Is the Samyang VDSLR kit of primes still relevant in 2019.

[AlexTrinder96]

Cheers  @mercer

 

We had the xeens in pl mount and samyangs in ef... I believe we had a matched set for both: 14, 24, 35, 50, 85 and 135? Two Ursa Mini 4.6k's PL & EF.

In terms of build quality the xeens are far superior; easier for focusing as well with no play in PL mount. I believe that if you can get a really good set of samyangs, they match really well in terms of sharpness and character etc. The xeens are ever slightly warmer and I would assume there is less variance in quality control.. (24mm especially).

 

I love the 85 and 135mm lenses especially, and found little difference between the samyang and xeen versions. In terms of image quality. I mentioned before that the 24mm samyang has bad quality control and our version struggled below a t5.6 and had poor flare control. 

For me, in terms of overall image quality the xeens have better quality control and maybe slightly different coatings? I just wish they released a 28mm; it is my favourite focal length for most scenarios on super 35/apsc. 

(Sorry for blabbering on)

 

 

[kye]

17 hours ago, Laurier said:

The issue for me is the same as any entry price cinema gear, it s accessible to a wider untrained audience, who produce tons of garbage with them. So you get a biased judgment based on that and brand loyalty. 

I agree.  For me, you have to look at the best examples that are available online, as a "this is possible with this equipment", combined with the excellent point below..

12 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I'm not sure. I tend not to be scientific about lenses. If I consistently like the images I capture, I like the lens.

Absolutely.  It's about what they can do combined with how reliable they are to do that, specifically for how you use them.

Most lenses are great for at least one type of shooting.  Even smartphone lenses/sensors - if you want deep DOF in a scene with lots of light for online publication and you use a third-party app with high-bitrate codecs then they're just fine!

[Inazuma]

17 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Optically they're identical

Oh gee! I never knew that

 

https://cml.news/g/cml-glass/message/225

 

And their response:
https://cml.news/g/cml-glass/message/261

 

Really interesting stuff. First time I've heard of Duclos, Celere, CML or most of the rest that was written. 

Surely the easiest way to prove Celere and Samyang lenses are different would be to post the lens diagrams? 

[Laurier]

2 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Really interesting stuff. First time I've heard of Duclos, Celere, CML or most of the rest that was written. 

Surely the easiest way to prove Celere and Samyang lenses are different would be to post the lens diagrams? 

That actually were the nuance is , the guy from celere is arguing that the glass might be different, but they never say a work about the lens design itself.
On top of that some review say that the housing and mechanics of the celere is not even that good.
On their website apparently the company got sold to an another one, so I guess they are done with this line of lenses.

[IronFilm]

20 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Really interesting stuff. First time I've heard of Duclos, Celere, CML or most of the rest that was written. 

Oh wow! Those are some major names (well, not so much Celere) in the cinematographer world, you need to explore the rest of the internet some more!

[kye]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Oh wow! Those are some major names (well, not so much Celere) in the cinematographer world, you need to explore the rest of the internet some more!

I hadn't hear of them either.

Whenever I'd dipped into the cinematographer world I've always been astounded by the price for lenses - they're normally 5-10x the price of similar stills lenses.  Is it a rule that cine lenses exist in a kind-of non-overlapping price range?  Or are we looking at the higher-end of stills lenses when the lower end of cine lenses overlaps them in price and quality?

[IronFilm]

Xeen would be the cheapest you'd see a Cine PL lens go for at $2K each (or the Sony CineAlta PL lenses are dirt cheap too, but you need to buy them as a set), which is pretty similar to an expensive stills lens. 

[kye]

19 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Xeen would be the cheapest you'd see a Cine PL lens go for at $2K each (or the Sony CineAlta PL lenses are dirt cheap too, but you need to buy them as a set), which is pretty similar to an expensive stills lens. 

Ouch!

I guess it depends on what stills lenses you're buying.  For me $1000 is a crazy amount to spend on a single lens.

[HockeyFan12]

51 minutes ago, kye said:

Ouch!

I guess it depends on what stills lenses you're buying.  For me $1000 is a crazy amount to spend on a single lens.

