85mm lens or Scarlet

[James B]

Of course! but put a piece with quick racks from an AF lens against smooth racks from a cine lens with long racks, it will scream AF lens and loose its cinematic quality, whether you have a S35 gate or note. What i mean is dont ruin the beautiful quality and feel of the S35 camera with an AF lens, thats my comment. It is more about the mechanics of the lens than optics, but you get both on a cine lens (or manual glass) anyway.

I dont mean to bring this thread off topic, but all points mentioned are good points to consider when choosing lenses.

Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your clear explanation of some differences between the Zeiss and Canon AF.
With the Zeiss manual focus, how do I quickly focus on a scarlet with that tiny screen on top ? I didn't really want to spend more on the eye piece, but will if I have too.
Or do I carefully mark where the focus points are and hope my actors stand in the same place each take ?
If I do not ever change the focus during a run, does it really matter if the lens was manual or auto ? eg I am not a big fan of focus changes from one actor to the other back and forward as they talk to each other, but of course the focus can change as they walk around.

If people will notice a difference, seems to me that even on my moderate budget the price difference between the two is not that great.
As you say, what's the point of getting a scarlet with a lens that will scream video.
So is this the type of lens you are recommending ?
http://www.ducloslenses.com/Duclos_Lenses/zf.html

Thanks for your tips.
James

 

[N.T. Bullock]

Thanks, Werner. I'll probably order from B&H.

I agree that lenses are EXTREMELY important, but not everything I shoot is cinema. The Scarlet will be our independent film camera as well as supplanting our HVX200a workhorse, eventually anyway. I just need a couple/few lenses with the camera at all times. We have great friends with great lenses - some Zeiss and Canon L series, etc, that we'll have access to in conjunction with renting the rest of what we'd need. The farm has been spent on being able to work in RED's microcosm and we are excited about that. I'm just asking about low level lenses that don't suck with this sensor and the Tokina along with the "nifty fifty" are the two most brought up and lauded for the price. If I had my druthers, no lens would ever touch our Scarlet that wasn't top PL glass, but all in due time.

 

[Brad Crawford]

If you can find a source for the Nikon 35mm f1.4 it is a fantastic lens (manual focus) along the same lines at the AIS 85 1.4 but at a more useable focal length. I own one and I love it to death. A decent source for used glass is KEH.com they list by quality and often have lots of rare lenses in stock.

specifically this lens: http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK06000018250N?r=FE

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Do keep in mind that your 50mm will act like a 80mm at 4k and a 100mm at 3k

I'm not picking on you kamal ... you were just the first to post this idea.

This is an inaccurate and frankly useless statement.

Your 50mm will "act like" a 50mm. Your 85mm will "act like" a 85mm.

This is true no matter what camera or sensor you are using.

What you actually mean to say is that the field of view will be "cropped" ~1.5x from the FoV of the same lens in full frame 35mm still photography.

That is a useless statement though.

You are on a motion imaging forum now, and the predominant audience is, or should be, cinematographers. Not video guys or photographers.

The standard in motion picture photography, in so far as there is any standard, is super 35mm film, AKA S35. The "crop factor" of Scarlet compared to S35 is ~1.

Depth of field characteristics are completely constant, as are geometrical rendition and perspective rendering ... and most other characteristics of lenses. As an example, I choose the 85mm and 75mm lenses for the bulk of my close ups because of how they render the face. I will place the camera appropriately for the shot size I need with the lens I've selected.

It is only the field of view that is altered by using the same focal length lens on different camera systems.

There is a positive side effect ... lenses that vignette lightly on full frame 35mm stills don't vignette when used on S35 systems.

In any case ... its the responsibility of each cinematographer to understand these things ... and plenty more. Its a job with a much broader scope than that of a photographer, despite the close relation of the two professions.

