Canon CN Primes vs the new Zeiss Superspeeds

[Brian Anderson]

http://vimeo.com/55985070 Good Stuff!

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Good to hear that the 35mm is in the works.

Now if the just could complete the set in freaking PL.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Definitely test for CA.

The CP.2's have a lot of CA so I'm curious if the new Cp.2 SuperSpeeds are the same. Here's some shots from Cp.2's: (right click, open in a new tab to view full size)

The "superspeed" 35 is based on the new-ish 35 1.4 that hasn't previously gotten the rehousing (CP.2 35 is the ZF 35/2) but the other "superspeeds" are the same 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 that the regular CP.2's rehouse, just without the artifically limited aperture. Those two, at least, will have the same performance as the existing CP.2s.

 

[Nick Morrison]

http://vimeo.com/55985070 Good Stuff!

Fascinating to see the ULTRAPRIME 24mm be unusable wide-open, and really only become sharp at 5.6. Sounds like both the CP and Canon wides smoked it.

They make a compelling argument about the viability of stills OPTICS, and argue that's more the MECHANICS that separate stills from cine glass at this point. Something Matthew Duclos has realized for a long time...

 

[Brendan Isaac]

Test are done but I have not even able to publish the test results as the ACS webmaster is on Holiday but is due back on the 27th. There is a video review you can watch on the ACS Vimeo channel at https://vimeo.com/austcine but the supporting material may be unavailable untill the end of the week

Great stuff. Good to see the ACS busy!

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Fascinating to see the ULTRAPRIME 24mm be unusable wide-open, and really only become sharp at 5.6. Sounds like both the CP and Canon wides smoked it.

They make a compelling argument about the viability of stills OPTICS, and argue that's more the MECHANICS that separate stills from cine glass at this point. Something Matthew Duclos has realized for a long time...

Most people from the stills world have known this for a long time simply because the resolving power necessary for 20+ Mp is so much greater than 2K. However, breathing is a big issue, so too is the lack of parfocal zooms and certainly focus throw remains challenging. My Leica M lenses blow Masterprimes out of the water (and Leica R lenses as well) and they are positively miniature comaritively speaking. It is no accident today that they are worth 3 times more today than when I purchased them. I sold the camera long ago, but I could not part with the lenses. However, it is doubtful to me that most of the advantages (aside from the great color seperation of the coatings) can even be seen in 2k. Only now as RED moves into larger sensors will a lot of these lenses come into their own. Would I want to pull focus on a long narrative job with them though? No way.

 

[Uli Plank]

If you really need to save on lenses, breathing is not that much of a problem with an Epic. Whenever it may get obvious to the viewers (which is not as often as one may expect), you can ramp a reframe in post. Sure, it's a bit more work in post, but DaVinci Resolve does a great job on scaling and in practice we reframe more often than in the old times these days anyway.

OTOH, a Contax Zeiss is a damn fine and comparatively cheap lens, has a good focus throw and doesn't breathe very much.

 

[Lee Saxon]

My Leica M lenses blow Masterprimes out of the water (and Leica R lenses as well) and they are positively miniature comaritively speaking.

Cine glass is ABSURD.

Resolution requirements are lower, they only have to cover S35, there are few constraints on size and weight, and most don't even fully eliminate "breathing." But they have a longer focus throw (which doesn't affect price) and geared rather than knurled focus rings (which increases price 0.5%) so they're worth 10-20x as much as stills glass, amirite?

-.-

Seriously, remember how Sony's 1080p for $250,000 looked when Red introduced 4K for $17,500? Somebody's going to do that to Zeiss/Cooke/etc cine glass, not too far in the future.

If I had the start-up capital, it'd be me.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Cine glass is ABSURD.

Resolution requirements are lower, they only have to cover S35, there are few constraints on size and weight, and most don't even fully eliminate "breathing." But they have a longer focus throw (which doesn't affect price) and geared rather than knurled focus rings (which increases price 0.5%) so they're worth 10-20x as much as stills glass, amirite?

-.-

Seriously, remember how Sony's 1080p for $250,000 looked when Red introduced 4K for $17,500? Somebody's going to do that to Zeiss/Cooke/etc cine glass, not too far in the future.

