Cine Lens Now, or Later?

[Patrik Kisucky]

After I posted a thread "Still vs Cine lenses" (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?66554-STILL-vs-CINE-Lenses), I've learnt a lot about the differences between the two of them. I have to say, I have a hard time to decide which way to go, and would like to ask you guys to throw in your opinions.

I can see 3 main advantages for the STILLS, and that is:

1. Money
2. Weight
3. AutoFocus

On the other hand, it is very difficult to get over:

- Focus issues while zooming - and there is only a few para focal still zoom lenses, that I know off
- Breathing
- Not being able to change the aperture while shooting
- Not too many lenses have the constant aperture, through the zoom

So is it worth to buy the CINE, even though it's more money, (I have my eye on RPZ 17-50) or start with STILLS?
A lot of people usually say: it depends on what you want to do with them. My answer is first learn, then shoot corporate, shorts, docs, web commercials, music videos, perhaps even events.

I guess I can get away with STILLS, but I know, I'd want the CINE eventually. I could afford RPZ 17 - 50, but at the same time, trying to be cost effective.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Depends on what you are doing, but if you are primarily going to shoot movies and might have a 1st AC, then cinelenses.
Cinelenses cost because they are quality, they are focused on keeping the image as it should be whatever you do, focus pulling, zooming etc. It's quality is in both the glass and how it performs.

But it will be interesting how much the Canon PL cinelenses will cost. In my opinion Canon makes the best still photography lenses, both in built and quality, will be interesting to see if their lenses are cheaper and still good or if they are out on deep water.

 

[Stacey Spears]

But it will be interesting how much the Canon PL cinelenses will cost.

They are $6800 each.

 

[Patrik Kisucky]

Yeah, it is hard not to choose the quality and the performance (zoom, focus, aperture, tracking, not breathing...) of the Cine lenses.

Here is the new Canon Cine rumors:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/ef-pl-cinema-lenses-announced/

Both the Canon CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S (EF mount) lens and the Canon CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L SP (PL mount) lens are scheduled for late January 2012 availability for an estimated list price of $45,000 each. The Canon CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L S (EF mount) and Canon CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L SP (PL mount) lens are scheduled for late March 2012 availability for an estimated list price of $47,000 each.


The Canon CN-E24mm T1.5 L F (EF mount) and CN-E50mm T1.3 L F (EF mount) lenses are scheduled to be available in late July 2012. The CN-E85mm T1.3 L F (EF mount) lens is scheduled to be available in late August. The Canon CN-E24mm T1.5 L F (EF mount) lens will have an estimated list price of $6,800. The Canon CN-E50mm T1.3 L F (EF mount) lens will have an estimated list price of $6,800. The Canon CN-E85mm T1.3 L F (EF mount) lens will have an estimated list price of $6,800.

 

[Björn Benckert]

After I posted a thread "Still vs Cine lenses" (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?66554-STILL-vs-CINE-Lenses), I've learnt a lot about the differences between the two of them. I have to say, I have a hard time to decide which way to go, and would like to ask you guys to throw in your opinions.

I can see 3 main advantages for the STILLS, and that is:

1. Money
2. Weight
3. AutoFocus

On the other hand, it is very difficult to get over:

- Focus issues while zooming - and there is only a few para focal still zoom lenses, that I know off
- Breathing
- Not being able to change the aperture while shooting
- Not too many lenses have the constant aperture, through the zoom

So is it worth to buy the CINE, even though it's more money, (I have my eye on RPZ 17-50) or start with STILLS?
A lot of people usually say: it depends on what you want to do with them. My answer is first learn, then shoot corporate, shorts, docs, web commercials, music videos, perhaps even events.

I guess I can get away with STILLS, but I know, I'd want the CINE eventually. I could afford RPZ 17 - 50, but at the same time, trying to be cost effective.

If you buy the leica still lens with f0.95 then you got something that most DOP's would droll over.... if your budget if fixed or has any limits then you would get a lot more spending your money on still lenses. RED will for sure do the same for leica as for canon...

Considering this if you have a canon mount and you get the "red pro mote" that might come, if not there will be an iPhone app or such that work just as good and you can pull professional focus off your iPhone with no motors or any extra weight on your camera needed..
Also considering that the breathing and all such things are very much possible to deal with in post especially since the resolution is so high and most likely your focus values will be in the meta data for the file. So future versions of redcinexpro will for sure be able to take care of breathing lenses no problem, on the fly with only having a "lens correction" button pushed.

So the future is very much towards still lenses. The cine lenses was pretty much a product of the actually quite poor quality 35mm film. You do not want to zoom into the film neg in post, the resolution is not holding up to good then. On epic it's different you could trough away a few precent of the image area to clear the breathing no problem.

Also the very short travel of the focus ring on still lenses are actually better if the motors are precise which they are on better still glass.

So my advice would be buy the best still lenses you can afford, then you are not only in a lightweight good position but you are also more future proof, the film lenses as they look/work today will not be around for so much longer. External focus motors is not the way of the future to say the least. So even if you buy the Master primes or such, you would want to rehouse them in a couple of years to have fully digital control trough the camera. That's where things are heading.

Atleast thats what I see is coming.