I expect each cinematographer to break out their ASC manual and figure out what lenses they really need before asking for advice ... and thus I expect the OP here really means an 85mm lens.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

The Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens is what I would look at to match the Canon 50mm f/1.4

I'd definitely stick with a Canon lens since you already have one.

I do advise selecting "full frame" SLR lenses for use with Scarlet and Epic. The 5K image size is closer to Canon's APS-H. A lot of "EF-S" lenses will not be satisfactory when you move to an Epic or 5K for stills.

I'd steer away from mixed sets in general with motion photography. Your shots with the 50mm will be on screen immediately after the shots with your 24mm and right before the shots with your 85mm.

Tiny differences in color that are of no concern to a photographer become major issues in post for motion imaging.

In fact ... I'd urge you to consider an L series zoom or three as your shooting kit with Scarlet. Use these as variable primes (meaning ... don't be zooming in shot with them). These lenses will give you the maximum flexibility, and will keep more of your shots with perfectly aligned color, by virtue of having fewer lenses in the kit.

The main concern is the speed of the zooms at 2 stops slower.

Before you get excited about this ... try following focus on a moving subject at f/1.4 ... with a moving camera.

 

[Peter Mosiman]

Alexander, thank you for bringing this thread some knowledge. 'especially the 1.4 bit, seriously, watching people make shorts where they try and pull at a 1.4 is shitty and frequently unbearable.

Cheers,
PMOS

 

[Glen Powell]

I'm not picking on you kamal ... you were just the first to post this idea.

This is an inaccurate and frankly useless statement.

Your 50mm will "act like" a 50mm. Your 85mm will "act like" a 85mm.

This is true no matter what camera or sensor you are using.

What you actually mean to say is that the field of view will be "cropped" ~1.5x from the FoV of the same lens in full frame 35mm still photography.

That is a useless statement though.

You are on a motion imaging forum now, and the predominant audience is, or should be, cinematographers. Not video guys or photographers.

The standard in motion picture photography, in so far as there is any standard, is super 35mm film, AKA S35. The "crop factor" of Scarlet compared to S35 is ~1.

Depth of field characteristics are completely constant, as are geometrical rendition and perspective rendering ... and most other characteristics of lenses. As an example, I choose the 85mm and 75mm lenses for the bulk of my close ups because of how they render the face. I will place the camera appropriately for the shot size I need with the lens I've selected.

It is only the field of view that is altered by using the same focal length lens on different camera systems.

There is a positive side effect ... lenses that vignette lightly on full frame 35mm stills don't vignette when used on S35 systems.

In any case ... its the responsibility of each cinematographer to understand these things ... and plenty more. Its a job with a much broader scope than that of a photographer, despite the close relation of the two professions.

I expect each cinematographer to break out their ASC manual and figure out what lenses they really need before asking for advice ... and thus I expect the OP here really means an 85mm lens.

Thanks for saying this much more eloquently than I would have...

 

[Glen Powell]

Hi Daniel,

With the Zeiss manual focus, how do I quickly focus on a scarlet with that tiny screen on top ? I didn't really want to spend more on the eye piece, but will if I have too.
Or do I carefully mark where the focus points are and hope my actors stand in the same place each take ?

Yes it's called 'Blocking the Shot' - as the actors / director rehearse, my 2nd AC & Focus puller will mark (ever heard the phrase "Hitting your mark"?) the ground / floor with tape or beanbags. Then they measure distance to the focal plane, and focus based on the actors being on their 'marks' during the takes using the distance marks on the lens barrel.

However this only really works with accurately collimated and marked cine lenses, and maybe some of the higher quality consumer glass.

G.

 

[Carelton Holt]

We are very happy with two of the the Sigma fast primes: 85mm f1.4 (about $900) and 50mm f1.4 (about $475). Both are built quite well and are extremely sharp. We use these for high Res photography (including product photography) and both have beautiful color rendition and are truly sharp even at full 24 Megapixel Raw Images from a 5D.

