cleaning and calibration, but the cheaper still lenses may not be worth the cost of service and may not last as long under the more dynamic usage demands of motion work.

 

[Steve Gibby]

What about maintenance and servicability? I would expect top of the line still lenses to be reasonably amenable to routine service disassembly for cleaning and calibration, but the cheaper still lenses may not be worth the cost of service and may not last as long under the more dynamic usage demands of motion work.

That can be true - but a key factor in that is how well someone treats their equipment, and how well they keep it serviced. The top-quality 35mm still lenses are for the most part well built. That said, there is always the chance of getting a "lemon" lens. When I buy still lenses for use on Red, whether they're new or used, I immediately test them out on Red and analyze their performance against multiple written reviews on the lens model. If they perform up to expectation, I keep them - if not I return them, get another and repeat the trial run on that one.

Some of my best 35mm still lenses are maintained by Duclos, and they naturally do a great job on that. My Canon FD 150-600 f5.6L with Century PL mount conversion, and my Canon FD 800 f5.6L with Century PL mount conversion are two of my my stills lenses that I have Duclos service. My other Canon and Nikon lenses go to those company's factory service centers when needed.

Cheaper isn't necessarily synonymous with unreliable. Some of my very best and most dependable 35mm still lenses are older Canon FD and Nikon AIS. They're built like tanks, and with proper use they can easily take the rigors of daily motion media work for years and years - in fact they have now for the 2.5 years I've heavily used them on my Red cameras.

Somewhere along the line, beyond the careful selection process for equipment, I've learned that my equipment takes about as good of care of me as I take of it. Me and my crews take real good care of my equipment - and the results with Red stuff and 35mm still lenses have been very encouraging.

 

[Milan Spasic]

I'd just like to add that there so much more to it than just mechanics and sharpness.

Having used Red Pro Primes and Arri Ultra Primes on back to back jobs recently, there's just no comparison, especially in contrast and color reproduction.
And RPPs are GREAT lenses....

 

[Oliver Schietinger]

I have to agree with Gibby that proper care and regular maintenance are key to maintaining the lens performance (and being a satisfied owner).

This brings me back to Kaya's experience

"1.i have seen optimos not holding the position while zooming"

which sounds a lot like the lens needs to be brought in for service. Age and wear and tear are likely causes and also correctable once the lens is brought back to factory specification. Having purchased one of the first 24-290 Optimos in the East Coast, we know to give them TLC.

Otherwise, its not really an Optimo.

 

[Matthew Duclos]

OK...to build upon your analogy, there are some highly experienced cigar smokers who've learned when to light up a top-quality cigar - and when to go for an everyday cigar. They simply match the cigar to the occasion. They save their best cigars for the best occasions. They've learned that certain near name-brand cigars can give them real satisfying taste and aroma for much less cost. They're also not influenced by what others think they should be smoking - they know their choices, and they could care less what others are smoking as long as their own cigar choice works for them on that occasion.

Then there are those who smoke a certain brand cigar just so their peers will know they have good taste in cigars. This group can include impressionable new smokers wanting to be accepted as a "real" smoker by emulating their heros, and "set in their ways" veterans who've been smoking the same brand cigar throughout their life and aren't about to try another brand.

Bottom line: simply match the cigar brand to the occasion and puff away

I couldn't have said it better myself... Err, more better.
Very true Steve.

 

[Michael Hastings]

...
the second thing is "speed" how much light is needed, my 20mm f2.8nikon needs alot more light than a 21mm t1.3 Master prime.

If you could squeeze up to 24mm, Canon has an F1.4L for $1700 (as opposed to $21,000 for the master prime) and I think Nikon just announced one too.

The big difference is when doing lets say steadicam work where you will have an focus puller using a wireless follow focus and he will be following the operator and constantly focusing on different subjects very quickly. The cine lens will perform 100% every time and for a long time in the future as well. A still lens that has a gear on it may work but I would like to see the difference in the same shot. I guess if you have a simple shoot with no complex shots and hardly any focusing, then a still lens would be suitable.

Birger EF eliminates the gear, and focuses wirelessly with Impero pretty slick - plus programmable stops, adjustable travel range, onscreen data, etc. Not to mention awfully light weight, and image stabilization on some lenses if you want it.

Don't want to start a controversy - just saying.

BTW Did anyone notice that Canon announced they just shipped their 50 millionth EF lens? And 20 million of those since 2006 so about 5 million a year. That's a lot of lenses and economy of scale.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I suggest that you go to a rental house and look at the Master Primes - it will explain why they cost so much. It's the same as sitting down into a Ferrari, everything is made to be perfect and hence the cost.

Pictures can become equally beautiful on your lenses as they would on MP's. It's just that a professional race driver wants a car that's specifically made for the purpose of race driving - same with cine lenses.