If I had the start-up capital, it'd be me.

I'm with you brother.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Most people from the stills world have known this for a long time simply because the resolving power necessary for 20+ Mp is so much greater than 2K. However, breathing is a big issue, so too is the lack of parfocal zooms and certainly focus throw remains challenging. My Leica M lenses blow Masterprimes out of the water (and Leica R lenses as well) and they are positively miniature comaritively speaking. It is no accident today that they are worth 3 times more today than when I purchased them. I sold the camera long ago, but I could not part with the lenses. However, it is doubtful to me that most of the advantages (aside from the great color seperation of the coatings) can even be seen in 2k. Only now as RED moves into larger sensors will a lot of these lenses come into their own. Would I want to pull focus on a long narrative job with them though? No way.

Yeah I remember Toia posting something similar. I remember earlier this year he compared one of his Canon L glass to a Masterprime...and the Canon smoked it's venerable Zeiss elder. It was almost laughable.

I know cine-mechanics are important, I'm not going to dismiss them an iota. But for the kinda work I personally do (interviews, mini-docs, b-roll, comedy)...ie shit mosty on a tripod...CINEMODDED stills glass is more than good enough.

And because stills glass is so much cheaper, I can afford to build a very creative, diverse lens kit.

 

[Phil Holland]

Some would say what Rokinon, Canon, and Zeiss have done with their cinema primes is rather revolutionary in terms of price. Gotta hand it to Zeiss for making those CP.2s. So surprised it took and has taken more to follow.

Imagine if Rokinon actually made housings and mechanics more geared towards cinema use and charged only $100-$500 more per lens. Imagine if they were slightly higher quality optics for an additional $500 or so. Still an insane deal.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

Fascinating to see the ULTRAPRIME 24mm be unusable wide-open, and really only become sharp at 5.6. Sounds like both the CP and Canon wides smoked it...

Nick,

Totally true but it should be put in context that at their designed coverage the Ultraprimes are excellent glass. The fact that the CP and Canons are full frame coverage is what makes them unique

 

[Brian Anderson]

Cine glass is ABSURD.

Resolution requirements are lower, they only have to cover S35, there are few constraints on size and weight, and most don't even fully eliminate "breathing." But they have a longer focus throw (which doesn't affect price) and geared rather than knurled focus rings (which increases price 0.5%) so they're worth 10-20x as much as stills glass, amirite?

-.-

Seriously, remember how Sony's 1080p for $250,000 looked when Red introduced 4K for $17,500? Somebody's going to do that to Zeiss/Cooke/etc cine glass, not too far in the future.

If I had the start-up capital, it'd be me.

Not sure I totally agree with you about "Cine Glass" but found this video about the difference between the Canon CN Primes vs Still Lenses.

 

[Adam Eden]

Tom i am sure you had a bad or out of alignment 24mm Ultraprime as i use Ultraprimes all the time and the ultraprimes totally out perform the CP'2 in all aspects.

I own a set of CP2's and i very rarely use them as i hate the colour rendition and also there contrast compared to my MK III super speeds or the ultra primes i regularly use.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Going to shoot a lens test on Friday with Canons new Digital Primes and fingers crossed a full set of the new Zeiss Superspeeds. We plan to also include Ultraprimes as a known benchmark. Yes we did consider Masterprimes as they have a matching speed but their much higher cost makes it an apples and oranges test.

We plan to shoot:
A test model to look at colour and skin.
A contrast test
A flare test
Focus breathing
Resolution Charts
Qualitative thoughts on mechanics

Any other parameters for testing that you would believe usefull and valuable? We will publish the results ASAP

Add a full frame grid to see lens distortion.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Cine glass is ABSURD.

Resolution requirements are lower, they only have to cover S35, there are few constraints on size and weight, and most don't even fully eliminate "breathing." But they have a longer focus throw (which doesn't affect price) and geared rather than knurled focus rings (which increases price 0.5%) so they're worth 10-20x as much as stills glass, amirite?

-.-

Seriously, remember how Sony's 1080p for $250,000 looked when Red introduced 4K for $17,500? Somebody's going to do that to Zeiss/Cooke/etc cine glass, not too far in the future.

