Hey Justin, I worked on a big set and we used about 2 minutes to switch lenses and positions between each shot and nobody complained. They were establishing shots in a big train station and the box with lenses was about 50 meters from the camera. This is not going against your argument fully, but I think at this point you kind of overestimate the need of professional gear on professional sets. My take away on a 2million feature as camera assistant was: I could do most of this with cheaper gear too. It's just not as conveniant. So yes! Your argument is valid, but it's more about conveniance than always quality. I think young robert rodriguez would agree. Also, the change in light and grip usually took much longer than the camera. We could have easily recalibrated the lenses in that time. And the second argument about exposure. There is no need to have lenses with the same exact exposure. At least if you don't really care about the aperture that much and use that to expose between shots. I mean a lens with t2 and the same lens at t2 + the ND the op chooses in different lighting wont match just as much as two different lenses won't much perfectly. And in the deakins podcast you here many DP's that expose by eye. But you said it yourself, they used different lenses in the joker, same as in batman where they used helios 44's. Just my thoughts, I am sure your new gear is conveniant and high quality but when it comes to minimal/independent filmmaking I think the points are a bit overestimated. And last but not least: Creativity beats gear all the time.
100 percent. Lighting adjustments + final tweaks before roll will almost always take longer than any adjustments by camera department short of jib or steadicam stuff. Lens switches happen so fast that (even as a DP) sometimes the ACs do it before I can even notice. When I gaff, camera is nearly always ready when lighting things get handled. The worst kept secret on professional sets really is that the money pays for convenience more than it does fancy toys. Unless it's disney+. Then it's always fancy toys.
In 20 years, I doubt that any of these “affordable” cinema lenses will hold their value, the way that the Contax Zeiss, OG Nikkors, or Leica R’s have. Can only speak for my own personal experience, and I don’t own a production company like you - but it sounds like prioritization of mechanics and proper cinema procedure over the actual creative look a lens affords you. Not to negate how much control you get in post. I recognize lenses are no longer as crucial a tool in the image pipeline, and that consistency is easier to come by than it used to be - they are still plenty crucial though. I get it, but your choice here seems like prioritizing quick gratification. Its irritating having to mess with vintage glass and take care of it and buy mount adapters and get them comfortable on follow focuses. But it also bonds you with your tools - and teaches you something about limitations. Each tool is good for certain things. Its intoxicating the idea of a lens that works for everything or most things. Some come close. But its a fickle pursuit. Look at The Batman. They could have anything they wanted for that car mount stuff. They used old lenses that needed tinkering and needed rehousing - but the result was so much better. On 2001, Kubrick used off the shelf Nikon stuff for more than Panavision was comfortable with - because they looked better for the job on specific shots than that which was consistent or perfectly machined for a crew. Different strokes for different folks, of course. But still. Its a little misguided to get rid of glass that actually affords unique opportunities for glass thats antiseptic and only functions as market filler. If I’m gonna pay two grand or more for a lens - I’m not going to waste it on a Xeen, or a DZO, just because the market tells me these are affordable cinema lenses and those are what I should buy. I’d buy a single Cooke lens, and add something to my arsenal. Or if I wanted modern, I’d get something that has no retro equivalent - like Laowa’s probe lens, or their Zero-D line - and just make sure everything is crew friendly enough to not truly slow any of us down. Sure, there are still quirks. So? People have quirks. A lazy focus puller will be just as lazy with a Summilux as he is with a Contax Zeiss. One of them just may hide his work more. In any case, enjoy. But something to keep in mind for the future. Cheers
I'm not sure how you're putting Xeens or DZOs and Cookes in the same table. You may be talking about buying a kit of lenses against a single Cooke at that point. Id take the set over the single lens since I hate telling a director or client: "no, I can't take that shot my lens is too wide/long".
I think that I understand what you are trying to communicate. I happen to believe too in obtaining special and unique tools even if that means that they are flawed and more high maintenance or maybe even hard to work with. So I think I get your point. I do have two thoughts to share though. 1) By the examples you use I understand that your focus is mostly on the artistic side of filmmaking and particularly feature films. That's what interests me too. But in reality this side of filmmaking only accounts for maybe less than 5% of productions. Most people are involved in more commercial aspects of filmmaking such as events, music videos, corporate videos, commercials etc. In all of these cases you need actual tools you can count on. On a daily basis, repeatedly and with ever changing conditions and crews. There is no don Kichotism here. You need to be able to count on your equipment in order to deliver. This can mean the difference between a job well done and a job that caused you trouble. So in most cases people need to think sensibly and practically about the way they choose gear if they are serious about and if the intent to make money by using it. Also even the people who do use old lenses for a certain aesthetic such as in The Batman or in Blonde it's most often lenses rehoused so that practicality is not compromised. 2) On your point regarding the aesthetics of these new lenses and what their long term value might be I think of it this way: why does a cooke or a zeiss lens have to be by definition better? I understand a few things about lenses and I have worked with so many of them. And I would say that at this point the gap is closing more and more. Both in terms of build quality as well as aesthetically and optically. I understand that companies such as Zeiss or Cooke or Leica were the first ones and established a name for themselves and people associate them with class and prestige but at the same time RUclips reviews and blogs have started revealing a different picture: Cookes breathe too. They have CA too. They have fringing and are not very sharp. And yet we call that a look because you know... It's the Cooke S4! And Zeiss ultra primes also breathe and also have medium sharpness and are optically flawed. And yet they are sought after and revered and expensive. Even if when you watch them side by side with Dzo you will not be able to tell the difference in a blind test. But Dzo when it exhibits those same characteristics is considered uncool and lesser because it is a new and not established Chinese or whatever it is company. Well I am not ok with that at all. Because it turns out that those brands are essentially overcharging for things that can be produced equally good if not better for so much less. And more than that I like the idea that the establishment is being challenged at this point. I like the idea that as with what happened in the automotive industry a Toyota at this point is considered an equal car to a vw which would be laughable in the past. And obviously people still buy Bmws and Mercedes and they are still more prestigious but it's perfectly fine to own a Honda and to sensible people it's desirable even. Why should we side with those that came first and take advantage of it; Had it been in Zeiss's hands you would still be unable to own any real piece of equipment to do your personal project or micro feature film because of cost alone. Do not buy into the myth of the product. See it for what it is. In your own example that is what Kubrick essentially did with Nikon. Chose the outcast and the underdog. Went off the beaten path. So I say that we need to embrace this revolution and democratization. I hate this romanticized version of how good the old Uber elite players are. Just my thoughts. Take care.
