A manifesto for the humble zoom lens

[kye]

Everyone seems to want high-speed high-resolution high-performance glass...  is it sharp wide open?  what does DXO say?  how good is the bokeh?  these questions are all over the net.
OR..
Everyone seems to want vintage glass with their lovely coatings and swirly bokeh and corner softness...  how does it roll-off the highlights?  how is the edge softness?  what is the colour rendering?  how does it render skin?  

I recently tested a bunch of my lenses and I'm wondering if maybe they're wrong.  Maybe cheap, modern, variable aperture, zoom lenses - the kit lens perhaps - is the best lens available.

Why might I say such a thing?  Here are some thoughts.

They're cheap.
Obvious, but true.  In fact, if your camera was cheap enough, then you probably own one already - or if you own multiple cameras maybe more than one!
If you don't already have one, but you know people who are into cameras, then you can probably get one off them for free.
Best, in the real world (which is where I do all my shooting), often means most value.

They're flexible and fast to use.
They can zoom, which makes them flexible.  I don't care how fast you are at changing lenses, I can turn a zoom ring faster than you can change primes.  In fast situations, it can mean the difference between getting the shot and missing it.  ENG cameras all had zooms, not a bag / case of primes.

They can improve your edits.
In slower shooting situations that flexibility can mean you get shots that you wouldn't otherwise get.  Maybe it's not worth changing lenses to grab that shot, so you just don't, or maybe the composition isn't quite right because it falls between two prime focal lengths, or maybe the primes are just too heavy to carry all that way.  Cheap zooms are lightweight plastic - built for speed.

This means that when you get back to the editing room your kit zoom will give you more options.  You'll have taken risks in shooting and some will pay off.  The saying "spray and pray" is a deep insult which encourages people to only shoot what they know will work, but the phrase "happy accidents" betrays that sometimes we don't know what we'll want until we see it, in which case why not deliberately seek out what is new and unknown?  They tell you that shooting with a prime will make you slow down and think about your compositions - maybe we should speed up and think less?  Operate on instinct.  If big-name directors are operating on instinct then why must the rest of us slow down and think more?  

The zoom will unlock the creativity that primes are actively blocking us from achieving.

They can be optically poor.  (Just like vintage lenses)
Here's a little joke..  "What do you call a vintage lens with high optical performance?" "A modern lens"

Vintage lenses are often quite crap.  I'm meant to say "have lots of character", but in reality that character is just optical defects that we happen to like.

Here are four images from my recent GX85 lens test.  These are SOOC and not shot in controlled conditions, but the principle remains.

So what are we looking at here?  

Well, there are two lenses where the colours are vibrant, they make the 100Mbps 4K (on a 1080p timeline here) look very sharp, and they are the Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 zoom and the Voigtlander 42.5mm F0.95 prime.  These are by far the most expensive lenses.

The 58mm is the Helios 44M, a close relative of the 44-2 (the images are practically identical) and it's got that vintage look we all love.  In fact, the diffusion from the vintage coatings improve the dynamic range of the camera by lifting the highlights.  Despite being very sharp, its diffusion (coatings at work again!) takes the edge off the edges, giving a slightly organic look - it looks high-resolution but not high-sharpness.  This is in the direction of how resolution from RAW-shooting cameras looks - there but understated.

Here's the problem with the Helios though, it flares uncontrollably in direct sunlight.  It's so prone to off-axis lighting that it's difficult to work quickly with.  Plus, it's a prime and subject to all the above issues.

Then, the mighty 14-42 kit lens.  It has some of that vintage look going on.  It's kind of like somewhere between the Helios and the other two.  It raises the shadows a bit, but isn't uncontrollable in direct sun, and the edges are a little softer.  A happy medium perhaps?  It's also a zoom, has OIS, and if you break it you can just go get another one from a friend or on eBay or for $5 at a market somewhere with a GF2 with a dead battery.

End of part 1....

[kye]

So, turns out that hitting Command-Return instead of Shift-Return submits the post.  Who knew?

anyway, Part Two.

They have smaller apertures.
This might seem to be a disadvantage, but maybe not as much as you'd imagine.  Firstly, smaller apertures are easy to focus, so less shots with missed focus.  BOOM.  You're welcome.  Tell Panasonic (or whoever) I just upgraded their AF.

