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 :)

Why cine lenses?

Here.. let me throw some fuel on the fire...

Lenses for feature/short form

I have a BA in Photography and have shot a huge range of stll lenses(Canon/Nikon/Mamiya/Hasselblad/Sinar,etc...) simply because manuacturers gave us gear to play with in school--didn't have to rent or buy them. Before photog. school I shot EFP/ENG with $30,000+ lenses. Now I just spent 4 months on a $100+mil feature taking notes on hundreds of setups with the best cine lenses available(I was not camera dept, was VFX).

My $0.02? I'm in agreement with everyone in this regard: use the lens that best suits the image you need. However, if I were a producer/investor of a feature-length film I would INSIST on cine lenses(such as PV or similar) to take the bulk of the work. O.K. for still lenses to do some of the shots, especially if there is some special effect that a cine lens cannot deliver for some reason (one is not coming to mind just yet.. but I'll give still lenses the benefit of the doubt).

Why do I have this thinking?

- Cine lenses are made for the rigors of filmmaking
- Cine lenses are not made in bulk(by the 100's of thousands) and have better quality control, are engineered with much finer tolerances(has anyone brought up the difference between an F-Stop and a T-Stop yet?)
- The glass... the glass... We use lenses for the glass...
- Summary: a cine lens is more likely to produce the same color, exposure reliability and sharpness throughout a film production(a long one) than a still lens.

*****

The benefit of using gear that the crew is familiar with may far out weigh being "creative" with the list of gear: I'd put my money on the people.

*****

Shooting something relatively short and not needing reliability and repeatability? Then by all means.. go crazy with "unique eyes". Shoot with a pinhole, binoculars, your prized 400mm F2.8 with a 2x, $1 flea market lens, even a $0.05 Holga lens! Still lenses would be plenty fine.

~Sarah
 
Some questions to ask yourself when choosing lenses for use on RED, with some advice added:


What genres of production will I be doing?
RED can, has been, and is used in a diverse array of of cine, hybrid, and EFP genres and sub-genres of production, all of which can be viable revenue generation vehicles for RED One owners and renters. Keeping an open mind, choose lenses that best fit the field workflow, shooting style, crew size, optical needs, ergonomics, mobility (or lack thereof), and budget.

Should I own or rent?
Own what you can afford and can keep busy - and rent the rest on a per project basis.

Do me and my crews plan to focus traditionally using an AC/focus puller, or do I/we sight focus?
Optically, good 35mm stills lenses can generate images on RED One that are comparable to images generated by cine lenses, but as many on this thread have pointed out, one of the main drawbacks of using 35mm stills lenses in traditional focus pulling is the mechanics of the stills lenses require workarounds that frustrate your AC/focus puller. But, if a significant amount of your production with RED One is in the multiple non-narrative genres RED One is used for, and your usual shots are not wide open, but rather stopped down to maybe f/4 to f11, and your productions are mid-budget to low budget using small crews, then sight focusing with RED, and using 35mm stills lenses for 4k, 3k, or 2k acquisition, or B4 HD lenses for a 2k production, are very viable options - in fact, for those types of productions using cine lenses and equipment (MB, FF, etc.) and traditional focusing may be the least logical choice of equipment and workflow. (EDIT: Update 10-28-08, with RED One firmware Build 17, v3.4.1 we now have the long-awaited 1:1 image magnification capability, straight off the sensor. In all previous camera builds, when sight focusing, image magnification was 2:1. When sight focusing RED One, 1:1 magnification will make it significantly easier to sight focus. This is great news for those who sight focus RED One. Cine traditionalists will probably continue to focus RED One in their traditional way, but if you choose to use it, an alternative approach to focusing just became a lot easier with 1:1 image magnification)

If I do a mix of indie productions in multiple cine, hybrid, and EFP genres, should I strictly use cine lenses and equipment and shooting style?
Horses for courses, within the considerations I've listed above.

Can significant revenue be generated with RED One using 35mm stills lenses and B4 HD lenses?
Absolutely - if you have the skill sets to use 35mm stills and B4 HD lenses effectively - and use an open mind in marketing your services.