If I had the start-up capital, it'd be me.

I think this is an absurd statement. I understand why you would desire less expensive optics at high optical quality, wouldn't we all, however you clearly don't know what goes into making cinema lenses, otherwise you'd know better. Unlike electronics, optics are guided by evolving technology, but not at a pace similar to Moore's Law. This is likely because they are not guided by electronics/computers as they are with physics. Maybe eventually when someone re-invents optics, in a whole new way, would this happen. Maybe something like :http://phys.org/news/2012-08-ultrathin-wafer-silicon-gold-focuses.html

But otherwise, your post just looks like a typical "haters gonna hate" post.

There are many good lenses in this world, and they are designed differently for different applications. If you were to understand the needs of cinema-level productions, you would quickly see how the care and build quality put into cinema lenses, do make sense even at their cost. Their use of complicated designs, highest quality materials, specialized technicians, and high quality control all contribute to the high cost of production.

There is something to be said about indie filmmaker Johnny who can't afford cinema lenses so does his best with a good set of manual photography primes. I did that right out of college and I loved using a rented set of ZF's. There is nothing wrong with that at all. But I do have a problem with people who don't take the time to learn about cine-lenses and instead of acknowledging their incredible design, craftsmanship and performance, discounts their design requirements and attempts to rationalize how they are not worth their price. I agree the price is high, but unlike you, I have a great deal of an idea why.

If you don't know enough about Cine-lenses to not understand what they can offer a production and how that can justify their pricing as well, you are likely not a person who should be using cine glass.

I think the real reason for people to make strange comments like the one above is because they don't fully recognize that cine lenses should ONLY be used on cine-style productions. Master Primes, with their lofty price tag, don't exist to simply taunt every camera owner on Earth. They aren't made for on-the-go documentary style shooting, weddings, event videography, and are typically overkill for sit-down interviews and etc. I get a huge feeling that all many videographer shooters feel as if they need to get cine-lenses, when they hardly do cine-work or can fully find the benefit to these lenses! Then, when these lenses are out of their budget, they feel resentful against them. Cine-lenses are only the best lenses for particular cine use.

Cinema lenses are exacting, high-standard tools for a very specific and small market in the overall camera world. Cinema, is like the Formula-1 of the camera world. I'm not claiming it is better... but the demands, investment, pressure, risk and glory are much much greater. Cinema is very different from event shooting, weddings, corporate interviews, sports coverage, news coverage, pornography or a plethora of other type of shooter jobs... jobs where cinema lenses would be overkill, inappropriate or just wrong to use. I'll get to that in a moment, but let's review prices, which everyone has their panties in a bunch over.

Cost:
Yes, they are expensive. But then again, they aren't to be used to shoot Jimmy and Ann's wedding. These lenses are made to be used on films where production may spend upwards of hundreds, if not thousands of dollars every minute. You demand reliability, accuracy and quality when shooting on productions this large, and there are people who demand these qualities on productions much smaller, like the ones I work on. I'll make these features of reliability, accuracy and image quality clear later, but for now I'll stick to cost.

If I'm not a professional F1 race car driver, but I'm in the auto-industry, I shouldn't be constantly b*tching about how F1 race cars are way overpriced because my Nissan GT-R R35 ($80,000) can do 0-60 in 4.2 seconds... or how the cost of the Lamborghini Aventador ($440,000) is ridiculous because it can do 0-62 in 2.9 seconds but costs over 5.5x the price of my R35.

It needs to be understood for which environment Panavision, Arri, Zeiss, Fujinon, Cooke, and Angeniuex make these specialized lenses for. They are not a consumer, high-volume product. They require tremendous R&D, are hand built by specialized highly skilled workers (in developed nations such as Germany, England, Japan, France etc.) to the highest quality control standards from the highest quality materials. Sound familiar? I believe the same can be said of many sports cars...

One must also recognize, just like in the camera world, the higher you go in price, the smaller the amount of improvement-per-dollar is. For example, the difference between an Epic and a Scarlett is over double in price, but in many people's opinion, the Epic's image is not 2.5x greater than Scarlett. It has it's advantages, but in my opinion not proportional to the cost increase. However, those who demand those features, will pay for it. It's the same with lenses. A cine lens that costs 5x more than a nice photography lens will not be 5x as sharp, 5x as fast, or 5x as anything. It just won't. And the higher you go, the less improvement a dollar makes. But when production is paying union rates toward a crew of 50+, locations, big actors, and more.... that extra percentage of reliability, quality, and assurance, no matter how small, can be worth the 5x of price.

