mercer

My problem with cinema lenses are that they are huge. I need/want the smallest footprint I can get. But valid point about their adaptability on modern cameras. And if I was making a film with a real crew, I wouldn’t hesitate to rent one.

I’m still trying to work out the idiosyncrasies of that lens but so far I really like what I’m seeing.

Yeah that would be awesome. A lot of work, though. It’s one of the reasons I like c-mount lenses as well... they seem to be miniature versions of their behemoth cine lens counterparts. I was hoping to use some with my Micro, but I’m not too sure I’m going to end up keeping it. Great little camera, but I just enjoy working with ML Raw in FF too much and I barely have enough time to finish the projects I have going on with that camera. Back to your point... I wonder what the closest still lens there is to a Cooke Panchro?

I don’t think I’m as picky as the more seasoned shooters around here. I can show you an image from a lens I like but I may not be able to put into words why I like it. Filmmaking is a visual, visceral art form, I don’t need to know why I like it, it just needs to evoke some kind of emotional response. As far as the Takumars being soft, I think that’s only the case if you’re shooting wide open. And although I am a fan of shallow depth of field, in narrative filmmaking there aren’t many shots where you really need a 1.4 and most Takumars are tack sharp when stopped down a notch or two... that’s one of the benefits of those lenses... it’s like you’re getting two lenses in one. The opposite focus direction can take a little to get used to, but you do get used to it and fairly quickly in my experience.

Thanks for the link, I’ll check that out. I love anything from the 50s through mid 80s. The image doesn’t feel like real life but it’s still detailed and vibrant and breathes. Another aspect of still lenses that I find very interesting is that a lot of lens manufacturers used the same glass and coatings on their still lenses that were used with the cinema lenses. For instance, for Taxi Driver, Scorsese used Zeiss Super Speeds to shoot that film. The triangular bokeh in the night scenes where Deniro drove his taxi cab is a pretty famous visual. Well, Rollei Zeiss lenses share the same glass, with the same coatings, and the 35mm and 85mm 1.4 lenses even share the triangular iris as the super speeds. With modern Zeiss lenses the ZF Zeiss Classics share the same glass and coatings as the much more expensive Zeiss CP.2 lenses. Canon K-35 cinema lenses, which Canon won a technical achievement Oscar for, are believed to be cinema versions of their FD aspherical lenses. I think it’s pretty damn cool that some of the lenses that the Gods that came before us used are attainable to us mere mortals in their still versions on the used market. There’s a historical pedigree we get to be a part of... a visual appreciation to the Masters that came before us.

Yeah, it’s pretty crazy how many great vintage lenses there are out there that are older than I am and holding up a lot better. My Canon FD 50mm 1.2 L is a gorgeous lens and has been touted as the most advanced manual focus 50mm lens ever made but if you pit that lens against a modem L lens, the modern lens has a distinct and obvious advantage... mostly with sharpness. What blows my mind is when I watch older movies and see how sharp and organic 50 year old cinema lenses are. I assume the upres process helps with that a little though. As much as a phone can be an equalizer, I think higher resolutions can be as well. With all of that being said, I think @webrunner5 makes a valid point about owning too many lenses. Now I am just a hobbyist narrative filmmaker that enjoys testing out different lenses. But if you look at some of the really good cinematographers that show their work online, they often only own a few lenses. I am a big fan of Matteo Bertoli’s work and I believe he mostly uses two lenses... a Takumar 50mm 1.4 and a Canon FD 24mm 2.8. I’m sure he’s used great lenses but for a lot of his personal work, he posts online, those two lenses are very prevalent. So again, for me, my goal is to whittle down my collection so I have a couple lenses in my 3 favorite focal lengths. My end goal is 10 lenses or less, but hopefully closer to 5.