End notes
Keeping the limitations and considerations I've listed above in mind, the scalability and utility of RED One is amazingly broad. There is no single right way to use RED One - just perhaps a better way (or ways) for each production you do. I own multiple RED One cameras. A Nikon mount stays on one and PL mounts on the others. For them I own a nice kit of cine, 35mm stills (some Nikon mount, some PL mount), and B4 HD EFP zoom lenses - because me and my crews regularly shoot cine-style, hybrid EFP/cine style, and EFP style with my REDs. Each lens type has their good points and bad points - but if you really analyze them, keep an open mind, and work in the broad array of genres that RED One enables, you'll realize there is no "right" or "wrong" lens to use on RED One, just better or worse ones for each individual production you are doing, within the considerations I've listed above. If a cine lens is the best choice, I use one. If a 35mm stills lens is the best choice, I use one. If a B4 HD zoom is the best choice, I use one.

I pull the best arrow out of my quiver for each hunt - and then use it in the best technique to make a kill
 
What A fascinating thread this is.
I agree with much that has been said from both points of view.
I've been fortunate to own and use some of the finest still lenses made,in formats from 10x8 to 35mm. In general I've found the offerings from Zeiss,Leitz,Schneider,Cooke and Rodenstock,to be superb,certainly the Leica lenses are optically and mechanically equal to any lens made.
However in my very limited experience with the Red One,I have already come up against the mechanical shortcomings of still lenses,compared to the cine lenses,which I have just started to use,and that's only just testing the camera. I can see that on a shoot when your under pressure,you would certainly want to use lenses that are designed for the job.
I had hoped to be able to get away with using my extensive collection of still lenses,optically some are superb,although whether they will be suitable for use on the Red will have to be tested,but it's the ergonomics which has led me to decide to buy cine glass,believe me I don't want to have to spend 15000/20000 GBP on each lens.
As has been said by many,still lenses will always have their place,but I feel that as a working professional I wouldn't want to totally rely on them.
Tom.
 
Here's my 2 cents. If you have money for cine lenses, buy them, they are great.

If you don't have money for master primes, you can buy RED lenses, which is great.

If you don't have that kind of money you can rent cine glass or buy still lenses for a fraction of the price. Also great!!

everyone wins.
 
Once again I will resort to the automotive metaphor.
Take this as you may... Two groups:

A) Nikon/Canon = Toyota/Nissan
B) Zeiss/Angenieux = Porsche/Ferrari

All the benefits and drawbacks are the same.
Seriously... Just think about it for a minute.

Group A) Are cheap and readily available and perform well enough.
Cheap to repair or even replace. Sure you can buy upgrades to make them perform similar to group B.
But in the end, it's still a group A product with it's limitations.

Group B) Are exotic, handcrafted and costly to purchase and just as expensive to maintain.
But loads of potential if used right.
Extremely high quality materials are used to produce fine products,
but you can count on problems cropping up eventually.

It all comes down to which group you are cast into.
Obviously one group is more desirable, but hey...
We can't all have a Ferrari in the garage.

Edit: Just to add a little wisdom.. Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Zeiss ZF lenses = Cosina Co. Ltd.
Ferrari F430 = Fiat Group
Sorry to make things more confusing...
 
sj (sanjin) represents the best this community has made for this project.. several thousands of customers..

and you david mullen or john brawley and your elitist way of doing filmmaking?.. what are you doing among the crowd?
 
Ha! Beyond everyone else here? Dare you suggest that someone seeking the best means to an end for their situation is an "elitist"? LMAO. Dude.. go get some food, sleep? You are not making any sense. You'll have to throw me and many others in with these guys.. I agree with them 100%.

~Sarah


FMG battery said:
and you david mullen or john brawley and your elitist way of doing filmmaking?.. what are you doing among the crowd?
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

I like to work with top focus pullers, they would just walk away and the quality of my work would suffer.