See if you can tell the difference in DoF between these?

No?  Well, F2.8 to F3.5 isn't much difference.

OK, let's get less fair.. What about these?

Sure, it's a small difference, but that's a two whole stops.  It's also many many hundreds of dollars.

Low light is definitely a difference here, that's true, so the kit zoom isn't really a low-light monster, but these lenses are practically free so you can't have everything!

[kye]

Yes, this post was deliberately tongue-in-cheek, but it's also completely true and not joking in any way either.  @Emanuel told me I'm allowed to disagree with myself and it makes me a poet instead of less credible, plus I can just randomly tag people in brand new threads, so I'm doing that too.

You're welcome internet.

Now you have no excuse for not getting out there and making something wonderful.  (You never really had any excuses, so maybe you have a negative number of excuses now?  There I am, being poetic again..)

Enjoy.

[MrSMW]

A very timely post Kye as I have just been wrestling myself with what kit I am taking into my Spring 2022 season now that my (what there was of it, 6 weeks in total) 2021 is one month past finished.

4 bodies I wish to reduce to 2 and whether that means zoom lenses will be coming back full-time...

I've decided to keep my S1R for stills. That's a no-brainer.

I've decided to keep the S1H for video. That's a no-brainer.

Being honest, I'd trade both for a single Nikon Z9 without even thinking about it now I've read up on the thing, but that's a different topic of conversation...

That means both S5's are going. Not as good at stills and not as good at video, IBIS isn't as good, nor is the build or ergos or screens or anything.

GREAT cameras in isolation, but not as good as their big brothers and I have no use for 4 bodies.

Which makes lens choice even more important.

In an ideal world, I'd have 2 matched bodies, but that could not be a pair of S1R's or S1H's or S5's so for now at least, need to remain a dedicated stills and a dedicated video rather than the pure hybrid I'd ideally like.

With a pair of matched hybrids, I could easily shoot say 24 + 50 indoros and 35 + 85 out which would be my ideal (and also happens to coincide with Panny's own f1.8 line up).

But as that can't happen and as much as I like the theoretical concept of a single focal length and that's it, the reality is for weddings, it is not 100% ideal.

So zoom's it is.

I've got the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 and that is going to live on the S1H for the 2022 season as 4k 50p, in S35 mode (the only option), it's like shooting a 42mm and a 105mm prime and as my 2 'ideal' focal lengths for video are 50 and 100, it's very very close.

For stills, it has to be the Lumix 24-105mm f4 'kit' zoom. It's bigger than I'd like and I'd prefer it to be f2.8...but then it would be even bigger, but the reality is it's just a damn good lens and like a bag of (f4) primes in one single unit; 24, 35, 50, 85 and 105.

In terms of shallow DOF (which I have liked for over 20 years), OK, it's not great at the wider end, but at the longer, actually, not bad at all and as Kye points out, for us Panny users, we can get all the AF help we can get and the 24-105 is one of the fastest focusers on the L Mount system.

Finally, it means when shooting these 2 combos side by side, the focal lengths are fairly similar being 42-105 video vs 24-105 stills which for a hybrid shooter like me who wants to keep a certain level of consistency between the two mediums as close as possible, is a good thing.

However, one day, I would prefer an all prime system and maybe that will happen in 2023...but that is too far into the future now so I'm just going to run what I brung 🙂

[bjohn]

I've also settled mainly on zooms, or more precisely one zoom, for my documentary work, since it's so convenient. I'm using the Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro 2.6-2.8, an Angénieux design from the 1990s. I was able to get a follow-focus gear for it and it's fairly close to parfocal (not that I zoom much while shooting). Its size doesn't change while zooming, which is important for a follow focus.

Ultimately, since I'm using cameras with Super-16-size sensors (BMMCC and original BMPCC) I'd like to get the old Angénieux 17.5-70 zoom, which really looks gorgeous, but they are getting hard to find. I spotted one on eBay a few months ago that was in near-mint condition and even came with an adapter to MFT but when I placed my order the seller decided to keep it and cancelled the sale.

