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 :)

Standars Speeds v. Super Speeds v ?

To summarize this thread so far, it seems that both Supers and Standards are well thought of, but to get the best image from both, they need to be stopped down to 2.6-4 or so. If that is the case, then why not buy a pair of Rouges (16-42's and 30-80's)? SALT says that they have no falloff regardless of the T stop or opening. And you can get a pair for less than the $50,000 mol for a set of Supers.

Further, it seems that to get a truly fast 1.3 or so, you are stuck with Masters. (There is no empirical comparative evidence that any of the other, lesser known lens manufacturers out there with fast lenses are, in fact, competitive in quality with the Masters or even the Supers for that matter.) OK, you can add the Leicas along with the Masters if you think I forgot them.

And I have not read anything praising the new fast zooms out there, either (other than their own literature and their dealer comments).

Final thoughts from anyone? Now's your chance to sway me/us.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you want me to plug fast lenses I've used ...

Oh goodness Cooke S5/i

Oh goodness.

I think these are my favorite fast lenses, but then I love the Cooke Looke in any case. They are gorgeous at any stop. Oh, and the illuminating barrrel markings are a touch that leaves me giddy. Sure you don't really need them, but damn I love it.

They are roughly the same size as the Master Primes, which is why I think I'll end up with Leica lenses. The Leica's are in the same category of quality, but their main additional feature is relatively small size compared with the Master Prime and S5 lenses.

Of course ... As I keep playing with better and better camera platforms ... I keep thinking, "who cares if S5 is a bit heavier?"

So, getting back to your question about why not use a Rouge .... well, those are t/2.6 lenses. I don't care what "SALT" says, you gotta stop them down to get the best out of them. In fact, my guess is that SALT would also say that UltraPrimes are perfect wide open as well.

Now, and I want to emphasize this, you may be perfectly happy with modern cinema lens performance wide open. Some people can contentedly shoot Zeis Mk2 Standards wide open all day and night with glee. I'm pretty finicky, and I'm happy with Optimo Rouge lenses wide open for most projects. Admittedly this may be because one day I'm shooting master primes, the next I have an old nonAI Nikkor 50mm f/2 as my best lens.

Still for those projects and clients that demand the very best ... plan on stopping even the best modern lenses down two stops.
 
Alexander, no, I don't want you to plug fast lenses you've used. I want you to plug fast lenses <$10,000 you've used and can highly recommend. And ideally highly recommend them without having to cut two stops out of the lens.
 
Tim Duran said:
Alexander, no, I don't want you to plug fast lenses you've used. I want you to plug fast lenses <$10,000 you've used and can highly recommend. And ideally highly recommend them without having to cut two stops out of the lens.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand me ... whatever your lens you pretty much have to cut two stops from ANY lens.

I don't know if it will ever be different. I haven't studied optics in a while, but I don't think the math allows for a real lens that is perfect all through its range. Some fairly interesting things happen as you open the aperture on a lens. Interesting that is to optical physicists, not so interesting to cinematographers.

What the new, and unfortunately very expensive, lenses have managed is to limit the difference between their peak quality and their state wide open. This is an artifact of the advent of computer driven numerical optical design.

(For various reasons the actual math you need is insoluable except by fractional approximation ... and computers can use far smaller and more numerous fractions to build far more accurate estimates- leading to better designs.)

So, if you want a lens that's very usable wide open, get a modern design.

The Red primes for example are pretty fantastic, and while they are best at around t/4, you may like them better than MK3 Superspeeds at t/2, and almost certainly better than MK3 Standards at full wide.
 
Last edited:
The Standard T2.1 Zeiss lenses look GREAT wide open.
 
Martin Stevens said:
The Standard T2.1 Zeiss lenses look GREAT wide open.
Click to expand...

Leaving Adam's humor aside ... I sort of agree.

As you become accustomed to using cine lenses, especially the new designs, you'll see more flaws in the older and cheaper lenses.

I do think we are sort of losing sight of the prize here though ... the best is becoming the enemy of good enough.

At their worst (i.e. wide open) the Zeiss Mk3 lenses are very good. In fact so are the Mk2 lenses.

If you can deal with the weight and size, the Red Primes are a better bargain for shooting wide open. Even after you factor in sending them to Duclos to have their focus marks re-calibrated. If I had the money this red hot second for a set of RPP + Duclos modifications, it'd be a done deal - I'd buy the full set and use them to death until I could afford the "top tier" lenses I really want.

If you need smaller lenses, the Mk3 lenses are fantastic. They have a higher resale value now and they rent more if those things matter to you. (I don't advise considering them unless you are a rental shop - owner operators should buy the lenses they like in my opinion.)
 
Alexander, two things: 1) Adam's wife's legs wide open do in fact look good as many of us have noticed and 2) thanks so much for your insight and clarification.

Unless someone has some insight on Lomo, Illumina's and other mid tier high speed lenses, I think we've hit the end of this thread. Thanks all.
 
Tim Duran said:
Alexander, two things: 1) Adam's wife's legs wide open do in fact look good as many of us have noticed and 2) thanks so much for your insight and clarification.

Unless someone has some insight on Lomo, Illumina's and other mid tier high speed lenses, I think we've hit the end of this thread. Thanks all.
Click to expand...

Oh, jeez. I don't know Adam well enough to be poking fun like that - even if he did start it.

On the topic of other low end fast lenses ... Optar Illuminas seem to be the hot ticket - but no one seems to have them for testing.

I was writing this drawn out "ranking" of lenses, and basically the Illuminas showed up near the bottom of my list between the Mk2 and Mk3 Superspeeds. Basically, without a real test, I couldn't agree to buy Illuminas over anything but the Mk2 Supers.

Fortunately their pricing reflects that. Mk3 Supers are running about $45000 - $50000 USD. Mk2 Supers are around $25000 USD, and the Illuminas are $33000. (All prices are for a 5 lens set.)

Here is the thing ... I'm willing to bet that the Illuminas are a fully modern lens set, at least on par with the Red Pro Primes and faster. They are priced to MOVE if that proves true. Heck, those prices may obviate the Compact Primes.

Its a lack of information and reliable tests that are the problem. For the most part the only sources I have read on the Illuminas is the manufacturer website.

Here is the RedUser Illumina thread.
 
Hey thats ok. Some people get jealous as I have few "Sets" that look good wide open, especially the Square front Lomo anamorphics that will be back from being fully restored next week! ;-)
 
Does anybody own Schneider Cine-Xenar first version? If so can owners write report?
Thanks
Jiri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top