Lenses

[Zach Goodwin2]

Is that guy your brother or cousin?

[webrunner5]

Wonderful. I would imagine your mother would be impressed, not. I bet your father would kicked you right in the ass if he was alive. I would, I know how people think in the area you live. Hard working, God Fearing people. Embarrassing. You ought to be ashamed.☹️

[Zach Goodwin2]

New picture taken on Canon T2i with OM 28-70 F/2.8

[webrunner5]

Hmm.

[noone]

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I really don't think I would Ever use a zoom lens for video if I had the money to buy primes. Just my thought. Sure ENG work, serious stuff, Nah. Sort of sounds like you are clueless where the actors, scenery is really suppose to be located. No storyboard, pre thought involved in it. Luck Rarely works out trust me.

 

I love using good primes AS zooms!     Just got a tiny Sony Nex-3N for less than $120 Australian posted (well under $100 US) and it has a bit of a point and shoot camera about it with a zoom toggle switch around the shutter button just like a P&S and it works great with good primes for Clear Zoom (I have not tried it for regular digital zoom and doubt I will beyond 2x)......a pity it does not work for RAW or video but only Jpeg stills (it is a few years old now).    I wish Sony made something like that now and it worked for video.   This is from the weekend (International blues music day) using the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 and quite a bit of clear zoom.

[mercer]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Wonderful. I would imagine your mother would be impressed, not. I bet your father would kicked you right in the ass if he was alive. I would, I know how people think in the area you live. Hard working, God Fearing people. Embarrassing. You ought to be ashamed.☹️

Actually, I posted it as a peace offering because I thought you would find it funny.

Unlike you, I have been nothing but respectful to you during this exchange. Whereas you became belligerent and offensive because I stated how and why zoom lenses are useful for run and gun filmmaking. So, my opinion about zoom lenses led you to attack me on a personal level where you called me meek, a loser and inferred I am not a man.

So after you personally criticized and attacked me, I posted a joke frame to lighten the mood and stick it to you a little.

If you can’t take it, don’t dish it.

As a writer/aspiring filmmaker, I’ve learned to have a thick skin a long time ago and some person on a stupid forum isn’t going to get under it enough for me to weep and cry.

[Skip77]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Actually, I posted it as a peace offering because I thought you would find it funny.

Unlike you, I have been nothing but respectful to you during this exchange. Whereas you became belligerent and offensive because I stated how and why zoom lenses are useful for run and gun filmmaking. So, my opinion about zoom lenses led you to attack me on a personal level where you called me meek, a loser and inferred I am not a man.

So after you personally criticized and attacked me, I posted a joke frame to lighten the mood and stick it to you a little.

If you can’t take it, don’t dish it.

As a writer/aspiring filmmaker, I’ve learned to have a thick skin a long time ago and some person on a stupid forum isn’t going to get under it enough for me to weep and cry.

Webrunner5 must need a new person to attack, curse at and call a bastard.  I don't get that guy at all.  Life is not a tough guy act that you bully people if they have a different opinion. 

And if my Dad was alive and saw the exchange you had with webrunner5 and the picture you posted to him, my Dad would say hell ya Mercer, it's about time. 

I get runner5 is old school and giving advice but in 2019 there is not 1 (one) way to do things anymore. Everything you guys have different opinions about have trade offs. Cine lens vs Zoom lens. Both can get the job done and it comes down to budget and what you have to work with. 

I will be visiting a local rental house and will be taking my Z6 and testing out some cine glass and do some comparisons. Stay tuned.

What gear are you shooting with?

[mercer]

14 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

Webrunner5 must need a new person to attack, curse at and call a bastard.  I don't get that guy at all.  Life is not a tough guy act that you bully people if they have a different opinion. 

And if my Dad was alive and saw the exchange you had with webrunner5 and the picture you posted to him, my Dad would say hell ya Mercer, it's about time. 

I get runner5 is old school and giving advice but in 2019 there is not 1 (one) way to do things anymore. Everything you guys have different opinions about have trade offs. Cine lens vs Zoom lens. Both can get the job done and it comes down to budget and what you have to work with. 