@konstantinosstag6436 Great thoughts! I actually agree, totally understand what you're getting at. No part of me wants to prioritize "cool" brand recognition more than anything else. I do NOT believe just because a brand is legacy it's special, either. I like your pragmatic attitude. The caution you express is valuable. Obviously, I maintain a lot of what I was getting at. Frankly, brand or not, even to an untrained eye, product speaks for itself, if you listen to what it's telling you. One of the things I love about Laowa or Dulens (another gem: SLR Magics APO Hyperprimes) is their products speak for themselves. They make gorgeous, beautiful lenses and offer specialized products, for super fair prices. They cut well with vintage and modern glass and on their own, have their own unique style. Your comment about CA or fringing being "uncool" on DZO I completely agree with, just to clarify: those same flaws are always flaws. What else does the lens do, though? That's the thing. When I see how beautiful color, pleasing and versatile skin rendition, and fantastic out of focus areas - CA can be forgivable. Personally, if there's CA - AND ugly out-of-focus areas & boring skin rendition. That's more what I'm getting at. Not to be unfair,. Since my last comment, DZO has had more of my attention. Their newer glass looks subjectively nicer to me, I like the 18-35 FF, the vespid 21 & 40 too. And the prices on those seem fairer than the Macro Gnosis or the Pictors. That's the main gripe. I'm not in love with inappropriate, self-important, over-estimated "legacy brand"-prices for what's basically a fine or "passable" product. Those protocols / de facto choices bug me. My point earlier was just removing the bullshit. Me: I love how a super speed looks. I know I'll be glued to it on every gig & will have to rent it too often to justify recurring expense. Now, I suck at modifying lenses - total amateur. So, I'll get one that's already in PL. Just put extra effort into research, investigating, & ensuring quality. I recently got a full frame HFT 35mm 1.4 (with a lovely nine-bladed aperture) Great condition. No blemishes. Excellent metal gears, declicked, shimmed. Ready for any set. And it will last me a lifetime. Fun fact: it was the first design ported over to the original B speeds (that and the equally gorgeous 85mm). Way more neutral color rendition, but sharp as a tack (to my eye, even prettier / more "hi-fi" than the same design on Contax for the MM / AE versions). Of course, most clients don't know all this. Nor might they "need" to. Except I'd counter that what a smart client wants more than anything is you, and your taste & discretion and understanding of what they're looking for. They hired me for a reason. No risk, no reward. Clients LOVE knowing they're in good hands. Regardless of brand name. Of course, brand recognition rarely hurts. But what matters more is giving them the assurance and the feeling you've put thought & care into their product, you want them to have something special, not just okay. That, combined with (more importantly) YOUR taste and creativity is what matters. I get your point about if zeiss were left to their own devices, they'd charge fortunes for everything - in that situation, however - I'll still just save up (if it's worth it / feasible - we're not talking about buying a set of Supremes). Also, I'm not so sure that it's that black and white. Look at the Otus lenses. Product manager for those literally told the designers in the brief to take price off the table as a consideration, yet even brand new - expensive as they were - they aren't infeasible. I get what you're saying. Still though. They're not much more used than a brand new Macro Gnosis prime - a lens they still outperform it in most of the right ways way, minus breathing (an annoying, but easy fix: a keyframe zoom i/o post) Milvus have more flaws but they're sharper in some cases, and absolutely gorgeous. Program it in reverse on a follow focus unit if you don't like the Nikon focusing. Or have it worked on if its finicky. If it's really bugging you, get some CP3's or Sigmas (Arts or Cine-line, those lenses are as "uncool" as it gets - and worth every penny if you want perfect) For context: my aforementioned HFT lens *was* expensive when it originally came out - hardly far off though from what DZO's charging new. Plus, the results stood the test of time. I'm a lot more secure knowing what I have is special - frankly, unless *I* fail, *it's* not going to "fail" on set any time soon. Thanks for sharing your thoughts nonetheless though! I like how you think. Just to clarify, too: I don't mean to discourage people from buying budget productions. In fact, did you know there's a lens Rokinon makes that's *still* the record holder for widest lens available on long flange full frame cameras? The 10mm special performance! Nice lens. Look, they may not be "cool" but Rokinons were unbeat for ages because they charged like a few hundred bucks for a perfectly passable performing cinema prime. A cinevised vintage Nikkor lens actually did cost more, and was back-focusing. So it actually was smarter to get a Rokinon. Contrast that with a manufacturer releasing a Rokinon-level product at the same price as a legacy lens manufacturer. Also remember: cinema lenses by their nature were always designed to be the highest performing *glass* period (not just in terms of mechanics) so this idea of proper "cinema-mechanics" super-ceding the dozens of other relevant factors in a lens seems misguided to me, almost self-defeating. Get whats good, whats worth it, and whats feasible. Otherwise you're just abandoning really great tools.
I have been shooting still photography as a hobby for 50 years. My first introduction to seeing still cameras on a cinema camera was when I went to see a huge Stanley Kubrick exhibit at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The exhibit had two very long display cases of all of the still camera lenses that he had adapted to his gigantic Arriflex camera on a rolling tripod. Many of these lenses had custom mounts to support them on the camera. It is wild to see have demand for these vintage lenses have spiked prices. Yikes. For a long time, you couldn't give these lenses away.
Some common issues that you will have with photo lenses: 1. Different focus distance between different lenses. 2. Inconsistent focus distances from closest distance to infinity (e.g. from 10-30, 30-50, 50-100 all will have different wheel distances). This is HUGE. 3. Inconsistencies in look and colors in post. 4. The time wasted while exchanging lenses and mentally re-calibrating your focus pulling sensitivity since it will be all over the place. 5. Lack of complete manual control like the aperture and focus rings (unless you use declicked vintage). 6. F Stops aren't reliable. Switching from one F2.8 lens to another F2.8 won't have the same amount of light tranmission (e.g. Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 has a value of T3.3 - Quite big). 7. Electronic focus and aperture rings aren't reliable for film work and require electronic connections exclusively to control the rings. These are strictly meant for photography or vlogging in auto-mode. 8. Bad focus breathing on a lot of photography lenses. This is arguably a fault when used to shoot a film. If you haven't had any of these 8 issues in your +8 years of focus pulling, that should come as a huge surprise.
@@VENAXIS in practice none of these things are the end of the world. People act like these are absolutely showstopping. They're not. You just work around it like literally any other limitation in the filmmaking process. I mean if it's really worth spending like $20K+ on cine lenses to not have to deal with it, you do you. But personally when i use cine lenses for a shoot vs photo i either dont notice, or don't care about virtually all of those things listed.
Appreciate the perspective, but most people on youtube messing around with cinematography/making films are hobbyists, or at best, semi-professionals: we don't have 3k to drop on one cine lens. There are Rokinons, there is renting, but If you are just shooting things every now-and-then, the problem of adapting vintage still lenses become pretty much irrelevant. I can see investing a small car's worth of money into cinema lenses if you are working as a professional - and the compounded saving of all that time starts to make sense - but I don't think that's most of us. And I've been down this sort of rabbit hole before, but with audio: you can usually accomplish the same things with a $200 microphone as you can with a $2000 one, it just makes it slightly easier, and perhaps the quality is marginally better, but there's a cost-to-benefit ratio that just isn't there for most of us when you start upgrading to higher-tier gear.
Great breakdown. Call it torturing myself, call it a personal preference, but I always prefer fully manual cinema lenses even when shooting live events. I've used plenty of modded photo lenses as well as some of the best contemporary photo lenses out there and I always go back to cine lenses.
I love my adapted Nikkor Set and use it to bits. If I have a client who cares about the camera/lens brand I use, I'm happy to rent it and bill to them (I am partial to the Zeiss Master Primes and Leica Summicrons, under those circumstances). For most other projects, a mix of modern lenses such as the Lumix S 1.8 prime lenses and 24-105 with a focus ring for documentary work, and the Nikkors gets me through just fine, through documentaries, short films, corporate work etc. So I'm not sure I can see eye to eye with the "bad for cinematography" part. The results look good, and the lenses are cheap enough that I can have a backup set without breaking the bank.
Great perspective. Love the honesty on all fronts. Truth is, as a business, spend (if/when you can) to ensure you can do business. This applies to everything. It’s also a matter of expectations if one decides to cut corners due to budget, curiosity, or just preference. I started building a set of the budget Meike FF cinema lenses and can say I love the look, feel, and stability of the lenses. I’m also a hobby solo shooter so keep that in mind. Looking forward to what you do with these lenses. Congrats on the purchase! Enjoy!
Here’s what I’ve done with my mishmash of vintage and other lenses: I put a step up ring so that every lens has a 77 mm front mount for filters. Then I put a rubber collapsible lens hood on each, add a cap. This removes the need for a box in front, and makes swapping out fairly quick. And all of that rigging is cheap. A few have focus pull rings, but not all. I still swap out the ND filters from lens to lens, though a variable ND on each lens would be nice, but more costly.
It is interesting, if it wasn’t for the pervasive use of photo lenses Zeiss would not have created the full frame CP2. Photo lenses are why Zeiss has made the Supreme Prime Radiance set for those nice blue flares.