YMMV

Stephen
 
LilRed said:
Ha! Beyond everyone else here? Dare you suggest that someone seeking the best means to an end for their situation is an "elitist"? LMAO. Dude.. go get some food, sleep? You are not making any sense. You'll have to throw me and many others in with these guys.. I agree with them 100%.

~Sarah
Click to expand...
your in your own.. "How about we not make it personal ?" :umm: this reminds me something.. :watsup:

just another viewpoint dearest Sarah... do we all have the right?

their vested interest on this represents the worst this vast community may inherit.

just my opinion.. may i?
 
actually fmg, david mullen has gone out of his way to share freely on this forum with his considerable experience. I wouldn't call him an elitist at all.
 
the truth is not black and white.. there are a lot of mid tones.. not even just 64 gray tones.. this applies all along the way.. in every aspects of it.
 
Gibby said:
Some questions to ask yourself when choosing lenses for use on RED, with some advice added:


What genres of production will I be doing?
RED can, has been, and is used in a diverse array of of cine, hybrid, and EFP genres and sub-genres of production, all of which can be viable revenue generation vehicles for RED One owners and renters. Keeping an open mind, choose lenses that best fit the field workflow, shooting style, crew size, optical needs, ergonomics, mobility (or lack thereof), and budget.

Should I own or rent?
Own what you can afford and can keep busy - and rent the rest on a per project basis.

Do me and my crews plan to focus traditionally using an AC/focus puller, or do I/we sight focus?
Optically, good 35mm stills lenses can generate images on RED One that are comparable to images generated by cine lenses, but as many on this thread have pointed out, one of the main drawbacks of using 35mm stills lenses in traditional focus pulling is the mechanics of the stills lenses require workarounds that frustrate your AC/focus puller. But, if a significant amount of your production with RED One is in the multiple non-narrative genres RED One is used for, and your usual shots are not wide open, but rather stopped down to maybe f/4 to f11, and your productions are mid-budget to low budget using small crews, then sight focusing with RED, and using 35mm stills lenses for 4k, 3k, or 2k acquisition, or B4 HD lenses for a 2k production, are a very viable options - in fact, for those types of productions using cine lenses and equipment (MB, FF, etc.) and traditional focusing may be the least logical choice of equipment and workflow.

If I do a mix of indie productions in multiple cine, hybrid, and EFP genres, should I strictly use cine lenses and equipment and shooting style?
Horses for courses, within the considerations I've listed above.

Can significant revenue be generated with RED One using 35mm stills lenses and B4 HD lenses?
Absolutely - if you have the skill sets to use 35mm stills and B4 HD lenses effectively - and use an open mind in marketing your services.

End notes
Keeping the limitations and considerations I've listed above in mind, the scalability and utility of RED One is amazingly broad. There is no single right way to use RED One - just perhaps a better way (or ways) for each production you do. I own multiple RED One cameras. A Nikon mount stays on one and PL mounts on the others. For them I own a nice kit of cine, 35mm stills (some Nikon mount, some PL mount), and B4 HD EFP zoom lenses - because me and my crews regularly shoot cine-style, hybrid EFP/cine style, and EFP style with my REDs. Each lens type has their good points and bad points - but if you really analyze them, keep an open mind, and work in the broad array of genres that RED One enables, you'll realize there is no "right" or "wrong" lens to use on RED One, just better or worse ones for each individual production you are doing, within the considerations I've listed above. If a cine lens is the best choice, I use one. If a 35mm stills lens is the best choice, I use one. If a B4 HD zoom is the best choice, I use one.

I pull the best arrow out of my quiver for each hunt - and then use it in the best technique to make a kill
Click to expand...

Thanks Gibby,

this was yours one of the greatest posts ever.

You've been my favorite from the beginning here at the forum.

Matthew Duclos said:
Once again I will resort to the automotive metaphor.
Take this as you may... Two groups:

A) Nikon/Canon = Toyota/Nissan
B) Zeiss/Angenieux = Porsche/Ferrari

All the benefits and drawbacks are the same.
Seriously... Just think about it for a minute.

Group A) Are cheap and readily available and perform well enough.
Cheap to repair or even replace. Sure you can buy upgrades to make them perform similar to group B.
But in the end, it's still a group A product with it's limitations.

