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 :)

STILL vs CINE Lenses

Patrik Kisucky

Patrik Kisucky

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Boston, Ma
I'd like to start a thread where we can discuss and learn, about major differences between the Stills and the Cinema lenses, and why are the Cinema lenses more expensive. I've done my research, but really don't have the experience to actually be in the position to judge for myself, therefore I'd love to ask people who did work with both Stills & Cine for their opinions, and advices. I'm considering to start with Canon 24-70, perhaps 70-200, and Tokina 11-16. What Still lenses would fit or be close enough to my Cine specs? Please feel free to add to my list:

1. Build and the materials.

Cine - entire core, zoom, focus, rings, housing is built from high quality metals, alloys. The are built tighter with a much smaller tolerance.
Stills - built to be lighter, faster, the cheaper ones using plastic, to allow for the lighter lens.

2. Focus, Zoom.

Cine
- para focal lenses, meaning they will maintain the focus throughout the zoom range.
- according to my research, you can zoom while recording, and have pretty smooth zooming, is that true?
- tracking, movement of the image, relative to the sensor, while zooming. Ideal zoomed all the way in, the object in the center of the image, should stay in that exact position, when zoomed out. Most Cine lenses have internal adjustment to calibrate tracking.

Stills
- vari focal lenses, the distance reference changes throughout the zoom, because they are not calibrated very well, so the distance is just a general guess, rather than a reliable reference.
- when trying to focus, zoom during filming your footage will jump, jitter.
- breathing, changes the field of view of the lens, when focusing during capturing, appears as zooming in and out.
- tracking issues.

3. Aperture

Cine - zoom lens will maintain the same aperture throughout the zooming. You can change the aperture on the lens.
Stills- cheaper lenses will change the aperture, if you zoom in/out. You have to use your camera to change the aperture.

4. Image Quality

They should have similar quality of the image in the center potion of the image.
 
I like this guy!!
Your post pretty much sums it up. There are exceptions like parfocal still zooms that also maintain aperture. Also if you are lucky the image doesn't jump while zooming or focusing but since that is not requirement for still lenses it's just matter of luck (or cherry picking from selection of examples).
On the image quality front I will add that modern Still zooms and primes are as good or better than their cine counterparts but there is not nearly the selection of fast primes in still world compared to the cine glass.
Having said that the summary above is very comprehensive, accurate and clear- thank you.
it should be a mandatory read for every "new kid on the block" here .....
 
The other thing is Cine lenses are designed for manual focus, and thus have a much better focus ring than photo lenses, especially the more modern lenses like the ones you mention, with very fast autofocus and even VR. Also, if you look at the Zeiss Compact Primes for example, the one thing you will notice is that all of them are the same size, which is great if you have a follow focus system with a matte box because you wouldn't have to change any positions in them when changing lenses.
 
You might also add, in terms of aperture: still lenses have aperture stops - every 1/3 stop or so. With shooting RAW video, this is less problematic. You can send lenses in to be "de-clicked" (removing the stops). Cine lenses have smooth action through f-stops.
 
Patrik Kisucky said:
I'd like to start a thread where we can discuss and learn, about major differences between the Stills and the Cinema lenses, and why are the Cinema lenses more expensive. I've done my research, but really don't have the experience to actually be in the position to judge for myself, therefore I'd love to ask people who did work with both Stills & Cine for their opinions, and advices. I'm considering to start with Canon 24-70, perhaps 70-200, and Tokina 11-16. What Still lenses would fit or be close enough to my Cine specs? Please feel free to add to my list:

1. Build and the materials.

Cine - entire core, zoom, focus, rings, housing is built from high quality metals, alloys. The are built tighter with a much smaller tolerance.
Stills - built to be lighter, faster, the cheaper ones using plastic, to allow for the lighter lens.

2. Focus, Zoom.

Cine
- para focal lenses, meaning they will maintain the focus throughout the zoom range.
- according to my research, you can zoom while recording, and have pretty smooth zooming, is that true?
- tracking, movement of the image, relative to the sensor, while zooming. Ideal zoomed all the way in, the object in the center of the image, should stay in that exact position, when zoomed out. Most Cine lenses have internal adjustment to calibrate tracking.

Stills
- vari focal lenses, the distance reference changes throughout the zoom, because they are not calibrated very well, so the distance is just a general guess, rather than a reliable reference.
- when trying to focus, zoom during filming your footage will jump, jitter.
- breathing, changes the field of view of the lens, when focusing during capturing, appears as zooming in and out.
- tracking issues.

3. Aperture

Cine - zoom lens will maintain the same aperture throughout the zooming. You can change the aperture on the lens.
Stills- cheaper lenses will change the aperture, if you zoom in/out. You have to use your camera to change the aperture.

