PL Cine Glass for Stills Photography?

[Sanjin Jukic]

Then we get "Smart Sharpen" something like a plug in Photoshop and to make it our still glass RED clips even sharper as we would need or to add grain or lens blur if we would need an opposite.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I for one would not be surprised if a good FF35 still lens, like the Nikon 14-24 or Canon EF 35 1.4 L, for example, took a top cinema zoom lens or even a prime to school in certain head-to-head tests.

I think it is unwise to mock still lenses as being inherently inferior to cine glass.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Hi,

You don't need to rent a lens, just go to Arri Rental & put one up on the projector, you would learn a great deal. The only reason not to go is you might prove yourself wrong.

Stephen

Sanjin, has a well respected view here and his posts are useful and informative. I for one value his input.

Dave

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin, has a well respected view here and his posts are useful and informative. I for one value his input.

Dave

Dave,

thanks for your understanding.

---------------------------------------

Also to quote:

"From my many sources, I learned a lens operated to its best advantage at an aperture of T4-5.6."

Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC

So @ F or T 4 to 5.6 a lot of still glass can "feel" very comfortable in a comparison with cine glass.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

This is going down the same road that other threads have gone. It always comes back to the same idea. A DP will choose what to use based on the story, the budget, their taste in glass, and an assortment of technical requirements. I understand the interest in comparing, but it always seems to get personal with this topic. Tom asked a question about cine glass for stills photography. It was less about what's better cine or still? He just wanted to know if he could use one on his still camera.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I for one would not be surprised if a good FF35 still lens, like the Nikon 14-24 or Canon EF 35 1.4 L, for example, took a top cinema zoom lens or even a prime to school in certain head-to-head tests.

I think it is unwise to mock still lenses as being inherently inferior to cine glass.

Tom,

Go to your local rental house & you can see for yourself, no need to guess!

Stephen

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Hi Pawel,

If Sanjin saw some of his stills lenses @ 1.4 compared to a master prime he might start crying.

Stephen

It's not just that.

Lenses are best evaluated on a projector. You can't see on a crop what you can see on the projection screen.

You can see the size of image circle. You can see CA, distortion and resolving power of the lens unaffected by CMOS de-bayer. You can compare UPs with MPs with still glass at various apertures and various focal lengths quickly and easily - lots of fun!

You can also see breathing and how easy or difficult the focusing is. Within an hour you will have so much fun and knowledge that can not be replaced by someone else's opinion or samples.

For me it was very interesting to see the difference (or lack thereof) between MPs and UPs at longer focal lengths. I couldn't tell them apart, which means that, if you don't need that extra stop, you can save a lot of money by using Ultra Primes. But, the story changed substantially for wide angles. I also found how performance of most still glass went out the window when fully opened. Also, another lesson to do with accuracy of focusing - big eye opener how it affects performance of a lens. In many cases this is the main limiting factor :whistling:

I loved it. I will be going to Arri again this month with whole bunch of rehoused long PL glass to play with. I can't wait.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I for one would not be surprised if a good FF35 still lens, like the Nikon 14-24 or Canon EF 35 1.4 L, for example, took a top cinema zoom lens or even a prime to school in certain head-to-head tests.

I think it is unwise to mock still lenses as being inherently inferior to cine glass.

Most cine lenses are optimised for fully opened aperture.

The Nikon 14-24mm is an awsome lens. I wish there was a way to re-house it for long and accurate focus throw and PL mount. That's the only thing where it is inferior to cine glass.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I cannot offer any lens projector evaluation online but I can offer 4K tiff files

for the comparison between the two "ordinary" lenses,

one is cine PL lens Arri/Zeiss and another one is still glass Nikon F.

Arriflex/Zeiss 85mm Planar T2 (left) and Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 D (right)

TIFF 1. Arriflex/Zeiss 85mm Planar T2 @ 2.8, 48 MB>>>

TIFF 2. Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 D @ 2.8, 48 MB>>>

Right button, "2 x click to save as" is recommended for download.


The both 4K tiffs are processed in Red Alert, ASA 320, (K 3946, Tint -18 from Auto WB in camera)

and output is done at

Color Space: Camera RGB

Output LUT/Gamma: RED Log

that you could somehow "crush the blacks" and CC as you would like it.

