Screw buying new cameras, after salivating over cine lens tests I'm spending real money on lenses

[kye]

4 hours ago, leslie said:

all of them ?

YES!!

but Director of Finance says no...

11 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

Which lens did you decide on?

Basically decided on Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95, and likely the Laowa 7.5mm F2.

The Voigtlander because it is a very good performer stopped down, opens up as wide as they come, and matches my existing 17.5mm lens.  The Laowa probably wouldn't match so well but is a good performer too and can be degraded in post to look similar when required.

I was tempted by the completely amazing performance of the Veydras and the potential that Meike will be similar but for less money, however they're not as fast and the lens tests I did with the 17.5mm Voigt at smaller apertures combined with the 4K mode on the GH5 were too sharp / sharpened and so I'll need to soften the whole image anyway, so the pursuit of higher resolution isn't really something I'm pulled in the direction of.

Although, the purpose of this thread was mostly to use my lens purchase as an excuse and motivator to do a deep dive and learn about lenses.

I still haven't worked out if there's a difference with larger sensors, or if a 55mm + SB is somehow nicer than a 40mm, but in my tests I couldn't see any difference, so in that sense it doesn't factor into my understanding of the whole situation and I've kind of relegated it to an academic question for me that isn't that high up the priority list.

I'm intending to shoot a bunch of lens tests with the lenses I have to kind of compare them to the database of lenses that others have tested above, so that might be interesting to compare what is readily and (in some cases) cheaply available.

[EthanAlexander]

On 11/10/2019 at 9:08 PM, kye said:

Any news on this?

Haven't even tested the 10mm T2.1 yet but here's some shots from the 25mm wide open at T0.95 with HAAAAZE 

 

[kye]

3 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

Haven't even tested the 10mm T2.1 yet but here's some shots from the 25mm wide open at T0.95 with HAAAAZE 

LOL..  cool images though - I love the colours.  It must be so rewarding to shoot live events where the lighting is so dramatic and expressive.

[EthanAlexander]

Thanks @kye! I actually set up most of the lighting ? The color is all coming from cheap RGB LEDs I got off of amazon. Yongnuo YN360s... Added a gelled Aputure 300d to even things out with a cool look, and then the stage lights were giving the "white" light. And then added the haze, because haze. 

[Cinegain]

10 minutes ago, EthanAlexander said:

[..] And then added the haze, because haze. 

So you were like... 'well, fog this' ??

[mercer]

This thread has really inspired me to take another look at my lenses.

As much as I'd love an S1H or a C200, I'm definitely better off investing that money into lenses, filters, lights and support equipment. I may eventually trade in my Micro for a Z-Cam e2c when more footage comes out from it, but that's really the least of my concerns right now.

Great thread, I hope it continues for a while longer. 

[kye]

and thank goodness we're not talking about broadcast....

that is one hell of a lens!

[IronFilm]

On 11/11/2019 at 9:43 PM, kye said:

I'm not sure if you got to see the final footage (or SOOC) but if you did, was the effect just a general lowering of contrast, or did it typically show off light-rays (eg, through windows) and have other 3d effects?

The reason I ask is that I'm curious if they were just lowering contrast (and perhaps giving a bit more 3D pop to things in the foreground) or was it definitely visible, because the lowering of contrast is something that a lens can approximate, going back to the coatings / BPM type of effects.

It definitely isn't the same as a lens effect! (and some of those shoots are using top class lenses, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth)

And yeah, I'm mostly just glancing at the monitors, but yeah some of them I get to see months/years later at the premiere. (like I went to a premiere last night, although I can't recall what was the setup! If fog was even used? Heck, and I was on that film's lighting crew too! Probably was used? I dunno, the filming was a couple of years ago)

 

[EthanAlexander]

Update

I still haven't had much time to use the new SLR Magics (10mm T2.1 and 25mm T0.95 MFT) because I'm in post on a tv doc, but I'm disappointed:

In the stills I posted above, I was very happy to have the crazy T stop and get all that light, but upon further use I discovered the 25mm didn't focus to infinity unless stopped down to about 2.0. I'm not talking that it wasn't sharp wide open: it would focus about 25 ft in front of me and that was where the plane was. So I replaced it with a new copy and it's only marginally better. It can go about 40 feet I'd say wide open, and you've gotta stop it down to about 1.6 to get infinity. There's also a noticeable color shift when going wide open vs stopping down even a little bit.

Then I figured I should make sure the 10mm doesn't have the same problem and it's a lot harder to tell since it's so wide, but I think it does. Just eyeballing it but it looks like it makes it about 100 ft max when wide open. WHAT? It's a lot harder to tell because overall I'd say it's just not a sharp lens, and we're dealing with a lot more depth of field, but come on it shouldn't have a problem focusing to infinity on a 10mm.

So, very disappointed. Guess I'll be returning these. I was excited for the small size but it's not worth it.

[kye]

9 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

Update

I still haven't had much time to use the new SLR Magics (10mm T2.1 and 25mm T0.95 MFT) because I'm in post on a tv doc, but I'm disappointed:

In the stills I posted above, I was very happy to have the crazy T stop and get all that light, but upon further use I discovered the 25mm didn't focus to infinity unless stopped down to about 2.0. I'm not talking that it wasn't sharp wide open: it would focus about 25 ft in front of me and that was where the plane was. So I replaced it with a new copy and it's only marginally better. It can go about 40 feet I'd say wide open, and you've gotta stop it down to about 1.6 to get infinity. There's also a noticeable color shift when going wide open vs stopping down even a little bit.