Hell yeah you picked up the Xenons! I think you found my channel during some of that year long research. I believe you commented about the Xenons and I hope you enjoy them! I have the 25, 35, 50, 75, and 100. Always been drooling over that 18mm!
yeah so i'm a hobbyist, and had been using vintage-y photo lenses, and yep some of them are pretty... ehh... have character (my Minolta 50mm from 1985), and i'm not about to drop $3k on a lens (which for me is, honestly, a toy) but i did go and grab one of the FF Meike 35mm T2.1 cine lens and yes, it's amazing the difference, as you point out. the build, the consistency in behavior when stopping it down, the suuuuper long focus throw, de-clicked iris... I do get it now! now where's that dang ice cream man?!
To be honest I wasn’t crazy about his definition. It’s always been my understanding that an F stop is merely the division of the lens length, by its aperture opening. It’s a mathematical equation. Whereas a T stop is an actual measure of the transmission of light. Each lens design is actually measured for light transmission.
Hey, Justin! Thanks for the video. Can you mention some other options you were considering in your year-long search for a lens set? What intrigued you in some other lenses, what was good and why you did not go with them. I would greatly appreciate that as I am currently also looking for some lenses to invest in, on a similar budget.
I also own the Xenon‘s these are great lenses and render nice colours. It’s worth noting that the xenon’s are discontinued from March 2022 and they only sell what they have in stock. But they provide service and maintenance to the xenon’s as long as Schneider exists at least they told me ;) I also have the Contax and also love them and it’s great to have clean lenses like the xenon’s and the Contax that have a lot of character Thanks for your video
Unless you are working on high end commercials, music videos or feature film you dont need cine lenses period. 90% of filmmakers would not be able to tell a difference between a good quality photo lens or a cine lens. 99% of the clients wouldnt be able to tell whether you filmed on a dslr or a red let alone tell the difference between lenses. The pace of technology right now, makes investing in anything very risky. I would argue that good lighting equipment would be a better investment.
@@josuastangl7140 that makes my point even stronger. If you are not working on high end productions why would you need a lens that needs more advanced workflow.
@@josuastangl7140 i doubt it. You need focus puller because no autofocus. They are heavier and require bigger tripods, bigger stabilisers in most cases. What is easier about cine lenses?
@@Yodd all of that is already the case for him, he is working with heavy camera rigs and never pulls his own focus. Sure, if you're a hobby videographer or running small one man productions, then you wouldn't even think about cine lenses
I can totally see your view on working with cine modded vintage stills lenses. I imagine if you just threw together a set and used those cheap rubber focus gears it could be problematic. I have a nice set of vintage Canon FD SSC primes that I lightly cine modded. I took time to find lenses that are close in serial numbers and that helps them to match color wise about 95%. I also added follow focus gears on them that are roughly 12mm in width and I have them all mounted to each gear in the same height so all the gears match. I left the original breechlock mounts on them because it is a solid all metal mount that twists to lock. Its sort of like a mini PL type locking system in a way. Changing out these lenses with a follow focus takes about a minute. Its easy off and easy on without having to adjust the follow focus. I have shot lots of projects with them and the clients always love the images they render. On the other hand I can greatly appreciate a set of actual cine lenses. They are nice in their own right.
Lol I know that church set! Thanks for the video. Xenon aren't for me, but I'm glad you enjoy them. I've been in the same boat of researching lenses for the past year. I've settled on a few options and just searching now for a decent deal. That sweet spot of vintage image character, modern mechanics, and not breaking the bank is a rare unicorn
I’m always torn between the look and the practicality. My Leica Rs are a bitch. But at the end of the day I like the image more. Praying for the day a modern budget cine set compares
Don't get it twisted! I still love using my Minolta Rokkors for full frame photography. And remember, the whole reason I bought the Rokkors in the first place was to use them with my Aivascope. In the meantime, feel free to follow my kit link (which is updated regularly): www.kit.co/jponfilm
I was thinking through this video "did he get rid of his Rokkors??". Glad to hear you are still using them... I've picked up a few based on your video outlining your collection. I need to pick a set and start seriously collecting something cohesive though.
Great video mate! I think you would have liked the new Meyer Optik Gorlitz. They're small, with character, same size/weight/focus throw/colors and 15 de-clicked aperture blades, the only problem they've is about the focus breathing. But this move to buy great Cine lenses made in Germany, makes a lot of sense for you. Cheers!
I'm really interested in the DZO Vespids but I've always really liked all the footage I've seen shot on the Xenons. Optically I love my vintage Nikkors but they are a PAIN to actually use in a cine setting.
A „smart“ manual vintage lens housing could probably add exif lens data, matching luts and a focus/aperture motor for less than a fraction of the addon cost to a proper cine lens… On top of my head for the cost of a 3d print, two tiny steppers, an arduino with packetradio and some soldering, say about $200 plus labor, you would be in the ballpark (assuming the software/controllers are solved)
Great video, I don't think we deal with this issue as much you listed because we are using the Sigmas 18-35 and 50-100. While sure breathing is a thing for the 50-100 we found under normal use it doesn't show up. Also as far as stressing the lens with calibration that's not an issue with the Sigmas as they don't have hard stops they are on our focus rings not in the lens. Also F stops don't matter either because the lenses are matched. Maybe they are the exception, but they save a lot of time on set and they work very well, I wish we had the cine version, but cost. Cheers!
All great points. The problem with Cine lenses is that the really good ones are extremely expensive compared to ‘Cine’ lenses that are affordable but have many optical defects, although many low budget cinematographers call these flaws ‘cinematic’. The current line of photography lenses e.g. the Z-Mount S-line of Nikon is optically excellent. With some limitations it can be used as cine lenses perfectly fine. Unfortunately there is still a big gap between Hollywood quality and low budget cinematography but most people can make great movies with decent quality gear. I think I favour optical quality over time. But, I agree with your points, I once could play with an Alexa LF with an ARRI Signature Prime lens. Yes, it was amazing.
most definitely. build quality on vintage stills lenses is my main concern, plus the slow-down of having to re-calibrate the lens every swap. But these Xenons do pop up every now & then, fingers crossed i can get my hands on a couple more. Pretty good quality for the price, certainly on the used market
Yes. The absolutely best lenses are expensive. You are not supposed to own them. You are supposed to rent them on a per project basis. If the kind of work you do does not justify renting Master Primes then you do not need them. At the same time lenses are better than ever. At this point there is an abundance of good quality glass that is also affordable. There are always compromises to be made of course but many high end brands are full of optical flaws too. Many Cookes have CA and breathing and vignetting, the same goes for Arri ultra primes too. They are still being used and are desirable even. Actually it's this new market of lower cost lens sets that pushes harder for optical perfection than ever before because the market is larger and there are reviews and articles and scrutiny. This wasn't the case up until some years ago.
Wow, I always thought that the Tokina was a tank (I suppose this is the 28-70 Pro2) which I got and use for photos. Your decision to go for cinema lenses make sense to me. However, for a newbie the initial cost seems prohibitive, as they have no cheaper T4 options, similar to photo lenses.
Shouldn't you be recalibrating your follow focus after any lens swap? Unless you're deliberately setting the lens's focus to the same position as the next one, I'd imagine the best practice would be to recalibrate every lens swap. Then again, I'm just a sound mixer, but I've noticed almost every AC recalibrates the follow focus after every lens swap, even with a matched lens set.
But if the focus throw is the same and you set both lenses to infinity focus before the swap... isn't that one of the reasons why you would use a matched set of cine lenses? Then again I'm not a pro, just guessing
I really enjoy your videos! Thanks for sharing! I also like vintage glass, I like the look of those old lenses and also being on a tight budget it makes sense for me to use photo lenses. But man it's a pain to adapt them to the camera, the mount sometimes moves and shakes the whole image, I mean...It's bad! :)) I hope I can get my hands on some real cinema lenses in the future, That would be awesome!