Appropriate use of Cine lenses:

I would never use photography lenses for cinema (if given the choice) as I would never use cinema lenses for photography. When I go take photographs in Ireland, China, or my backyard in LA, I don't haul around a huge 6-hole case filled with decently beefy Cooke S4's. Despite the beautiful image they give and being my favorite cine-lenses, it is clearly the wrong lens to use for photography. The long focus throw can make spontaneous focusing (from infinity to close focus or vice versa) a longer task, perhaps missing an opportune impromptu photographic moment.

Cine-lenses are not a synonym for 'the best lenses'. Although the term is usually associated with quality, cine-lenses are made for the small market of cinema productions. Many other types of video productions may not find cine-lenses, especially primes, as the best choice, especially primes.

Yet I find many of those who work in these non-cinema sectors of videography yearn for cinema lenses. Why? Maybe they don't realize that cinema lenses aren't necessarily appropriate for all productions? Maybe they just want what they don't have... I don't know. I think a big misconception is thinking these lenses are the best, when the real world fact is that these lenses are the best for cinema use. I also know from working in both worlds, that the non-cine world typically does not have the budget to rent S4's at 900/day. So I detect many of these shooters who desire cinema lenses become frustrated over affordability and that causes an almost bitter "anti-cine lens" mentality. This is where you get these tirades against cinema lenses as if Cooke and Zeiss are some repressive withholding power... wizards of optics, purposefully withholding some lens recipe that makes Master Primes for 1/30th of the cost.

If they (Zeiss, Cooke, Angie, etc) could make them cheap and keep the quality at the same level, they probably would. The owner of Cooke told me once that it is 8x more difficult to make a lens a stop faster and at the same quality. Sure they could make a set of lenses at T/1.4 considerably less in quality than their lenses they have now, and sell them for less, but they don't. They are too busy with the demand for their top-line lenses.

I think the key is for people to stop drooling so hard at cinema lenses if you don't shoot on productions where their advantages or cost can be appreciated or afforded. Do I need a Lamborghini? No, do I wish I owned a Lamborghini? F#$k yeah... but even if I bought one, could I afford the insurance? Probably not. This is just like cinema lenses. If you work all the time in cinema, have the clientele, cinema lenses are a great choice and investment. Sure they cost a lot of money, but you make a good day rate on them and they are worth it to your client/production. There is a market out there for these lenses and you may not be in it. Tons of productions are using high-end glass with no complaints. Good producers sign the checks without blinking and there is a damn good reason for that.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Accuracy and Reliability:

If I were pulling focus on a union feature film, with a 100 million dollar budget, and it was a 75mm T/2 'push-in' on Leonardo DiCaprio performing one of the most emotional performances of his career, I'd never consider risking the shot because my good photography lens has a short, inaccurately marked focus throw... or the metal/plastic lens body flexes from the torque of the preston, or this, or that, or any other reason. There is too much money being spent at that moment to save such a small amount (in relation to budget) of money. Accuracy and reliability, can make a production move faster. The focus puller will make less mistakes with accurate and well mapped lenses. Less mistakes ='s less takes for camera. Less takes means moving on. Lens changes will very likely take less time than with photography lenses, and if working primes, that can add up over a course of the day. And as I've established, every production of any budget is spending money every minute. The more that number is, the more necessary the non-optical advantages of cine lenses are.

The poster suggested elongating the focus throw does not add to price. Well if he only knew what went into this procedure for cine-lenses. Did he know that Cooke makes each lens first (by hand) and after it is built, a computer checks every lens's critical focus throughout the range and when finished, the barrel is custom engraved with the computer data, exclusively to match that particular lens for complete accuracy? Also, the focus mechanism Cooke uses is a cam-style movement, not threaded lens barrels. This allows for a better mapped focus scale, not just a longer one. Also, because they are not threaded, Cooke's focus cams do not need lubrication such as grease and provide a smoother movement. Made from machined anodized aluminum they are built to operate from -13° to 131° Fahrenheit!

