Does the glass make that much of a difference?

Can someone help me out please. I’ve been shooting for years using sigma zooms, canon L series lens etc for short form cinematic shorts etc. Obviously, PL mount cinema glass like
Cookes or ARRI primes etc are better glass...BUT how much of a difference are they going to make visually to my audience as we try to up our projects image wise? Are we talking night and day?

I know this may be a basic question but I’ve never used such glass and trying to figure out where to spend some of the budget. Ie rent better lights or rent better glass. The way it’s spoken about is that better glass will make u feel like shooting on a completely different camera...I’m trying to figure out if this is really more something noticeable to us filmmakers or will it take the image to a completely different level compared to our trusty sigma 18-35 and be visibly different straight away to the common eye.

Thanks
A

Yes, there is a noticeable difference. This video explains some of the noticeable differences between the new ARRI signature primes and standard lenses.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q1n2DR6H7mk

There are at least two areas of differences that my be apparent. One is physical and one is optical.

The physical differences of a cine lens versus a photo lens can be shared to some extent by either cinematography or photography lenses. So it’s not a black and white clear separation at all times. The video above will likely deal with all the physical and operational characteristics where cine lenses excel in terms of ease of use, flexibility, durability and value.

The optics can vary in terms of types of coatings, corrections to distortion and aberrations, contrast, resolution. But this doesn’t mean to imply that cine lenses are the sharpest and highest contrast and so on. But the optical design is purpose-built for cinematic use. Vintage photography lenses have many of the features of a modern purpose-built cinema lens and are often a favourite choice compared to modern photography lenses that get used by lots of indie cinematographers because they have ‘character.’

The other feature of the optics is precisely the character of the actual glass used for lenses. As you know there are many kinds of glass which handle the spectrum differently. I hazard to guess that the type of glass in an Angēnieux zoom is not identical to your Signa 18-35mm photo zoom (or the cine version of that photo lens). Of course Chris is true of photo lenses as well as the type of glass has varied from one manufacturer to another and likely from one decade to another.

So it’s not a higher price you pay just for the physical characteristics of a housing but also for the design, materials, and finishing for lenses that are built for cinematography. The easiest design feature is that zooms will be parfocal for cine zooms and likely not for photography zooms.

The challenge for he current generation of lenses used by indie filmmakers shooting with BMD cameras that want to use photography lenses is separating a suitable quality lens that will perform well on the BMD cameras but do not rely on the Panasonic (only for example) cameras for all the auto-focusing of a zoom and optical corrections of aberrations that make their lenses appear capable, but don’t apply to BMD cameras that add no corrections.

I saw this on the web:

"If I were pulling focus on a union feature film, with a 100 million dollar budget, and it was a 75mm T/2 'push-in' on Leonardo DiCaprio performing one of the most emotional performances of his career, I'd never consider risking the shot because my good photography lens has a short, inaccurately marked focus throw... or the metal/plastic lens body flexes from the torque of the preston, or this, or that, or any other reason. There is too much money being spent at that moment to save such a small amount (in relation to budget) of money. Accuracy and reliability, can make a production move faster. The focus puller will make less mistakes with accurate and well mapped lenses."

I remember a few years ago reading something about the craft work that goes into a Cooke lens and it made me realize why they are so expensive. And yes, if you're Roger Deakins on a major motion picture with 1000's of extras in a shot, that lens had better perform!

Maybe it's just me but I can pick out a lot of the BMPCC4K + Sigma 18-35mm videos just from that 'digital' look.

But, if you throw a Sigma prime on there, it looks like a different camera to me.

I might be in the minority here but if you are thinking about spending more money on lights or on lenses I would strongly advise to spend more money on lights.

I’m assuming we are not talking about 2+ million dollar projects..

Think of yourself as a painter, lights are your colors, lenses are your brushes.. You can get better brushes, and you will surely enjoy painting even more with your new smooth brushes, but all the brushes in the world won’t be worth a thing if you don’t have the colors you need.