For the comparison - do it yourself.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Tom,

Go to your local rental house & you can see for yourself, no need to guess!

Stephen

What 21-megapixel FF35 digital cinema body am I going to put them on for the test? :whistling:

I'm not trying to diss cinema glass -- far from it! But I see some disrespect for still glass that seems questionable, IMO.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Sanjin,

Good cine glass will outresolve 5k, even wide open. So, your comparisons of frame grabs do not really tell you much.

Most modern 85mm lenses will be very sharp and high contrast (high MTF). Try 14mm.

Not sure what is the point of comparing an antiquated Arri/Zeiss Superspeed lens to a modern Nikon.

Tom,

It may be just me, but I find still lenses on still cameras a bit limiting in the ability to focus. Probably 90% of time I focus manually when taking stills. I am not sure if this is just economy or weight that influences still picture lens design that makes them difficult to manually focus. I think this is what makes cine lenses on still cameras compelling. It is not for sports or wildlife photography, but for landscapes I think cine lenses have an advantage.

I will be checking the performance of MP14mm against Canon 24mm MK II when I can get my hands on one. What I am interested in is size of the image circle as well as performance on the edges. It may be that MP14 will cover almost FF35, in which case it would be superior choice for night sky photography. But, the 24mm may have superior image circle that will gather more light than the 1/2 stop faster MP14mm, in which case it would be a winner for night time skyscapes.

 

[Stephen Williams]

What 21-megapixel FF35 digital cinema body am I going to put them on for the test? :whistling:

I'm not trying to diss cinema glass -- far from it! But I see some disrespect for still glass that seems questionable, IMO.

Hi Tom,

A lens projector, no camera is needed. The idea is to what the lens is capable of on its own.

Stephen

 

[Joe Walker]

The problem with still glass is that its very difficult to get a color matched set of prime lenses, not that that's a huge deal with today's color correction software, but it's just an annoyance. Furthermore, most still lenses are not adapted for follow focus, remote zoom/iris, or even matte box accomodation. Sure you could have all that added, but PL cine lenses have all that and they're tested, and they're battle proven with most AC's, which is what 90% of us in the creative industry need. I'm sure still glass is more than capable of pulling off beautiful imagery in the "cine-needs" category, its just horses for courses. If you can make still glass work, fine, go for it.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Pawel and Stephen,

you are only just talking and talking.

We all know here very well that a modern cine glass is mechanically superior than still photo glass for the most of movie pictures application.

Also optically I would say in a lot of cases but not in all.

Longer telephoto lenses at the most rental houses in the world are still Canon, Nikon or Leica still glass with converted mount in PL.

Also use of aspherical floating elements started with still glass.

For example Canon 50mm f/1.2 Aspherical is for a lot of lens experts the best still lens design in the world even if it made at 1985.

Today all new Leica lens designs (at last 10 years) have aspherical elements.

BTW, optical quality of aspherical lenses is something that "driving crazy" guys like Pawel or Stephen which they think you would get

only with Arriflex/Carl Zeiss Master Prime lenses that design is not older then about 4 years.

"The above illustration shows the basic principle of how an aspherical lens works. Spherical lenses are subject to „spherical aberration,“

which means that they cannot focus all light rays of a given color frequency onto the same plane. The further away a light ray is from the optical center,

the more pronounced this aberration becomes, making this a crucial issue for fast lenses with their larger diameter elements.

To compensate for spherical aberration, additional lens elements are needed that make the lens heavier and introduce other performance issues.

Aspherical lenses, on the other hand, are lenses with complex curved surfaces, offering excellent aberration correction and thereby providing

superior resolution performance. Aspherical lenses can be made smaller, lighter and in general, better than similar lenses which employ

only spherical elements."

From ARRI site>>>

Canon 50mm FD f/1.2 SSC Aspherical


"This Canon lens is an amazingly effective lens and a superb design in itself.

Of course it lacks the sparkle and transparancy in small details that we can see in better designs,

but they are of lower maximum aperture. Some commentators called the Canon FD 1.2 aspherical

the best standard lens in the world. It is hard to disagree."