I do have the versatile Sigma 18-35 but I have never warmed to its look. It comes in handy for certain things but I rarely use it.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, bjohn said:

I do have the versatile Sigma 18-35 but I have never warmed to its look.

That was my workhorse on Fuji APSC but I found the opposite and it was superb, albeit a little heavy.

It's a pity Sigma never (at least to date anyway) updated it or it's 50-100 brother as both f1.8...well say no more!

[bjohn]

44 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

I found the opposite and it was superb, albeit a little heavy.

I just find it too sharp and contrasty, too optically perfect and boring. I haven't seen any Sigma lenses that I really like, even the "Bigma" 35/1.2. It's so versatile, though, that I'm keeping it for low-light situations.

[Emanuel]

5 hours ago, kye said:

Yes, this post was deliberately tongue-in-cheek, but it's also completely true and not joking in any way either.  @Emanuel told me I'm allowed to disagree with myself and it makes me a poet instead of less credible, plus I can just randomly tag people in brand new threads, so I'm doing that too.

You're welcome internet.

Now you have no excuse for not getting out there and making something wonderful.  (You never really had any excuses, so maybe you have a negative number of excuses now?  There I am, being poetic again..)

Enjoy.

LOL : ) Jokes aside, I can actually agree with you not exactly as a contradiction but complexity on our "truths" or beliefs as you wish, you see we can agree on anything too (or almost ; )

Ah and being a poet coupled to these tools with "lots of character" (ain't we talk about camera + lens combos?) can make a novice (or not necessarily only just a novice) filmmaker a better one, no matter the rest for the sake of the point now ;- )

 

So thank you for bringing me to this new thread of you, you should know I am always trying to follow your posts I sincerely appreciate when focused on the same joy we both share topic related :- ) Paul Cezanne, a poet with pictures once said: "Time and reflection change the sight little by little 'til we come to understand."

[MrSMW]

@bjohn have you tried a 1/8th black mist on it?

I find that takes some of that digital look away in terms of both perceived sharpness and contrast.

The rest in post.

I still have thoughts about getting one again but it’s a little too wide, a little too short, a little too big and probably a little bit shit for the AF requirement I have, so the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 it is! For now…

My main gripe with zooms though is the way they extend.

There are some, but very few good internal zooming zoom lenses.

I think Canon’s RF 28-70 f2 does as does Fuji’s brilliant 50-140 f2.8, but I wish the Lumix’s did.

The Siggy 28-70 doesn’t extend much.

Also intriguing is that new APSC only Sigma 18-50…

[bjohn]

16 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

have you tried a 1/8th black mist on it?

I have a 1/8 Hollywood Black Magic on it most of the time and have tried other strengths. Still doesn't do much for me but that does help reduce contrast (which I still have to pull down in post). Don't get me wrong, I find it serviceable and versatile, just not very exciting. And I get that sometimes you just want a lens that gets the job done and stays out of the way.

The Tokina I mentioned above is an internal zooming lens, which is another reason I like it. It's from the 1990s so the look is actually fairly modern, not vintage, and it only cost me about $350.

[Mark Romero 2]

@kye Thanks for the post. Certainly makes us look in the mirror.

For my real estate / architecture work, I like sharp(ish) lenses just because people are expecting to see detail.

But for people, I think that most of the kit zoom lenses are fine for 4K. Convenient, inexpensive, relatively-lightweight (so they balance well on a gimbal and are less tiring to use). I would have a bit of a problem with the variable aperture if I zoomed more during shooting, but I don't, so I don't worry about it too much.

One of the better kit zooms out there seems to be the Panasonic 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6, which has minimal focus breathing. (Some people would note that Panasonic has minimal focus.)

Also, when youtubers say to get the "cinematic look" you need an ultra-shallow depth of field, I just want to punch them in the throat. These tend to be the same people who sell creative LUT packs that look like a dumpster fire.

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

@kye Thanks for the post. Certainly makes us look in the mirror.

Indeed : ) I guess to infer Internet has to be a nasty location from people placing their invectives and frustrations is simply to add a reducer on something always welcome as an open and healthy discussion is.

 

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Also, when youtubers say to get the "cinematic look" you need an ultra-shallow depth of field, I just want to punch them in the throat. These tend to be the same people who sell creative LUT packs that look like a dumpster fire.