A trained eye will most likely spot a Cooke or an ARRI master prime, but 99% of the people will not. At the same time 99% of the people will notice a badly lit scene.

I'm going to answer the OP's concern about spending their money between a photographic versus cinema lens and not debate about the merits and why one cinema lens is better than the other. The YT and Rick's post pretty much has enough information for the OP to understand that there is a difference to decide for themselves.

But all this technical information becomes subjective and only works if you know what you are using them for and how to best use them on. So let's deal with the subjective first. Subjective because if you are treating your picture to be of some artistic craft, you will be making your selection of equipments and materials to give you as close to the artistic visual as you get. I like to shoot soft because it tells my story differently than if it was shot sharp - for example. That's some of the reason I use vintage lenses. I love the Sigma 18-35 ART sharpness but I don't shoot it bare - always with a pro-mist or low contrast filter to soften things out. If I don't have the filters, I got with the more expensive Sigma 18-35 cine zoom. That gives me a softer, less chromatic aberration than the ART. I shoot with a lot of Xeen and Rokinons for the same reason. When I see very sharp picture, it looks fake and video like for my taste. It may not be for another director or DP. So again, it's subjective.

Now, if you are really honing on to your craft, don't make lens, versus lighting, versus whatever a choice because of money. Yes, we all have a budget. But you don't and shouldn't be buying things to make your picture. Figure what you need based on what you intend to deliver, then go rent it. If you have your own gear, that's fine but don't limit yourself because you have your own gear.

I shot a short three weekends ago. It was a one weekender engagement. I could have shot it with my own equipment. I discussed with the producer what and why I needed for her project. She set $4500 for rentals and I was able to get an entire weekend rate for a bunch of equipment (camera, lens, lights, grip stuff) with some leftovers - insurance included. Here is just an example of the package.

https://www.sharegrid.com/losangeles/l/ ... exa%20mini
https://www.sharegrid.com/losangeles/l/ ... ema%20Lens
https://www.sharegrid.com/losangeles/l/ ... snel%20kit

I'm going off a tangent here with that original questions but what I am siting is that you can do more for probably what it will cost you to buy another cine lens and forgetting what is more important to make that short film of yours.

Some may give me a hard time here about Sharegrid. I really don't care. It has worked for me. I also have a buddy who owns a local rental shop that I go to. I guess if you understand what I am trying to get at, it will all make sense. Good luck to your short project!

I know this may be a basic question but I’ve never used such glass and trying to figure out where to spend some of the budget. Ie rent better lights or rent better glass.

If you shoot for a weekend with one of your favourite regular lenses and one of these unicorn lenses, rented, you’ll find out what difference it makes, if any.

There is a middle ground: get something like Leica-R (more expensive) or Zeiss Y/C photographic lenses and have them 'cinefied'. They will not be centered like a true cine prime and their focus scales will not be as precise, but you'll get a decent focus throw and very nice pictures.

And then there are the newcomers with cinefied lenses, like Sigma, Meike etc. with lenses that can't compete with Cooke, Zeiss or Leica (in no particular order), but will support professional handling of motion shots instead of fiddling with a fly-by-wire photo lens.

For me when it comes to choosing glass to shoot on I generally will always look first for cinema design lenses first for the exact reasons mentioned above about the design being there for shooting. Whether it's threads for follow focus or long focus throws, or T stops over F stops, or a manual iris ring, or lastly uniform sizing to make lens changes quick and seamless with a matte box and follow focus. It's the practicality of cinema lenses that I need over dealing with conforming a still lens for a production environment.

Moving on to optics, then I will say that the audience won't notice a lot of differences that they can put a finger on and explain. However, there are slight variations optically with a lot of different lenses that do make a difference. Whether you're talking about precision or character.

The video shared above with the discussion with ARRI about the Signature Primes is a great video covering a lot of these aspects. When it comes to it there's a lot of good explanations about why cinema lenses optically are designed differently from still lenses. Cinema has a lot more moving parts and has 24 frames per second as opposed to a single image. Consistency is king.

