Jump to content


Photo

Still lenses vs Cine Lenses


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Olivier Koos

Olivier Koos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Luxembourg

Posted 15 April 2010 - 02:29 PM

Posted Image

http://olivierkoos.b...-pl-lenses.html

What are your thoughts? I am actually impressed that the difference is not huge.

Oli
  • 0

#2 Tom Jensen

Tom Jensen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1234 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 15 April 2010 - 03:50 PM

Posted Image

http://olivierkoos.b...-pl-lenses.html

What are your thoughts? I am actually impressed that the difference is not huge.

Oli


Why would there be? The big differences are when you rack focus, zoom, vignette, project in a theater, and flare.
  • 0

#3 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 April 2010 - 04:24 PM

Why would there be? The big differences are when you rack focus, zoom, vignette, project in a theater, and flare.


and the difference to your focus puller is MASSIVE. With still lenses, you often don't know T-stops, can't hit the same focus mark twice, and end up avoiding pulls altogether because they breathe so much.

Edited by Chris Keth, 15 April 2010 - 04:24 PM.

  • 0

#4 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 April 2010 - 04:25 PM

Chris is right about the user interface and breathing issues. Tom's right that you have to see these in front projection on a big screen, not as a postage stamp on a computer, to tell anything.

If they still match well under those conditions, we can conclude that all the lenses are better than the camera requires.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#5 ryan knight

ryan knight
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 April 2010 - 04:39 PM

even the sharpest glass and best coatings won't help the CMOS' rolling shutter. though, canon's IS lenses do help a bit.

maybe ARRI and COOKE should release primes with IS :rolleyes: lol... or just don't shoot DSLR.
  • 0

#6 Olivier Koos

Olivier Koos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Luxembourg

Posted 15 April 2010 - 05:20 PM

even the sharpest glass and best coatings won't help the CMOS' rolling shutter. though, canon's IS lenses do help a bit.

maybe ARRI and COOKE should release primes with IS :rolleyes: lol... or just don't shoot DSLR.


Let s please stay on the topic and not fall into a DSLR vs everything else discussion again ;-)
  • 0

#7 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3851 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 April 2010 - 05:51 PM

Let s please stay on the topic and not fall into a DSLR vs everything else discussion again ;-)


Sorry, this is pretty meaningless. What stops were you using?

Even on the small photos all the primes out performed the canon zoom.
  • 0

#8 Olivier Koos

Olivier Koos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Luxembourg

Posted 15 April 2010 - 06:04 PM

Sorry, this is pretty meaningless. What stops were you using?

Even on the small photos all the primes out performed the canon zoom.


What is meaningless?
f/t: 2.8 on the ultra prime and Zeiss ZF , f/t: 4 on the canon and cooke
  • 0

#9 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3851 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 April 2010 - 02:40 AM

What is meaningless?
f/t: 2.8 on the ultra prime and Zeiss ZF , f/t: 4 on the canon and cooke


The primes should all be on the same stop and ideally a range of stops, including wide open. We can't check for any drop off in edge sharpness and all these lenses resolve way more than a DSLR does in video mode anyway. That means that the limiting factor is the camera itself, so it's hardly surprising that they all look pretty similar. The Zeiss ZF are good performers and the optics is used in the new Zeiss compact cine lenses.
  • 0

#10 Olivier Koos

Olivier Koos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Luxembourg

Posted 16 April 2010 - 05:23 AM

The primes should all be on the same stop and ideally a range of stops, including wide open. We can't check for any drop off in edge sharpness and all these lenses resolve way more than a DSLR does in video mode anyway. That means that the limiting factor is the camera itself, so it's hardly surprising that they all look pretty similar. The Zeiss ZF are good performers and the optics is used in the new Zeiss compact cine lenses.


The lenses were at the same stop, but T lenses are calibrated the other lenses are not so that makes the difference. Next time I will try to have them completely the same by calibrating them with the waveform. This was supposed to be a subjective test, I ll try to do a line chart test next time. Still, I am amazed that there is not really a huge difference of look, and how it handles the out of focus (i don t mean the DOF).

Edited by Olivier Koos, 16 April 2010 - 05:25 AM.

  • 0

#11 Trevor Swaim

Trevor Swaim
  • Guests

Posted 16 April 2010 - 06:31 AM

http://www.dvxuser.c...ad.php?t=191781
This test is on a GH1 but the point is the same. In video mode these cameras resolve about 700 lines. Their is a point of diminishing returns on all cameras, on DSLRs it happens really quickly. I am always amazed when I recommend a Tokina 11-16 to people for a wide lens I get poo-pooed. Its a pretty darn good lens for stills and for video purposes its brilliant.

Edited by Trevor Swaim, 16 April 2010 - 06:35 AM.

  • 0

#12 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3851 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 April 2010 - 08:47 AM

The lenses were at the same stop, but T lenses are calibrated the other lenses are not so that makes the difference. Next time I will try to have them completely the same by calibrating them with the waveform. This was supposed to be a subjective test, I ll try to do a line chart test next time. Still, I am amazed that there is not really a huge difference of look, and how it handles the out of focus (i don t mean the DOF).


I thought you had used 2.8 on the Zeiss lenses and 4 on the Cooke and Canon. Regarding the bokeh, I'd have kept the same focal lengths if comparing different makes and also experimented with different lighting conditions eg night exteriors with lights in the background.
  • 0

#13 Olivier Koos

Olivier Koos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Luxembourg

Posted 16 April 2010 - 09:23 AM

I thought you had used 2.8 on the Zeiss lenses and 4 on the Cooke and Canon. Regarding the bokeh, I'd have kept the same focal lengths if comparing different makes and also experimented with different lighting conditions eg night exteriors with lights in the background.


This was just a small spontaneous test, I did not had a 40mm on the Zeiss ZF, 35mm was the closed I had. I will repeat these tests tough and will make them more elaborated.
  • 0

#14 Sam Kim

Sam Kim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Student

Posted 21 April 2010 - 04:04 PM

What is meaningless?
f/t: 2.8 on the ultra prime and Zeiss ZF , f/t: 4 on the canon and cooke



f/t? canon still lenses don't have t stops on them do they? i've yet to see one.
if you have the budget go cine lenses. if you don't go still lenses. in this case paying more gets you more.
  • 0




Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

CineTape

K5600 Lighting

Abel Cine

NIBL

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

CineLab

Pro 8mm

Cinelicious

Zylight

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

System Associates

Lemo Connectors

Robert Starling

K5600 Lighting

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Cinelicious

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

NIBL

rebotnix Technologies

Lemo Connectors

Zylight

Robert Starling

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Pro 8mm

Rig Wheels Passport

System Associates

Abel Cine