Master Super Duper Cinema primes vs. Prosumer primes

[Mike Brent]

Hello,

First - sorry for the newbie request, if its dumb then please accept my apology in advance.

I see that a set of ARRI Master Primes is $90k. I'm using a D90 with a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 ($320) and I make such gorgeous pictures... I would like to know how $90k looks like.

Can someone post a comparison of the same shot taken twice, once with a consumer/prosumer lens and again with a $10k lens? I'm sure many people here will enjoy it....

Thanks

 

[Christopher Grant Harvey]

I'd also like to know.

Just wrapped up on a shoot, with Red, shot with slightly old Zeiss Super Speed 35mm glass. I hate the look of this glass. Is it more or does the glass make a big difference to the organic feel of a shot?

 

[Andrew M.]

Mike, don’t be sorry to ask questions here. We all did ask and still ask questions like this now, relatively speaking.

Making great single still pictures is one thing, making 24 of these pictures per second reliably and conveniently is another thing.

You are comparing cinema prime lenses with still lenses.
Just to mention a one challenge, first lenses are design to be adjusted while filming and the still lenses are designed to be adjusted before picture is taken and once adjustment is done we take a picture. This aspect only makes it much more difficult to design and manufacture the cinema lenses. Also cine lenses have much higher precision of adjustments and mechanical options to be used while filming.

It is like comparing 4 door car that you use to go to work with the subway car. Hey, both take you from point A to B and get you to work. Would you spend $800K for the subway car instead of 30K for your car?
And think only, when you have expenses of 30K per hour filming the movie, would you like to repeat the shoot that didn’t work out perfect while adjusting the focus when shot was taken?

Try this link as well.
http://photocritic.org/prime-lens/

Andrew

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

speed, mechanics, sharpness, in all these areas the masterprimes are one of the best, hence the price...but the price also comes from the low quantities.

 

[Juhan Malmstein]

Most people here know that the price difference comes from the mechanical build quality and the amount of products sold(very few MP's and veeery many Nikkors).

Firstly: focusing by hand with photographic lens is a pain in the ass. It's doable, but mostly it's a pain in the ass - the focus rotation from infinity to close focus is usually less than 90 degrees - more often it might even be less than 45 degrees. Now at f1.4 to nail focus on an actor's face percicely, the difference between nailed focus and a completely unusable shot can be as little as 0.1 of a degree of rotation. Not fun at all. You can recognize a good cine lens by it's focus throw - the more rotation(with a larger barrel) you get from infinity to close focus the more percisely you can focus.

Secondly the focus rings on photo lens move so freely that usually a breeze can move the ring. This is needed so that the miniature motors in the lens could quickly rack focus(and you know the AF in new cameras is quick). On a quality cine lens the focus ring moves with much more subtlety and poise if you will. it demands a lot more force to move, but it's way smoother and more predictable. In other words - the build quality is from different planets.

Thirdly photo lens are meant for taking still pictures. More often than not photo lens feature "breathing" which means that when racking focus the picture zooms in or out slightly. Never seen in a still picture, but extremely disturbing in a moving image. Removing this effect from a lens isn't easy nor cheap.

Fourthly in zoom lens it's important that if you zoom in, and set your focus for example at a subject 3 feet away, that if you zoom out, the focus would still be percisely at 3 feet. There are photo lens that do hold their focus throughout the zoom range, but again more often than not it's not the case. And again - it's a mistake that no photographer would care about, but one that will piss off every DP and focus puller on the planet.



So all in all - if you compare still shots made by a master prime and your 50mm f1.4 nikkor then, it might happen that you won't see the difference. The extra few thousand $$$ you spend on a lens becomes apparent when you work with the lens every day on set for years. The robustness, serviceability and dependability you get for your $$$ are certainly worth themselves when shooting moving images.

But of course that doesn't mean that you can't get spectacular results with photo glass for 1/10'th of the same $$$ if you're willing to cope with the downsides or work around them with ingeniouity.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

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.

 

[Mike Brent]

You are comparing cinema prime lenses with still lenses. Just to mention a one challenge, first lenses are design to be adjusted while filming and the still lenses are designed to be adjusted before picture is taken and once adjustment is done we take a picture. This aspect only makes it much more difficult to design and manufacture the cinema lenses. Also cine lenses have much higher precision of adjustments and mechanical options to be used while filming.