We also use some Nikon AIS primes using a Fotodiox Pro Nikon to Canon adapter with good results. They are very lightweight, so the additional play from the adapter is not much of an issue.

Cinema lenses definitely have numerous advantages, but for pure resolution and image quality, there are plenty of still lenses that will deliver an outstanding result. A lot of goodof choices are outlined well in this thread, just wanted to brag a bit on the Sigma glass... good luck with finding what works best for your application!

 

[Michael Su]

The zeiss ZE 50mm 1.4 costs around 500$ and is not a bad lens for this price. Manual, smooth ring and nice glass...

I have the Zeiss ZF's... not sure the ZE's have a manual aperture ring... You'd need to have the electronic controls to use the ZE lens.

 

[Maxi Claudio]

A cheap lens that is quite amazing. Get a Russian Helios 44M 58mm 2.0. An exact copy of the Zeiss design after WWII. Renders a very sharp and filmatic look. Comes in M42 mount so you need an adapter. A friend shot with this lens and a Isco CentaVision 2x anamorphic. Check out the quality.

http://vimeo.com/33047750

Get it cheap on ebay.

 

[N.T. Bullock]

That's beautifully sharp. Just ordered the lens. Looking for adapter now... Thanks, Maxi.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

That's strange- it seemed really soft to me......

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Yes it's called 'Blocking the Shot' - as the actors / director rehearse, my 2nd AC & Focus puller will mark (ever heard the phrase "Hitting your mark"?) the ground / floor with tape or beanbags. Then they measure distance to the focal plane, and focus based on the actors being on their 'marks' during the takes using the distance marks on the lens barrel.

However this only really works with accurately collimated and marked cine lenses, and maybe some of the higher quality consumer glass.

G.

I wouldn't pull to the barrel marks on photo glass. The marks are apparently intended as vague suggestions of which way to turn the lens.

Very vague.

If you really need to pull to measured marks I recommend taping the barrel and making your own marks.

Or better yet cine glass.

Red makes a fantastic lens many here should consider, the 18-85mm Red Pro Zoom. It covers the vast majority of focal lengths the entry level cinematographer should be using ... and its not too expensive compared to a quality photo lens set.

The marks on the Red 18-85 are not perfect ... but its much better than most stills glass. I think Duclos has a deal where they'll collimate the lens and make a new distance marking ring that's accurate. Jacek may offer something similar.

 

[Glen Powell]

I wouldn't pull to the barrel marks on photo glass. The marks are apparently intended as vague suggestions of which way to turn the lens.

Very vague.

If you really need to pull to measured marks I recommend taping the barrel and making your own marks.

Or better yet cine glass.

Red makes a fantastic lens many here should consider, the 18-85mm Red Pro Zoom. It covers the vast majority of focal lengths the entry level cinematographer should be using ... and its not too expensive compared to a quality photo lens set.

The marks on the Red 18-85 are not perfect ... but its much better than most stills glass. I think Duclos has a deal where they'll collimate the lens and make a new distance marking ring that's accurate. Jacek may offer something similar.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Isn't that what I said?

No.

You said that, "maybe some of the higher quality consumer glass" might have reliable focus marks.

First off, I'm pretty sure you mean professional still lenses, like the Canon L series and the Zeiss or Leica lenses. Often the best "consumer" glass isn't glass and has no focus marks at all.

I'm saying that still lenses don't have reliable marks at all. Even pristine Zeiss ZF lenses, which are fully manual and designed with that use in mind, have inaccurate marks. They usually line up to to within DoF at the mark nearest 2m, but even that wonderful professional stills glass isn't reliably marked for cinema purposes as the focus is off considerably at close focus and as you head into the 4m+ range

Nikon AI and AIS lenses are mismarked. Especially the very common Nikon AI 50mm f/2 lens. On mine the 2m mark actually focuses at 2.67m & the 7 foot mark focuses at 10 feet.