4. Image Quality

They should have similar quality of the image in the center potion of the image.
Click to expand...
You can check this out for some nice comparisons. http://vimeo.com/28712292
 
Patrik Kisucky said:
I'd like to start a thread where we can discuss and learn, about major differences between the Stills and the Cinema lenses, and why are the Cinema lenses more expensive. I've done my research, but really don't have the experience to actually be in the position to judge for myself, therefore I'd love to ask people who did work with both Stills & Cine for their opinions, and advices. I'm considering to start with Canon 24-70, perhaps 70-200, and Tokina 11-16. What Still lenses would fit or be close enough to my Cine specs? Please feel free to add to my list:

1. Build and the materials.

Cine - entire core, zoom, focus, rings, housing is built from high quality metals, alloys. The are built tighter with a much smaller tolerance.
Stills - built to be lighter, faster, the cheaper ones using plastic, to allow for the lighter lens.

2. Focus, Zoom.

Cine
- para focal lenses, meaning they will maintain the focus throughout the zoom range.
- according to my research, you can zoom while recording, and have pretty smooth zooming, is that true?
- tracking, movement of the image, relative to the sensor, while zooming. Ideal zoomed all the way in, the object in the center of the image, should stay in that exact position, when zoomed out. Most Cine lenses have internal adjustment to calibrate tracking.

Stills
- vari focal lenses, the distance reference changes throughout the zoom, because they are not calibrated very well, so the distance is just a general guess, rather than a reliable reference.
- when trying to focus, zoom during filming your footage will jump, jitter.
- breathing, changes the field of view of the lens, when focusing during capturing, appears as zooming in and out.
- tracking issues.

3. Aperture

Cine - zoom lens will maintain the same aperture throughout the zooming. You can change the aperture on the lens.
Stills- cheaper lenses will change the aperture, if you zoom in/out. You have to use your camera to change the aperture.

4. Image Quality

They should have similar quality of the image in the center potion of the image.
Click to expand...

Thanks Patrik! Sums it up nicely!

Luis Castaneda said:
You can check this out for some nice comparisons. http://vimeo.com/28712292
Click to expand...

Thanks Luis, great to see!
 
Patrik Kisucky said:
I'm considering to start with Canon 24-70, perhaps 70-200, and Tokina 11-16. What Still lenses would fit or be close enough to my Cine specs?
Click to expand...

I'm with Jacek. i like that you've done your research. You have the facts pretty much right all the way.

There's an interesting quandary right now with still lenses. Many of the best optical designs are not the best mechanical designs for Cine work. That's because newer lenses designed for auto-focus have to be really light, so that their tiny motors can move the elements fast enough. Iris control on the lens is disappearing in the still world too, so you need something like the Red electronic Canon mount or Jacek's Prolock mount that can control the iris on Nikon lenses if you're going to use newer still lenses.

Things to try: The Nikon G-series primes are among the best optics out there. (85mm, 50mm, 35mm 24mm; all f1.4) But they are not the best for manual operation. They focus well, and don't breathe too much (for still glass) but focus marks are not to be taken seriously, and iris control requires the ProLock (or the future Red electronic) mount.

Older Nikon glass (AIS) is worth looking at. The manual focus action is good. They have iris control on the lens. The optical designs are good, but dated. The 35mm and 85mm f1.4 are both brilliant. So's the 50mm f1.4. (The F1.2 is in its own class-soft as hell wide open, but it's f1.2 for really short money, and it sharpens up by f2.0, though by then the 50mm f1.4 is better.)

The Zeiss ZF/ZE lenses are built for manual focus, so they are easier to use in cine setups. But they are not consistent in quality, lens to lens. The 50mm f2.0 is brilliant. The 50mm f1.4 not so much. The 100mm macro is the best of the lot. The 35mm f2.0 is very good. Some people like the 85mm f1.4. I prefer both the old and the new Nikkor to that one. I haven't used the wide ones enough to have an opinion about them.

And then there's Leica. They're almost a religion. Beautiful glass in darn nice mechanical packages.

For zooms, the three you mention are good. I think the nikon versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200 are as good or better. The Nikkor 17-55 DX lens is beautiful on Epic. It covers 5K (though the hood will vignette wide open, so you might want to take that off). It has a way of going out of focus that is absolutely beautiful. That's not to say it isn't sharp. it is very sharp. But if you rack it out of focus, what you get is unusually pretty. And that means its bokeh is pretty special as well. (that's true of many of Nikon's lenses.) And the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 is probably the sharpest wide zoom ever made. (at least for stills)

If you're really interested in still glass, eBay is your friend. You can buy and sell lenses until you find what you really like. And once you get to know what you want to use, Paul Duclos can clean them and fit them with focus rings and common fronts and the like for reasonable money.

For cine glass, renting is really the only practical way to try things out.

It's fun. In fact, lenses are probably the greatest joy in cinematography. Learning how they operate is useful, but learning how they draw images differently is just fascinating. It's one of the great pleasures of photography.

My own current fetish is a set of Series II/III Cooke Speed Panchros from 50 years ago or so. They look just beautiful on Epic. They are sharp, but have a whole catalog of imperfections that somehow work together to make images that I love.
 
The way to deal with the focus control problem is to add a Bartech. This will expand the range (and also deal with the reverse direction on the Nikons). You'll probably want one anyway, though they're not cheap.

But they do make a lot of still lenses entirely usable for cine work.