I do not fully understand the type of business model that pushes professionals to own such equipment. I am not American myself and obviously I must be missing something. The way i see it you are either an owner operator in which case we are talking about smaller projects with minimal crews where cine lens sets make no financial sense and can be ergonomically worse than still lenses. Or you are working in music videos, commercials or narratives in which case you need to rent the equipment that every project requires as each project has different needs. So what is the point of owning cine lenses? This is an honest question and not any sort of comment.
Ha, there's one rare exception to non-T stop vintage photographic lenses, which you can use much like T-stops. That is Miranda/Soligor Camera lenses. These lenses have aperture coupler side arm. These lenses are stepless aperture ones with smooth graduation across all stops.
im in the middle of researching my new lens investment and i would love to know what you think of the dzo pictor zooms as i could work with 2 lenses for pretty much everything. weight is also good with the komodo on a gimbal. i noticed that you invest in fast apertures is this one of your main concerns when looking at t2.8 lenses? thanks in advance man, great content
anybody have any info on those 'rehoused photo lenses' Justin mentions out there? I believe he's not talking about IronGlass or top rehousing companies which are well known (and expensive!), but rather other brands that have recently released 'cine' lenses?
Ok so I just got 4 of these lenses for 6000k CDN which unless I'm missing something that's a steal. Anyway my question Mr Phillip is do you think they would work well with an anomorphic adapter?
Dustin ! What were the cons that were so big for not getting the Zeiss Cp3 ? You are shooting with Komodo would that not be the best choice, since Komodo also has a S35 Frame? . Future proving with a full frame Set would make sense if you are shooting in the Sony or Canon FF Cameras. But Now the only Reason to use FF Set would be with the Reds and Alexa lF. The S35 Sensor size is getting stronger with the new Alexa and also are used by all other Camera Producer. Ive boig wondering, why ? ehhehe Nice video brow, made want to sell my Leica R and Zeiss Contax set to get the CP3
He tends to make a lot of - "A REAL cinematographer would NEVER do _______" - comments. When RED made the Komodo they put a photo lens mount and autofocus on their CINEMA camera. The fact that there are full frame cinema cameras is a direct result of photo lens movie making.
Yep, a photo lens remains a photo lens na matter what you add to it. Cine lenses work much smoothers and eases the workflow. However, I am impressed by how long you went along with the Zeiss lenses.
Hey Justin, awesome channel you got going! Quick question regarding the Sigma fp, I have already the LUMIX S1H and BM Video Asstist 7“, but it’s “limited” to BRAW. Since I am interested in shooting RAW and I don’t mind that there is no Log and the storage etc, would it be stupid to throw out my S1H and get the fp? I have a Leica M10R for stills along with a Noctilux 50. Since both, S1H and the fp are are part of the L-mount alliance I can put my Leica Noctilux on the fp and I could have a blast (same is of course true for the S1H). Plus I have three Sigma DN Art lenses which is even a better fit on the fp since I can use all the lens features such as the linear focus, etc. So, is it stupid to give up the S1H and get the fp instead? I just love the form factor of the fp. It has the same small footprint as my Leica. Since I have the Leica I shoot every day, whenever I go out. My hope is the same for the fp and getting the filming started frequently. Thank you so much for all your thoughts on the fp! I would have never thought about that. Roman
Are Sony GM lenses not color matched as well? Do Sony GM lenses have that F Stop issue where F5.6 on a 35mm may not let the same amount of light as a Sony GM 50mm on F5.6?
Time = Money. learning more and more as the days go by, and I absolutely agree. Thanks for the info, its always good to get reminded again. Justin I get the feeling you have camera ADHD and soo many small things bother you on set LOL. But thats a good thing! Love the videos look forward to the next one.
Do these lenses make it so you have to get a steady cam op instead of a 1k gimbal? Will a crane 3 or DJI Ronan Fly these bad boys. Point being that is why I prefer smaller lenses. I hate being stuck on sticks all the time, and a fully steady cam rig is a major undertaking. Guess I should get better with a steady rig as well. I do suck at most of this filmmaking stuff. But I am trying to get better weekly.
Once you get into the world of comparing cine lenses it’s more about the aesthetic & characteristics of each. The Sigma cine lenses are what i would call “cleaner” lenses. Really popular for green screen work.
i understand easily your move, but prefer the Milvus rendition ! Schneider reputation ? a lot of flare problems with their last 4x5 lens the 80XL Schneider lenses such as the 80 LS for phase one is really badly build... But, in the past it was different... so, in a year or so you will go for CP.2 ? and the next year to CP.3 ? ;-) Happy shootings !
Sensor size doesnt matter. As soon as you start getting wider than 35mm every single mm is a noticable difference. Its why most DPs request a 32 & a 35, or a 24 & a 28
Jeez there are a lot of opinionated comments in this chat. He works in the industry. He knows. Your not bringing balance to his view. He made an informed decision based on his workflow.
great video bro! im not even into this kind of thing but it was good to watch anyway,...now im looking to spend thousands of pounds on a cine lens haha
Due to changes, these lenses are now listed for sale in my online shop: www.justinfilm.com/shop
Hey Justin, I worked on a big set and we used about 2 minutes to switch lenses and positions between each shot and nobody complained. They were establishing shots in a big train station and the box with lenses was about 50 meters from the camera. This is not going against your argument fully, but I think at this point you kind of overestimate the need of professional gear on professional sets. My take away on a 2million feature as camera assistant was: I could do most of this with cheaper gear too. It's just not as conveniant. So yes! Your argument is valid, but it's more about conveniance than always quality. I think young robert rodriguez would agree.
Also, the change in light and grip usually took much longer than the camera. We could have easily recalibrated the lenses in that time.
And the second argument about exposure. There is no need to have lenses with the same exact exposure. At least if you don't really care about the aperture that much and use that to expose between shots. I mean a lens with t2 and the same lens at t2 + the ND the op chooses in different lighting wont match just as much as two different lenses won't much perfectly. And in the deakins podcast you here many DP's that expose by eye. But you said it yourself, they used different lenses in the joker, same as in batman where they used helios 44's.
Just my thoughts, I am sure your new gear is conveniant and high quality but when it comes to minimal/independent filmmaking I think the points are a bit overestimated. And last but not least: Creativity beats gear all the time.
I agree. He's kinda overselling the inconveniences that are negligible in practice.
Very Fair.
100 percent. Lighting adjustments + final tweaks before roll will almost always take longer than any adjustments by camera department short of jib or steadicam stuff. Lens switches happen so fast that (even as a DP) sometimes the ACs do it before I can even notice. When I gaff, camera is nearly always ready when lighting things get handled. The worst kept secret on professional sets really is that the money pays for convenience more than it does fancy toys. Unless it's disney+. Then it's always fancy toys.
Though he argued against vintage stuff on smaller shoots, micro budgets, etc... but thanks anyway! :)
In 20 years, I doubt that any of these “affordable” cinema lenses will hold their value, the way that the Contax Zeiss, OG Nikkors, or Leica R’s have. Can only speak for my own personal experience, and I don’t own a production company like you - but it sounds like prioritization of mechanics and proper cinema procedure over the actual creative look a lens affords you. Not to negate how much control you get in post. I recognize lenses are no longer as crucial a tool in the image pipeline, and that consistency is easier to come by than it used to be - they are still plenty crucial though. I get it, but your choice here seems like prioritizing quick gratification. Its irritating having to mess with vintage glass and take care of it and buy mount adapters and get them comfortable on follow focuses. But it also bonds you with your tools - and teaches you something about limitations. Each tool is good for certain things. Its intoxicating the idea of a lens that works for everything or most things. Some come close. But its a fickle pursuit. Look at The Batman. They could have anything they wanted for that car mount stuff. They used old lenses that needed tinkering and needed rehousing - but the result was so much better. On 2001, Kubrick used off the shelf Nikon stuff for more than Panavision was comfortable with - because they looked better for the job on specific shots than that which was consistent or perfectly machined for a crew. Different strokes for different folks, of course. But still. Its a little misguided to get rid of glass that actually affords unique opportunities for glass thats antiseptic and only functions as market filler. If I’m gonna pay two grand or more for a lens - I’m not going to waste it on a Xeen, or a DZO, just because the market tells me these are affordable cinema lenses and those are what I should buy. I’d buy a single Cooke lens, and add something to my arsenal. Or if I wanted modern, I’d get something that has no retro equivalent - like Laowa’s probe lens, or their Zero-D line - and just make sure everything is crew friendly enough to not truly slow any of us down. Sure, there are still quirks. So? People have quirks. A lazy focus puller will be just as lazy with a Summilux as he is with a Contax Zeiss. One of them just may hide his work more. In any case, enjoy. But something to keep in mind for the future. Cheers
I'm not sure how you're putting Xeens or DZOs and Cookes in the same table. You may be talking about buying a kit of lenses against a single Cooke at that point. Id take the set over the single lens since I hate telling a director or client: "no, I can't take that shot my lens is too wide/long".
