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 :)

Which one is more "cinematic"?

G

Gabor D.

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I know "cinematic" depends on many things, but I heard people say that these Rokinon Cine lenses with their soft look, give a cinematic feel.
But for the price of a new Rokinon/Samyang cine lens I could buy almost two used, but mint condition Nikon AI (AIS) prime lenses.

So which one would be "less digital" and "more cinematic"?
 
I think you will find it easier to pull focus on the Rokinon. If the Rokinon were soft I would send it back for a different copy. They arn't master primes but they arn't bad either. I love nikkors and over the years have a pretty good collection of them but for the mechanics of image making I would go with Rokinon cine style lenses. I don't think either one has a digital look to it.
 
Plus +1 on Rokinon's. When I'm not renting PL, I'm using my Rokinons over my canons every time.
 
On another thread here somebody showed that the rokinon's where differing in a bit in colortemp in between the different focal lengths quite a bit, nothing a few luts could not sort but I would guess the nikkor lenses are more in line with each other. Do not think the "cinematic feel" will be much different but having a solid PL lens with real focus gears has it's benefits so I think I would pick the rokinons for those reason.
 
I have all three of the Rokinon T1.5 cine lenses and just about every focal length of the Nikkor AIS from 20mm - 300mm. The Nikkors have focus gears and 80mm fronts except for the 200 and 300mm. I tend to gravitate toward the Nikkors for narratives. I love the way they render people. I use the Rokinons if I am using a clip on mattebox or if the Nikkors give a lens flair the director doesn't like. I don't dislike the Rokinons, I just like the Nikkors better.
 
The Rokinon's are fantastic lenses. Think of them as on par with Canon L's except fully mechanical and cheaper.

My only real urk with them is that they're a bit soulless in terms of character. Not to say that they're not general all-purpose lenses, I just wish they had a bit more pop to them.

If you're truly looking for 'Cinematic' lenses, I'd go a vintage route like Zeiss Contax or Canon FD's. Color and skintone rendition on older lenses are just magical. Boat tons more character than Rokinon and definitely built on better quality. You'd be taking them job to job and they'd take a nice beating and still tick.

It's up to you. Lots of choices out there.
 
Last edited:
I have a 50mm AIS lens and a 35mm Rokinon. I like the way the Nikon AIS looks better to be honest, but the Rokinon appears sharper and cleaner (less grain) to me ( meaning the Nikon is more cinematic IMO)...I'm no lens expert though...just my $0.02. I do want to buy the full set of Rokinons because as someone mentioned earlier, it is easier for me to pull focus.
 
I have a 35 50 85 mm nikon. I like how they look especially the 85 but are a nightmare to make them work for video. Not the sharpest wide open either. But one stop down and they look fantastic. Still i.m getting thecrokinons till i switch to pl slowly
 
Thanks everyone!

How hard are Nikon AI, AISs to adjust focus? Do the Rokinon Cine lenses has so much longer focus throws?

For my current project I try to replicate an 80s feeling and I wouldn't mind if the lens would have some nice natural lens flares to it...

And one more concern: I either can buy 1 new Rokinon/Samyang Cine (probably the 35mm T1.5), or 1, but maximum 2 older used Nikons. This newly buyed lens would be used mainly for the whole shooting (my 3 other photography lenses could be used for certain cases (35 1.8G DX, 50 1.8D, 85 1.8D, plus I have a 24-85 zoom also).
 
The AIS lenses have a similar focus throw to the Rokinons. As far as new purchases, it looks like you have the medium an long end covered. You might look into a 20mm F2.8 or 24mm f2 AIS lenses.
 
I don't know how "covered" I'm because for video these lenses I have, especially the two G lens without aperture ring... is simply a pain in the ass to use. Their focusing isn't smooth neither.... (for photo they are perfect, but for video..)
 
Gabor D. said:
...Thanks everyone!
For my current project I try to replicate an 80s feeling and I wouldn't mind if the lens would have some nice natural lens flares to it...
Click to expand...

If it's flares you're after you might consider the Duclos modified Rokinons with stripped off lens coatings when whey come out...