When it comes to affordable Cinema Lenses I will always say Rokinon XEEN is a decent option. It's affordable and you're getting what you pay for, but it's an option that is a good place to start. If you can get more money together for some better glass then that is definitely worth looking into. The new XEEN CF lenses are looking very decent. And each XEEN CF is $2.5K it seems so you could get a set of 6 lenses for $15K. That is pretty awesome for starting out. And, you can always rent nicer glass when a project has a bigger budget.

Just my 2¢.

Some may give me a hard time here about Sharegrid. I really don't care. It has worked for me.

Sharegrid is a great option. I've used it on numerous jobs in NYC and LA.

If you are not happy with the quality of your cinematography (assuming it's not out of focus or badly exposed) then changing lenses is going to be the last thing you want to look at. Cine lenses over photo lenses will help with obvious problems like focus breathing and follow focus setups and most obviously with a true 'zoom' to maintain focus during a zoom (most if not all 'zooms' for still cameras are not actually 'zooms' at all) but even then I doubt if your audience will be able to tell unless they are entirely composed of cinematographers. When people start talking about lens 'character' (and we have eliminated basic optical flaws like distortion, vignetting , CA etc )we are into very subjective territory and indeed what some hold up as 'character' can also be the very optical flaw lens designers are seeking to eliminate.

I found this lens comparison interesting:

At any rate it lets you see the difference between very expensive cine lenses and "budget" ones.

Honestly when it comes to the difference in the look it usually has to do with a lack of filters and the grade. I often see people complain about how certain lenses look digital and that a vintage lens or some expensive other items is better because it looks less digital. Just use filters like promist, glimmerglass, satin, Hollywood black magic, the like. Everyone I know uses filters regardless of how expensive or charactered the lens is. People shooting with an inexpensive all purpose zoom like an 18-35 sigma and posting on YouTube likely don't know to use a filter for a certain look or don't care. The sigma zooms with filters look awesome and nobody will ever know what glass sat on front if you use the right filters and grade.

The design of the body is of course a different thing as cinema lenses are generally designed to get the shot right over and over again with well engineered casings. That all comes down to a budget constraint and usually cinema lenses are much more preferred to stills glass on a shoot for reasons mentioned above.

I found this lens comparison interesting:

At any rate it lets you see the difference between very expensive cine lenses and "budget" ones.

And let’s remember that the XEENs are optically the same as the cheaper CineDS with a different coating...

It totally depends of what you do, you might not need lights at all, maybe sound is important, maybe old inexpensive Canon FD prime lens is the look you are after.

I used to use FD primes and had an entire collection from 20mm to 200 at one point. After using sigma zooms I got rid of them all pretty much the next day. You can get a similar lower contrast look rather easily with filters and you get rid of the edge problems and other difficult to correct defects like color casts (always had a red/magenta color cast that had to be corrected) abberations, and fringing.

Also I never could use these lenses wide open and always had to stop down about two stops for a good image. Modern glass has a lot more utility as you can usually use them wide open without nearly as many problems as the older stuff.

Also, product variation is severe in old glass like this and for a good set it's going to cost you as much or more than a better set of modern glass that is far more dependable just to get a decent set of old FD primes. This variation includes the mount problems which can be nice and tight locking in one lens, but loose and wonky on another.

As a former owner of FD glass I strongly recommend against it.

So many interesting takes on this, thank you.

Just to clarify to make things a little clearer on my end...I’ve been very happy with the sigmas and have produced content that looks beautiful, but like most of of us, I’m always in search of how can I push my craft even further. For the project in question, I’m not really fussed about focus smoothness, breathing, throw etc, I’m only interested in if a particular lens will make my image look drastically different and provide the audience with a more pleasing image as a result.

I’ve heard good things about the promise 1/8 on sigmas (1/4 may be a bit too much), so I’m going to grab one of those and test it out before making the decision. I wish the budget allowed for hiring some cinema glass before hand to test but unfortunately we’re stretched, that’s why I love the invaluable input here, thank you again.