They haven't ever watched Citizen Kane, very likely ; )

 

BTW in behalf of this lovely thread, came to my mind now that vintage Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.5 AI...

Paseo nocturno (Pamplona by) © Ángel Sagardoy

 

Here's more on Flickr (and here's a second part for more samples).

 

Ah and @kye allow me to stand corrected "to this new thread of yours" for better English understanding as well a vivid "as much as possible" I forgot to include in the same paragraph up there :- )

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

One of the better kit zooms out there seems to be the Panasonic 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6, which has minimal focus breathing

I should try mine again as it’s a good S35 focal range of 30-90.

It’s mainly the variable aperture I don’t like however.

This one I wish they had made f4.

And had OIS to pair with the IBIS.

But then it would be 50% bigger and heavier and probably twice the price so I can see why they didn’t…

It’s a good ‘kit’ lens though and a great walk about daylight option.

I use it as my wide stills option being 20mm full frame.

[Emanuel]

58 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

(...)

But then it would be 50% bigger and heavier and probably twice the price so I can see why they didn’t…

It’s a good ‘kit’ lens though and a great walk about daylight option.

I use it as my wide stills option being 20mm full frame.

You mean 35mm equivalent : )

Those Tokinas we know don't cover other than wide end but are much affordable these days and you still can use them in their cine-like version as you wish and on full frame for a good fraction of the range.

Without mention the Sigma either on FF coverage or its S35 18-35mm F1.8 counterpart you can assure a low light use as well, even though at a heavier cost of course :- )

[greenscreen]

A bargain dead on. What FF range do they cover after all?

[Emanuel]

Bryan (where you can also find a few bargains from his used inventory too when he has something in 2nd hand from his glass reviews and tests : ) has a fair informative resource for the subject matter:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Sigma-18-35mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx

So, for some reason (especially stills) Sigma has introduced their Art series 24-35mm f2 too and not for extra significant weight, less than 20% more, even though for a higher cost usually to double such gap... Go figure how much we're able to safe with that proper wide aspect ratio, not really for stills but to motion picture use ;- )

As far as Tokinas offer concerns, the eldest 11-16mm f2.8 @ 16:9 you practically only reach it on 16mm end which is much more handy going along the younger sister 11-20mm f2.8 today from there to 20mm. Wide open included.

Let alone a wider aspect ratio then (through a 2.39:1 crop as inferred above ; ) That is, filters and hood aside :- )

 

 

 

 

[projectwoofer]

I still love my Panasonic 12-32. On the GX85 it’s such a nice and portable combo. On the FF side the 20-60 is just gorgeous. But what do I know? I’m just an amateur with a camera! 😉

[Emanuel]

Kit lenses are always good for second hand markets, here's just one case:

https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/used-panasonic-lenses/panasonic-lumix-s-20-60mm-f-3-5-5-6/sku-1250119/

[greenscreen]

Proprietary lens mounts don't meet my wishful list. By contrast, that Sigma is a foregone conclusion. Covers FF for video but wide open?

[kye]

12 hours ago, bjohn said:

I just find it too sharp and contrasty, too optically perfect and boring. I haven't seen any Sigma lenses that I really like, even the "Bigma" 35/1.2. It's so versatile, though, that I'm keeping it for low-light situations.

While I'm no fan of the Sigma 18-35, it can be (with careful consideration) the basis for a nice look.

I'd suggest:

• Diffusion filters (as others have suggested) but be aware there are lots of them and all have different looks so that's worth doing some research into - most brands will provide comparisons of their various products so you can narrow down and then look at real-world reviews
• Some of the characteristics of vintage lenses can be added in post, including:
  • Softening of the edges (use a mask like a vignette but use a blur effect - experiment with different types of blurs here too - radial vs pinch(?) vs "lens" vs directional blurs etc
  • Chromatic aberrations can be added, either to the whole frame or to the edges using a mask
  • Vintage lenses often vignette
  • Vintage lenses often have pincushion distortion - where objects on the edges get curved like a slight fish-eye effect - this can often be introduced with a "lens correction" slider which are common
• You can even put an oval shape over the front of the lens which will make your bokeh oval-shaped (at least when you have the lens wide-open) but bear in mind it will lower the light coming through the lens and depend DoF slightly

With the BM S16 cameras they tend to be on the softer side due to 1080p sensors and lock of sharpening so having a tack-sharp lens isn't a bad thing per-se, it's just on the bland side.