I think there’s a middle ground. There’s a reason why the Sigma 18-35mm is the most widely used lens by members of this site. If you go to the Red User forums or to the Cinematography dot com forums, you’ll find a different discussion. So, sometimes, at my level and skill set, you have to balance priorities. Would I like to use a set of Cooke Panchros or Zeiss Super Speeds? Of course I would, but it’s just not realistic. Is the Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 a better lens than the Helios? Yes, without a doubt. But at $400+ is it that much better than the $150 Zeiss Planar 1.7 or that much better than the $85 Nikkor 50mm 1.8? A lot of the most respected films of all time were shot with one lens. In FF terms, they were mostly shot with focal lengths between 28mm and 50mm. So there is something to be said for finding your favorite focal length and spending some money on it. But also, at my level, the likelihood of my work even being seen is a long shot and if it is, it will most likely be viewed on a phone. And the biggest takeaway, for me, from that test... is that phones are a big equalizer. With that being said, I think most shooters would benefit from finding what they like in an image and buying the best lens they can afford that offers those qualities. In the end, story is king and most audience members will never notice, nor care about the attributes or flaws of the lens used. But filmmaking is a visual art, so if the swirly bokeh of the Helios can evoke an emotion or have an effect on your story, then there’s no reason not to use it. Or if that’s all you can afford, go make the best movie you can make with it.

I think So was I but I think the Cine lenses are even larger and I’ve read that there can be aperture issues.

Same, I saw one listed the other week, and never heard of the lens... strange focal lengths for a zoom though. I still have a saved search for a newer copy of the 50mm 1.7. I’ve had two of the earlier serial numbers and neither wowed me but I had a newer one years ago and I REALLY liked the lens but it was on M4/3, so that was probably the reason. For me, I have my wife’s (EDIT: HAHAHAHA, I have no idea why my autocorrect chose that nugget but luckily I also have my lenses and wife sorted out) I just need to decide on a 50mm or two and I could probably use a zoom. In the running for the zooms are the sharp and boring Sigma 24-105mm f/4, another Canon 24-70mm f/4 for my modern lenses and maybe a Tokina 28-70mm 2.6-2.8 or the Nikon Bourne lens. Choices, choices... I suppose you’ll say to get them all... hahaha. My biggest issue with the Samyangs, and the Sigma for that matter, is their size. The 35mm 1.4 is considerably larger than the Canon L 35mm 1.4 and obscenely larger than the Nikkor 35mm 1.4... of course that lens is so small, it’s a miracle of FF, mirrored, lens design. But yes, based on IQ, the Samyang lenses are a steal... especially if you get the photo version.

I like the funkiness of it. Looking at the close focus sample, it seemed that the Helios had more color tonality while looking at the color of the Statesman. The Leica was a very close second in that regard. I agree, the Zeiss was a good middle ground lens. If you don’t need an extreme wide angle, the Planar and the 35-70mm zoom would make for a nice two lens set. I’ve come to the same conclusion, Nikon lenses offer too much value to IQ ratio to be ignored. I am learning that I’m much more of a one lens shooter, so a “set” for me is as simple as a 24mm and a 50mm... or a just a fast 35mm. Right now I have too many mint copies of Nikon lenses to ignore collecting a decent set and it will cost less than a lot of single lenses I’ve owned. If I was a more decisive person, the Samyang 50mm 1.4 would be a no-brainer lens to keep. It has an interesting mixture of character and sharpness, like a modern vintage lens, that a lot of other lenses lack but it’s also a little boring as well. Due to my lack of 50mm primes, but love of the focal length on FF, I just bought a S-M-C Takumar 50mm 1.4 I want to test against some of my other 50mm lenses... so I may have an upcoming test as well to share.

Hmm... I’m unsure what to think... other than I may be overthinking lenses. Now I really need to look at this test on a larger screen but I am really glad I never sold my Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm 2.8. I have a couple Canon L primes and I really thought that they had better color separation and tonality but maybe I was a victim of good marketing. That’s true, I guess it’s a sticky. I have owned and tested a lot of vintage lenses over the years but the Helios is the one lens that has eluded me. They’re not as common here in the States and I tend to only buy lenses from the US. However, I am kicking myself because I intended on buying an exported Cosmogon version that was in mint condition for less than 40 bucks and somebody else beat me to it.