I think that I understand what you are trying to communicate. I happen to believe too in obtaining special and unique tools even if that means that they are flawed and more high maintenance or maybe even hard to work with. So I think I get your point. I do have two thoughts to share though.
1) By the examples you use I understand that your focus is mostly on the artistic side of filmmaking and particularly feature films. That's what interests me too. But in reality this side of filmmaking only accounts for maybe less than 5% of productions. Most people are involved in more commercial aspects of filmmaking such as events, music videos, corporate videos, commercials etc. In all of these cases you need actual tools you can count on. On a daily basis, repeatedly and with ever changing conditions and crews. There is no don Kichotism here. You need to be able to count on your equipment in order to deliver. This can mean the difference between a job well done and a job that caused you trouble. So in most cases people need to think sensibly and practically about the way they choose gear if they are serious about and if the intent to make money by using it. Also even the people who do use old lenses for a certain aesthetic such as in The Batman or in Blonde it's most often lenses rehoused so that practicality is not compromised.
2) On your point regarding the aesthetics of these new lenses and what their long term value might be I think of it this way: why does a cooke or a zeiss lens have to be by definition better? I understand a few things about lenses and I have worked with so many of them. And I would say that at this point the gap is closing more and more. Both in terms of build quality as well as aesthetically and optically. I understand that companies such as Zeiss or Cooke or Leica were the first ones and established a name for themselves and people associate them with class and prestige but at the same time RUclips reviews and blogs have started revealing a different picture: Cookes breathe too. They have CA too. They have fringing and are not very sharp. And yet we call that a look because you know... It's the Cooke S4! And Zeiss ultra primes also breathe and also have medium sharpness and are optically flawed. And yet they are sought after and revered and expensive. Even if when you watch them side by side with Dzo you will not be able to tell the difference in a blind test. But Dzo when it exhibits those same characteristics is considered uncool and lesser because it is a new and not established Chinese or whatever it is company. Well I am not ok with that at all. Because it turns out that those brands are essentially overcharging for things that can be produced equally good if not better for so much less. And more than that I like the idea that the establishment is being challenged at this point. I like the idea that as with what happened in the automotive industry a Toyota at this point is considered an equal car to a vw which would be laughable in the past. And obviously people still buy Bmws and Mercedes and they are still more prestigious but it's perfectly fine to own a Honda and to sensible people it's desirable even. Why should we side with those that came first and take advantage of it; Had it been in Zeiss's hands you would still be unable to own any real piece of equipment to do your personal project or micro feature film because of cost alone. Do not buy into the myth of the product. See it for what it is. In your own example that is what Kubrick essentially did with Nikon. Chose the outcast and the underdog. Went off the beaten path. So I say that we need to embrace this revolution and democratization. I hate this romanticized version of how good the old Uber elite players are. Just my thoughts. Take care.
I like your optimism about the future…
@konstantinosstag6436 Great thoughts! I actually agree, totally understand what you're getting at. No part of me wants to prioritize "cool" brand recognition more than anything else. I do NOT believe just because a brand is legacy it's special, either. I like your pragmatic attitude. The caution you express is valuable. Obviously, I maintain a lot of what I was getting at. Frankly, brand or not, even to an untrained eye, product speaks for itself, if you listen to what it's telling you. One of the things I love about Laowa or Dulens (another gem: SLR Magics APO Hyperprimes) is their products speak for themselves. They make gorgeous, beautiful lenses and offer specialized products, for super fair prices. They cut well with vintage and modern glass and on their own, have their own unique style. Your comment about CA or fringing being "uncool" on DZO I completely agree with, just to clarify: those same flaws are always flaws. What else does the lens do, though? That's the thing. When I see how beautiful color, pleasing and versatile skin rendition, and fantastic out of focus areas - CA can be forgivable. Personally, if there's CA - AND ugly out-of-focus areas & boring skin rendition. That's more what I'm getting at. Not to be unfair,. Since my last comment, DZO has had more of my attention. Their newer glass looks subjectively nicer to me, I like the 18-35 FF, the vespid 21 & 40 too. And the prices on those seem fairer than the Macro Gnosis or the Pictors. That's the main gripe. I'm not in love with inappropriate, self-important, over-estimated "legacy brand"-prices for what's basically a fine or "passable" product. Those protocols / de facto choices bug me. My point earlier was just removing the bullshit. Me: I love how a super speed looks. I know I'll be glued to it on every gig & will have to rent it too often to justify recurring expense. Now, I suck at modifying lenses - total amateur. So, I'll get one that's already in PL. Just put extra effort into research, investigating, & ensuring quality. I recently got a full frame HFT 35mm 1.4 (with a lovely nine-bladed aperture) Great condition. No blemishes. Excellent metal gears, declicked, shimmed. Ready for any set. And it will last me a lifetime. Fun fact: it was the first design ported over to the original B speeds (that and the equally gorgeous 85mm). Way more neutral color rendition, but sharp as a tack (to my eye, even prettier / more "hi-fi" than the same design on Contax for the MM / AE versions). Of course, most clients don't know all this. Nor might they "need" to. Except I'd counter that what a smart client wants more than anything is you, and your taste & discretion and understanding of what they're looking for. They hired me for a reason. No risk, no reward. Clients LOVE knowing they're in good hands. Regardless of brand name. Of course, brand recognition rarely hurts. But what matters more is giving them the assurance and the feeling you've put thought & care into their product, you want them to have something special, not just okay. That, combined with (more importantly) YOUR taste and creativity is what matters. I get your point about if zeiss were left to their own devices, they'd charge fortunes for everything - in that situation, however - I'll still just save up (if it's worth it / feasible - we're not talking about buying a set of Supremes). Also, I'm not so sure that it's that black and white. Look at the Otus lenses. Product manager for those literally told the designers in the brief to take price off the table as a consideration, yet even brand new - expensive as they were - they aren't infeasible. I get what you're saying. Still though. They're not much more used than a brand new Macro Gnosis prime - a lens they still outperform it in most of the right ways way, minus breathing (an annoying, but easy fix: a keyframe zoom i/o post) Milvus have more flaws but they're sharper in some cases, and absolutely gorgeous. Program it in reverse on a follow focus unit if you don't like the Nikon focusing. Or have it worked on if its finicky. If it's really bugging you, get some CP3's or Sigmas (Arts or Cine-line, those lenses are as "uncool" as it gets - and worth every penny if you want perfect) For context: my aforementioned HFT lens *was* expensive when it originally came out - hardly far off though from what DZO's charging new. Plus, the results stood the test of time. I'm a lot more secure knowing what I have is special - frankly, unless *I* fail, *it's* not going to "fail" on set any time soon. Thanks for sharing your thoughts nonetheless though! I like how you think. Just to clarify, too: I don't mean to discourage people from buying budget productions. In fact, did you know there's a lens Rokinon makes that's *still* the record holder for widest lens available on long flange full frame cameras? The 10mm special performance! Nice lens. Look, they may not be "cool" but Rokinons were unbeat for ages because they charged like a few hundred bucks for a perfectly passable performing cinema prime. A cinevised vintage Nikkor lens actually did cost more, and was back-focusing. So it actually was smarter to get a Rokinon. Contrast that with a manufacturer releasing a Rokinon-level product at the same price as a legacy lens manufacturer. Also remember: cinema lenses by their nature were always designed to be the highest performing *glass* period (not just in terms of mechanics) so this idea of proper "cinema-mechanics" super-ceding the dozens of other relevant factors in a lens seems misguided to me, almost self-defeating. Get whats good, whats worth it, and whats feasible. Otherwise you're just abandoning really great tools.