Yes, there for sure is better lenses than old FD lenses, but they are inexpensive to get started with before really knowing what on needs.

And yes they also prove class makes a difference.

Also old B4 lens can be interesting to test, the provide long zoom, and are focus does not change when zooming. Also they are build very solid.



Image quality is not the greatest and I would not recommend them as primary lens, but they inexpensive and have features other lenses do not have. (anywhere close that price)

We have plenty of them starting 150 euro.



They of-course require B4 adapter.

Yes, there's a difference in the look in regards to defects you bake into the shot without adding filters or grading, I would agree with that, however In reality you can always take a good lens and make it look worse to match a lens with defects but you can't really do the opposite. There's certain traits harder to copy, but generally I think you can get it close enough to not matter too much.

And to tame the digital harshness, the Promist is a good option.

If you don't care for the mechanical differences, there are lots of filters (even regular ones in DR Studio) which can get you closer to a vintage look. And then, I'd take a look at FilmCovert nitrate too.

Ricardo Marty

And to tame the digital harshness, the Promist is a good option.

If you don't care for the mechanical differences, there are lots of filters (even regular ones in DR Studio) which can get you closer to a vintage look. And then, I'd take a look at FilmCovert nitrate too.

I can vouch for Promist and it works beautifully with the Sigma 18-35 ART. Do not use this filter on a Rokinon or Samyang Cine lens. It will further soften the image.

I’ve heard good things about the promise 1/8 on sigmas (1/4 may be a bit too much), so I’m going to grab one of those and test it out before making the decision. I wish the budget allowed for hiring some cinema glass before hand to test but unfortunately we’re stretched, that’s why I love the invaluable input here, thank you again.

My hat’s off that your conclusion, after reading the posts in this thread, is to test before making any lens changes for your upcoming project.

There’s two ways to look at the price of that ARRI prime 40/35mm: it costs as much as maybe a dozen of your other lenses OR you can shoot 99% of 1917 with only one lens.

Can someone help me out please. I’ve been shooting for years using sigma zooms, canon L series lens etc for short form cinematic shorts etc. Obviously, PL mount cinema glass like
Cookes or ARRI primes etc are better glass...BUT how much of a difference are they going to make visually to my audience as we try to up our projects image wise? Are we talking night and day?

Visually I think the first thing to consider is light. Without light, there isn't anything to write home about. So, if we consider where to invest I would say light and the TIME to give you and your crew to build up the light and look. If you got all the equipment in hands but no time to create and build the needed look it won't help much. But I am already sidetracking from the topic...

Are we talking night and day?
Trust your instinct is important. If YOU like the look that the new gadget (cinema glass, light, filter or anything) creates and helps you out to achieve your goals. Well yes, that is a big difference for you. When you create anything that speaks to you, trust that. There is a good chance that others will relate to that as well. But there are always others that don't like it. That's the taste and different opinions we all have

If you LIKE it and BELIEVE in it. Go for it!

Hmm... I might have gone off-topic here so let's end it with one of my favorite quotes:

“Great art is horseshit, buy tacos.” –Charles Bukowski

Everyone had taste, good or bad taste. Visual apparence is matter of taste.
Some lenses had more resolution other less
Some lenses had more contrast other less
To me the real difference is mechanical :

No breathing during change of focus
Precise focus ring
Strong build
Parafocals for zoom
No pulvis can go inner lenses be cause is sealed

Then
If you like, you can change apparence with filter (promist/Blackmagic/low contrast and more), is matter of taste. I like that kind of apparence but most of work that I do I cannot use them, be cause are documentaries where clients ask me sharpness, contrast, some kind of apparence.

Obviously a lens of 300$ could not be the same of one of 30k, but the real question should be :
Your audience see the difference? Or do you change only for your eyes?
Ps I’m in second choise, I often do work for my eyes and my taste, if my audience think is the same, but it’s my choise, no business choise.

