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 :)

Top 3 Recommended Lenses

Charles Angus said:
Whew, I got taken pretty seriously there. I was mostly joking/hyperbolizing with what I said, but I can see that wasn't clear. Sorry about that - consider me put in my place.

I've used cine lenses and stills lenses (and eng lenses) myself, and have gotten great results with all of them. My preference would be for cine, whenever available. It's a comfy style of working for me.

Cool demo, btw.
Click to expand...

Its all good Charles...

Sometimes its easy to misunderstand the intended meaning of forum posts. Motion media convergence, spearheaded now by RED, has brought together a real diverse bunch of image makers with a wide array of skill sets. The cool thing is we all learn from each other while we share ideas and our experience.

Glad to hear you come from a broad background - that gives you good balance and perspective. Everybody naturally settles into their pet genres and styles. As you know, what is cool with RED, is that the scalability and flexibility of the camera system allows you to shift gears and re-accessorize for just about any type of production you want to tackle. Very cool I'd say...
 
My intended delivery is on the big screen, so should I stick with cinestyle lenses or does it really matter? I'm shooting in various remote places (jungles, mountains, etc.) so if I can do without a FF, it would be great. lots of handheld stuff.

Someone should create a dvd about picking lenses so guys like myself can get a crash course in choosing the right lense.
 
Jeremy Wiles said:
My intended delivery is on the big screen, so should I stick with cinestyle lenses or does it really matter? I'm shooting in various remote places (jungles, mountains, etc.) so if I can do without a FF, it would be great. lots of handheld stuff.
Click to expand...

Weight of a rig and mobility have an inverse relationship. The heavier and bulkier a rig is, the more your mobility is reduced. If you're doing highly mobile work in jungles, mountains, etc, - something me and my crews do a lot of - then what you want is the best image quality you can get while also keeping weight/bulk down to increase mobility. A high degree of mobility is critical in that kind of shooting. For any given focal length, or range of focal lengths in the instance of a zoom, cine lenses tend to be much bigger, bulkier, and heavier than 35mm stills lenses of similar focal lengths. Some cine lenses may give you a better image than 35mm stills lenses, but for highly mobile work, the price you pay in bulk/weight and reduced mobility, IMO doesn't justify the slight increase in image quality. In a real mobile environment there are simply shots you can't get with a big heavy rig that you can get with a lighter, more streamlined rig.

For our mobile work in the environment (desert, mountains, jungles, beaches, etc.) we rarely use cine lenses (we use 35mm stills lenses for the reasons listed above), almost never use a matte box (to keep weight down we use screw on filters), almost never use a follow focus (again to keep weight down), and each camera operator does his/her own sight focusing using 1:1 image magnification (because it can be easily done and it keeps mobile crew size down). We do a mix of shoulder/hand held and tripod work.

Well shot 35mm stills footage on RED One will be fine for the big screen - especially in the mobile style of work you describe you will be doing.
 
Hi Jeremy,

Gibby's advice is probably the best you'll get on this forum.
I'm relatively new to cine also,although I've been a still's photographer for 30 years.
Cine lenses are very seductive and I'm lucky enough to have a fine set of cine primes,but I wouldn't and don't hesitate to use still lenses if the situation is appropriate,and it sounds as if in your case they would be a sensible choice.The weight and short focus throw can work in your favour for handheld work.
You'll find a lot of lens snob's on this forum,but the quality of image produced with still glass can be equal to all but the very finest cine lenses.If you're going with Nikon or Canon,you have to choose very carefully because the quality does vary considerably between lenses.The Zeiss ZF primes are excellent and very consistent.
For zooms I would look very carefully at Angenieux,they made some truly excellent still zooms which were available in Nikon mount.
Not sure if they still make them or what focal lengths are available,but I used one a few years ago and the quality was impressive,although I seem to recall they were fairly slow.
Good luck with your project.
Tom.
 
Well, thanks again for the great advice. Steve, thanks for taking the time to to help with this. I believe your suggestions are right on the mark. It answered alot of concerns I already had and has given me a clear route to take.
 
Well my recommendation for 3 lenses would be: 18mm, 35mm and 85mm primes (ideally no slower than f/2). Finding them in a PL-mount for $12,000 total could be tricky though.

If you considered 35mm still lenses instead, it would certainly be possible, though you would need to get the iris rings de-clicked and a well geared follow-focus.
 
Three suggestions..

For narrative (people) cinematography with a 1st AC....
#1 Red 18-85mm T2.9, it's probably the best deal in PL mount glass ever.

For travel and lightweight cinema (Landscapes and nature) where you'll be pulling yourself...

#2 Doug's Nikon G mount, Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8

When you have more $...
Angenieux Optimo Rouge 16-42mm, 30-80mm and Optimo 24-240mm all T2.8:)
 
Grug said:
If you considered 35mm still lenses instead, it would certainly be possible, though you would need to get the iris rings de-clicked and a well geared follow-focus.
Click to expand...

IMHO, there has been way too much emphasis placed on the "Need" to De-Click the iris rings of still lenses for them to work properly.

This is a Myth that has been perpetuated by young cinematographers who want their camera rig to emulate the big time cinema rigs of their idols, without knowing the facts.
Much in the same way that young car enthusiasts will add a wing to their car to emulate the look of their favorite race car, without knowing that it will in fact make their car slower and use more gas.

Here are a couple of things you should know before you de-click the iris of a still lens...

If the lens is new, you will void the warranty.

Once the iris is de-clicked a dampening agent will need to be introduced into an area that was not designed to contain a dampening agent.

Depending on the dampening agent used, and the ambient temperature,
the dampening agent could bleed.

