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 :)

When someone tells me they're using rokinons for their shoot..........

S

Saumene Mehrdady

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
434
Reaction score
0
Points
0
pKr6qEd.jpg
 
The 85 is pretty good. It's been my place-holder until Sigma gets their 85mm Art out there.
I haven't tried the others.
 
Don't see the issue, horses for courses. A lot of the haters wont even be able to tell the difference in the first place. If I were Roger Deakins I wouldn't use them either, but unfortunately not everyone is like Roger Deakins or has his resources.

I had Rokinons for a while and apart from the horrible built quality the lenses werent half bad and I shot some of my favorite work on them, these are all like Akin mentioned, on the 85mm:

4.jpg


3.jpg


2.jpg


1.jpg
 
Hahaha, I laughed my ass off at Deakin meme above.

I used to use this meme awhile back, but I don't think I can anymore because of their new attempt at proper cinema lens housings with their announced Xeen line.

As a knowledgeable lens guy, cinematographer and camera assistant, my head explodes when some company or person slaps a geared ring on a photography lens and calls it a cinema lens. It's not a cinema lens. Rokinon and Smyang aren't alone in this offense. As mentioned above, they have actually tried to now make a lens with proper cinema lens attributes. They are learning!

BY6xh7e.jpg
 
And there's this:

A894dJh.jpg
 
For those of us that can't afford real cine lenses, a set of Roki's aren't that bad. Most clients cant tell the difference anyway. The build quality is horrible and despite the focus gears it's a huge pain to pull focus with. They are also too soft to be usable at 1.5 in most cases. But you know what? For the price I can deal with the flaws.
 
Dominik Muench said:
Don't see the issue, horses for courses. A lot of the haters wont even be able to tell the difference in the first place. If I were Roger Deakins I wouldn't use them either, but unfortunately not everyone is like Roger Deakins or has his resources.

I had Rokinons for a while and apart from the horrible built quality the lenses werent half bad and I shot some of my favorite work on them, these are all like Akin mentioned, on the 85mm:

4.jpg


3.jpg


2.jpg


1.jpg
Click to expand...

They have that Magenta Look.
 
We filmed these two TV spots on a set of Rokinons.

https://vimeo.com/116899306
https://vimeo.com/116899305

Nothing wrong with them when you're on a budget!

I know we all like to think of ourselves as the next Deakins but one can't argue with the value for money that these little guys offer.

Just my 2¢
 
Jiri Vrozina said:
They have that Magenta Look.
Click to expand...

Er.... That has very little, more like nothing, to do with the lenses. After all, we're shooting RAW (or at least that's the intent of shooting on RED) and we can manipulate the color any way we choose. I've shot the Rokinons a few times and have to agree with Dominik. They're not half bad optically and even have a bit of character to them. Mostly I tested them out on a couple small low budget shoots to see if even wanted a set as just cheap primes. Nah... the build quality is horrible and overall I just wasn't impressed with them. But in terms of optical performance if you didn't try to manipulate focus during a shot, they performed well. I've used plenty of real cinema lenses that have fared worse in terms of optical performance.
 
If you can't get good looking images with any lens you aren't a good cinematographer... it's as simple as that. Every extra dollar put into any technology or tool to have a better one is only improving the quality you already have. Every extra light, every extra points of sharpness, every extra K in resolution, every extra smooth movements only enhance what you already imagined. If you lack the skills to have a solid vison and lack the craft to make it real it doesn't matter if you have a pin hole camera. If Deakins only had rokinons on his Alexa he would still be able to create wonders of visuals.

In my opinion there's far too many pretenders who brandloves rational voices to death.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
If you can't get good looking images with any lens you aren't a good cinematographer... it's as simple as that. Every extra dollar put into any technology or tool to have a better one is only improving the quality you already have. Every extra light, every extra points of sharpness, every extra K in resolution, every extra smooth movements only enhance what you already imagined. If you lack the skills to have a solid vison and lack the craft to make it real it doesn't matter if you have a pin hole camera. If Deakins only had rokinons on his Alexa he would still be able to create wonders of visuals.

In my opinion there's far too many pretenders who brandloves rational voices to death.
Click to expand...

It's even worse. Too many times this gear lust race and that quest for always better and crazier stuffs is putting people away from the original goal. They are just focusing on what the so called pro industry opinion decided is good enough to make some serious work. It's like brainwashing, people want to buy what hollywood is using, at the end everybody is making exactly the same demo images with nothing to say. Even reduser is full of people who spent fortunes on gears and didn't make more than some tests, or the same images all the other ones did already. Gear lust is a trap. Tech snobism too.
I don't think a painter or a sculptor is judged for the brush or the tool he used. Film should be the same.
The less you have the more you have to listen to your imagination and instinct.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
If you can't get good looking images with any lens you aren't a good cinematographer... it's as simple as that. Every extra dollar put into any technology or tool to have a better one is only improving the quality you already have. Every extra light, every extra points of sharpness, every extra K in resolution, every extra smooth movements only enhance what you already imagined. If you lack the skills to have a solid vision and lack the craft to make it real it doesn't matter if you have a pin hole camera. If Deakins only had rokinons on his Alexa he would still be able to create wonders of visuals.

In my opinion there's far too many pretenders who brand loves rational voices to death.
Click to expand...

What Chris says.
So much chitchat on this forum of "which is better, this lens vs that lens" etc. I like when people share techniques and ways of using these tools which actually might improve your cinematography work.
 
I think this quote is in someone's signature or I read it on here somewhere and it says something like, "The best camera in the world is the one you have with you."
Forgive me if I misquoted it exactly. But the same holds true with lenses, or follow focus, or lights, etc.
My dad had a saying I live by every day:
"You do the best you can with what you have."

I've seen some great stuff shot with Rokinons and some crap shot with Ultra Primes.
I'll never look down on anyone for their choice of gear.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top