11 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

But for people, I think that most of the kit zoom lenses are fine for 4K.

<snip>

 

Also, when youtubers say to get the "cinematic look" you need an ultra-shallow depth of field, I just want to punch them in the throat.

It used to make me mad too, but now I realise that it's all a scam.  

They say the biggest lies are the most successful and I think it's true here too.  Have a look at this:

and I don't mean "see how large the budget is" - I mean go shot by shot, pause each one, and actually look at the image.

If I can take a small liberty for educational purposes, have a look at the frame at 14s, it includes the main star of the whole movie looking like this:

and then imagine what DXOMark would say if they tested this lens:

This single frame reveals the truth about the cinematic look:

• The video is uploaded in 2K - because the film is projected in 2K in cinemas
• The frame has edges that are blurry, even in 2K (see above snippets)
• The frame has significant pincushion distortion (look at the "straight" lines on the edges of frame)
• It has quite deep DoF
• It has spectacular colour

Checkmate YouTubers!  

Of course, I say that sarcastically because the reality is that they've checkmated all of us years ago when they started talking about sharp lenses and 4K and we didn't just laugh and skip the video and watched something remotely sensible instead.

I mean, that single frame is so optically poor from a technical perspective that most forum nerds would recommend throwing that lens away, and yet it was used in a key scene in a $250M movie that has grossed $700M+ worldwide.  

Turns out we didn't need MORE pixels, we needed BETTER pixels.

The proof was in the movie theatre the whole time and we never called their bluff.

9 hours ago, Emanuel said:

They haven't ever watched Citizen Kane, very likely ; )

Or even been to a movie theatre in the last 30 years.....

9 hours ago, MrSMW said:

It’s mainly the variable aperture I don’t like however.

Why?

The DoF is a function of focal length, so if I take my 12-35/2.8 lens, set it to 12mm f2.8 and focus on an object it will have a different DoF than if I set it to 35mm f2.8 and focus on the same object from the same camera position.  

DoF is variable, even with constant aperture zoom lenses.  In fact, it's probably less variable on a variable aperture zoom.

You said you don't really zoom while filming, so constant exposure isn't really an issue from that point of view.  If you've zoomed and want to match exposure then just adjust your ND - you've adjusted your composition already so a twist of an ND isn't a big deal.  If you're shooting with variable apertures and matching exposure with ISO and wanting to match the noise profile then just get familiar with NR - most cinema cameras have noise (even at their native ISOs) that would make any videographer CRY.  Professional colourists know about NR and how to use it, and it will be used on almost every professional movie or TV show you have ever seen.  Videographers complain about noise in their images and it just shows they literally don't know the first thing about high-end productions (and I mean first thing, because NR is usually the first node of a professional colourists workflow).

8 hours ago, greenscreen said:

A bargain dead on. What FF range do they cover after all?

Not sure what specific post you're referring to, but most kit lenses are ~24-70, most secondary zooms are 70-200, and most systems have a 16-35 equivalent.  The numbers all look different between brands and mounts etc, but they mostly boil down to those ranges.

6 hours ago, projectwoofer said:

I still love my Panasonic 12-32. On the GX85 it’s such a nice and portable combo. On the FF side the 20-60 is just gorgeous. But what do I know? I’m just an amateur with a camera! 😉

I'd say from just that statement alone you're doing far better than most forum peeps, because:

• You seem to know what kind of shooter you are
• You seem to actually shoot (armchair critics aren't a fan of the 12-32mm lens)
• You seem to understand how the equipment you have relates to what your requirements are ("nice and portable" isn't a think armchair critics who don't shoot say)

Sadly, this makes you far ahead of the curve.  Most of camera internet discussions are about specs, with people recommending you change what and how you shoot in order to match the latest equipment rather than the other way around, and TBH mostly it's just the blind leading the stupid, or these days the shills leading the gullible to part with their money!