@@ubir9743 Those new Cooke SP3's also seriously look so gorgeous. Even if they weren't "Cooke's", they are stunning.
I have been shooting still photography as a hobby for 50 years. My first introduction to seeing still cameras on a cinema camera was when I went to see a huge Stanley Kubrick exhibit at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The exhibit had two very long display cases of all of the still camera lenses that he had adapted to his gigantic Arriflex camera on a rolling tripod. Many of these lenses had custom mounts to support them on the camera. It is wild to see have demand for these vintage lenses have spiked prices. Yikes. For a long time, you couldn't give these lenses away.
Ive been using photo lenses with focus pulling for over 8 years and never had any of these problems. 🤷🏻♂️
Some common issues that you will have with photo lenses:
1. Different focus distance between different lenses.
2. Inconsistent focus distances from closest distance to infinity (e.g. from 10-30, 30-50, 50-100 all will have different wheel distances). This is HUGE.
3. Inconsistencies in look and colors in post.
4. The time wasted while exchanging lenses and mentally re-calibrating your focus pulling sensitivity since it will be all over the place.
5. Lack of complete manual control like the aperture and focus rings (unless you use declicked vintage).
6. F Stops aren't reliable. Switching from one F2.8 lens to another F2.8 won't have the same amount of light tranmission (e.g. Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 has a value of T3.3 - Quite big).
7. Electronic focus and aperture rings aren't reliable for film work and require electronic connections exclusively to control the rings. These are strictly meant for photography or vlogging in auto-mode.
8. Bad focus breathing on a lot of photography lenses. This is arguably a fault when used to shoot a film.
If you haven't had any of these 8 issues in your +8 years of focus pulling, that should come as a huge surprise.
@@VENAXIS in practice none of these things are the end of the world. People act like these are absolutely showstopping. They're not. You just work around it like literally any other limitation in the filmmaking process. I mean if it's really worth spending like $20K+ on cine lenses to not have to deal with it, you do you. But personally when i use cine lenses for a shoot vs photo i either dont notice, or don't care about virtually all of those things listed.
@@goo-o8g based on your username I’m gonna brush this off as a troll post.
@@VENAXIS He is right tho.
Nowadays i kinda wait for your videos, your experiences... They are precious..... Dont stop....
Appreciate the perspective, but most people on youtube messing around with cinematography/making films are hobbyists, or at best, semi-professionals: we don't have 3k to drop on one cine lens. There are Rokinons, there is renting, but If you are just shooting things every now-and-then, the problem of adapting vintage still lenses become pretty much irrelevant. I can see investing a small car's worth of money into cinema lenses if you are working as a professional - and the compounded saving of all that time starts to make sense - but I don't think that's most of us. And I've been down this sort of rabbit hole before, but with audio: you can usually accomplish the same things with a $200 microphone as you can with a $2000 one, it just makes it slightly easier, and perhaps the quality is marginally better, but there's a cost-to-benefit ratio that just isn't there for most of us when you start upgrading to higher-tier gear.
Great breakdown. Call it torturing myself, call it a personal preference, but I always prefer fully manual cinema lenses even when shooting live events. I've used plenty of modded photo lenses as well as some of the best contemporary photo lenses out there and I always go back to cine lenses.
I love my adapted Nikkor Set and use it to bits. If I have a client who cares about the camera/lens brand I use, I'm happy to rent it and bill to them (I am partial to the Zeiss Master Primes and Leica Summicrons, under those circumstances). For most other projects, a mix of modern lenses such as the Lumix S 1.8 prime lenses and 24-105 with a focus ring for documentary work, and the Nikkors gets me through just fine, through documentaries, short films, corporate work etc. So I'm not sure I can see eye to eye with the "bad for cinematography" part. The results look good, and the lenses are cheap enough that I can have a backup set without breaking the bank.
Agreed. Besides got to have something to do when waiting for the lighting crew to get ready, lol
Great perspective. Love the honesty on all fronts. Truth is, as a business, spend (if/when you can) to ensure you can do business. This applies to everything. It’s also a matter of expectations if one decides to cut corners due to budget, curiosity, or just preference.
I started building a set of the budget Meike FF cinema lenses and can say I love the look, feel, and stability of the lenses. I’m also a hobby solo shooter so keep that in mind.
Looking forward to what you do with these lenses. Congrats on the purchase! Enjoy!
Here’s what I’ve done with my mishmash of vintage and other lenses: I put a step up ring so that every lens has a 77 mm front mount for filters. Then I put a rubber collapsible lens hood on each, add a cap. This removes the need for a box in front, and makes swapping out fairly quick. And all of that rigging is cheap. A few have focus pull rings, but not all. I still swap out the ND filters from lens to lens, though a variable ND on each lens would be nice, but more costly.
It is interesting, if it wasn’t for the pervasive use of photo lenses Zeiss would not have created the full frame CP2. Photo lenses are why Zeiss has made the Supreme Prime Radiance set for those nice blue flares.
Also, autofocus is being integrated with cinema cameras because of photo lenses. Today’s Prosumer is tomorrow’s Pro.
Hell yeah you picked up the Xenons! I think you found my channel during some of that year long research. I believe you commented about the Xenons and I hope you enjoy them! I have the 25, 35, 50, 75, and 100. Always been drooling over that 18mm!
yeah so i'm a hobbyist, and had been using vintage-y photo lenses, and yep some of them are pretty... ehh... have character (my Minolta 50mm from 1985), and i'm not about to drop $3k on a lens (which for me is, honestly, a toy) but i did go and grab one of the FF Meike 35mm T2.1 cine lens and yes, it's amazing the difference, as you point out. the build, the consistency in behavior when stopping it down, the suuuuper long focus throw, de-clicked iris... I do get it now! now where's that dang ice cream man?!
Great video, especially clarifying the difference between F and T stops.
To be honest I wasn’t crazy about his definition. It’s always been my understanding that an F stop is merely the division of the lens length, by its aperture opening. It’s a mathematical equation. Whereas a T stop is an actual measure of the transmission of light. Each lens design is actually measured for light transmission.
Hey, Justin! Thanks for the video. Can you mention some other options you were considering in your year-long search for a lens set? What intrigued you in some other lenses, what was good and why you did not go with them. I would greatly appreciate that as I am currently also looking for some lenses to invest in, on a similar budget.
Modded Leica Rs, best option 🤙🏼
I also own the Xenon‘s these are great lenses and render nice colours.
It’s worth noting that the xenon’s are discontinued from March 2022 and they only sell what they have in stock.
But they provide service and maintenance to the xenon’s as long as Schneider exists at least they told me ;)
I also have the Contax and also love them and it’s great to have clean lenses like the xenon’s and the Contax that have a lot of character
Thanks for your video
Unless you are working on high end commercials, music videos or feature film you dont need cine lenses period. 90% of filmmakers would not be able to tell a difference between a good quality photo lens or a cine lens. 99% of the clients wouldnt be able to tell whether you filmed on a dslr or a red let alone tell the difference between lenses. The pace of technology right now, makes investing in anything very risky. I would argue that good lighting equipment would be a better investment.
cine lenses are about workflow and not necessarily about image quality
@@josuastangl7140 that makes my point even stronger. If you are not working on high end productions why would you need a lens that needs more advanced workflow.
