Zoom lenses vs. standard primes

[Jason Comparetto]

I'm sorry if this question has been answered half a dozen times, but here I go asking it:

After running the gamut with the Birger/Canon mount, and noticed how un-impressed clients are with the thought of using Canon lenses, I've decided to go with PL-mount lenses. It seems a brand new set of Canon lenses is poo-poo compared to a 30-year old set of Cookes in the clients' eyes. I'm cool with that, I just want to make sure I'm going to in the right direction this time.

I've set aside some money for a set of used Zeiss standard speeds, but then I noticed some nice zoom lenses out there. used Cooke 25-250, for example, which comes out to be about a 1/3 of the price of a set of primes. No lens changes, zooms, I could get used to that.


I'm aware of the technical differences between them (light loss, weight, size, cost)

I'm more concerned with the big picture.

- For example, has anyone noticed if having a good set of primes is better to attract clients than zooms?

- Is steadicam silly with such a big lens? Hand-held?

- Zooms require any more maintenance?

- the extra length of zooms makes pans/tilts look amateur?

- is that extra stop in light 2.0 vs. 2.8 simply too much?

- I'll re-ask the first question: Is a set of primes simply a better investment for getting more work than a zoom?

In case it makes a difference, I do plan on going to Epic and i have a 3-digit serial so my Epic should *hopefully* arrive in August (wishful thinking anyone?)

I know many of you will ask what type of shooting I do, so that you can better answer the question. At this time I shoot mainly micro-budget features and small commercials. I'm an owner/operator and always travel with my gear. But I'd rather the question be answered in a general sense, as I don't want to limit myself only to these types of markets. Ideally a lens that would complement the Red in such a way that I might be able to rent out some lenses time to time, or actually get some work here and there because of a lens set. (wishful thinking again?)

I have no motivation to go with super-speeds at this time because of the price. A small rental house told me that they often prefer to rent clients a full set of standard primes rather than one super-speed for the same price. They also said how poor the image is at full open iris on super speeds.

Ok I'm babbling now lets answer this question once and for all

 

[A. Clint Litton]

good questions, jason.

i personally own a cooke 20-100mm t3.1, and it hasn't worked a ton of jobs that my Red has been on, some of which has to do with it being a large zoom where size and/or speed is a factor. that said, it's still a great lens on this camera.

the big questions are versatility, speed (light), weight, etc. a lot of people just ask for a primes package. it'd be interesting to see if, given the new sensor, DPs are okay with the slower zoom. i've worked a couple jobs where they're just on an optimo all day for quickness, camera on a dolly or maybe just a slider...it keeps the minute changes in a set-up a little quicker.

with the epic on the forefront, i can see a bunch of shooting scenarios where i'd hate my cooke, even though i love the image...primarily run-and-gun, low profile style shooting where discretion comes to bear on the production...afterall, part of the reason i'm looking forward to the epic is the smaller form factor. the new RPZ 17-50 should be pretty awesome for stuff like this (complement it with a longer zoom and you could be covered). i think the new chip makes the difference in t-stop much less of a factor for most shooting situations, unless the project requires super-shallow DOF, in which case you'd probably reach for masters or superspeeds anyway.

it really comes down to the kind of work you're primarily doing with your camera. if you're the DP 9 times out of 10 and you like working with a zoom, i doubt the producers are going to be upset about saving some of the budget on lenses. on the other hand, if you're trying to offer a complete package to a lot of varying productions that come with different needs and styles, the versatility of a proven and known set of primes (i.e. the zeiss standards or superspeeds) will likely make you more ROI, albeit at a greater cost upfront.

decisions, decisions...

 

[dustin lindgren]

Zooms:
Duclos 11-16mm = $4000.00
RED 17-50mm = $6000.00
RED 50-150mm = $8000.00
Canon 150-600mm = $6500.00
All for a Total of = $24,500

These are all light weight lenses as well! Travel Great! An Epic with these lenses can get a lot done.

 

[Tom.Wong]

- For example, has anyone noticed if having a good set of primes is better to attract clients than zooms?

- Is steadicam silly with such a big lens? Hand-held?


- is that extra stop in light 2.0 vs. 2.8 simply too much?

- I'll re-ask the first question: Is a set of primes simply a better investment for getting more work than a zoom?

depends on what clients you are attracting, I'm usually on sets with a combination of zooms and primes, but for a lot of narrative it's typically primes. Really fast paced stuff, I typically work with zooms.

If you have a steadicam op, he'll probably want a prime over a zoom, if you have a really good steadicam op he'll do it all it's all about the skill of the person and how much wait their steadicam and their person can handle. but typically it would make it easier for them.

that .8 of a stop could mean the difference between you getting your proper exposure, and you not getting it at the ISO you want. It's always a sacrifice, super fast primes typically give DP the flexibility they want. Some really low budget stuff they can't afford the light they need, so they opt for faster glass. Some people just want the option even if they never use it. Some want it for just the super shallow DOF look because that is what they are going for. Either way it gives them any option they want. The gain is zooms is basically you don't have to change your lens as often, but you lose a lot of what was just mentioned.

It's by a job to job basis really, typically I work with more primes than zooms, steadicam work, jib, techno crane, even allowing for lesser weight tripods. I think primes offer more flexibility and choices, zooms offer a lot more speed in getting the day done.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Jason, unfortunately there is simply no strait answers to your questions, some prefer Zooms, for certain scenes, were Dolly shots are impossible, or simply just like the zooming effect, preferences also go to zooms for various set ups, as well as they do go to Primes, for many other reasons, faster optics, lighter, easier on certain set ups, better Optical quality, even so this is really shrinking with new Zooms, such as the RPz 18-85 and RPZ 17-50, or any of the new Angenieux, Cookes, Arri.

They both simply have their place on set, any set, I personally prefer Primes, for their qualities, even so at times I do wish I had a Zoom for certain shots, but generally I go with Primes, and so does the majority of the DP's I know, so IMO Primes will always be a better investment. But trowing a Zoom or two in the mix, surely never is a bad thing :~).

 

[PatC]

Totally agree with Ketch and Tom

Keep in mind that cine-cameras form factor is changing and lens choice will change with it. Light and fast.