And we have not even talked about optical advantages...

These cine lenses use the best optical glass, which is not cheap... and likely won't become cheaper as technology tends to do with Moore's Law. It's like diamonds, or gasoline... And to reach a certain level of quality, cine lenses often resort to the advantages of having larger elements. However, larger elements simply means every element requires a larger block of optical glass. More optical glass = more money. So that's another reason they cost more. They are using not only high quality optical glass, but much more of it... and in many instances, at tighter QC.

Optical advantages:

Photography lenses can optically be quite nice. I love ZF's, Leica M's, etc. However, Master Primes at T/1.4 will beat the pants off almost any photography T/1.4 lens when you take the entire image into consideration. CA, even field illumination, color matching, breathing, distortion, etc. Especially on the wides. The Leica Summilux C-'s are exceptionally consistent and sharp from edge to edge... almost freakishly so. They aren't the sharpest lenses, MP's and UP's are more, but their edge to center difference is hardly anything. That is rare.

I guess my point is that Cine-lenses also are expensive on behalf of the fact they are optically and mechanically streamlined for cinema use.

I'm also not quite sure what the poster meant when he said 'only' have to cover S35mm... as if this was an easy feat or laziness in design. haha. First of all, S35mm is a pretty big chip. Not as big as FF photography, but it is quite a big format and is complicated as hell compared to smaller sensors. Ever see the quality of some high quality S16mm glass? It's absolutely amazing. Those lenses are so sharp, fast, and small, because 16mm is 1/4th the surface area of S35mm!

FF photography lenses can be marvelous, and are amazing for photography, since photography requires different sets of demands than cine. However, I've seen almost every fast photography lens wide open fail cine-lens standards when covering FF, and many even failing APS-C size, in terms of even field illumination, sharpness and etc. I'm not saying they are bad lenses, I am saying photography lenses don't typically perform better at S35mm than cine-lenses do, despite how big their image circle is.

Perhaps there is a reason a typical MasterPrime T/1.4 is a 114mm front, 5-6lbs, and 8" long, where the Canon 50mm F/1.2 is 3.9" long and 1.3lbs. Surely there is a reason? It's probably because the MP at T/1.4 would kick the Canon's ass at optical and mechanical performance?


If you want to know why Cinema lenses are so expensive:

1) Their complicated mechanical designs typically work within very specific requirements photography lenses don't have to follow. For instance, all optical realignment during focusing and zooming must be done internally. No barrel extension, rotation or other movement and at the same time, negate breathing as best they can. Also, lenses must be parafocal. Focus must not shift while zooming. Cine lenses are typically attempted to be as similar in size, length, front diameter, and weight. They are almost always the same maximum aperture. All have same iris assemblies for bokeh consistency. They have focus and iris gears at the same position on the barrel. They have matched lens coatings and colorimetry. They have matched focus rotation degree throws.

2) On top of those mechanical goals, they must achieve top level optical performance! This might show the additional complications that photography lenses don't have or concern themselves with.

Note: If I were to argue the original point where it was said that there are few "constraints on size and weight" you must have meant on minimum constraints, because cine-lenses are much more uniform across a series than photography lenses.

3) The materials, such as the optical quality glass, sophisticated lens coatings, and the other mechanical parts are all of the highest quality and precision. Not to mention some cinema lenses use quite a bit of optical glass!

An interesting fact, the Cooke lens coatings are silicon and titanium hardened with magnesium fluoride. According to Jon Fauer's Cooke article, it is one nano-meter thick. "Your whiskers will grow longer than that in one second after the swipe of your razor."​

4) For each and every lens individually, the elements are ground and the lens is assembled under the watchful eye and talented handling of very specialized and skilled technicians from England, France, Germany and Japan. (Developed countries) Each lens is tested again and again for the highest quality control. Only the best lenses, when performing at top QC, make it out alive. Also, these workshops are much smaller in size and volume than whatever factory pushes out Canon L series in batches.

So there you have it... what do you get when you make an immensely advanced optical and mechanical product in small numbers, by hand, using the best materials in the world, by skilled and talented technicians from 1st world nations?

