Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Master Super Duper Cinema primes vs. Prosumer primes

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.
 
RED One commercial for a local hospital shot with my Nikon hi-speed primes:

A023_C024_0822CC.jpg


A023_C031_0822FS.jpg


A023_C048_0822L7.jpg


Hallway.jpg


Would I have rather shot with a set of MPs? Hell yeah!

But the budget was tight and in the end the client was more than satisfied with the images we got.
 
Steve do you have the final shot posted online? I would love the Nikons in actions. Thanks for the screen shots.
 
I have a set of very nice cineconverted Zeiss/nikon still lenses, BUT
I still used Master Primes for the pilot I just directed.

For some dream sequences I used my old nikon 135mm. because it has certain
characteristics i liked.

in my opinion the main thing is Focus. being able to pull focus through the whole range.

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.

But if Cine lenses are beyond your budget - you just need to know your limitations with still lenses. you can still make a very beautiful film. and no normal person will think ... hmm is this a nikon lens or a master prime.
 
Sidney said:
I have a set of very nice cineconverted Zeiss/nikon still lenses, BUT
I still used Master Primes for the pilot I just directed.

For some dream sequences I used my old nikon 135mm. because it has certain
characteristics i liked.

in my opinion the main thing is Focus. being able to pull focus through the whole range.

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.

But if Cine lenses are beyond your budget - you just need to know your limitations with still lenses. you can still make a very beautiful film. and no normal person will think ... hmm is this a nikon lens or a master prime.
Click to expand...

Thanks Sidney,

a very good point.
 
Im gonna switch off from the automotive comparison for a moment and use something a bit more suitable for this situation.
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.
 
Just for the record, here are the prices for the Arri/Zeiss Master Prime Lenses
14mm T1.3/81° € 19.330,00
16mm T1.3/70° € 17.030,00 $24,650.00
18mm T1.3/67° € 16.200,00 $24,650.00
21mm T1.3/60° € 15.360,00 $22,250.00
25mm T1.3/51° € 14.740,00 $21,350.00
27mm T1.3/48° € 14.840,00
32mm T1.3/42° € 14.840,00 $21,490.00
35mm T1.3/38° € 14.110,00 $20,450.00
40mm T1.3/34° € 15.150,00 $21,950.00
50mm T1.3/27° € 15.150,00 $21,950.00
65mm T1.3/21° € 15.780,00 $22,850.00
75mm T1.3/18° € 15.780,00 $23,150.00
100mm T1.3/14° € 17.870,00 $25,850.00
150mm T1.3/9° € 19.900,00

Humberto Rivera
 
Life's choices generally are:

1) Good 2) Better 3) Best

Pick the poison. :smiley:
 
If it were the case that the mechanics were good enough on still lenses like the nikon you mentioned.. then, for an example, there would have been no need for red to produce red pro primes for instance. as others have said here, you are not paying just for glass alone but for the mechanics. another downside to "prosumer" primes is the lack of a fast wide prime..sure your 50mm is a 1.4 but what about an 18mm?

the zeiss zf lenses for still photography vs the redesigned zeiss compact primes are a perfect example in answering your general why cine lenses costs so much more than still lenses question: http://www.zeiss.de/C125756900453232/Contents-Frame/B984D96F381F07FBC12575820044C5D7

taken from zeiss website:
"A: The Compact Primes are based on the ZF optical design. However, the lens housing and internal mechanics are completely new and the manufacturing process is a cine style process, similar to the process used for the other ZEISS cine style lenses.
When you hold a Compact Prime and a ZF lens in your hand, you can immediately feel the difference. The Compact Prime housing is rugged and robust to withstand the rigors of life on the set. Its solid design also helps when using lens motors - the Compact Primes will remain stable in the solid PL mount, and won’t wobble like many still lenses do when used for cine work. Fast and easy lens changes are ensured since all Compact Primes have the same dimensions, and all have focus and iris gears in the same position.
Operating the Compact Primes is also vastly different from working with ZF lenses. For starters, the focus ring turns in the direction all other cine lenses turn – cine style rotating angle. Their purposefully chosen larger diameter provides a larger rotating angle for more precise focusing. The calibrated scales serve the same purpose.
Optically, the Compact Primes have tighter mechanical and optical tolerances, a more precise optical adjustment during manufacturing and tighter quality control. Their unique 14 blade iris (not found in the ZF lenses) ensures precisely repeatable iris settings and organic, perfectly circular out of focus highlights and a pleasing bokeh."
 