Yes, I see. That's a good answer. But another question is if this accuracy is really required or its just there to justify the huge price. I can use my $320 Nikkor to shoot video and adjust it while shooting just fine...

I would still like to see how that one single frame looks like when comparing two lenses of such different price range.

:beer:

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

can use my $320 Nikkor to shoot video and adjust it while shooting just fine...

True but we don't want to shoot video :tongue:

 

[Juhan Malmstein]

Yes, I see. That's a good answer. But another question is if this accuracy is really required or its just there to justify the huge price. I can use my $320 Nikkor to shoot video and adjust it while shooting just fine...

I would still like to see how that one single frame looks like when comparing two lenses of such different price range.

:beer:

the single frame won't look any different as already said. Now if you had to shoot a film only on a nikkor 50 f1.4 or a 50mm master prime, there you'd see difference.

 

[Mike Brent]

Firstly: focusing by hand with photographic ....

I see. Great explanation. Thanks

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I would still like to see how that one single frame looks like when comparing two lenses of such different price range.

You can't compare one single frame. They will both look great. It's not about that.

Your ride along the coast in a Honda will be equally beautiful as in a Lamborghini. The view is the same. BUT the actual driving will be different.

One single frame will not explain why a professional focus puller will love to focus pull on the cine lens. Why the cine lens will hold up better. Why it will give more accuracy in focus during the shots and so on.

Maybe u should compare a blurry still lens frame with a sharp cine lens :emote_hippie:

What you can do is to take your still lens and through the focus back and forth - notice how the picture will "jump" as focus is being pulled - that's called breathing - now take a MP and do the same nothing will happen, no "jumping" even if it's 10 times faster.

 

[Andrew M.]

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.

I like this comparison, it is exactly what it is. Race car is made in small quantities and has much higher performance, precision and strength. Also it is designed to have much lower consequences for the driver once something goes wrong.

I want to see DP after he chooses the still lenses for the shot, which cost 30K per hour. He will have more bones broken once shoot will not work out that the race car driver after accident

 

[Juhan Malmstein]

I want to see DP after he chooses the still lenses for the shot, which cost 30K per hour. He will have more bones broken once shoot will not work out that the race car driver after accident

and that's only after the 1'st AC is done with him, he'll be a wet spot after the producers get him :boxing_smiley:

 

[Mike Brent]

If we are talking precision of pulling focus, then don't you think that one of these:

http://store.zacuto.com/Flippable-Reversible-Z-Focus.html

would greatly increase my precision? I understand everything you are saying but geeweez, $90k.....

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I want to see DP after he chooses the still lenses for the shot, which cost 30K per hour. He will have more bones broken once shoot will not work out that the race car driver after accident

Actually Bourne was shoot with rehoused nikon lenses just for the purpose of "messing" the image up a little.

Edit: Although, realise that they were still re-housed to fit the cine type of style of working better.

 

[Andrew M.]

Great idea, but than you need to change the lenses from 22mm to say 65mm for different scene.
Actors are paid $5K /hour and you are tinkering with the different dimentions of the lenses and hook-ups.

Also MPs are color matched so you don’t have to spend time and correct for bit different color of the scene. It takes time. And what about the lighting, woow, we forgot about the fact that different characteristics of the lenses call to adjust scene light as well.

And your talents time is ticking, and ticking......we are already loosing 10K here and these color is not matching again and focus mechanics do not fit exactly the same ring on the lenses, next 20K and we are still tinkering with this damn focus gizmo......

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

would greatly increase my precision? I understand everything you are saying but geeweez, $90k.....

That's why most people rent those lenses from rental houses.

Also, they're more like $25K each so a set with 6 lenses (out of 14) is more like $150K

 

[Felix K.]

So, to sum it up:

-cinelenses are expensive to buy, but save money on set;
-they are precision-tools, especially made to pull focus, zoom and iris during a shot.
-a set of cine-primes is made to match in various aspects of picture quality

Still-lenses are cheaper, can have the same picture quality but cannot be handled as smoothly as cinelenses. Therefore they waste time on set and in post-pro.

Result: if you can affort renting cinelenses, do that.

If not, work around the hazards of shooting motion pictures with still lenses.

 

[Sidney L. Plaut]

I wonder why you know the price so well Fredrik - Wink wink

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I wonder why you know the price so well Fredrik - Wink wink

LOL. Unfortunately they're not a babe magnet, even if you tell them the prize :nopity: