Nice little reality check on lens quality

[Christoffer Glans]

Chritsopher, with all due respect, I think you are missing the point a little bit by posting stills. I think we all agree that the glass in pretty much any lens these days is good enough to capture a still image under perfect conditions. It's during motion, both subjects moving and lens elements moving in a rack focus, and imperfect scenarios, that the cheaper lenses fall apart. Can you post the video that these stills were pulled from so we can see these shots in motion?

I will eventually post it, it's not really released yet so I can't show it officially. But focus pulling is only one part of a lens quality, those stills were just to show the images that people who have seen the video confused with Cooke or Master primes. That's also the point of the first video, they show shots shot on different lenses and ask if you really can tell the difference between the three price ranges.
The cinematographers in the video couldn't tell more than half of them which was equal of guessing statistically. It's like testing wine, there have been numerous occasions where people tested the testers to see if they could spot cheap wine and they couldn't, it all just comes down to personal taste.

They released the test video so you could test yourself if you can spot each sets of lenses.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

Yes I saw that video when it got posted on NFS and I did about just as well as the cinematographers in the show. But as others have said, that is more due to obvious faults in the test design rather than by some virtue of the lens design. When they got to the final shot, subject close to lens at night with street lamps in the background, it was painfully obvious which was which. That was as close as they got to a stress test and the still lens, and to an extent the CP.2, fell apart.

Again, with all due respect, I still think you are missing the point. No piece of equipment should ever limit your creativity. From this "lens test" I can safely say that I would not feel comfortable shooting a shallow DOF, close up, at night with either the still lens nor the CP.2, provided I had to worry about CA from the street lamps. Therefore, if I was working on a project that required me to use a shallow depth of field (Read: every project shot these days) I would insist on quality optics to match the DRAGON I was providing.

P.S. The funny thing is, the only two lenses I currently own are two Nikon kit zoom lenses that came with my first DSLR purchase a few years back, and I shoot with them all the time on my DRAGON and it looks gorgeous! However, I know that when they are on my DRAGON I am INCREDIBLY limited to what I can do with them. I cant always rent lenses so I had to learn how to make them work. Once I can afford to purchase a CZ 28-80, I will probably rarely mount these onto my camera again.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Yes I saw that video when it got posted on NFS and I did about just as well as the cinematographers in the show. But as others have said, that is more due to obvious faults in the test design rather than by some virtue of the lens design. When they got to the final shot, subject close to lens at night with street lamps in the background, it was painfully obvious which was which. That was as close as they got to a stress test and the still lens, and to an extent the CP.2, fell apart.

Again, with all due respect, I still think you are missing the point. No piece of equipment should ever limit your creativity. From this "lens test" I can safely say that I would not feel comfortable shooting a shallow DOF, close up, at night with either the still lens nor the CP.2, provided I had to worry about CA from the street lamps.

So you mean that the difference between the CP.2 and Ultra primes are so significant that it limits your creativity? Even the Ultra primes perform worse than say Summilux-C when it comes to CA.
I do think however that it's you who miss the point of the video. It shows that when you've finished your shoot, edited, color graded and delivered the film, commercial, music video or whatever there's probably no one who will be able to spot the difference between lenses. I might do a similar test in low light with my still lenses comparing to high end lenses to see if people can spot which was which during the sequence. The bottom line is still that no one actually cares. What truly limits creativity is the budget spent on high end glass. As I mentioned, if you could take that difference in price and bump up the budget for other aspects of the shoot like set design, location cost or extra lights you will probably get better images out of the camera than putting it all into the lenses.

As I said, of course there's a difference between the lenses but it's for the most part academic and not really showing in the final films. The pixel peeping of lens artifacts clouds the mind of what is actually being shown in the end.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

If the only thing I cared about was the final user experience, I would have bought a C300 instead of a DRAGON lol. Good enough has never been good enough for me. I care about things like CA and breathing even though they may not be consciously noticed by the average movie goer. The average movie goer isn't as perceptive as the average cinematographer, but they do recognize when things are "wrong", even if they cant verbalize it. The best way I ever heard it stated is, "Your eyes didn't see it, but your brain did".

When I look at a complete digital camera system, I analyze it like a computer system. The only way to truly improve the system is to remove the bottlenecks, one at a time. If you have a gorgeous 6K sensor, but only 64GB 1.8 SSD's you wont be able to get the full quality out of the sensor, and your creativity is absolutely limited. This same principle applies for every aspect of the camera system, from the lenses, down to the bolts and drivers. Say you have all the equipment in the world, but a DRAGON with a nikon mount on camera and all you have is PL glass, and no one on set has the proper drivers to change the lens mount. You could not shoot until a PA ran to the hardware store to buy a star driver. You're creativity has absolutely been limited by nothing more than an uncommon driver standard.

Yes, the CA from a CP.2 limits my creativity, but the question of whether it is worth it to spend money on Master Primes instead, is actually asking about diminishing returns, not lens quality. If you have a budget of $15,000 for a project then its probably not wise to blow it all on Master Primes. But if you have a $150,000,000 budget, then you would be a fool to waste even one second, or to blemish even one shot, because of inferior optics.

Since the projects I work on now have budgets closer to $15,000 rather than $150,000,000, I make due with what I can shoot with, and shoot around what I cant make due with. But hopefully that changes in the near future

P.S. The bottleneck theory totally applies to your argument about reinvesting that money back into other parts of the production. The real issue at the core of this video is that a group of respected filmmakers are suggesting that lenses are not as important to the equation as they really are.

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

Just wanted to ask a few questions and make a few points

1. Are we basing our conclusions watching stuff on a small screen or do cheaper lens imperfections show up more on new 4K TV displays and 4K cinema screens?
2. My own personal experience (and I can only speak for myself) is that I do struggle sometimes to see the difference.
3. I might be crazy but I just finished using the Summicron C lenses and an Ange 19.5-95 and for the life of me I could have sworn that the Ange was sharper. Were my eyes deceiving me?
4. Yes Christoffer.... your 24-70 Canon looks extremely cinematic... and if you told someone that was an MP no one would doubt you if the material was good

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I think the points are already made in that video that the benefits of the cine lenses are primarily how they handle during a shoot, like pulling focus and being correct etc. etc.

The points were extremely brief/dismissive and were but a tiny portion of the real world benefits.There wasn't much explanation or context of when and why these are helpful. He just skips over but does manage to mention a couple top reasons.

But the point I think is the most valid is that it's about how these lenses look when people watch movies on a screen after color grading and finishing. Especially comparing the Ultra primes to the $5000 in which both are cine-lenses but the difference in price is almost absurd.

One of the benefits of cinema lenses is their consistency within a set. Of course there are photography lenses with some decent consistency, but for the most part this is not a concern for the lens manufacturers. Higher end cinema lens manufacturers are made ever so carefully to match in color, contrast and quality. Why? Because the illusion of continuity is typically important when telling a story with images. Yes, there are amazing things modern technology can do with lenses. We can do good levels of color correction, we can do post distortion corrections, etc. But these corrections cost money. Imagine a production company pays a couple hundred dollars an hour to color correct a feature film. Now imagine the price difference if a colorist gets footage that all matches perfectly or near perfectly in terms of color cast, contrast, sharpness, even field illumination, etc. All he/she has to do is focus on bringing the scene, as a whole, to a creative and final place. Now imagine if the footage is not matched. The colorist must spend time on each shot, getting them to not only match each other but then go in the direction the DP/Director (sometimes and producer) want.

The extra money saved in production is now spent (and probably much more so) in post. This is just one of many reasons cinema lenses give value and savings to a cinema style production.

As for discrediting cinematographers I don't think you watched the whole video. The points are made why cine-lenses are valid for productions and I don't think he is wrong in criticizing the nitpicking of details when talking about lenses among cinematographers. Also he is not a successful youtuber, but one of the most successful ones and he has made productions outside youtube as well. I think we are past the time when youtube is considered amateur-hour. There are productions made for youtube that far surpass most shit I've seen in "respected cinema".

I certainly watched the whole video, and even another podcast where he specifically talked about the same test. More misinformation spewed there. The points weren't made for why they are valid or useful. One or two major points were made and quickly paved over. Just for the record, I mentioned his success on Youtube as a credit to his success. I didn't mean it as a negative. I agree Youtube is making some great content, but I'd still point out that Youtube covers the whole spectrum now, from amateur to professional. Don't think the 'Ow my Balls' era is over.

If there was a very obvious difference optically between them then why can't cinematographers spot what lenses that were used when watching a film? So often I hear questions about "what lenses did they use?", why does it matter? I could say that we used master primes on a shoot shot on cheap canon glass and you would probably believe that I did.

Give a film student Master Primes and you'll probably get a horrible image. I'm not sure I follow your logic. I understand great images can be made on photography lenses. Of course. Also, lenses have inherent qualities which shape an image. Asking about the lens can help inform a knowledgable peer about how the look was partially achieved by using optics. Of course that question is often asked by misinformed people who seem to think better gear is their solution to better talent. Not so, nor have i ever made that point.

What this creates is an elitist society of cinematographers who can brag about lens choices instead of sharing why they reach the level of quality that they reach.

Who do you and Freddy hang out with? I know more cinematographers than I care to name and we certainly have our preference of lenses for looks and use, but never have I been with an "elitist" cinematographers who simply asked for cinema lenses because he wanted to brag or have a dick-measuring contest about it. If this is what you encounter, you are with the wrong crowd. They do not represent cinematographers nor should their misguided motive for asking for cinema lenses be used to discredit the real reason the lenses are made, sold, rented and used by all the top cinematographers in the world.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The real issue at the core of this video is that a group of respected filmmakers are suggesting that lenses are not as important to the equation as they really are.

To be blunt, it's only important to you... You describe that you look at it as a computer system, nitpicking all details of it. Yes, you could "perfectilize" your images to insane levels by doing it, but the people that are going to watch what you shot will probably just say "whatever". If people can't spot the difference between two types of lenses in the finished result it doesn't matter why you choose something or in what way it freed up or limited creativity for you, no one will see the difference and no one really cares about it except for you. So it might be important to you, I respect that, but you can't state as a fact that there is an obvious perceptual difference on the final result, there isn't.

Just wanted to ask a few questions and make a few points

1. Are we basing our conclusions watching stuff on a small screen or do cheaper lens imperfections show up more on new 4K TV displays and 4K cinema screens?
2. My own personal experience (and I can only speak for myself) is that I do struggle sometimes to see the difference.
3. I might be crazy but I just finished using the Summicron C lenses and an Ange 19.5-95 and for the life of me I could have sworn that the Ange was sharper. Were my eyes deceiving me?
4. Yes Christoffer.... your 24-70 Canon looks extremely cinematic... and if you told someone that was an MP no one would doubt you if the material was good

1. I've seen stuff shot on high end lenses and still lenses in 4K and if you can find someone who can tell the difference when watching material shot by an experienced DOP then I'd like to hear about it. You can spot imperfections if you paus, rewind, zoom in, look at charts etc. but point being, you don't see a focus chart in Tree of Life.
2. Me too and I would be bold to say that anyone who can really spot the difference on a finished film, even on a 4K panel, doesn't exist.
3. Were you referring to my comment on the Leicas? Because there are two types, the Summicron C and the Summilux-C. The Summilux-C's are the ones that at full opening won't show any CA.
4. I think I'm gonna use what I've learned in this thread and lie every time someone asks about what lenses I've used. If I used high end lenses I will say still lenses and if I used still lenses I'm gonna say high end lenses. Then I'm gonna check how many cinematographers, colorists, directors, post supervisors etc. who can really spot that I'm lying. :cornut:

The points were extremely brief/dismissive and were but a tiny portion of the real world benefits.There wasn't much explanation or context of when and why these are helpful. He just skips over but does manage to mention a couple top reasons.

This is nitpicking. If he talked one more minute about it, would it be better? I don't see your point really?

One of the benefits of cinema lenses is their consistency within a set. Of course there are photography lenses with some decent consistency, but for the most part this is not a concern for the lens manufacturers. Higher end cinema lens manufacturers are made ever so carefully to match in color, contrast and quality. Why? Because the illusion of continuity is typically important when telling a story with images. Yes, there are amazing things modern technology can do with lenses. We can do good levels of color correction, we can do post distortion corrections, etc. But these corrections cost money. Imagine a production company pays a couple hundred dollars an hour to color correct a feature film. Now imagine the price difference if a colorist gets footage that all matches perfectly or near perfectly in terms of color cast, contrast, sharpness, even field illumination, etc. All he/she has to do is focus on bringing the scene, as a whole, to a creative and final place. Now imagine if the footage is not matched. The colorist must spend time on each shot, getting them to not only match each other but then go in the direction the DP/Director (sometimes and producer) want.

The extra money saved in production is now spent (and probably much more so) in post. This is just one of many reasons cinema lenses give value and savings to a cinema style production.

I've been doing colorist work for years and consistency has never been a problem for me. You always need to match shots, even if it's the same series of lenses. In these advanced ages of RAW and grading tools it's quite irrelevant if the lenses aren't consistent. I've graded stuff which used three different cameras, mixing still lenses, cine lenses and cameras with built in lenses and there hasn't been a problem to match them. The problem of color is always worse when it comes to sensor technology. As an example, MX was shit, Dragon is wonderful.

And using mid level cine lenses will still give you consistency, while using let's say a set of Sigma ART still lenses will also give you consistency. Just because you choose cheaper lenses doesn't mean you should choose unwisely.

I certainly watched the whole video, and even another podcast where he specifically talked about the same test. More misinformation spewed there. The points weren't made for why they are valid or useful. One or two major points were made and quickly paved over. Just for the record, I mentioned his success on Youtube as a credit to his success. I didn't mean it as a negative. I agree Youtube is making some great content, but I'd still point out that Youtube covers the whole spectrum now, from amateur to professional. Don't think the 'Ow my Balls' era is over.

I think Freddy and his crew and production facility knows more about filmmaking than a good portion of people on reduser. He also makes action direction better than most Hollywood directors with their chaos editing and incomprehensible structure. Only film I've seen lately that really nails good action directing is Mad Max Fury Road. But that tells a lot about the cred Freddy should have. Also, keep in mind that he isn't the cinematographer, he is directing for the most part, so that is a certain perspective to put into weight.

Give a film student Master Primes and you'll probably get a horrible image. I'm not sure I follow your logic. I understand great images can be made on photography lenses. Of course. Also, lenses have inherent qualities which shape an image. Asking about the lens can help inform a knowledgable peer about how the look was partially achieved by using optics. Of course that question is often asked by misinformed people who seem to think better gear is their solution to better talent. Not so, nor have i ever made that point.

I can turn it around and say that give a professional still lenses and he will make something that looks like it was shot on master primes. We aren't really talking about characteristics of a lens. As I mentioned earlier, there are reasons to use lenses like the HAWK anamorphics because they give a certain look. But for this it's about pure optical quality, when you don't want "special" characteristics but rather good lenses that give "standard" high quality images. I've heard numerous cinematographers ask what lenses were used, it's not a question I've heard from misinformed people or less experienced cinematographers, but professionals. And if still lenses were used on a shoot their reaction to that answer is either anger (they feel tricked, just like the wine testers), or chock over the quality it gave (if you only use cine-lenses you might never try still lenses and see what they can do).

Who do you and Freddy hang out with? I know more cinematographers than I care to name and we certainly have our preference of lenses for looks and use, but never have I been with an "elitist" cinematographers who simply asked for cinema lenses because he wanted to brag or have a dick-measuring contest about it. If this is what you encounter, you are with the wrong crowd. They do not represent cinematographers nor should their misguided motive for asking for cinema lenses be used to discredit the real reason the lenses are made, sold, rented and used by all the top cinematographers in the world.

I also know cinematographers and it's not hard to see how they proudly tell others what lenses they used. What I meant by elitism is that there is this idea among some that nothing is good enough if they don't have ultras or masters and just judging by the negative backlash on this video that is meant to be a funny test about the subject rather then those boring tests (which they mock) it's easy to see how the subject gets out of proportion of the subject it's aiming at.



The point being, if you choose lenses that are much cheaper than ultras or masters you will still be able to deliver super high quality images to an audience who doesn't give a frak about what you used. They see the lighting, acting and scenery, they do not see chromatic aberration. That's the main point of the video, not that if you choose lesser lenses your cinematographer-buddies will see the difference. You aren't making movies for cinematographers. But I will do as I mentioned, I will lie about my lens choices and see how many professionals I can fool, I think that will prove my point in the end... which is, don't waste money if no one gives a shit.

 

[Daniel Kelly Brown]

I think flair management is one of the main ways you can differentiate quality glass from not so quality glass. Had he panned each lens from the sun, I bet the difference in optical quality would have been quite apparent, especially at higher apertures.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

To be blunt, it's only important to you... You describe that you look at it as a computer system, nitpicking all details of it. Yes, you could "perfectilize" your images to insane levels by doing it, but the people that are going to watch what you shot will probably just say "whatever". If people can't spot the difference between two types of lenses in the finished result it doesn't matter why you choose something or in what way it freed up or limited creativity for you, no one will see the difference and no one really cares about it except for you. So it might be important to you, I respect that, but you can't state as a fact that there is an obvious perceptual difference on the final result, there isn't.

Thank you for respecting my opinion on the matter and it seems that we are at a philosophical impasse. I care more about what I think about my images, you care more about what your audience thinks about your images. Neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong, its just our educated opinions. That's totally fine. However, I would like to make a point that there IS an obvious difference between lenses during a stress test, however most audience members do not know what to look for. When shown what to look for, lens defects become painfully obvious even to the newly educated.

 

[Elsie N]

Bottom line (for me, anyway)... those who can will continue to shoot the lenses they trust to give them the look and feel that they want regardless of cost.

I think where the video is targeted is towards mid to low level productions that may have thought they absolutely needed to put more in their budget for lenses than what is required to give them best expenditure practices.

As for the video itself, I also thought they not only had good content but good production values as well.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I think it's pretty simple. If you don't think there is a difference between shooting on a CP2 and a quality lens, whatever it may be, you don't need the other lens. Shoot on the cp2s. Personally, I hate shooting on compromise glass. It's one thing to shoot on a super funky old Helios, it's just stone cold death shooting on a lens that nobody can tell apart from a rokinon.

Nick

 

[Matt Uhry]

I happen to disagree. Of course I have a horse in this race but the advantages of lighter, faster, stabilized lenses are undeniable for a lot of genres. Some scenarios like unmanned areal are not achievable with cine lenses no matter how much money you throw at it. They are just too bulky and heavy and require tons of motors, cables, power etc. etc. There goes your setup speed.
Maybe not for theatrical features but what percentage is that? 2%, 5% tops
BTW have you noticed the trend in camera design- always lighter, smaller. Still lenses are a natural companion that makes common sense. And common sense always prevails in the end....

This is going to sound strange but I find myself agreeing more and more with Jacek. He's totally got a horse in the race, but it's a horse race you should actually be watching and maybe betting on.

I firmly believe that getting a good enough camera with a decent lens in the right place at the right time is what's most important to doing great work. If the cost, weight, fear of damage / destruction of your rig is preventing you from putting the camera/lens where and when it needs to go you're an equipment collector and not a Cinematographer. If you or your producer or your insurance are cool with taking the Master Primes into the sand dunes during a wind storm or into a heavily armed favela or township at night then cool ! Get awesome shots, win awards, I'll look for you on the red carpet.

The thing that's been the deadly flaw with stills glass was not the absolute imaging quality, Sigma ART, Canon L, Otus, Nikon G are all able to make high resolution, high contrast, low distortion, pleasant looking images. There just used to be no practical way to pull focus on moving images, especially on AF glass and on some lenses the torque from gears and overall weakness of the build caused excessive image shift. We're on the brink of having production ready versatile robust always works, no sweating through menus solutions to reliably remotely control AF lenses using their built in internal motors. Crazy, but I think it's coming.

I live in a nice cave with a view of the Hollywood sign. I've not used any of these systems yet in anger ( on real jobs ), and out of about 60 lenses that I own about I think 2 or 3 actually might have the vestigial autofocus bits functioning inside. But it's finally here and within a year or 18 months you'll put a lens on the camera, turn a knob that looks like any other remote focus knob, see accurate distance markers on an electronic display and be using high performance and cheap AF stills lenses for motion work and wondering how we did it the old way. It's gonna be cool.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

This is going to sound strange but I find myself agreeing more and more with Jacek. He's totally got a horse in the race, but it's a horse race you should actually be watching and maybe betting on.

But it's finally here and within a year or 18 months you'll put a lens on the camera, turn a knob that looks like any other remote focus knob, see accurate distance markers on an electronic display and be using high performance and cheap AF stills lenses for motion work and wondering how we did it the old way. It's gonna be cool.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Well thank you Matt ;-)
You mean something like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEI2K40u8LA&feature=youtu.be
You don't have to wait a year or even a month.
Sorry we shot the RED Edition OT2 video but it may not be ready before this weekend (Cine Gear)
We are exhibiting (BOOTH s326A) with a full Epic Dragon setup on hand ;-)

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

Jacek... I will buy that immediately..... unbelievable... why has no-one thought of that before.... HOW DO I BUY IT NOW... I'M SOLD...What is the cost?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Thank you Nosa!!!
Email me- they are available now....

 

[Mike Quill]

I think it's pretty simple. If you don't think there is a difference between shooting on a CP2 and a quality lens, whatever it may be, you don't need the other lens. Shoot on the cp2s. Personally, I hate shooting on compromise glass. It's one thing to shoot on a super funky old Helios, it's just stone cold death shooting on a lens that nobody can tell apart from a rokinon.

Nick

I tend to agree with Nick's general philosophy about glass: We are after lenses that actually have some god damn character. For example, Lomo Superspeeds, Lomo Anamorphic Square Fronts, etc. Vintage glass is certainly a lot more interesting than Canon L glass and they help take the digital edge of the Red sensor, which is rather sharp.

I fully admit that my experience using high end modern cinema glass is limited, but I do think it's accurate to say that many modern high end options just don't look any different than dirt cheap Rokinons, etc. I would guess that most people would not be able to tell the difference between Master Primes and Canon L footage. They both look equally clinical and devoid of noticeable character. And I think that's what this YouTube video is essentially saying.

Take a look at this video by Shane Hurlbut, where he compares the Leica Summilux Cs to the Cooke S4s: https://vimeo.com/90168989

He seems to feel strongly that there is a clear night and day difference between the look of the lenses. Call me crazy but I'm just not seeing it. Yeah OK, the Cookes look a little less compressed, but so what? Maybe it's just becuase the internet compresses the shit out of video and makes any perceivable differences negligable, but I'd bet if he threw a Canon 50mm 1.8 nifty fifty into the mix it'd look the same.

I think people who spend $200k on a set of high end cinema lenses are crazy when there are MUCH more affordable vintage lens options out there that actually make your image look unique, chalk full of organic softness, interesting flares, colors, etc.

 

[Akin A]

Even though Freddie's comparison was supposed to be "real world," it would have been better to see close-ups with good lighting, which is the narrative "real world." His shot selections didn't really give you a chance to make an educated guess.

This is one of the most useful lens comparisons I've seen:
Angenieux, Cooke, Zeiss, ARRI Fujinon, RED Pro and Canon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYT9SxLyV0M

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I'm not sure about that ;-) These two above are obviously shot at different stop and different distance. Not exactly" comparison" in a technical sense. Matching stop and magnification is a basic requirement....

 

[Nick Morrison]

There are benefits to both stills and cine lenses. Clearly, there's a reason BOTH are so popular in our industry.

With high end stills glass, you can afford to cover a larger range of primes for less (8mm fisheye, 11-16, 16 fisheye, 18, 21, 25, 28, 35, 50, 60 Macro, 85, 100, 100 Macro, 135, 180, 300). On a project demanding lots of variety, or a smaller footprint, this can be an advantage.

Trying to cover this many looks in Master Primes could easily cost you $300k+ and require maybe 6 flight cases? Very expensive, very heavy, and not very mobile.

For run n gun work, smaller or more diverse projects...stills glass can make sense...especially on Dragon, which appears to be quite forgiving.

However, for speed, efficiency and technical perfection...on a high end/compicated job....having 5 Master Primes with perfect mechanics and imagery...would obviously be a smart choice.

I'm not sure why there needs to be a "winner" here? I think that's possibly my biggest regret from this debate.

Picking the right glass FOR YOUR JOB...is often not just an empirical choice, but a personal one. Sometimes it's not about THE BEST, but about WHAT'S RIGHT (whether limitations are tone, budget, style, etc).

Personally - I think we're lucky to work in an era with this many choices - from Rokinons to Leica C's.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I firmly believe that getting a good enough camera with a decent lens in the right place at the right time is what's most important to doing great work

Matt, you sound like a photographer. I suspect that almost all motion picture crews don't walk around town with their cameras ready to go. Photojournalism is nothing like cinema. Though of course I can read between the lines - I get the point. Paradigms in photography don't always work very well in cinema, as I'm sure we all understand.

I've noticed that too many people look at only one thing: sharpness. But there is more to lenses than sharpness. Fixing issues in post is trouble enough with photographs; with movies, I'd like to think that one should get as much right as possible on the set.

And if you're shooting film, you'd be better off with good lenses from the beginning. If you're only shooting for the small screen, you have to be careful still, but you can compromise with Canon AF zooms etc. Though if your sensor sucks :cough:: Canon 5D ::cough: the last thing on your mind should be a Leica Summilux-C.

Though I'd prefer to go the whole hog and use old SLR lenses from the '60s. Hello, Pentax! If you think an SLR zoom is cheap... gosh, Pentax primes can be had for, what, $25? If you want to really, truly save money, that's your money-melon.