At least real manual lenses have hard stops and can be calibrated with tape.

Top autofocus lenses are even worse. I had a Canon 24-70 L f/2.8 have the witness mark at 5 feet, when the lens was focused at 10 feet. The EXIF reported 11.02 feet ... which disagreed with my tape measure and laser. (I'm not sure about the exact witness mark distance ... I don't own that lens.) I had another 24-70 on the same shoot focused at 5 feet witnessed at a bit past 5 feet with EXIF at something like 4.5 feet. (again disagreeing with laser and tape.)

On another note ... the focus marks on still lenses are in an abysmal position apparently designed by a masochistic lens manufacturer. You have to move your head out of position to see them, and often in a moving take its impossible to even check the marks.

I'm all for bargains .. I own some low end glass which I happily use for photography, but I only grudgingly use it for cinematography.

So, if you have money to spend on glass, don't do what I did ... instead get the Red zooms.

If you really have to stick with SLR lenses ... then I recommend a set of the Nikon AI lenses. Don't waste time or money on the very fastest lenses ... so long as they are f/2.8 or faster and have clean glass accept them. Get them serviced someplace reputable if they need it. Get rings permanently mounted ... BTW if anyone has a source for do it yourself rings, sort of like what Duclos uses let me know!

 

[Glen Powell]

No.

You said that, "maybe some of the higher quality consumer glass" might have reliable focus marks.

First off, I'm pretty sure you mean professional still lenses, like the Canon L series and the Zeiss or Leica lenses. Often the best "consumer" glass isn't glass and has no focus marks at all.

I'm saying that still lenses don't have reliable marks at all. Even pristine Zeiss ZF lenses, which are fully manual and designed with that use in mind, have inaccurate marks. They usually line up to to within DoF at the mark nearest 2m, but even that wonderful professional stills glass isn't reliably marked for cinema purposes as the focus is off considerably at close focus and as you head into the 4m+ range

Nikon AI and AIS lenses are mismarked. Especially the very common Nikon AI 50mm f/2 lens. On mine the 2m mark actually focuses at 2.67m & the 7 foot mark focuses at 10 feet.

At least real manual lenses have hard stops and can be calibrated with tape.

Top autofocus lenses are even worse. I had a Canon 24-70 L f/2.8 have the witness mark at 5 feet, when the lens was focused at 10 feet. The EXIF reported 11.02 feet ... which disagreed with my tape measure and laser. (I'm not sure about the exact witness mark distance ... I don't own that lens.) I had another 24-70 on the same shoot focused at 5 feet witnessed at a bit past 5 feet with EXIF at something like 4.5 feet. (again disagreeing with laser and tape.)

On another note ... the focus marks on still lenses are in an abysmal position apparently designed by a masochistic lens manufacturer. You have to move your head out of position to see them, and often in a moving take its impossible to even check the marks.

I'm all for bargains .. I own some low end glass which I happily use for photography, but I only grudgingly use it for cinematography.

So, if you have money to spend on glass, don't do what I did ... instead get the Red zooms.

If you really have to stick with SLR lenses ... then I recommend a set of the Nikon AI lenses. Don't waste time or money on the very fastest lenses ... so long as they are f/2.8 or faster and have clean glass accept them. Get them serviced someplace reputable if they need it. Get rings permanently mounted ... BTW if anyone has a source for do it yourself rings, sort of like what Duclos uses let me know!

Ugh…

...
However this only really works with accurately collimated and marked cine lenses, and maybe some of the higher quality consumer glass.

G.

Semantics - I just threw in "Higher quality consumer glass" since this is what lot's of people here are interested in and will be using on their Scarlet because they can't afford to buy Cine lenses - even the lower priced stuff.

I've only ever used 'Cine' - Zeiss, Cookes, Panavision, and the occasional Ang-zoom; all pro level. I do agree that the RED zooms are a great entry level for cine glass, and the two that I own get used fairly regularly.