I’m a 50mm collectors, I bought many used vintage 50mm lenses from any brand, someone change a bit on perspective, someone change on bohen, someone change on color rendition (I have a voitlander Ultron with torio treatment, color of that lens is very different, for my eyes) but common people not see difference.
Modern Photo lenses vs video lenses (Sam yang and similar) often seems to sharp and that causes different perception of motion, but you can change with filter pre and post.

Same lenses in from of same sensor kind (gh5s,pocket4k and sonya7s2) but different color science give different renditition that mean there are too many variables and lenses are only one of that.
My 2 cent are : choose what you like and you can afford or rent.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

And to tame the digital harshness, the Promist is a good option.

If you don't care for the mechanical differences, there are lots of filters (even regular ones in DR Studio) which can get you closer to a vintage look. And then, I'd take a look at FilmCovert nitrate too.

I can vouch for Promist and it works beautifully with the Sigma 18-35 ART. Do not use this filter on a Rokinon or Samyang Cine lens. It will further soften the image.

What strength of the promist have you come to favour?

Obviously a lens of 300$ could not be the same of one of 30k, but the real question should be :
Your audience see the difference? Or do you change only for your eyes?
Ps I’m in second choise, I often do work for my eyes and my taste, if my audience think is the same, but it’s my choise, no business choise.

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this, but. The pricing is also based on expected sales volume, not only quality. Arri don’t expect most of us buying their lenses, that’s one reason why they cost big bucks. Many of the Photo vs cinema lenses have similar or even the same optics.The difference visually can be none existing for the end viewer. I don’t think the audience will notice if you shoot with a 30k $ lens rather than a 500$ lens. It more about productivity and efficiency when making the movie.

Obviously a lens of 300$ could not be the same of one of 30k, but the real question should be :
Your audience see the difference? Or do you change only for your eyes?

I just finished this feature project a couple of months ago. Both record on the same UMP camera in Prores 422 and graded in Resolve. Both lenses were PL mount. One was shot with the Xeen 35mm ($1,700) and the other was shot with an Angie EZ-2 40mm Cine Zoom ($14K). Can you tell me which one is from the Xeen and from the Angie? Can you distinguish which is a better image? Can a regular audience see the difference?

clips1.png (592.02 KiB) Viewed 9486 times

I guess you have to measure what is the value and return you get if there is a difference, that is if you can tell.

I guess you have to measure what is the value and return you get if there is a difference, that is if you can tell.

This is key. Normal people only care about the story, with no distractions. Distractions being, colors, sounds, bad camera movement, etc. If all of those are in place, most don't care (and can't tell) about resolution or lens.

90% of the camera gear we buy is for ourselves. Pocket 4k vs. Arri LF... minimal differences (on screen). Rokinon vs Arri Master lenses... minimal differences (on screen). They just become excuses. Especially going to YouTube. There are countless comparisons.... YouTube compression erases all the differences along with the thousands of dollars spent to achieve those differences. At this point, you should only upgrade for convenience imho. Thinks like autofocus, stabilization, etc (thinking of a Sony FX9). However, the higher cinema cameras don't have these anyway...

You could make JOKER with a Pocket 4k. I really believe that. There are many, many other factors in play beyond the camera and the lens.

Ellory, the top image at 9:23 is the Angēnieux.

Ellory, the top image at 9:23 is the Angēnieux.

You got it Rick! There's more breath and less compression on the Angēnieux even both were shot I think at the same stop. But no regular cinema goer will be able to tell you the difference and where. It could have been shot with the Xeen and they won't notice it at all, albeit the Xeen will make the top image a bit more compressed and just slightly harsher.

Ellory, thanks. Always liked what Angēnieux does, but it’s a bit higher than I can aspire to own. I hope Rob’s Fujinon MK is close as I have that on my Wishlist.

Well Rick, you got a sharp eye. You have also proven that before. But, I don’t think you are in the general audience group. You are to skilled for that. Just saying.