I think part of the price difference has to do with economies of scale. At the low end, it's mostly the housings that are different. The Xeens and CP2s I believe are optically identical (or very nearly optically identical) to still lenses that are about 1/4 the price. But the housings are huge and built for use with cinema equipment: big front diameter, big barrel for longer smooth focus throws. The glass is the same. Same deal with Canon's cinema primes and Sigma's, I think.

At the very high end it's another story. Some incredible stuff there, even based on specs alone (24-290mm t2.8, lots of super fast wides). Those are HUGE in terms of glass and housing. Some of the character lenses are amazing in terms of look (Cooke S3s and anamorphics and super speeds in particular–weirdly the Cookes are tiny and old Zeiss lenses are pretty small, too).

But if you're only after image quality, today's Sigma primes, for instance, hold up remarkably well against Master Primes or Angenieux zooms. The difference is there, but it's smaller than the difference between good and bad still lenses in my experience. I compared the 17-55mm Canon and the 15-40mm Angenieux and they could intercut okay, even if the Angenieux is better. But at the same stop, I'm not sure the Angenieux would be that much better than the 18-35mm Sigma.  But the mechanics are very different... which the rehoused Sigmas try to address, but I'm not sure if they have cam focusing or not. 

Zooms have to be parfocal and lenses have to breathe less, too, so that's expensive to implement, sort of having the lens zoom a little as it focuses to counteract breathing, I guess.

And, of course, it's rental gear vs consumer gear so just different markets. But I think the difference is more mechanics than optics. There have been a lot of rehoused still lenses (Nikon and Leica R largely) in use in cinema, even before the current ranges.

[newfoundmass]

I think, for their price, they're great lenses. Putting together a set of vintage primes is a great option, too, but if you're looking for sharp primes with a modern look you can't really go wrong for the price. The 85mm is one of my favorite lenses to use for interviews. It came free with my LS300. The 12mm is also very good for a wide angle. 

I only wish I'd gotten them in EF instead of M43. 

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I think part of the price difference has to do with economies of scale.

Yes, economies of scale is a big factor. Many less units sold to recover the R&D from

But also a cinema lens design needs to consider so much more than what a still lens does. For instance a photographer doesn't normally care about focus breathing, but this can be very important to a cinematographer. 

[mercer]

18 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I think part of the price difference has to do with economies of scale. At the low end, it's mostly the housings that are different. The Xeens and CP2s I believe are optically identical (or very nearly optically identical) to still lenses that are about 1/4 the price. But the housings are huge and built for use with cinema equipment: big front diameter, big barrel for longer smooth focus throws. The glass is the same. Same deal with Canon's cinema primes and Sigma's, I think.

At the very high end it's another story. Some incredible stuff there, even based on specs alone (24-290mm t2.8, lots of super fast wides). Those are HUGE in terms of glass and housing. Some of the character lenses are amazing in terms of look (Cooke S3s and anamorphics and super speeds in particular–weirdly the Cookes are tiny and old Zeiss lenses are pretty small, too).

But if you're only after image quality, today's Sigma primes, for instance, hold up remarkably well against Master Primes or Angenieux zooms. The difference is there, but it's smaller than the difference between good and bad still lenses in my experience. I compared the 17-55mm Canon and the 15-40mm Angenieux and they could intercut okay, even if the Angenieux is better. But at the same stop, I'm not sure the Angenieux would be that much better than the 18-35mm Sigma.  But the mechanics are very different... which the rehoused Sigmas try to address, but I'm not sure if they have cam focusing or not. 

Zooms have to be parfocal and lenses have to breathe less, too, so that's expensive to implement, sort of having the lens zoom a little as it focuses to counteract breathing, I guess.

And, of course, it's rental gear vs consumer gear so just different markets. But I think the difference is more mechanics than optics. There have been a lot of rehoused still lenses (Nikon and Leica R largely) in use in cinema, even before the current ranges.

Very interesting! I recently learned that Canon K-35 cine lenses were most likely cinema versions of their FD L and SSC lenses. I know K-35s are highly regarded and even received an Academy Award in 1977 and to hear they have a direct lineage to their FD counterparts is pretty cool.