Yes they are nice in your hands, but I have a problem with technical questions being answered by abstractions like this. Not all SLR lenses have short throws - for example Zeiss ZF lenses are totally workable, and the breathing is not that noticeable, and only noticeable if you do very large focus pulls - in those rare times you can fix in post, it's 4K after all. Some Canon L glass does not breathe at all, and coupled with a Birger Mount, you can set their throw to be anything you like.

I'd still like to know what I am giving up using L Glass & ZF lenses vs. Cooke S4s in greater, technical detail. I'm not saying we never rent Cookes, but sometimes I do wonder.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I have a set of Master Primes. I have Canon L glass. For best-looking image, I would shoot the Master Primes, hands down...Master Primes just flat-out produce a better image. The image clarity is superior.

But Canon glass is very, very good. And mobility is important.

The only Canon glass that I have seen that can meet or exceed the look of a Master Prime is the legendary 200mm F1.8 - but that's not a great all-purpose focal length. That lens also has superior optics, and I prefer its gorgeous, creamy look to the Master Primes. But it is sort of one of a kind and limited in its applications.

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Hmm...before you paint with broad brush strokes a position that all 35mm still zooms can't hold focus throughout a zoom,

Sorry if it came across that way, but by saying "They couldn't do it with any of the zooms they had." and "(due to the lenses we were using that day)" I was not trying to say that all zooms can't hold focus, just the ones they owned and had with them on the day.

I just really wish manufacturers would list whether a zoom is parfocal, or if it's actually a varifocal lens. I hate having to discover this by testing, even with still photography, where I have a tough time fighting my habit of zooming in to focus!

 

[Stephen Strangways]

I'd still like to know what I am giving up using L Glass & ZF lenses vs. Cooke S4s in greater, technical detail. I'm not saying we never rent Cookes, but sometimes I do wonder.

The best way to answer that question is to test it yourself. Set up a day with your rental house to go in and shoot some test, lens charts in their setup bays, people and interior/exterior scenes, with their Cook S4s and your Canon L and Zeiss ZF lenses.

Take the footage back with you, and spend some time evaluating the images on your computer at various zoom levels, and output to whatever formats you normally deliver on, and watch the footage on a TV, projector, or whatever is appropriate.

... And then come back here and let us know what you think!

 

[Charles Angus]

One big feature (if you can call it that) of cinema primes is lens selection - MPs have 14 lenses, from 14mm to 150mm, all T1.3. If you need speed and are going with stills lenses, you will be pretty much restricted to about the 24-85mm range.

Selections of T2.0 cinema lens sets are even bigger, with UPs going all the way out to 8mm rectilinear! (Edit: Although I seem to recall the UP 8R is T/2.8)

 

[David Rasberry]

Be interesting to see how a selection of still lenses compare to the RPP's on R1 M-X in the MTF resolution test Jannard posted as well as other cine lenses.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

If you could squeeze up to 24mm, Canon has an F1.4L for $1700 (as opposed to $21,000 for the master prime)(snip)

I love that F1.4 24mm L series Canon lens, it pretty much lives on my still rig and if any still lens could come close to the MPs it might be that one.

What I'm waiting for is electronically controlled zooms that provide similar operational characteristics to B4 mount video lenses (servos, handgrips, smooth movements on the focus, zoom and iris rings, ability to hold focus during a zoom move) but with a PL mount. Weight should be under 8 pounds for handheld work (10 lbs. max), zoom range should be at least 8:1 (10:1 preferred) and faster than T2.6 if physics allow.

When it suits a particular shooting situation I want to be able to use my RedOne (and Epic when available) like an ENG camera. IMHO the key to that is a PL lens with the right operational characteristics. The closest option at the moment is the RED 18-85 Pro Zoom with FIZ motors but its a bit cumbersome for handheld. See you at the gym ;-)

Cheers - #19

 

[Pawel Achtel]

If you could squeeze up to 24mm, Canon has an F1.4L for $1700 (as opposed to $21,000 for the master prime) ....

I thought so too, but....

The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II has massive vignetting WFO, about 4 stops in the corners. This makes it more like f/5.6 lens after you correct for it digitally.

Also, it is noticeably soft wide open, not even close to Master Primes ...

 

[Nick Gardner]

One concrete thing that you can quantify, the Cine lenses are just built much more robustly, and with more care. The tolerances of the machining is higher, the alloys are the best. There were no compromises to keep the cost down for things like the materials. The are the Olympic athletes of lenses.

Nick

 

[Richard Andrewski]

...for example Zeiss ZF lenses are totally workable, and the breathing is not that noticeable, and only noticeable if you do very large focus pulls - in those rare times you can fix in post, it's 4K after all.

One other interesting thing about that ZF set is that the whole set covers FF35 whereas in most other sets, maybe only one or two of the series will cover that much. The rest mostly covering S35 at least according to Duclos' database:

http://web.me.com/ducloslenses/DataRef/ImgCir.html

That's not a bad benefit of using still lenses if you need full coverage of the larger sensor later.