Any one that wants to buy my old sets of primes

 

[Carter Cammack]

One advantage I see with AF/DLSR lenses is the eventual TouchScreen Autofocus that is coming for both Scarlet and Epic.
You can't do that with MF Cine lenses. Does it matter? Depends on the shoot. It actually might be very handy on a crane or Steadicam.

You can also get "Cinevised" lenses based on SLR lenses, like the New Ruby, based on the awesome Nikon 14-24 zoom.
http://www.focusoptics.com/newruby.htm

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

I won a cinematography award for a short I shot using only this lens on a 5D: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/647015-USA/Canon_3558B002_EF_S_18_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html

What you do with a lens is more important than the lens you use. At the same time, knowing how to properly use better lenses will give you better results. It's a balance.

I plan on starting with a Scarlet package, including brand new 18-135mm Canon lens and tripod, that will run me around $15k.

Over time, as I get more and more jobs to pay for it, I'l start adding better lenses, alternate power sources, an EVF, the Redmote Pro when it comes out, a rail setup, better tripod, mattebox with filters, some light kits, more storage, a Red Rocket Card, some NAS storage, and some other things I'll want along the way. The 3-5 year plan is to end up with a Scarlet kit worth about $30-40K, maybe more if I can afford some nice PL primes and zooms.

But the key point, relevant to this conversation, is that I will be starting with a crappy still zoom. I know the limitations of that lens, and will work around the various limitations, and upgrade as soon as it is economically viable.

But for someone like me, that is really and truly starting from square one (at least, if you are looking only at equipment and don't include knowledge), I feel this is the smartest way to start out. And really, I'd only be a few jobs away from a nice Cine-zoom.

 

[Patrik Kisucky]

Thank you Björn and Carter for adding some weight behind the STILLS. If I would want to buy the best still lenses, what would they be? I know there has been a thread about what lenses would go well with the Scarlet, and after reading the thread I'm considering:

Tokina 11-16, and I could send that to Duclos later to make it more Cine friendly, right?

Canon 24-70, 16 - 35, 17-40?

And after that maybe 85, or 100 prime Canon? I'd like some nice shallow DOF, with these.

 

[Patrik Kisucky]

I won a cinematography award for a short I shot using only this lens on a 5D: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/647015-USA/Canon_3558B002_EF_S_18_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html

What you do with a lens is more important than the lens you use. At the same time, knowing how to properly use better lenses will give you better results. It's a balance.

I plan on starting with a Scarlet package, including brand new 18-135mm Canon lens and tripod, that will run me around $15k.

Over time, as I get more and more jobs to pay for it, I'l start adding better lenses, alternate power sources, an EVF, the Redmote Pro when it comes out, a rail setup, better tripod, mattebox with filters, some light kits, more storage, a Red Rocket Card, some NAS storage, and some other things I'll want along the way. The 3-5 year plan is to end up with a Scarlet kit worth about $30-40K, maybe more if I can afford some nice PL primes and zooms.

But the key point, relevant to this conversation, is that I will be starting with a crappy still zoom. I know the limitations of that lens, and will work around the various limitations, and upgrade as soon as it is economically viable.

But for someone like me, that is really and truly starting from square one (at least, if you are looking only at equipment and don't include knowledge), I feel this is the smartest way to start out. And really, I'd only be a few jobs away from a nice Cine-zoom.

Hey Nick, congratulations on your cinematography award. Why don't you send me a link, I'd love to check it out. What Cine lens are you considering, once you'll make the money to buy it?

 

[Carter Cammack]

Thank you Björn and Carter for adding some weight behind the STILLS. If I would want to buy the best still lenses, what would they be? I know there has been a thread about what lenses would go well with the Scarlet, and after reading the thread I'm considering:

Tokina 11-16, and I could send that to Duclos later to make it more Cine friendly, right?

Canon 24-70, 16 - 35, 17-40?

And after that maybe 85, or 100 prime Canon? I'd like some nice shallow DOF, with these.

The Canon L series is their top line. Watch the footage from Ketch and Michael with the Canon and Tokina lenses. Epic users shoot these when they can afford or already own cinema primes. There is a good testimony there.

There are other options coming with new mounts available from RED:

Nikon. Look for ED glass. Spendy lenses at 1500-2000 each but worth it if you're a Nikon junkie like me.
Leica. It's a cult. Sanjin is their Priest. . . .Joking, of course. Amazing beautiful glass and controls. Not cheap.
Zeiss has lenses in Nikon or Canon SLR mount or PL. Others here are more familiar with them than me.

And more will appear in the next year, as EVERY lens maker is watching for the next exploding market with Scarlet.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

Hey Nick, congratulations on your cinematography award. Why don't you send me a link, I'd love to check it out. What Cine lens are you considering, once you'll make the money to buy it?

My next step will be the same as what most people recommend around these parts: Canon 24-70, Canon 70-200, a Canon 100mm Macro, a wide angle Tokina or Sigma. Rent or buy other lenses as needed for specific projects. I'll probably get a Tilt Shift from Lensbaby to play around with, but that's just a personal curiosity and taste thing, more than an institutional-wisdom thing.

Eventually, I'd love to get a set of Red Pro Primes or Zeiss Primes. But that is WAY down the line, for me at least. We've got 2 Red Ones and a set of RPPs at work. They really are spiffy lenses.