Many productions call for the absolute best lenses possible and end up reaching for Zeiss Master Primes or Panavision Primos for a well corrected, clinical look. This is great if you want an absolutely clean slate to work with in post since it’s always easier to dial down sharpness and add a bit of grunge after the fact. But what if you want something with a little more character – a little bit of flare, in camera.
Click to expand...

http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/duclos-lenses-introduces-rokinon•raw-primes/
 
I do not understand this:
People spend $20-40K on Cameras and then they buy $500 lenses. I am sorry but that just does not work.
I own full set of AIS Nikkors and Zeiss ZEs.
I can tell you right now, latest generation Digital Lenses are sharper and better in Critical Situations.
Just spend $10,000 on Zeiss ZE set and you will be OK for 10 years or spend $20K on Full Frame Schneider Xenons, Zeiss CP.2s or Canon CNs and you will be even better. Lenses will also last you longer.
I am now looking at buying Schneider Xenons or Zeiss CP.2s.
At the end of a day OPTICS will last you 10x longer ;-)
 
I don't think it's always a matter of people being penny-wise, pound-foolish, in terms of spending the money on a high-resolution camera and then going cheap on the optics -- of course, that happens and I agree that it is a bit shortsighted... but we are talking more about the desire to soften the digital look in some organic manner that not only feels more like something shot on film, but something shot on film twenty or thirty years ago. You can call this nostalgia if you want, there is some truth to that, but it's also just how artists think. Creating a mood, a feeling, is more important to them than maximizing resolution. Some projects will suggest a softer or a grittier, rougher approach, just depends -- one size does not fit all.

However, I'm speaking as a renter who can rent the specific lenses for each job... if I had to buy the lenses, I'd be more likely to lean in the direction of sharper, more modern lenses as my working set only because it's easier to soften them in some manner after-the-fact than it is to make a soft lens look sharp when needed. But that's assuming one can afford to buy a decent set of modern lenses.

I also think people sometimes downplay the practical aspects of the lens in terms of ease of focus-pulling, stop-pulling, being able to switch between lenses without major re-jiggering of the mattebox and rods, etc. Speed and reliability factor just as much as the look of the lens on a film set.
 
^ What David said.

Look, mechanics, build, design, etc... Everything comes into play.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I don't think it's always a matter of people being penny-wise, pound-foolish, in terms of spending the money on a high-resolution camera and then going cheap on the optics -- of course, that happens and I agree that it is a bit shortsighted... but we are talking more about the desire to soften the digital look in some organic manner that not only feels more like something shot on film, but something shot on film twenty or thirty years ago. You can call this nostalgia if you want, there is some truth to that, but it's also just how artists think. Creating a mood, a feeling, is more important to them than maximizing resolution. Some projects will suggest a softer or a grittier, rougher approach, just depends -- one size does not fit all.

However, I'm speaking as a renter who can rent the specific lenses for each job... if I had to buy the lenses, I'd be more likely to lean in the direction of sharper, more modern lenses as my working set only because it's easier to soften them in some manner after-the-fact than it is to make a soft lens look sharp when needed. But that's assuming one can afford to buy a decent set of modern lenses.
I also think people sometimes downplay the practical aspects of the lens in terms of ease of focus-pulling, stop-pulling, being able to switch between lenses without major re-jiggering of the mattebox and rods, etc. Speed and reliability factor just as much as the look of the lens on a film set.
Click to expand...

+1 well said
 
How well these Rokonin/Samyang Cine lenses mix with Nikon glass? I mean is it advisable to shoot a picture with a mix of these lenses?
 
Gabor D. said:
How well these Rokonin/Samyang Cine lenses mix with Nikon glass? I mean is it advisable to shoot a picture with a mix of these lenses?
Click to expand...

Not a problem. Color correction these days can basically do anything.
If you are shooting a feature with non-name actors these lenses are
very acceptable. On such a feature the weaknesses will most likely be
the quality of the acting and scope of the production design. Last thing
anyone will notice will be the lenses.

here is f2.8 comparison of Nikon 85mm 1.4g vs. Rokinon 85mm....(also called Samyang or Bower depending on country)
Nikon is just little sharper in the corners.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

But all the still lenses are very soft wide open...all of them...Canon...Zeiss...Nikon
The sweet spot is usually 2.8-4.0 for maximum sharpness.
Here is wide open f1.4 comparison of Nikon 85mm 1.4g and Zeiss 85mm...not a very pretty chart...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top