@@Yodd cine lenses certainly make workflow much quicker easier, not more advanced
@@josuastangl7140 i doubt it. You need focus puller because no autofocus. They are heavier and require bigger tripods, bigger stabilisers in most cases. What is easier about cine lenses?
@@Yodd all of that is already the case for him, he is working with heavy camera rigs and never pulls his own focus. Sure, if you're a hobby videographer or running small one man productions, then you wouldn't even think about cine lenses
I can totally see your view on working with cine modded vintage stills lenses. I imagine if you just threw together a set and used those cheap rubber focus gears it could be problematic. I have a nice set of vintage Canon FD SSC primes that I lightly cine modded. I took time to find lenses that are close in serial numbers and that helps them to match color wise about 95%. I also added follow focus gears on them that are roughly 12mm in width and I have them all mounted to each gear in the same height so all the gears match. I left the original breechlock mounts on them because it is a solid all metal mount that twists to lock. Its sort of like a mini PL type locking system in a way. Changing out these lenses with a follow focus takes about a minute. Its easy off and easy on without having to adjust the follow focus. I have shot lots of projects with them and the clients always love the images they render. On the other hand I can greatly appreciate a set of actual cine lenses. They are nice in their own right.
Lol I know that church set!
Thanks for the video. Xenon aren't for me, but I'm glad you enjoy them. I've been in the same boat of researching lenses for the past year. I've settled on a few options and just searching now for a decent deal. That sweet spot of vintage image character, modern mechanics, and not breaking the bank is a rare unicorn
I’m always torn between the look and the practicality. My Leica Rs are a bitch. But at the end of the day I like the image more. Praying for the day a modern budget cine set compares
Great long format vid my guy. Subbed for this vid.
Don't get it twisted! I still love using my Minolta Rokkors for full frame photography. And remember, the whole reason I bought the Rokkors in the first place was to use them with my Aivascope. In the meantime, feel free to follow my kit link (which is updated regularly): www.kit.co/jponfilm
Did you look at the sigma cine primes ? Why did u not go sigma cine primes ?
Hey man is that an A24 book under your monitor in the background? what is it, id like to look that up, i love A24
damn, I mean at least my A7R4 is versatile enough to at least tell a better story than using just a smartphone :(
I was thinking through this video "did he get rid of his Rokkors??". Glad to hear you are still using them... I've picked up a few based on your video outlining your collection. I need to pick a set and start seriously collecting something cohesive though.
Nooooooooo!
Film lenses kill video!
Great video mate! I think you would have liked the new Meyer Optik Gorlitz. They're small, with character, same size/weight/focus throw/colors and 15 de-clicked aperture blades, the only problem they've is about the focus breathing. But this move to buy great Cine lenses made in Germany, makes a lot of sense for you. Cheers!
I'm really interested in the DZO Vespids but I've always really liked all the footage I've seen shot on the Xenons. Optically I love my vintage Nikkors but they are a PAIN to actually use in a cine setting.
thank you for this very informative video! I have been considering cine lenses since I have been filming more lately
A „smart“ manual vintage lens housing could probably add exif lens data, matching luts and a focus/aperture motor for less than a fraction of the addon cost to a proper cine lens…
On top of my head for the cost of a 3d print, two tiny steppers, an arduino with packetradio and some soldering, say about $200 plus labor, you would be in the ballpark (assuming the software/controllers are solved)
Ive been rocking with you from the beginning. (im madjoints) You are all over the place...but im here for it!!!!
Great video, I don't think we deal with this issue as much you listed because we are using the Sigmas 18-35 and 50-100. While sure breathing is a thing for the 50-100 we found under normal use it doesn't show up. Also as far as stressing the lens with calibration that's not an issue with the Sigmas as they don't have hard stops they are on our focus rings not in the lens. Also F stops don't matter either because the lenses are matched. Maybe they are the exception, but they save a lot of time on set and they work very well, I wish we had the cine version, but cost. Cheers!
All great points. The problem with Cine lenses is that the really good ones are extremely expensive compared to ‘Cine’ lenses that are affordable but have many optical defects, although many low budget cinematographers call these flaws ‘cinematic’. The current line of photography lenses e.g. the Z-Mount S-line of Nikon is optically excellent. With some limitations it can be used as cine lenses perfectly fine. Unfortunately there is still a big gap between Hollywood quality and low budget cinematography but most people can make great movies with decent quality gear. I think I favour optical quality over time. But, I agree with your points, I once could play with an Alexa LF with an ARRI Signature Prime lens. Yes, it was amazing.
most definitely. build quality on vintage stills lenses is my main concern, plus the slow-down of having to re-calibrate the lens every swap. But these Xenons do pop up every now & then, fingers crossed i can get my hands on a couple more. Pretty good quality for the price, certainly on the used market
Yes. The absolutely best lenses are expensive. You are not supposed to own them. You are supposed to rent them on a per project basis. If the kind of work you do does not justify renting Master Primes then you do not need them. At the same time lenses are better than ever. At this point there is an abundance of good quality glass that is also affordable. There are always compromises to be made of course but many high end brands are full of optical flaws too. Many Cookes have CA and breathing and vignetting, the same goes for Arri ultra primes too. They are still being used and are desirable even. Actually it's this new market of lower cost lens sets that pushes harder for optical perfection than ever before because the market is larger and there are reviews and articles and scrutiny. This wasn't the case up until some years ago.
Thanks for sharing this man! You are a wealth of knowledge!
Wow, I always thought that the Tokina was a tank (I suppose this is the 28-70 Pro2) which I got and use for photos. Your decision to go for cinema lenses make sense to me. However, for a newbie the initial cost seems prohibitive, as they have no cheaper T4 options, similar to photo lenses.
Shouldn't you be recalibrating your follow focus after any lens swap? Unless you're deliberately setting the lens's focus to the same position as the next one, I'd imagine the best practice would be to recalibrate every lens swap. Then again, I'm just a sound mixer, but I've noticed almost every AC recalibrates the follow focus after every lens swap, even with a matched lens set.
But if the focus throw is the same and you set both lenses to infinity focus before the swap... isn't that one of the reasons why you would use a matched set of cine lenses? Then again I'm not a pro, just guessing
I have a CN-E and Xenon 25mm too, i love it on my Dsmc2
Did you sell your Leica R set?
Damn great choice of lenses!!!!! I've been looking at those for years but could never afford them. Beautiful lenses!!!!!!
I did it opposite of what you did. I got a set of rokinon cine DS lens. Now I started collecting Minolta lenses
Same path, different story! Keep doing you!
Schneider makes great glass. Very nice choice! I've been looking at a set of these for a few years now.
Wow, incredible perspective and analysis. Lots to consider here.
I really enjoy your videos! Thanks for sharing!
I also like vintage glass, I like the look of those old lenses and also being on a tight budget it makes sense for me to use photo lenses. But man it's a pain to adapt them to the camera, the mount sometimes moves and shakes the whole image, I mean...It's bad! :))
I hope I can get my hands on some real cinema lenses in the future, That would be awesome!
I do not fully understand the type of business model that pushes professionals to own such equipment. I am not American myself and obviously I must be missing something. The way i see it you are either an owner operator in which case we are talking about smaller projects with minimal crews where cine lens sets make no financial sense and can be ergonomically worse than still lenses. Or you are working in music videos, commercials or narratives in which case you need to rent the equipment that every project requires as each project has different needs. So what is the point of owning cine lenses? This is an honest question and not any sort of comment.
Yeah, I picked it in the Milvus video. You would switch to another set of lenses sooner or later. 😁
Hi Justin, is your monitor on the side the Lilliput Monitor ?