There's more breath and less compression on the Angēnieux even both were shot I think at the same stop...

This an be emulated with relative ease using a $100 diffusion filter. To the point that it would then be indistinguishable to even the most trained eye.

It just gets to point of... Do I want to soup up my Dodge Charger to race Ferarri's or do I just want to buy a Ferrari. You could buy a complete XEEN Cine kit with matte box diffusion for half the price of the Angie. With a price gap like that, I'd just buy a diffusion filter.

There's more breath and less compression on the Angēnieux even both were shot I think at the same stop...

This an be emulated with relative ease using a $100 diffusion filter. To the point that it would then be indistinguishable to even the most trained eye.

It just gets to point of... Do I want to soup up my Dodge Charger to race Ferarri's or do I just want to buy a Ferrari. You could buy a complete XEEN Cine kit with matte box diffusion for half the price of the Angie. With a price gap like that, I'd just buy a diffusion filter.

I think you're right. There is some difference between a $100 diffusion and an Angie but to the untrained eye, it is irrelevant. That is why I don't like to debate the merits of a picture based on what it was shot with because it becomes preferential. I rather talked about the parts that make it the picture it is (which is the shot) - like composition, lighting, story, acting, set design, and movements. Yes, the lenses are important, the filters are important, but their selection comes after all parts of what makes the shot are in place.

Honestly, the audiences you’re aiming to please only care for a good story, memorable characters, and lines that they can quote to friends. That’s it. Make sure all your technical artistry is invisible. Tell a great story first and foremost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

... Make sure all your technical artistry is invisible. Tell a great story first and foremost.

I very much agree with Tim and making the artistry invisible is a goal that often requires very good quality in all the production values cited including lenses that keep out of the way... faithfully telling your story.

... Make sure all your technical artistry is invisible. Tell a great story first and foremost.

I very much agree with Tim and making the artistry invisible is a goal that often requires very good quality in all the production values cited including lenses that keep out of the way... faithfully telling your story.

Michael Winterbottom’s In This World, shot by Marcel Zyskind with whatever inexpensive portable video cameras Sony was selling in 2001, is a good example of this.

But there are also films like I Am Cuba (Soy Cuba), Mikhail Kalatozov’s and Sergei Urusevsky’s wonderful film in which the cinematography is in your face. I have it on DVD, but apparently there’s now a 4K version, not yet available for private purchase or rental streaming:

Someone has uploaded the first five minutes of a 1995 version to YouTube:

Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese we’re behind the 1995 restoration, but I think I first heard of I Am Cuba years later while reading Néstor Alemendros’s autobiography. Almendros was Spanish, but lived for some years in Cuba. I think my DVD is the 1995 version. Don’t know if it’s still available, but this film is quite a cinematography eye-opener.

I think the use of “oliver lenses”, Nikon zoom, in the bourn ultimate was an interesting experiment. An experiment that became a whole business. It was mainly done because of weight, where they wanted the operator to be as mobile as possible shooting documentary style. They used FF Nikon 28-70mm and 80-200mm still lens (f2.8) customized into cinema lenses. rehousing.

Regarding the link where potato jet is discussing the arri 40mm. A tip to those who have a BMPCC4K and want to get close to a similar look. Get a 28mm Nikon(nikkor) 2,8 AI-s and a speedbooster 0.71X. What you get is a great 40mm setup, equal focal length as arri LF with its 40mm. This lens is probably some of the sharpest Nikon lenses made, detail sharp, not edgy. It can also focus down to about .2m (7-8inch) making it a wide angle, medium and close-up prime in one. And its light. The F2 Ai-s version is also great, but it has more barrel distortion and softer edges. Chroma can be a bit of a problem above F8, but I wouldn’t recommend shooting higher anyways.

This is good reading material for anyone who wants to learn more about rehousing of still lenses.:
https://www.truelens.co.uk/redshark-visits-tls-to-learn-more-about-cineshot

That's good info Oyvind. In fact, a low budget indie project I am on now is doing this. The production cannot afford renting the Arri Alexa LF and the Arri 40mm prime. So to come up with a poor-man "1917" camera and glass setup, we're using a Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 re-house (by Cinematics) with a UMP 4.6K.