I work for a company that owns a RED ONE, Birger mount, and Canon lenses. They'll rent cinema lenses when needed... but didn't have them on a shoot where they were asked to do a zoom in during a shot.

They couldn't do it with any of the zooms they had. Imagine the trouble I had explaining that we simply couldn't do with the new, big, and expensive cine camera (due to the lenses we were using that day) what we used to do with ease on an HVX200.

1) The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L does not hold focus at the same distance as it zooms. Focus on something at the short or long end of the zoom, then as you zoom, it goes out of focus. The world's greatest focus puller would have a nearly impossible job trying to correct it.

2) The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 doesn't track well, which means that when you center something in the frame, and watch the crosshairs on the monitor as you zoom, you'll see it trace a lazy circle around the point you wanted to keep perfectly centered. It's enough of a "wobble" to drive you nuts.

The Canon-mount stills lenses deliver excellent results most of the time, and they're quite usable... right up until the point where you need to do something that, as stills lenses, they are simply not designed to do.

It's just one of those things... so far in my career I've only ever done one iris rack during a take, but if I need to do another one in the future, I won't be able to do it with Canon stills lenses. I'll need a cinema lens, or at least a manual-focus Nikkor with a de-clicked aperture ring.
 
Stephen Strangways said:
I work for a company that owns a RED ONE, Birger mount, and Canon lenses. They'll rent cinema lenses when needed... but didn't have them on a shoot where they were asked to do a zoom in during a shot.

They couldn't do it with any of the zooms they had. Imagine the trouble I had explaining that we simply couldn't do with the new, big, and expensive cine camera (due to the lenses we were using that day) what we used to do with ease on an HVX200.

1) The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L does not hold focus at the same distance as it zooms. Focus on something at the short or long end of the zoom, then as you zoom, it goes out of focus. The world's greatest focus puller would have a nearly impossible job trying to correct it.

2) The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 doesn't track well, which means that when you center something in the frame, and watch the crosshairs on the monitor as you zoom, you'll see it trace a lazy circle around the point you wanted to keep perfectly centered. It's enough of a "wobble" to drive you nuts.

The Canon-mount stills lenses deliver excellent results most of the time, and they're quite usable... right up until the point where you need to do something that, as stills lenses, they are simply not designed to do.

It's just one of those things... so far in my career I've only ever done one iris rack during a take, but if I need to do another one in the future, I won't be able to do it with Canon stills lenses. I'll need a cinema lens, or at least a manual-focus Nikkor with a de-clicked aperture ring.
Click to expand...

Hmm...before you paint with broad brush strokes a position that all 35mm still zooms can't hold focus throughout a zoom, read through this current thread in the Cinematography forum here on Red User. The thread is titled "Canon L Series Glass". After my post illustrating some of my 35mm still zooms which do hold focus throughout a zoom, Chuck Colburn, a longtime veteran lens technician agrees with me and give some insight into which 35mm still zooms hold focus well throughout a zoom. Others on the thread mention 35mm still zoom makes and models which hold focus throughout a zoom.

Rather than repeat here the input given on that other thread by myself, Chuck, Liam Hall, and others, here's a link to the thread:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40843
 
1.i have seen optimos not holding the position while zooming
2.but look at the new cooke primes, the panchros with t2.8 are way cheaper than the new s5 lenses.
3. i guess that ACs need the mechanics of cinelenses to do their job well.
btw where is chuck?
 
I think calling still lenses as "prosumer" is a mis-characterization. These are lenses designed for use by professional photographers and have behaviors that are specific for uses by professional photographers. There is really nothing prosumer about a good still lens. Cheaper, yes, available to many, yes, but the best lenses usually still cost a pretty penny and are designed for professional use.

They have a few features that are less-than-ideal for moving image use (small barrel, lack witness marks, holding focus through zoom may -- or may not -- be as reliable, depending on the lens), but, the bottom line is that they are designed to produce clean, sharp images, usually at fast speeds if you're purchasing the professional-quality lenses.

And they also have some qualities, such as weight and portability, that actually make them preferable to cine lenses (documentary, run and gun)...

But I don't think image quality, per se, is the distinguishing issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top