Ha, there's one rare exception to non-T stop vintage photographic lenses, which you can use much like T-stops. That is Miranda/Soligor Camera lenses. These lenses have aperture coupler side arm. These lenses are stepless aperture ones with smooth graduation across all stops.
im in the middle of researching my new lens investment and i would love to know what you think of the dzo pictor zooms as i could work with 2 lenses for pretty much everything. weight is also good with the komodo on a gimbal. i noticed that you invest in fast apertures is this one of your main concerns when looking at t2.8 lenses? thanks in advance man, great content
Honestly these are all the reasons I Invested in the tokina vistas. Cine lenses on set changes the game
What do you think about the zeiss loxia or the fujinon mk 18-55? greetings. P. S. Awesome video! :)
How does color and contrast from the 18mm Milvus compare to the Schneider? and sharpness?
Great advice. The auto calibrate on the Nucleus has damaged by Leica R set in the past.
The example clips you had looked really good. Sure, modern ARRI stuff is probably much better but it will cost nearly ten times as much.
anybody have any info on those 'rehoused photo lenses' Justin mentions out there? I believe he's not talking about IronGlass or top rehousing companies which are well known (and expensive!), but rather other brands that have recently released 'cine' lenses?
I work with those Xenon lenses everyday and really love them. Such good bokeh!
Ok so I just got 4 of these lenses for 6000k CDN which unless I'm missing something that's a steal. Anyway my question Mr Phillip is do you think they would work well with an anomorphic adapter?
Dustin ! What were the cons that were so big for not getting the Zeiss Cp3 ? You are shooting with Komodo would that not be the best choice, since Komodo also has a S35 Frame? . Future proving with a full frame Set would make sense if you are shooting in the Sony or Canon FF Cameras. But Now the only Reason to use FF Set would be with the Reds and Alexa lF. The S35 Sensor size is getting stronger with the new Alexa and also are used by all other Camera Producer. Ive boig wondering, why ? ehhehe Nice video brow, made want to sell my Leica R and Zeiss Contax set to get the CP3
This feels way tooooo overrated no offense. It also feels sponsored or very opinionated. I could get all the same quality from cheaper cine lenses.
He tends to make a lot of - "A REAL cinematographer would NEVER do _______" - comments. When RED made the Komodo they put a photo lens mount and autofocus on their CINEMA camera. The fact that there are full frame cinema cameras is a direct result of photo lens movie making.
22:00 you almost convinced me to not go with Leica R set... but I'll save MORE to go with Tokina Vista primes... when would that day come...
I love, and get great footage from my collection of Voigtlanders
Yep, a photo lens remains a photo lens na matter what you add to it.
Cine lenses work much smoothers and eases the workflow. However, I am impressed by how long you went along with the Zeiss lenses.
Hey Justin, awesome channel you got going! Quick question regarding the Sigma fp, I have already the LUMIX S1H and BM Video Asstist 7“, but it’s “limited” to BRAW. Since I am interested in shooting RAW and I don’t mind that there is no Log and the storage etc, would it be stupid to throw out my S1H and get the fp? I have a Leica M10R for stills along with a Noctilux 50. Since both, S1H and the fp are are part of the L-mount alliance I can put my Leica Noctilux on the fp and I could have a blast (same is of course true for the S1H). Plus I have three Sigma DN Art lenses which is even a better fit on the fp since I can use all the lens features such as the linear focus, etc. So, is it stupid to give up the S1H and get the fp instead? I just love the form factor of the fp. It has the same small footprint as my Leica. Since I have the Leica I shoot every day, whenever I go out. My hope is the same for the fp and getting the filming started frequently. Thank you so much for all your thoughts on the fp! I would have never thought about that. Roman
Click bait title. Make your movie on what ever you can afford. This is why cinematographers need to be cancelled.
Will the xenon work with a speedbooster?
Bro this is a really good video and explanation.
I agree. Other than Leica’s, the only photo lenses that are worth the trouble are beyond expensive.
I have that same Tokina lens that broke on you and idk if it's my copy or what but I always felt like the image was kinda soft, is your lens sharp??
Man, you are saving new guys like me thousands of bucks from bad decisions. Thank you.
Was there no way to put a lens support on those lenses to prevent it from breaking like that?
Are Sony GM lenses not color matched as well? Do Sony GM lenses have that F Stop issue where F5.6 on a 35mm may not let the same amount of light as a Sony GM 50mm on F5.6?
Just wondering (not arguing), what's bad about the Rokinon's? Also, what do you think of the DZOFilm constant T2.9 zooms, at least for entry-level?
Great one! thanks
Love the video!
Didn't expect to see such low price for cine lens from such brand as a Schneider-Kreuznach
What do you guys think about Meike FF Cine lenses?
Time = Money. learning more and more as the days go by, and I absolutely agree. Thanks for the info, its always good to get reminded again. Justin I get the feeling you have camera ADHD and soo many small things bother you on set LOL. But thats a good thing! Love the videos look forward to the next one.
I love my photo Milvus set for video
Do these lenses make it so you have to get a steady cam op instead of a 1k gimbal? Will a crane 3 or DJI Ronan Fly these bad boys. Point being that is why I prefer smaller lenses. I hate being stuck on sticks all the time, and a fully steady cam rig is a major undertaking.
Guess I should get better with a steady rig as well. I do suck at most of this filmmaking stuff. But I am trying to get better weekly.
I'm used to crazy artsy types... doesn't bother me. At least they aren't boring.
For video better use arri signature prime lenses, very very expenssive but nothing can give an equal stunning image render to this lenses.
What lens mount are your xenon lenses?
You got sigma 24-70 to substitute that broken Tokina Zoom?
Wow, what is your ShotList app?
Just ShotLister
What is the advantage of these over say the Sigma Cine lenses?
Once you get into the world of comparing cine lenses it’s more about the aesthetic & characteristics of each. The Sigma cine lenses are what i would call “cleaner” lenses. Really popular for green screen work.
i understand easily your move, but prefer the Milvus rendition !
Schneider reputation ? a lot of flare problems with their last 4x5 lens the 80XL
Schneider lenses such as the 80 LS for phase one is really badly build...
But, in the past it was different...
so, in a year or so you will go for CP.2 ? and the next year to CP.3 ?
;-)
Happy shootings !
someone's got to invent a follow focus planetary gear system for photo lenses
Wouldn't the 25mm achieve the same lookg as the 35mm with a full frame red?
Sensor size doesnt matter. As soon as you start getting wider than 35mm every single mm is a noticable difference. Its why most DPs request a 32 & a 35, or a 24 & a 28
Interesting thanks!@@JustinPhillip
if you had to pick one lense to do it all for shooting an indie feature DIY - would you say the 35mm?@@JustinPhillip
Ol' Justin, always stirring that pot.
Great thoughts.
If you could only afford just one of these lenses which one would you get?
Jeez there are a lot of opinionated comments in this chat.
He works in the industry. He knows. Your not bringing balance to his view.
He made an informed decision based on his workflow.
I absolutely love your passion, insight, and honesty. Your videos are 🔥
Where did you get the copy of Gummo! ❤
I'm about to drop $210 dollars on a consumer camera, I'm in the right place.
Very wise words!
Welcome to Schneider
Photo lenses are also designed to be flat, cinema lenses have a 3d rendering. Which puts you right there with the character.
What is 3D rendering? What is flat rendering?
@@JonPais ruclips.net/video/z5febma4_OE/видео.html&ab_channel=FilmmakersAcademy
Team Rokinon Cine.!
The less crew you have, the more you need some functions like af to be done by the camera/lens
The title of this video alone made me subscribe to the ”do not recommend this kind of shit” -channel.
great video bro! im not even into this kind of thing but it was good to watch anyway,...now im looking to spend thousands of pounds on a cine lens haha
Go for it!
Is there a 70-300mm Cine lens? No? Oops...
haha love how you pronounced Kreuznach......Crooznah 😂..... Dope Vid ...THX dude