If you are multi-purposing the lenses, as in using them for both cinema & on a DSLR, remember that most still cameras want to see a hard stop at each aperture setting.

The majority of de-clicked still lenses I have seen only have the focus geared, not the iris. So you do not have the ability to remotely control the aperture for say use on a steadicam or crane, where the ability to have smooth motorized iris changes comes into play.

If you are going to de-click your still lenses, at least know why,
and have the job performed by a qualified lens tech.

OK, I'm down off my soap box.
 
What about LOMO lenses converted to PL? There is a 100mm PL T2 on ebay for $600. watch out for the Focus gear, make sure its a .8 pitch.

I usually sub-rent Lenses, I wouldn't take a LOMO on any film with a budget though.
 
David W. Jones said:
If you are going to de-click your still lenses, at least know why,
and have the job performed by a qualified lens tech.

OK, I'm down off my soap box.
Click to expand...

Which is what I did and they work really well. I've already found several times I've needed it. And it's very smooth. But I had it done by a professional, as you said.
 
Hello.
Well, a friend of mine is on the waiting list for his RED and is now dealing with the lens buying decisions. I've read very interesting opinions here that may be very useful for him as he was wondering if it was a really bad decision to go with some L Nikon lenses instead of the PL due to budget reasons. The final destination for the planned shooting is 35 mm projection, but its a small budget production. So, when you talk about STILL LENSES being a fine option - though it's clearly not as professional as a PL one - you're talking about NOT PL, the nikon kind of lenses that would work with the NIKON MOUNT, right? (as I'm from Argentina and don't now much about cinematography technical things, I'm a bit lost).

Do you guys have any recommendation or warning for my friend if he was to eventually go for the nikon mount and cheaper lenses?

Thanks in advance!!!!!

Regards
 
David W. Jones said:
IMHO, there has been way too much emphasis placed on the "Need" to De-Click the iris rings of still lenses for them to work properly.

...

If you are going to de-click your still lenses, at least know why,
and have the job performed by a qualified lens tech.

OK, I'm down off my soap box.
Click to expand...

All fair points David, and if you're only shooting scenes that don't require iris changes mid-shot then it would be foolish to have your lenses de-clicked.

But as one of these "young cinematographers" who've been shooting 35mm still lenses via 35mm-adapters on HD cameras, I can attest to the necessity of having them de-clicked if you intend on shooting more complicated shots - like tracking shots that move from inside a building into a bright sunlit outdoors.

Without a de-clicked iris ring, you'll see very noticeable "steps" in exposure as you close down the iris in shots like that.
 
Martin B. said:
Hello.
Well, a friend of mine is on the waiting list for his RED and is now dealing with the lens buying decisions. I've read very interesting opinions here that may be very useful for him as he was wondering if it was a really bad decision to go with some L Nikon lenses instead of the PL due to budget reasons. The final destination for the planned shooting is 35 mm projection, but its a small budget production. So, when you talk about STILL LENSES being a fine option - though it's clearly not as professional as a PL one - you're talking about NOT PL, the nikon kind of lenses that would work with the NIKON MOUNT, right? (as I'm from Argentina and don't now much about cinematography technical things, I'm a bit lost).

Do you guys have any recommendation or warning for my friend if he was to eventually go for the nikon mount and cheaper lenses?

Thanks in advance!!!!!

Regards
Click to expand...

he should ask his dop which should ask the AC if he is ok with pulling focus on nikon
 
Charles Angus said:
Don't get stills glass if you can help it.

A. People will laugh on set.
B. AC's won't be able to pull focus (nor anyone else).

18-50 and 50-150 would cover most situations. You could also pick up a 35mm Superspeed (for grabbing those wide night exteriors), and use it as a base for an expanding SS lens kit (something like 18,35,50,85).
Click to expand...

I've DP'd paid gigs and shot with zeiss ZF..
they looked beautiful. and the client was extremely happy.
no one will know the difference except, except camera dept.
and maybe a snooping director who knows the gear.

Only an incompetent AC will not be able to adapt to reverse focus.
If its that hard for them to program I need to pull the other way), then find another AC.

I admit when I have to pull my own focus sometimes (hand held and no remote focus)
I will mess up once or 2ce, thinking I am pulling cine glass... but it doesn't happen much at all.
 
Cüneyt Kaya said:
he should ask his dop which should ask the AC if he is ok with pulling focus on nikon
Click to expand...

Yes, this can be arranged, I was asking more for the technical implications of these. Well, I don't how hard it can be, but this has been talked with the DoP and I've read here (as the last message says) that a good AC should be able to handle this.

Well, I've found other threads with suggestions for nikon lenses and so on, though I'm still interested in all kind of warnings or recommendations around here if anyone has some tips to add.

Now, my friend still sent me a new question, which I don't understand very well but will try to translate anyway.

It seems that still lenses don't cover the same surface than a PL lens. So his question would be how many K does a still lens cover? 2K? How will that look when turned into film? What are we forgetting in these obviously failed reasoning?



Thanks in advance.
Regards.
 
Martin B. said:
It seems that still lenses don't cover the same surface than a PL lens. So his question would be how many K does a still lens cover? 2K?
Click to expand...

Most still lenses will cover a larger area than most PL lenses. Lenses like the Zeiss ZFs, and most Nikons and Canons, will cover Red One 4K, and also Epic/Scarlet FF35.
 
Reverse focusing

Reverse focusing

If I told you to reverse your right and your left foot while driving a car and then called you incompetent for running into someone or something, that wouldn't be very fair and I'd bet you would. A good AC should have second nature prone to one direction. This is a reflex and is hard to reverse just like that. Get a FF with reversible gears and make everything a little easier. Telling someone to go back and forth is not a solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top