Group B) Are exotic, handcrafted and costly to purchase and just as expensive to maintain.
But loads of potential if used right.
Extremely high quality materials are used to produce fine products,
but you can count on problems cropping up eventually.

It all comes down to which group you are cast into.
Obviously one group is more desirable, but hey...
We can't all have a Ferrari in the garage.

Edit: Just to add a little wisdom.. Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Zeiss ZF lenses = Cosina Co. Ltd.
Ferrari F430 = Fiat Group
Sorry to make things more confusing...
Click to expand...

Matthew Duclos,

I owe all that brands in still glass.

To more specify I've got rid of Cosina Zeiss glass and kept only some Voigthleander Cosina Leica 39/M stuff.

I'm still have exclusive option here in Vienna (very sorry for sort of local Zinners here :) ) to get Zeiss Jena glass

from 50s and 60s mostly Carl Zeiss Olympia stuff like 180mm Sonnar T, 300mm Sonnnar T and 500mm Fernobjektiv.

Extraordinary lenses.

Leica should be a sort of Lamborghini, all hand made and perfect mechanics and optics.

Also owe the best still zooms from Angenieux.

Amazing glass.

And about so called cine lens VIPs here at the forum.

I'm working in fashion, art, cinema and literature for more than 30 years

and know well psychology and behavior of that sort of people.

For me there are no secerts, doubts or unknown things about them and even more.

So VIP cine lens guys I keep eye on you, don't get crazy, I respect you well but also

in a sort of exchange expecting that you somehow respect other part of this world too.
 
LilRed said:
LOL. Frankly, I don't judge a man by his lens. :clown2:

~Sarah
Click to expand...

Sarah,

come over here in Vienna.

We have also other things like... that you can trust a man :clown2: .
 
all up in your guts.. ehehehehehe.. yes, sir.. you're the man sj. :turned:
 
I don't think any of the people who are proponents of cine glass are elitists. They are experienced in the rigors of filmmaking. I suspect they have all had their backs up against the wall as they try to get a cranky piece of gear to work under enormous pressure and their jobs on the line. This kind of experience makes you appreciate having the appropriate gear that performs as expected most of the time. Pulling focus is an incredible skill and just as you wouldn't give someone a set of watercolors to do an oil painting, you wouldn't want to give a focus puller lenses they can't operate at the best of their ability.

Again, still lenses have their place. In fact, they have their place alongside me at all times with my Red. But I do believe the folks who have commented about cine lenses being the right choice for professional shoots with a lot of pressure and a lot of money on the line are correct in their statements. It's not elitist. It's simply fact. I haven't heard anyone say to stay clear altogether of still lenses. That statement would also be erroneous. They can work quite well when applied in the proper situation, so no one should be told not to use them.

And not to try an pretend to be a moderator here, because I am far from it, but I think it's fair to ask that when expressing opinions always give the person on the receiving end of your opinions respect. David Mullen has been incredibly generous to this community, and although you do not have to agree with him, it makes little sense to throw him to the side. If I misread the tone of the previous posts directed towards him, I apologize. But I have learned a lot from his posts and respect his presence here.
 
Surely the beauty of RED and one of the reasons we are all here is the flexibility of the camera and ability to use the glass of choice of the operator, be it the very best PL or very best stills glass. At times through economic or other reasons you may be in a situation where the best isn't available but the camera it self is still accessible and usable to or many people where other camera options may unworkable or unaffordable. There nothing wrong with either approach is there ?

Dave
UK
 
I can't believe there's 78 posts if you should use cine glass or not hahahaha. I haven't bothered to read the thread, but it's funny that it's an actual debate about it.

It's like asking a race driver if he should use a race car or not.

Common guys are you not getting tired? Cine glass is made for the purpose of motion photography so it's clear that if you can afford it, you should use it. Now if you can't afford it, use what you can afford and make beautiful images out of that. There's also times when you want to be artistic and use different glass, well use that when you feel like it.

and now I posted a post in this thread...damn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top