Why are primes exciting?

[David Dennis]

I hope nobody minds a bit of curiosity from a neophyte ....

Why would someone use a prime, which come in sets costing scary sums, instead of a zoom which is much more flexible and far cheaper?

It seems like people are more excited about primes than zooms, but I've always thought primes were yesterday's technology and zooms the way of the future.

What am I missing?

Thanks!

D

 

[Shawn Bannon]

Usually faster, lighter, and better optically. Less breathing , different flares, different bokeh, totally different look than zoom. Closer Focusing. Thats just a few. Totally different shooting style, move the camera instead of zooming in. etc... etc...

 

[Evin Grant]

An Angenieux 18-80 T2.2 is about as close as any zoom gets to replacing a set of T2 primes and it cost's almost $60,000. Not to mention it is rather heavy, so no handheld or steadi-cam shots. You could also go with the Angenieux 15-40 and 28-76 T2.6 which are much smaller (hand holdable) but cost about $50,000 each.

The prime advantage (pun intended) is weight/quality/lens speed(T stop). Primes give the DP the best of all three with the only trade off being switching lenses, which with good AC's happens very fast. There are only two zooms in the T2 range, the above mentioned Angie and the Cooke S4 15-40 T2. As far as price goes there is no free lunch, you will pay real money for good glass, prime or zoom. Even the Red primes cost more than the camera, and I would rather put more money up there any day.
It's one of the few places on the camera you can really see the money being spent on the screen.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

harder better faster stronger Zooms are usually at least a stop or two slower, not as sharp, they breath more, and are larger and heavier than primes. As a general rule, if you want the best glass, you use primes.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

wow apparently I write very slowly

 

[conrad gaunt]

I love my five Zeiss ZFs.

I also love their total price, no doubt a result of the large market for such glass in the world of photography, industry, and now cinematography. I think they're the best "bang for your buck" if you can deal with their small size and reverse rotation.

They're also full frame, which also means
a) Your using the best bit of the glass
b) They're ready for any FF/sensor cameras

 

[Steve Gibby]

I hope nobody minds a bit of curiosity from a neophyte ....

Why would someone use a prime, which come in sets costing scary sums, instead of a zoom which is much more flexible and far cheaper?

It seems like people are more excited about primes than zooms, but I've always thought primes were yesterday's technology and zooms the way of the future.

What am I missing?

Thanks!

D

Those excited about primes do most of their work in genres of production, particularly narrative cinema, where primes make the most sense because of prime's attributes, which have been itemized accurately on this thread.

That said, RED One has and is being used, and Epic and Scarlet to come will additionally be used widely, in genres of production where zooms have a practical advantage over primes, because of zooms multiple focal lengths. There are many genres of production (sports, nature, wildlife, documentaries, some music production sequences, many EFP genres, etc.) where a zoom is the usual choice of lens, and primes have a more limited use (specialty b-roll, etc.) - simply because it is impractical, dangerous, or time constraints won't allow walking to each setup, which you obviously have to do with primes. In these genres of production, shots are rarely taken with wide open apertures, but rather apertures between 4 and 11, thus high speed wide open isn't an issue. Zooms are usually used as variable primes.

My advice to you David, is to analyze what genres of production you intend to work in, then buy/rent your lenses accordingly. In general terms, there is no "better" or "worse" lens choice for use on RED One, or Epic and Scarlet to come - simply "better" or "worse" lens choices for each genre, or portion thereof, which you shoot. Again, analyze the needs of the genre (or shot sequence) of production you're working on, what the best focal length (or lengths) is for it, the aperture range you'll need to work in, the delivery medium and venue, and choose your lenses for that day's shooting accordingly.

RED User is heavily over-weighted with narrative cinema workers, who naturally, and rightly so, are deeply interested in primes - thus the buzz here on primes. But RED User also isn't an accurate measuring stick for the percentages of lens use in real world production, where vast amounts of professional production with RED One (and Epic and Scarlet) has been, is now, and will be done using zooms.

Me and my crews use zooms about 80% of the time in the genres we work in - but we definitely know when to switch to primes, and don't hesitate to do so when its needed for shot sequences.

If a high degree of mobility is a requirement of the days work, and zooms are needed for the work genre, cine zooms simply aren't the ticket, because their size/weight to focal length ratio doesn't fit into a mobility scenario. For high mobility genres, where zooms are the best choice of lens type, we use 35mm stills zooms extensively on RED One - and Epic/Scarlet to come. They're generally much lighter and more compact per focal length than cine zooms - thus enabling more mobility.

Simply put, pick the right tool for the job at hand and go get your images! But there may be a different "right tool" for each job or portion thereof.

Hope this added insight helps you...

 

[Tom Lowe]

In the area of FF35 stills, you have instances these days where a zoom will blow the doors off of any prime. Example: the Nikon 14-24 G. Of course, I am speaking only of optical quality, not focus or breathing, etc.

With FF35 DSMC cinema, you also get into a situation, even in narrative work, where f/2.8 is plenty fast, and you might not even want to go faster, or you will miss focus. I dare say f/4 will be fast enough for a lot of longer focal lengths, just due to the DOF issues, and the fact that these new FF35 sensors have stunning light sensitivity.

 

[Charles Angus]

Some good points, Steve. Insightful as always.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Zooms vs primes

Zooms vs primes

In the area of FF35 stills, you have instances these days where a zoom will blow the doors off of any prime. Example: the Nikon 14-24 G. Of course, I am speaking only of optical quality, not focus or breathing, etc.