We lens matched by calculating the horizontal and vertical focal length for the lens used on the UMP. 1917 was shot mostly using an Alexa LF (2:39:1 mode) with the Arri 40mm @ T2.9 (or about f/2.8). The sensor size for the LF is 36.700mm x 15.310mm. The BMD UMP 4.6K sensor is 25.340mm x 10.603mm. After calculating, the Horizontal FL = 27.6mm @ f/2 and Vertical FL = 27.7mm @ f/2. This gives a horizontal FOV of H:49.3, V:21.7, D:52.9 degrees and vertical FOV of H:49.2, V:21.7, and D:52.7 degrees. Rounding up the equivalent is 28mm @ f/2.

If you are thinking of using a BMPCC4K with an Metabone Ultra Speed Booster, check out Oyvind's post. The BMPCC4K lens match with the above Arri setup has a sensor of 18.960mm x 7.933mm. With the SB, you're looking at a Horizontal FL of 29.1mm @ f/2.8 and Vertical FL of 29.2mm @ f/2.8. Therefore FOV will be Horizontal H:49.3, V:21.7, D: 39.9 degrees and Vertical will be H: 49.2, V: 21.7, D:38.8 degrees. So again, rounding down to a 28mm @ f/2.8.

Again, there are differences but for the low budget filmmaker, this works and I think the audience will not even notice especially when you immerse them with the story. Rick, however, will definitely notice it.

That’s good info Ellory. I tend to like the nikons because of the softer look (ironically), but totally understand why you and many use canon. It’s all about what you prefer. 28mm for the ump regard to the 40mm FF focal is a good choice!

I must add and agree. Rick will always notice. Maybe a curse, but most likely a benefit.

That’s good info Ellory. I tend to like the nikons because of the softer look (ironically), but totally understand why you and many use canon. It’s all about what you prefer. 28mm for the ump regard to the 40mm FF focal is a good choice!

I must add and agree. Rick will always notice. Maybe a curse, but most likely a benefit.

I use Nikons too. Usually my lens selection depends on the image I want the picture to end up with/ For this shoot and to get that 1917 look which was slightly contrasty, I selected the Canon. I could have also went the route of a Sigma 18-35 ART and set it at 28 f/2.0 but the Sigma was sharper than the Canon in this case. Plus we found a rehoused from Cinematics which gave it a better focus throw. So for me (and others might have their opinion which if fine) this is how and where choosing a lens comes into play. If I could have gotten an Alexa LF + Arri 40mm T2.9, I wouldn't think twice.

For soft images, I like the Rokinon Been and Cine DS. Pretty much similar glass. In reading Frank Glencairn posts, I understand he likes the Samyang - pretty much the same glass as the Rokinon Cine DS. But I could also go for a Sigma ART with a Promise 1/8. Again, depends what I want to get out of it.

Here's a link to Frank talking about how he choose Samyang for his feature.
https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/20 ... am-i-nuts/

Frank shooting uncompressed CinenaDNG on the original BMCC cameras. And he makes beautiful images. Will be good to see samples when he can show them.

uhm i remember somewhere a list of Movie shooted with only one Lens, and i talk movie like Chinatown with Nicholson, not indie production, that mean glass is real important for us but not so much for Story with Big S.
also the Godfather is mainly shooted with 40mm, this should be an important info to remember, if tech or Story drive the difference for audience.

Thanks for the link Ellory. Got to say I agree in much of what Frank is saying about lenses and cDNG. He also bring up the importance of having precise manual rack focus. Perhaps the biggest advantage of a cinema lens compare to still lenses IMO. Some still lenses do a good job when it comes to focus pulling though, and with the advantage of being small and light. That is what I love with a camera like bmp4k and Nikon glass.