From Erwin Puts lens expert>>>

LEICA M8.2, ISO 320, f/0.95, 1/90 s

"After more than 30 years, Leica breaks its own record and introduces the world's highest-speed aspherical lens:

the LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/0.95 ASPH. It is the successor to the famous LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/1 ASPH.,

which was added to the product range in 1975. Thanks to state-of-the-art optics and mechanical technologies,

Leica has succeeded in achieving substantial improvements over the previous model. With nearly identical dimensions,

a noticeable increase in lens speed has been achieved. The extremely shallow depth of field (DOF) at open aperture produces

portraits and detailed studies of unequalled aesthetic effect. Even when just slightly stopped down, the result is outstanding image quality,

comparable to the LEICA SUMMILUX-M 50 mm f/1.4 ASPH, which is considered the best standard lens ever produced.

When used in available light photography, the lens exceeds the perception of the human eye.

Even the light from one candle can be sufficient for handheld photography.

A "floating element" retains high image quality even in the close-up range.

Vignetting and distortion have also been visibly improved compared to the 50mm f/1."

Technical details>>>

From Leica Camera AG site>>>

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Sanjin, We are discussing usage of Cine lenses on Still Picture cameras here. Not sure what your ranting about using still glass on motion picture cameras has to do with the discussion.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Pawel,

do you know any mount adapter that can deal with PL to Canon EOS, Nikon F or Leica M???!

I do not know any.

Just because PL register is 52mm, EOS 44mm, Nikon F 46.5mm and Leica M 27.95mm.

LINK>>>

Tell me how is possible to have discussion about that topic??!

Only its possible to have vice versa stuff like I can get and test on my R1.

More about that details I would not say any word now because that not makes advertising here.

Search the forum.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Tell me how is possible to have discussion about that topic??!

Sanjin,

It is not possible for such adapter and therefore Tom placed this thread under DSMC General forum, because DSMC opens such posibility for the first time.

Like Tom, I also would like to make some educated decisions about best glass for night time lapse and landscape photography. Of course, it can be done with still picture lenses and larger FF35 format possibly benefiting the end result, but possibly cine lenses may offer better speed, sharpness and improved focusing. Some of them may even cover FF35. I do not have strong opinion either way. I can see advantages of both. Therefore, like Tom, I have great interest in this discussion.

I will check with Arri if they have EF and Nikon mounts for their projector. If they do, I'd like to get my hands on the best wide angle still glass and compare them with MP14mm. It may be that, for example, Canon 24mm f/1.4 MKII will have usable (sharp) image circle significantly larger than MP14mm. If the surface area of this circle is more than 50% larger, then it would be a better lens from the light gathering capability perspective (MP14mm is 1/2 stop faster). On the other hand, MP14 may cover sufficiently large area or, may be significantly sharper on the edges when wide opened. Who knows?

It would be nice to have only one set of good PL glass and be confident that it would do two functions well. Otherwise, two sets of lenses are needed to get the best results.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Pawel,

this exactly is leading us to the main topic I have here at the forum and everybody knows that: Universal lens mount that is possible to get on R1.

With that mount you just test and choose within seconds the lens (cine or still) that could fit your application, need, style and emotion.

Swapping lenses in seconds between PL, Canon FD, Leica M, Nikon F, Canon EOS, Leica R, Contax/Yashica, B4,...etc... simply lens choice FREEDOM.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Any one know if a FF Scarlet/Epic can window its sensor to be S35 ? I guess it can but have no conformation of this. I think its relevant to the discussion.

Dave

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Any one know if a FF Scarlet/Epic can window its sensor to be S35 ? I guess it can but have no conformation of this. I think its relevant to the discussion.

Dave

Dave,

FF35 Epic (not sure about Scarlet) can have any resolution windowed within 6k FF35 sensor. If your lens covers 34mm circle, you can just crop within that circle. We already established that S35 lenses would have at least 5k crop on FF35 sensor. So, there is no resolution loss as compared to 5k S35 sensor.

So, most punters (me included) are looking to get the 6k FF35 Epic. But, how much more coverage we will get out of S35 PL glass remains to be found. Someone reported that longer MPs will cover full 6k on FF35. But wide MPs may not cover full FF35 or may cover it with some loss of resolution in the corners.