My conversation with Matthew Duclos of Duclos Lenses

[Colter Ripley]

Gentlemen, I just wanted to tell you about a conversation I had with Matthew of Duclos Lenses this morning. These are the guys that do the cine-mod for still's lenses.

I randomly got him on the phone because I'm modding a Canon 24-70 IS Ver2. I actually bought the lens off B&H and got it sent directly to them. The turn around time is about 2 weeks, I got focus and zoom rings and new 80mm (77mm thread) front bezel.

So I started asking him random questions:


Regarding Cine Lenses versus Still Lenses

• Stills lenses have a high resolving power in general. Canon, Sigma, Tamron and comparable lenses are made for the 18 to 20 MP range and since we are shooting 5k/6k, we have a need of 13 to 18 MP in general. So sharpness and resolving is not a problem with these lenses.
• The main problem comes in the functioning of the lenses. Canon for instance has a comparably long throw on the focus ring of about 120 degrees. Zeiss CP2 Lenses and other cine lenses have a 340 or 360 degree throw on the focus ring which makes the follow focusing much more accurate and consistent. Marks won't be thrown off because the ring is fixed with hard stops unlike some stills lenses.
• Canon zooms and comparable have ultra fast action on the focusing and mechanics of the lenses. Therefore the construction is made for speed and isn't completely ideal as it's made for speed and not as much for precision.
• Cinema lenses are ultra reliable, repeatable with great build material.

Regarding Cinema Lenses (ex. Super Speeds, Master Primes, Leica, etc)

• There is a negligible difference of going from say a CP2 up to these high-end primes. Maybe it's 99% (still lenses) and 100% (cinema lenses) for a difference of 1%. There is an exponential increase in price versus return when you start to get up in these price ranges. It takes a lot of time, engineering and testing to get an extremely high quality of lens.
• Aperture is also manual so there's a bit more control due to being able to go 1/3rd of a stop if needed.

Recommendation for Lower Budget Lenses

• He was recommending the Zeiss ZF2 due to the strong all-metal construction, really good build materials, hard stops on the focus and the ability to de-click the aperature.
• Also Important, the ZF2 are Nikon mount (hence the 'F' and not 'E') and can be converted to Canon. He doesn't recommend other Zeiss versions.
• This lens is extremely crisp and high quality in the image produced.
• All Zeiss glass is pretty much the same. There are newer coatings and newer processes used on the newer lenses but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily better glass, just better build. Possibly the older glass has a more vintage look.
• The Zeisses are what he recommends for any newer cinema lens out there.
• He recommends doing a cine-conversion on the lenses to de-click the iris, get gears on the focus and get a 80mm (with 77mm thread) on the front bezel.

In General

• Lens quality and going that extra 1% is especially important if you're a full-time DP or you work consistently and are able to rent the lenses out consistently. Working with the best is great depending on who you are.
• High quality lenses are part of the package (along with story, set-dec, lighting, etc) and when everything lines up really baddass stuff happens.
• The end client may not be able to see the difference in that last 1% of lenses but maybe there is a subtle feel they will experience. Depends on a lot of factors.

Regarding RED 18-85 - I asked him about this one as we own it. He says they've had some problems getting it crisp if it isn't at either 18 or 85. Softness problems.

Let me know if there are any comments or modifications needed!

Duclos Lenses and the cine-mod here

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

Great! Thank you for posting. Did he specify why the Nikon Zeiss lenses are better then the Canon mounted?

 

[Asif Limbada]

Thanks for sharing dude.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

Great! Thank you for posting. Did he specify why the Nikon Zeiss lenses are better then the Canon mounted?

Aperture control, I believe. When I looked into it a while back, the Canon doesn't have an aperture ring, just electronic. The Nikon have an aperture ring, but the focus ring goes the "wrong" way.

Aside from that, the glass and coatings are exactly the same. So it's gotta be the lack of precise aperture control. Which is kind of a big deal, if you ask me.

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

I absolutely despise backwards focusing lenses, but I love the zeiss glass, that's why contax are awesome...

 

[Stephen Williams]

Great! Thank you for posting. Did he specify why the Nikon Zeiss lenses are better then the Canon mounted?

The Canon don't have manual aperture.........

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I absolutely despise backwards focusing lenses, but I love the zeiss glass, that's why contax are awesome...

+1 on the backwards focusing pain. When I'm really dialed in to the scene mentally I start operating in a sort of zen state where I track focus instinctively, not so much consciously. Had a very frustrating experience with a Nikon where I blew focus on a vary intense non-repeatable shot that still haunts me.

I'd be curious what Matt would say about the build/materials quality of the Contax lenses and how that would impact the price/performance ratio vs the name glass.

Cheers - #19

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

I think it's best to formulate your own decision of what good glass is. Duclos and other sources can only tell you how good a lens is statistically and by using numbers. Not to say these aren't good sources, but they don't necessarily involve the art of cinematography and choosing glass based on visual aesthetics.