I also shoot with Nikon glass. Partly due to economy: I learned photography on old Nikon primes and have been using the same glass with the Pocket 4K. They generally produce creamy soft out of focus areas, clear bokeh balls with no harsh edges. I consider them to be fairly neutral lenses, but have to admit I have little experience with other brands.

One thing I've noticed is that the older Ai and pre-Ai Nikkors have longer focus throw. The slightly newer Ai-s lenses, even though optically similar and perhaps with better coatings, have shorter focus throw.

A couple of links for anyone interested in Nikon lenses:
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/c ... resources/
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

That’s great info Timo. Thanks for sharing your experience.

I don’t owe older non-ai lenses, and it never occur to me that the focus throw might be longer on those. Though it makes total sense, based on that photographers at that time had to do manual focus. I see 28mm non-ai lenses goes fairly cheap but seem pretty worn, have to do some investigation.

Cookes or ARRI primes etc are better glass...BUT how much of a difference are they going to make visually to my audience as we try to up our projects image

Not all Cooke lenses are PL mount. In the 50's and later they made lenses for 16mm film cameras. They are available for the budget conscious in C mount which is adaptable to a MFT mount camera.

Cooke lenses have a certain 'look' that is difficult to describe. They have an emotional appeal with deep shadows, a gentleness and an artistic, romantic presentation. They look good on a period piece.

The following pictures were all shot on an original BMPCC using a Fotodiox C mount to MFT adapter. They are comparison pictures so you have to scroll down to see the other image.

This is a 1958 Taylor Hobson Cooke Ivotal Anastigmat 1" (25mm) F/1.4 C mount at ISO 200 set to F/2.8 on the top and a cropped image from a Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm Asph. lens set to 18mm at F/2.8 and ISO 400 on the bottom. Both are using Hoya IR cut and Tiffen Variable ND filters on a BMPCC. Although they were both shot at 5:30 PM, it was overcast when I used the Lumix.

Cooke 1" F/1.4 top & Lumix 12-35 F/2.8 bottom

P2KCoo25F28Top&Lum1235F28Bottom.jpg (796.87 KiB) Viewed 4671 times

The current Voightlander lenses for the micro four thirds mount have been compared to Cooke lenses.

This is a Taylor Hobson Cooke Ivotal Anastigmat 2" (50mm) F/1.4 C mount at 30 fps/37 degrees of shutter angle (no filter) using ISO 200 and set to F/2.8 on the top and a Voightlander 42.5mm F/0.95 MFT lens set to F/2.8 with ISO 400 plus Hoya IR cut and Tiffen Variable ND filters on the bottom. There is very little contrast in this lens and I had trouble getting the focus right with no polarizing filter. I noticed that the distance markings on this lens were 15-20 feet greater than the actual distance, so I might have to modify the adapter. I shot both of them with a monopod.

Cooke 2" F/1.4 top & Voightlander 42.5mm F/2.8 bottom

P2KCoo50F28Top&Voight42F28Bottom.png (864.22 KiB) Viewed 4671 times

This is a 1958 Taylor Hobson Cooke Ivotal Anastigmat 1" (25mm) F/1.4 C mount at ISO 200 set to F/4 on the top and a Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm Asph. lens set to 18mm at F/2.8 and ISO 400 on the bottom. Both are using Hoya IR cut and Tiffen Variable ND filters on a BMPCC. With the Cooke, I had greater range of color to work with in post, possibly due to fewer coatings on the lens. The Lumix image looked flat, with less depth from the foreground to background. The leaves look plasticy, and the stone Olmec head has a modelled look to it that seems fake.

Cooke 1" F/1.4 top & Lumix 12-35 F/2.8 bottom

P2KCoo25NDF4Top&Lum1235NDF28Bottom.jpg (569.1 KiB) Viewed 4671 times

Very impressive colour richness and separation there again. The top shots almost look three dimensional as they’re ready to jump out of the page. Good to be reminded of a vintage lens spanking a more modern lens. Sure looks like glass is important. And not the specs as much as the character. Thanks!