The breathing is only really annoying if you're racking a lot in the shot, and if it really get to you, you can normalize the crop change and still keep the resolution solid at 2K (basically, eliminating the "breathing" in post).

The RedMote Pro will achieve the same thing as the Bartech without the additional motors and weight. That can't ship soon enough!
 
Actually, most of us moving from DSLRs and video gear will be very pleased with our still camera lenses . . . until we shoot with a Cooke Panchro, or Red Pro Zoom, or Zeiss Compact Prime . . . or . . . .

Those silky smooth controls and no click-stops . . . addictive. There's a reason some guys have over 40 grand in glass.
 
I am moving over to digital ... and going through some mental shake ups. I wouldn't be thinking still vs cine lens if it wasn't for the crop factor of the scarlet. I love my 50mm cin lense ... but it will be effectively a 80ish on the scarlet. If I have to back up a bit for a normal medium shot on my 50mm cin, it might then flatten the person a bit, so i would need to use a 35mm lens. I normally don't have a ton of use for a 35mm cine lense though, so i don't have one, so i might have to use my 35mm still as a "50" mm scarlet. This shift in crop factor is throwing me a bit, given my "old school" investment in glass sizes. ... my brain starts to freeze in a lensing loop ... as i realize i have the wrong sized cin lenses.
 
Thank you guys for your advices and nice words. The ability to control, and operate my zoom lens, or the prime (aperture, focus) smoothly is big deal for me. If I would have chosen to go with the cine from the start, which cine zoom lense would you sugest, considering the usability (not too heavy), quality and the price? Perhaps Red Pro Zoom 17 - 50?

Also would it make any sense to buy a used one, and save some, and if so, do you know of a reliable website?

Oh, one silly question I guess. Do cine lenses focus automaticaly for motion and/or stills by pushing the rec half way down? Or can you setup the cine lense for automatic focus for capturing in motion mode?

I know we'll be able to focus taping the 5" LCD. Does that apply for cine lenses too?
 
Last edited:
Patrik Kisucky said:
I know we'll be able to focus taping the 5" LCD. Does that apply for cine lenses too?
Click to expand...

This feature only works with lenses with electronic connections that Red supports. Currently this limits you to Canon lenses at the moment, but they are working on a Nikon mount. There was talk of Red creating a pro series of lenses with electronic controls a while ago.
 
It'd be great if someone just takes an EPIC, a set of Canon 1.2 L primes and a set of Zeiss UltraPrimes, and just put them through all the standard tests with charts, resolution. etc.

I know that cine-glass is far more convenient to use and more robust but is it that superior in terms of the actual glass, this is what most interests me.
 
PatrickFaith said:
I am moving over to digital ... and going through some mental shake ups. I wouldn't be thinking still vs cine lens if it wasn't for the crop factor of the scarlet. I love my 50mm cin lense ... but it will be effectively a 80ish on the scarlet.
Click to expand...
The (obvious) advantage is that for any telephoto shot you want, your lens becomes shorter, cheaper, lighter and possibly faster - with some DOF padding thrown in as a bonus. The only loss is that your wide-angles reduce their angle of view. Not a huge deal depending on what you're shooting.

I like that about digital even though I like film more: you can reduce the image plane and still get excellent performance. With film it's the opposite: the bigger the image plane, the more it out-performs digital (as far as still cameras go anyway...). Of course some clowns think that 12Mpx from APS-C is superior to 6x4.5 film but shame on me if I don't know any better. :-)
 
Another big issue for me is breathing. Lenses which dont breathe are hard to find and cost a lot more! Cine glass with minimum breathe sends you right into the 5 digit realm!
 
Great thread. On build quality, I would just like to point out that the build quality of recent still lenses has suffered tremendously with the embedded and inaccessible auto iris and auto focus systems. The glass is wonderful and everybit as impressive as cine lenses at one tenth the cost but usebility in the cinema environment is generally much lower. Additionally the consumer still-lens mounts on the lenses themselves are very weak and subject to distortion and damage even when mounted to properly engineered lens mounting on the camera. A PL mount is like an industrial machine part compared to what comes from Nikon or Canon...that is why traditionally these lenses have been rebarrelled with proper mounts. The exception in the still world are the Leica M and Voigtlander lenses on the M mount and that is the direction we are pursuing....unsurpassed optics, (Voigtlander is build in the same factory as Zeiss), materials, build quality...all in an extremely compact form. We hope to assemble an entire line of lenses for the Epic and Scarlet starting at 8mm, with general speeds from F1.2 to F2 so that cinematographers on a budget can have equal or superior results to the $26K primes or the $55K cine zooms.
 
Particularly for those of us coming from dslrs, something to look for is constant aperture in zooms, as lack of it can produce rolling shutter issues.

I understand that the Epic/Scarlet has excellent performance with respect to rolling shutter. Those using Epic may only use well-specified lenses and this might not be an issue at all.

I have one lense that doesn't have CA. Zooming with that lens on the 7D produces a nasty variation on the rolling shutter issue - a darkening/lightening wipe throughout the zoom.

I still have the lens and it'll be one of the many tests I do when the Scarlet arrives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top