@BTM_Pix since this may be the least visited sub-forum on the site, it’s very likely we may have all the votes in, especially on a Saturday.

@BTM_Pix great little test thanks. Actually, it’s amazing how different lenses, become less than different in a controlled test... granted I am looking at these on my phone but even still, I would have suspected a greater difference between all of the lenses. With that being said, E was the clear winner for me in every category except close focus where C was my favorite. But E came in second and A was the solid third best imo in every category.

Well... I have an eos-m... had it for years but a couple months ago I charged the battery and it wouldn’t power on... I’m hoping it just needs a new battery because I’d love to try out the 35mm 1.2 7artisans with ML Raw.

That’s true, but most films are being shot on cameras that rarely go over 1600 ISO. Plus there are characteristics in a 1.2 lens, shot wide open, that just cannot be replicated. But as a whole I agree with your point. Even during magic hour, with my Canon FD 50mm, I was able to shoot at 1.4/2 at ISO 100/200... but I’ve pretty much stopped exposing to the right... so YMMV. I’m just jealous I don’t have a camera I can use a 7artisans with. I wish they made EF lenses.

You and your 7artisans.

Oh I want the test, in fact, after seeing your subjects, I am even more intrigued... I have that Jena Tessar and I was going to bring out with me on my next shooting day. I used to love that lens but haven’t been able to find a sample that didn’t have a busted aperture. My predictions are... • the Nikkor should mop the floor based on pure lens IQ... but... • the Helios will have that je ne sais quoi. • the Zeiss Planar will be perfectly... adequate and... • the Tessar “eagle eye” will be the surprise sleeper of the bunch. The net positive of f/1.2 lenses is stopping them down to f/2 to get a near perfect lens. Plus, it’s my understanding that a lot of films are being shot with available and/or minimal lighting, a 1.2 lens can be an invaluable tool in such circumstances.

It does sound like a job for that. Although I am fairly sure that you will post some amazing sample from some cheap, boring sounding lens and throw everybody off guard... or you’ll post samples from an amazing 50mm lens that won’t adapt to EF. I am just entering the selling phase of my recent lens tests and I’m still a little undecided on 50mm lenses. I almost feel like I need one more nifty fifty to round out my lens “sets.”

The funny thing is, I was searching that same exact topic when you posted that video. So, what is the best vintage 50mm lens? I am kinda obsessed with the focal length on FF, and there are so many great 50mm lenses out there. So far, my two favorites are the Canon FD 50mm 1.2 L and the Nikkor 50mm f/2... two diametrically opposed lenses. I also really enjoy the Rollei Zeiss 50mm 1.8 and although not a vintage lens, the Zeiss “Classic” 50mm 1.4 ZF is an interesting lens with a buttload of character wide open with great micro contrast stopped down a little. What does everybody else like?

Beautiful image! This is why I can’t move on from ML Raw.

It’s my understanding it’s better. Some people are using it as b-cam for their C100. What sub-$500 camera has detailed wides and is great in lowlight?

This little camera is really starting to look appealing now that they are regularly selling for under $500. Eugenia did a great job with it in this video...

Most cameras are more expensive than a used G7. I don’t know if the CineLikeD hack works with the GX850, but maybe that’s an option... @BTM_Pix ? I had a G7, a GX85 and a G85, and if I were to go back to Panasonic, at that price range, I’d go with the G85. In fact, if I were @Shell64 , I’d consider selling my G7, buying a G85 and getting a GX85 as my B-Cam. Good deal... now use the profit from a GH4 sale, to help fund the GH5.

Or the LX100... or the GX85... What lens(es) do you use with your G7 and what type of stuff do you shoot?

Maybe the FZ1000.