Really nice and damn expensive lenses.


Merry Christmas



Check this out if you are hungry for more.


I have written an article about the need of Cinema lenses and you might find it rather informative. Consider this the companion document to this response:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...inema-Lenses&p=2520617&viewfull=1#post2520617
This article was recently translated into Portuguese and is currently on the home page of Brazil's ABC, their Association of Brazilian Cinematographers.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

Tom i am sure you had a bad or out of alignment 24mm Ultraprime as i use Ultraprimes all the time and the ultraprimes totally out perform the CP'2 in all aspects..

Adam,

You make a good point as it is one of the real limitations of these tests that we only compare only one set of each glass. The inevitable variations of manufacture and of wear and tear cannot be factored into these type of tests. The Ultraprime lenses were from a private owner who looks after his glass and I hope the fact that at 5K (beyond their designed coverage) wide open the 24mm UP was softening at the edges does not colour the results. The Ultraprimes at 50mm and 85mm outperforms the others and holds it own at 35mm. The 24mm Canon is a gem and would be a hard lens to beat.

It is not always appropriate to say one lens is better as the characteristics of a lens may be cherished by one cinematographer and disliked by another. Although if I had the choice of Ultraprimes and CP.2 glass I too would take the Ultraprimes but they are lenses that cost three times more money.

The point I would like to make from the test is that you are getting excellent performance from glass that is a fraction of the cost of traditional glass. Their only real limitation is the poor range of focal lengths with a consistent stop.
Whether this glass is for you that's a personal aesthetic choice but luckily we are getting more options.


PS We should have full res charts up on the ACS Website in the next few days. I will post when this happens. Apologies its hard getting stuff done at Christmas.

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

Accuracy and Reliability:

If I were pulling focus on a union feature film, with a 100 million dollar budget, and it was a 75mm T/2 'push-in' on Leonardo DiCaprio performing one of the most emotional performances of his career, I'd never consider risking the shot because my good photography lens has a short, inaccurately marked focus throw... or the metal/plastic lens body flexes from the torque of the preston, or this, or that, or any other reason. There is too much money being spent at that moment to save such a small amount (in relation to budget) of money. Accuracy and reliability, can make a production move faster. The focus puller will make less mistakes with accurate and well mapped lenses. Less mistakes ='s less takes for camera. Less takes means moving on. Lens changes will very likely take less time than with photography lenses, and if working primes, that can add up over a course of the day. And as I've established, every production of any budget is spending money every minute. The more that number is, the more necessary the non-optical advantages of cine lenses are.

The poster suggested elongating the focus throw does not add to price. Well if he only knew what went into this procedure for cine-lenses. Did he know that Cooke makes each lens first (by hand) and after it is built, a computer checks every lens's critical focus throughout the range and when finished, the barrel is custom engraved with the computer data, exclusively to match that particular lens for complete accuracy? Also, the focus mechanism Cooke uses is a cam-style movement, not threaded lens barrels. This allows for a better mapped focus scale, not just a longer one. Also, because they are not threaded, Cooke's focus cams do not need lubrication such as grease and provide a smoother movement. Made from machined anodized aluminum they are built to operate from -13° to 131° Fahrenheit!

And we have not even talked about optical advantages...

These cine lenses use the best optical glass, which is not cheap... and likely won't become cheaper as technology tends to do with Moore's Law. It's like diamonds, or gasoline... And to reach a certain level of quality, cine lenses often resort to the advantages of having larger elements. However, larger elements simply means every element requires a larger block of optical glass. More optical glass = more money. So that's another reason they cost more. They are using not only high quality optical glass, but much more of it... and in many instances, at tighter QC.

Optical advantages:

Photography lenses can optically be quite nice. I love ZF's, Leica M's, etc. However, Master Primes at T/1.4 will beat the pants off almost any photography T/1.4 lens when you take the entire image into consideration. CA, even field illumination, color matching, breathing, distortion, etc. Especially on the wides. The Leica Summilux C-'s are exceptionally consistent and sharp from edge to edge... almost freakishly so. They aren't the sharpest lenses, MP's and UP's are more, but their edge to center difference is hardly anything. That is rare.