With FF35 DSMC cinema, you also get into a situation, even in narrative work, where f/2.8 is plenty fast, and you might not even want to go faster, or you will miss focus. I dare say f/4 will be fast enough for a lot of longer focal lengths, just due to the DOF issues, and the fact that these new FF35 sensors have stunning light sensitivity.

I tested 14-24 Nikkor and 24-70 and they simply Blow ANY prime away optical performance wise.
Most of the Cine primes hype these days comes from the traditional
inferiority of the zooms- but no longer. The amount of money and, consequently, engineering genius put in zooms resulted in incredible advance.
I tested these against ultra primes and no contest-the Nikons beat them any stop, any FL.
And let's not forget the elitist desires in a lot of the waannabe DPs- they look a lot cooler using cine primes.
Let's face it guys: breathing, image shift was non issue 10 years ago, now all of the sudden you can't shoot with it.
OK, rant over
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek.org

 

[Tony Lorentzen]

But how would you fix the aperture problem with those two zooms? Using the Underdahl mount?

 

[Nick Gardner]

Size and weight have a lot to do with it. Speed also. Some people prefer to work off of primes for the discipline of it. They are the right choice some times, and some times not. they are all just tools.

Nick

 

[Tom Lowe]

I tested 14-24 Nikkor and 24-70 and they simply Blow ANY prime away optical performance wise.
Most of the Cine primes hype these days comes from the traditional
inferiority of the zooms- but no longer. The amount of money and, consequently, engineering genius put in zooms resulted in incredible advance.
I tested these against ultra primes and no contest-the Nikons beat them any stop, any FL.
And let's not forget the elitist desires in a lot of the waannabe DPs- they look a lot cooler using cine primes.
Let's face it guys: breathing, image shift was non issue 10 years ago, now all of the sudden you can't shoot with it.
OK, rant over
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek.org

edit.

obviously breathing is an issue if you are shooting cinema footage. i have no idea how those nikon zooms are in terms of breathing.

 

[Nils J. Nesse]

I tested 14-24 Nikkor and 24-70 and they simply Blow ANY prime away optical performance wise.

Cool. Glad to hear they're better than the Ultra Primes, I was always underwhelmed by the UP's performance.

Do you think the Nikon 14-24/24-70 are better than the Angenieux Rouge zooms? How about the Red 18-85?

I tested these against ultra primes and no contest-the Nikons beat them any stop, any FL.

Ultra Primes sure beat the Nikons at f/1.7 though...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Breathing has always been an issue. 40 years ago it wasn't a major issue, it was just a way of life... Many of the cine zooms and latter model primes have designs to minimize breathing. The way a lens breathes will lend a certain aesthetic to what you're shooting, it can be desirable or not. It can be downright annoying too.

The Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 are indeed amazing lenses. Lots of good lenses out there for DSLRs these days, many of these lenses outperform "cine" lenses when considering the optics. But they have simpler and cheaper construction and are produced in large quantities by comparison. Economics of scale and all that. I think as full frame 35 progresses as a motion picture format via RED's DSMC and what Nikon, Canon and others are doing with DSLRs, I'm looking to these manufacturers to bring us lenses that perform equally well for stills and motion. RED's announced FF35 electronic lenses are very intriguing.

 

[Tom Lowe]

RED's announced FF35 electronic lenses are very intriguing.

What lenses have been announced, Jeff?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

What lenses have been announced, Jeff?

Just the little bit of what was announced 12/3. So not much. But the render sure looked nice. I'm hoping they find a way to make them more "cine-friendly", with a longer throw distance or angle of rotation for focus, make the focus ring turn the same way as a cine lens. The focus and zoom rings in the render were wide to grip with your fingers, but looked like they could interface with a gear for a FF or motor system.

 

[Steve Gibby]

What lenses have been announced, Jeff?

Jeff is referring to RED's 12/3 announcement, specifically the new RED Electronic Lenses (FF35).

On the page titled "Pick a lens...or ten...", the New RED Electronic Lenses are:

15-25mm f2.8 AF (auto focus)
25-100mm f2.8 AF stabilized
70-200mm f2.8 AF stabilized
300mm f2.8 AF stabilized
1.4x Extender AF
2.0x Extender AF

I'll definitely be buying each of these!

Then if you check the 12/3 announcement, "Interchangeable and Upgradeable everything..." page, under mounts, you'll find that smart mounts in PL, RED, Canon, and Nikon are planned, and that "Mounts include power, and intelligent lens data interfaces".

So we'll have smart mounts, with new FF35 electronic lenses which sport auto focus and image stabilization...way, way cool I'd say!

For most of the type of work I usually do, these lenses will be far and away a better choice than cine zooms or cine primes.

Cool stuff for sure...

 

[Steve Gibby]

But how would you fix the aperture problem with those two zooms? Using the Underdahl mount?

I've been using the Underdahl Nikon mount with both Nikon lenses with aperture rings, and Nikon DX lenses without aperture rings - both with very good results. The Underdahl Nikon mount is virtually identical to the original RED Nikon mount, except on the Underdahl there is the added little brass twist knob for changing aperture on DX lenses. In tandem with the histogram, stop lights, and zebras for seeing what the camera is seeing on aperture, I've found the Underdahl mount to work quite well.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Some good points, Steve. Insightful as always.

Thanks Charles...

As you know, I venture out into a lot different genres than most of the posters here, so the ergonomics, lens, and usage of my crew's camera setups are necessarily quite different than narrative cinema setups. Many here may never setup and lens their rigs like I describe, but my lens usage descriptions may help some people here to expand their offerings and work genres - a very good survival strategy in the fiscally challenged industry of today. The more versatile we are, the better chance we have to survive the economic crunch.