Then I figured I should make sure the 10mm doesn't have the same problem and it's a lot harder to tell since it's so wide, but I think it does. Just eyeballing it but it looks like it makes it about 100 ft max when wide open. WHAT? It's a lot harder to tell because overall I'd say it's just not a sharp lens, and we're dealing with a lot more depth of field, but come on it shouldn't have a problem focusing to infinity on a 10mm.

So, very disappointed. Guess I'll be returning these. I was excited for the small size but it's not worth it.

Ouch.

Is this a common problem?  

Sounds like they haven't gotten their focal adjustments correct.  
I've read online that often the hard stops are adjustments that get made after the lens is assembled to calibrate the focal markings, and that sometimes you can open them up and re-adjust this.  Not suggesting that you do this, but that maybe it's a QC problem in the factory rather a design flaw.  I mean, how could a lens company design and manufacture a lens that can't focus to infinity?!?!

Are the Mikaton f0.95 lenses an option for you?  I know they're not cine style, so no threads for follow-focus etc..

[EthanAlexander]

5 hours ago, kye said:

I've read online that often the hard stops are adjustments that get made after the lens is assembled to calibrate the focal markings, and that sometimes you can open them up and re-adjust this.  Not suggesting that you do this, but that maybe it's a QC problem in the factory rather a design flaw.  I mean, how could a lens company design and manufacture a lens that can't focus to infinity?!?!

Right?? idk I couldn't find anything online on how to fix it. It's frustrating because in many cases it would be fine but I'm not comfortable using them for anything professional - "Actually I'm sorry, [client], I can't get that shot... my lens doesn't focus far enough." ?

5 hours ago, kye said:

Are the Mikaton f0.95 lenses an option for you?  I know they're not cine style, so no threads for follow-focus etc..

I've already got a .64x speed booster and a 50mm 1.4 so it was really the gearing that was the biggest reason I bought the SLR

[kye]

8 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

Right?? idk I couldn't find anything online on how to fix it. It's frustrating because in many cases it would be fine but I'm not comfortable using them for anything professional - "Actually I'm sorry, [client], I can't get that shot... my lens doesn't focus far enough." ?

I've already got a .64x speed booster and a 50mm 1.4 so it was really the gearing that was the biggest reason I bought the SLR

Maybe the Rokinon/Samyang 35mm T1.5?  Not quite as fast and not quite same focal length, but not too far off.

and perhaps the Meike 12mm T2.2 or Rokinon/Samyang 12mm T2.2 for the wider angle?  

[majoraxis]

On 11/13/2019 at 2:27 AM, kye said:

and thank goodness we're not talking about broadcast....

that is one hell of a lens!

There is a lot to be said about a fast, par-focal, constant aperture zoom lens with a long zoom range.

There are some rehoused par-focal versions the sigma 18-35 by Cinematics and GL Optics, which could be an interesting option with a speed booster to act as a prime-zoom lens so to speak.

http://www.pchood.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=376

 

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, majoraxis said:

 

There are some rehoused par-focal versions the sigma 18-35 by Cinematics and GL Optics

I thought they're not parfocal?

[EthanAlexander]

14 hours ago, kye said:

Maybe the Rokinon/Samyang 35mm T1.5?  Not quite as fast and not quite same focal length, but not too far off.

and perhaps the Meike 12mm T2.2 or Rokinon/Samyang 12mm T2.2 for the wider angle?  

I'm thinking I'll just stick to EF since they are basically future proof... It's just unfortunately another price bracket all together for cine lenses besides the Rokinons. I'm a fan of detail so those are disappointing lenses to me.

That 12mm Meike does look enticing though

[majoraxis]

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I thought they're not parfocal?

The off the shelf version is not parfocal - the information is the link says it is after the cine-mod.  I have not used it myself so I don't know from experience.  I also don't know if adding the speed booster changes the parfocal performance, though I don't image it would, unless it change the back focus distance.

[heart0less]

 

[Jonathan422]

1 hour ago, heart0less said:

 

The thing about skin resolution sounds like a lot of marketing BS but it does seem like there's more detail in the blue shirt but less in the skin... are they somehow making the red channel less sharp through the lens? Is that even possible?

[kye]

7 hours ago, Jonathan422 said:

The thing about skin resolution sounds like a lot of marketing BS but it does seem like there's more detail in the blue shirt but less in the skin... are they somehow making the red channel less sharp through the lens? Is that even possible?

It's possible with nano-coatings, but I suspect that that's not what they're doing.

I've said above that I suspect there's two factors, resolution and halation, and I suspect that the skin smoothing is halation.  If you take a sharp image and apply a small amount of halation then it will seemingly smooth out much more subtle contrast areas more than higher contrast areas.  

I suspect that this happens because we're much more attuned to contrast on skin than we are on clothing, just like we're much more attuned to the colour of skin, as such things told us who was sick, who was angry, and who might be romantically interested in us!  We don't have the same kind of tonal interest in the subtle variation of clothing or other non-human elements.  Applying a certain level of smoothing means things when its done to skin - people photographing fashion are interested in contrast on clothing but not on skin.  It's a different thing.

 

[Jonathan422]

12 hours ago, kye said:

It's possible with nano-coatings, but I suspect that that's not what they're doing.

I've said above that I suspect there's two factors, resolution and halation, and I suspect that the skin smoothing is halation.  If you take a sharp image and apply a small amount of halation then it will seemingly smooth out much more subtle contrast areas more than higher contrast areas.

What is halation?