Zeiss, Canon, Fuji, Angenieux, Cooke -- they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Don't get caught up in the numbers hoopla... you'll be missing the bigger picture!

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

No arguing Shervin's note. That said, if one is buying rather than renting lenses then build quality and materials durability matter a lot. Beyond that, for motion work, there are some fundamental usability needs that must be met or they'll drive you nuts.

Cheers - #19

 

[Colter Ripley]

Aperture control, I believe. When I looked into it a while back, the Canon doesn't have an aperture ring, just electronic. The Nikon have an aperture ring, but the focus ring goes the "wrong" way.

Yeah, you are right my man. That's why he recommends it. They have to do the conversion of the mount from Nikon to Canon and de-click the iris.

I think this is the ideal setup.

I think it's best to formulate your own decision of what good glass is. Duclos and other sources can only tell you how good a lens is statistically and by using numbers. Not to say these aren't good sources, but they don't necessarily involve the art of cinematography and choosing glass based on visual aesthetics.

Yeah I agree with this but the problem is that there are so many opinions on this forum (and generally) about what good glass is, what is crisp, what is the right way to go about getting your glass.

It was good to talk to him because I realized that I could have a top knotch setup for less and not stress about whether the guy with the Cooke lenses was really shooting better stuff than me - just because of his lenses.

Spent so much time being confused by lenses.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

Yeah I agree with this but the problem is that there are so many opinions on this forum (and generally) about what good glass is, what is crisp, what is the right way to go about getting your glass.

It was good to talk to him because I realized that I could have a top knotch setup for less and not stress about whether the guy with the Cooke lenses was really shooting better stuff than me - just because of his lenses.

Spent so much time being confused by lenses.

I've been doing a LOT of reading on lenses in the past few months. From what I gather, there are a lot of working answers. Zeiss gives a good metaphor for almost all glass: the glass arrangement and coatings of the CP.2s and the ZF/ZE line seem to be exactly the same. In which case you're paying 4-5x as much for the mechanics. Which is completely worth the money, but doesn't affect the image on anything where you don't need to touch the lens during a shot. So the resolution and the character are the same, but you're paying a lot more for mechanics.

Another option would be to get the stills-oriented glass, and then get it cine-modded by Duclose, or another source (RPLenses has also been recommended around the forums). This gets you the same image, with similar functioning mechanics, for less than half the cost. Pretty good deal.

Like anything else, you can always PAY MORE to get something better. But as you move up, you end up having to pay 2 or 5 or 10 times as much to get 1 or 2 or 3% improvement on your image quality. The only way to get the absolute best images is to have the most skills using the best gear. However, everyone will point out that the Skills and talent and knowledge are more important than the gear. So long as the mechanics of the gear isn't getting in the way, then you could use stills glass on cine projects and really WOW people, if you have the right skills.

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Yeah I agree with this but the problem is that there are so many opinions on this forum (and generally) about what good glass is, what is crisp, what is the right way to go about getting your glass.

It was good to talk to him because I realized that I could have a top knotch setup for less and not stress about whether the guy with the Cooke lenses was really shooting better stuff than me - just because of his lenses.

Spent so much time being confused by lenses.

If you don't have access to different kinds of glass, watch a film that you like visually, do a little research into what glass was used and look up other examples of films shot with them. Different glass can produce a variety of different looks and feels.

Cooke is known for their softness of skintone and general warm feel, very good for shooting dramas or films with intimacy. Zeiss is known for the opposite... their glass captures reality, albeit the newer glass is clinical, you can easily morph Zeiss glass to capture certain moods with filters.

At the end of the day, we buy lenses based on how they shape light and how that transcribes into portraying emotion or a certain feel on screen. Having shot with a broad variety of glass gives me a repository of knowledge as to what glass suits a story... your job is to also acquire that knowledge. Do a little research, you'll see what I mean in no time.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

paradigm shift

paradigm shift

Other than specialty glass(uncoated, anamorphic, vintage, etc.) you, or pretty much anybody else will absolutely fail the IQ blind test of modern optics- still or cine.
It really comes down to the level of control. The human experience. Up until now that supremacy has been with the cine glass.
Up until now- with the IS on still lenses combined with robust mechanical positive lock mounting , the electronic FF, weight advantage - the balance is shifting quickly towards the still glass- modern AF still glass.
And don't even get me started on the cost .....:001_cool:

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Rehousing market

Rehousing market

While I mostly agree with Jacek, I would note that to really leverage the electronically driven still lens option in motion work you need the underlying physical bits to handle the job. Materials quality is a big deal, particularly in critical interfacing and/or moving parts. Its not just metal barrels vs plastic barrels, but lots of bits you don't see that need to be machined well out of the right durable, thermally stable stuff.

When the cinema lens market was smaller and rental houses the primary buyers it made total sense to build expensive tanks that could take the ritual abuse of the renters and keep going back out to earn more return on investment. Due to the size of the cameras themselves there wasn't a big push to go smaller and lighter - unbalances the rig.