I agree whole heartedly that stills lenses (especially any auto focus) are probably a recipe for disaster, but I have seen a couple of younger guys that I mentor get great results from manual Nikon lenses with taped over focus marks and FF wheels that are carefully marked during shot blocking. Not my first, second, or even third choice - but if all you can afford are Ebay still lenses to start with, to learn and grow with then these tools are much better than what I had 25+ years ago when I was starting out.

G.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Ugh…

We seem to agree mostly.

Semantics - I just threw in "Higher quality consumer glass" since this is what lot's of people here are interested in and will be using on their Scarlet because they can't afford to buy Cine lenses - even the lower priced stuff.

Its not semantics ... but its about to be.

You expressed a possibility that still lenses might have marks usable for motion imaging.

I am responding with a definite statement that the marks on still lenses are not suitable for motion imaging.

I don't care what you meant or understand ... I care what you expressed, which I believe to be an untrue assertion.

Still lenses don't have useable marks.

There is no "possibly", "maybe" or other probability about it. Your use of that sort of probabilistic language is what I object to.

It is conceivable that still lenses could have accurate marks, but the only still lenses I have encountered with usably accurate marks have been collimated and had their marking rings replaced with custom engraved rings. At that point they are still lenses modified for motion use.

Taken another way, if someone acted on your statement, they might buy a set of still lenses thinking, "maybe the marks will be accurate."

If someone acts on my statement, then they should realize that they need a cine lens or that they need to modify still lenses if they want usably accurate marks.

I carried on explaining ... because to some users these are the only lens options. Like I said I still use them, they suck. I want to explain how they can be used successfully. I appreciate you backing that up.

Do you understand my point, and why your statement as written is objectionable?

You do seem to have experience that this is the case. You said so yourself ... your AC had good results, once they taped over the marks with their own custom marks.

So, I am puzzled that you are arguing this point.

For my part ... if I'm wrong I want it corrected. Even if its just a tiny detail. Details matter a lot.

I try to acknowledge corrections, and thank those who correct me. When practical I edit my original posts to reflect the correction.

At least half the time I know better ... I just said it wrong, or had a typo or any number of other little issues that made me wrong. Sometimes of course I'm just an idiot. (See? At least I'm a happy idiot!)

So, Glen you were wrong this time. It was an honest mistake. You seem sharp, knowledgeable and skilled. Thanks for posting ... and I hope when I screw up you'll catch it for me.

Are we good?

 

[Glen Powell]

Thanks for setting me straight Alexander! The time you've taken to show me how utterly wrong I was spurred me to read through a large number of your other posts here on RU. I must say you are one very smart person; I bow to your superior film and tech knowledge.

G.

P.s. I think I'll just go back to lurking here on RU - no more posting for me and I'll probably stop coming altogether once my camera ships. If anyone in Toronto wants to connect, I have a studio set-up and am always looking for new people to work with.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Thanks for setting me straight Alexander! The time you've taken to show me how utterly wrong I was spurred me to read through a large number of your other posts here on RU. I must say you are one very smart person; I bow to your superior film and tech knowledge.

G.

P.s. I think I'll just go back to lurking here on RU - no more posting for me and I'll probably stop coming altogether once my camera ships. If anyone in Toronto wants to connect, I have a studio set-up and am always looking for new people to work with.

Ha! I don't think so.

Taking your ball and going home in a huff helps no one. BS'ing me about my "superior film and tech knowledge" is petulant.

If you think I'm being an ass call me out, and give me a suggestion as to how I might better make my point. David Mullen often seems to correct what I say perfectly by example.

You seem to think I want to "win." I don't. I want future readers of our little discussions to win.

Also, I think this one is just english language usage, and if you have really read my other posts ... you know I'll need correction or clarification sooner rather than later.

This sites value is in the number of good people involved. I meant it when I said you seem sharp.

So please, keep contributing to RedUser. It will be better because of you.