I guess my point is that Cine-lenses also are expensive on behalf of the fact they are optically and mechanically streamlined for cinema use.

I'm also not quite sure what the poster meant when he said 'only' have to cover S35mm... as if this was an easy feat or laziness in design. haha. First of all, S35mm is a pretty big chip. Not as big as FF photography, but it is quite a big format and is complicated as hell compared to smaller sensors. Ever see the quality of some high quality S16mm glass? It's absolutely amazing. Those lenses are so sharp, fast, and small, because 16mm is 1/4th the surface area of S35mm!

FF photography lenses can be marvelous, and are amazing for photography, since photography requires different sets of demands than cine. However, I've seen almost every fast photography lens wide open fail cine-lens standards when covering FF, and many even failing APS-C size, in terms of even field illumination, sharpness and etc. I'm not saying they are bad lenses, I am saying photography lenses don't typically perform better at S35mm than cine-lenses do, despite how big their image circle is.

Perhaps there is a reason a typical MasterPrime T/1.4 is a 114mm front, 5-6lbs, and 8" long, where the Canon 50mm F/1.2 is 3.9" long and 1.3lbs. Surely there is a reason? It's probably because the MP at T/1.4 would kick the Canon's ass at optical and mechanical performance?


If you want to know why Cinema lenses are so expensive:

1) Their complicated mechanical designs typically work within very specific requirements photography lenses don't have to follow. For instance, all optical realignment during focusing and zooming must be done internally. No barrel extension, rotation or other movement and at the same time, negate breathing as best they can. Also, lenses must be parafocal. Focus must not shift while zooming. Cine lenses are typically attempted to be as similar in size, length, front diameter, and weight. They are almost always the same maximum aperture. All have same iris assemblies for bokeh consistency. They have focus and iris gears at the same position on the barrel. They have matched lens coatings and colorimetry. They have matched focus rotation degree throws.

2) On top of those mechanical goals, they must achieve top level optical performance! This might show the additional complications that photography lenses don't have or concern themselves with.

Note: If I were to argue the original point where it was said that there are few "constraints on size and weight" you must have meant on minimum constraints, because cine-lenses are much more uniform across a series than photography lenses.

3) The materials, such as the optical quality glass, sophisticated lens coatings, and the other mechanical parts are all of the highest quality and precision. Not to mention some cinema lenses use quite a bit of optical glass!

An interesting fact, the Cooke lens coatings are silicon and titanium hardened with magnesium fluoride. According to Jon Fauer's Cooke article, it is one nano-meter thick. "Your whiskers will grow longer than that in one second after the swipe of your razor."​

4) For each and every lens individually, the elements are ground and the lens is assembled under the watchful eye and talented handling of very specialized and skilled technicians from England, France, Germany and Japan. (Developed countries) Each lens is tested again and again for the highest quality control. Only the best lenses, when performing at top QC, make it out alive. Also, these workshops are much smaller in size and volume than whatever factory pushes out Canon L series in batches.

So there you have it... what do you get when you make an immensely advanced optical and mechanical product in small numbers, by hand, using the best materials in the world, by skilled and talented technicians from 1st world nations?

Really nice and damn expensive lenses.


Merry Christmas



Check this out if you are hungry for more.


I have written an article about the need of Cinema lenses and you might find it rather informative. Consider this the companion document to this response:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...inema-Lenses&p=2520617&viewfull=1#post2520617
This article was recently translated into Portuguese and is currently on the home page of Brazil's ABC, their Association of Brazilian Cinematographers.

You should be charging for it;-) well said.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

I can understand the frustration at the extraordinary prices on a Cine Primes. I recently bought a brand new 180kg 105 horsepower Truimph motorcycle for less than a cost of a single Ultraprime lens. While I do not doubt a market remains for no compromise cine glass their high cost can alienate cinematographers who are buying ever cheaper cameras and dealing with shrinking budgets. Still lenses are a compromise a step too far but for most but these "budget" cine entries should be welcome.

I wonder if the cat among the pigeons is not the Optitron? If this can deliver smooth repeatable focus pulls as promised the largest impediment to still lens use is gone although I would not expect to see an Optitron working at the top end of town anytime soon.