IMO there is now a market for lenses that leverage the high performance compact lens designs for high end still work, by rehousing them into stills/cine hybrids. They will not be as robust as the old school cine lenses, but they will be lighter and with reasonable care should hold up fine. Integrated FIZ control, assuming costs can be spread over enough units, should be achievable at pretty high levels of precision without escalating the price point too high. Aftermarket FIZ controllers are usually over engineered to ensure they can handle virtually any lens they encounter, some of which require quite a bit of torque.

Here's to hoping these "hybrid" lenses for our "hybrid" DSMC cams start coming out in droves with good optics and decent mechanics at purchase vs rental price points

Cheers - #19

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Paul everything in due time- lenses too.
Conversions on lenses are a very wasteful proposition.
On many counts.
The lens update has to be done on factory level. Right now the market isn't there, even though it would seem that way here.
Reduser may be a universe but a very tiny one. Not worth (mainstream) manufacturers courtship as of now.
Nurture the little shops as THEY are on the frontier of this evolution.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

How big is it?

How big is it?

I agree that the sweet spot for what I'm suggesting is not Duclos, Allstar, Centruy, Optex, etc using off the shelf stills lenses and doing custom rehouse/remount/declick/etc to adapt them to motion use. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have the option, but as you allude to its a labor intensive kludge that presents a difficult price/performance metric.

What I'm suggesting is that the market for what I call a hybrid lens that would straddle high end stills and most motion applications is finally in the neighborhood of pencilling out. Is it there right now? Could someone take a manufacturing line making something like the Canon 24-70L v2, add a parallel line that does a Cine-mod version on every nth lens coming through using a pre-configured option kit and make a profit? I get that unless the number of annual sales exceeds a certain quantity - 10,000/yr??? - its a nonstarter. Canon has already put out cine primes and zooms that loosely fit my "hybrid" lens notion, but IMO their price point puts them in competition with far more proven options and further handicaps their ability to reach unit sales levels that would lower costs.

Cheers - #19

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

I've been doing a LOT of reading on lenses in the past few months. From what I gather, there are a lot of working answers. Zeiss gives a good metaphor for almost all glass: the glass arrangement and coatings of the CP.2s and the ZF/ZE line seem to be exactly the same. In which case you're paying 4-5x as much for the mechanics. Which is completely worth the money, but doesn't affect the image on anything where you don't need to touch the lens during a shot. So the resolution and the character are the same, but you're paying a lot more for mechanics.

Another option would be to get the stills-oriented glass, and then get it cine-modded by Duclose, or another source (RPLenses has also been recommended around the forums). This gets you the same image, with similar functioning mechanics, for less than half the cost. Pretty good deal.

Like anything else, you can always PAY MORE to get something better. But as you move up, you end up having to pay 2 or 5 or 10 times as much to get 1 or 2 or 3% improvement on your image quality. The only way to get the absolute best images is to have the most skills using the best gear. However, everyone will point out that the Skills and talent and knowledge are more important than the gear. So long as the mechanics of the gear isn't getting in the way, then you could use stills glass on cine projects and really WOW people, if you have the right skills.

You do not pay 5x. More like 2-3x.
Secondly you get hand selected glass which is assembled in Germany.
Another bonus is 14 blades.
So overall CP.2s are worth it.
Light,cheap,nicely manufactured,small,full frame,great range from 15mm to 135mm and 2 Macro lenses...did i mention cheap?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Products that just a few years ago would be a disgrace to a company are highly successful today.
The brave new world....

 

[Nick Morrison]

Makes me think of Toia's post from last year. His Canon 50 1.4 was SHARPER at 5.6 than a Master Prime.

Stills lenses, even older ones (like my Contax), can be UNBELIEVABLY sharp stopped down. Once cine-modded, they make great in-house sets for DPs, producers and production companies. I love that we can fit 8 modded stills into a 1510 Pelican, and just walk on a plane with them. We jam 15 lenses into two 1510s.

Cine glass is great. But for what we need (portable cine-modded lenses with 77mm fronts), I'm perfectly happy with our choice. And our stills primes cover Dragon easily, and at S35 never vignette at all.

I also love how much we save on diffusion and filtration by sticking to 77mm threads.

 

[Mark Toia]

The brave new world....

Certainly is Jacek...

I'm a big believer of speed, performance & price...

Crappy little Canon lenses are certainly punching above there weight for me image wise, Price wise, let down only by manual focus.

Nikon lens, certainly punching above there weight for me image wise, Price wise, let down only by manual focus and back to front focus.

Master primes are fantastic, but let down by Price and weight...

Ziess MKIII's ... Are also fantastic, but let down edge sharpness and price.

Leica M's ... WOW ! for me the perfect lens, Let down by the stratospheric price.

and the list goes on.....

Is there really the perfect lens, that suits us all. Simple anser is ... NO.

Secret is to get a lens that suites the project, the shot ... or yourself.