I will be visiting a local rental house and will be taking my Z6 and testing out some cine glass and do some comparisons. Stay tuned.

What gear are you shooting with?

Hey, I like webrunner... he’s a solid guy. We just had a disagreement. I don’t like to criticize anyone on a public forum... especially one involving artistic endeavors. There are way too many places to get knocked down in this world and one where people share their work shouldn’t be one of them.

With that being said, I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark iii and Magic Lantern Raw. I’m a hobbyist, narrative filmmaker that may complete my first film by the time I retire from my real job... lol. 

Let us know how those cinema lenses work out with your Z6.

[Skip77]

52 minutes ago, mercer said:

Hey, I like webrunner... he’s a solid guy. We just had a disagreement. I don’t like to criticize anyone on a public forum... especially one involving artistic endeavors. There are way too many places to get knocked down in this world and one where people share their work shouldn’t be one of them.

With that being said, I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark iii and Magic Lantern Raw. I’m a hobbyist, narrative filmmaker that may complete my first film by the time I retire from my real job... lol. 

Let us know how those cinema lenses work out with your Z6.

I'm sure webrunner is a good guy.  

[Geoff CB]

Canon 70-200 2.8 IS on URSA Mini Pro (Prores 2K 4:4:4). Still from an upcoming short.

[kye]

18 hours ago, mercer said:

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 am torn between the minimalist attraction of having one camera, one lens, one mic and getting to know it inside and out and just shooting it to death, and the alternative which is to have more flexibility and the complexity that comes with it.

For me the difference is if you are in control of the situation or not.  If you are then you pick the lens you want and say "stand here" and it all happens, but the less control you have the more flexibility you need in your kit.  Otherwise wildlife photographers would just use their favourite 50mm lens and tell the birds / leopards / elephants where to sit, where to land, etc

17 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think there is an interesting aspect involved in those discussions there, particularly with something like the original Contax Zeiss Survival Guide thread, that originates from when the RED ONE was released.

The camera was obviously attracting a lot of people that were "buying up" to it from a very indie background that up until that point were getting their cinema look from adapted camcorders with spinning ground glass 35mm adapters. I know because I was one of them  

To say there was some sticker shock at suddenly having to look at buying PL lenses would be something of an understatement so obviously everyone was looking to do what they had done before and use stills lenses on it.

Because of that, it was probably the first time that there was a platform, in terms of both camera and forum, for meaningful comparisons between stills and cine lenses.

To me, at least, there is an emotional element to some of the language used there around lenses that is related to and biased from whichever side of the line people were coming to that camera from and its just become the lingua franca for lens discussions on there and beyond since.

So I don't necessarily think they are more sensitive to it just that they have been using the language for longer.

That's very interesting.  I read a bunch of stuff in there and came up with the idea there were the accurate / neutral lenses that were called "modern" because lenses have gradually been getting more neutral over time, and those that were inaccurate / coloured / flavoured / etc but that the imperfections were aesthetically pleasing and were called "vintage" because older lenses were more likely to be like that.  To me it seemed to be kind of useful shorthand and seemed to be relatively consistent, but maybe I missed some of the nuances of how the phrases were used.

They spoke about having two sets, one modern and one vintage, but because the modern ones are expensive (CP.2, Zeiss, etc) either they normally owned the vintage ones for personal projects or low budget doc work and hired the modern ones when the project required it, or they were the ones owning and hiring out the modern ones, and were contemplating if there was enough of a market to buy a vintage set for a different aesthetic and maybe justify the price by also hiring it out.

Regardless, I've bought lenses all over the spectrum and just deal with it in post lol  

17 hours ago, mercer said:

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. 

In all the tests I did I found that all lenses got to be quite sharp when stopped down a couple of stops, and interestingly the affordable lenses that were sharp wide open were the same as their competitors but just didn't open that far.  For example an f1.4 lens would sharpen up by f2.8, and similar lenses that were sharp wide open only opened to f2.8, so unless you spent squillions of dollars you just buy the f1.4 one and use it at f2.8 and keep the extra two stops in case of emergency  

16 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

In the great equaliser of the granite worktop and colourful booze bottles then it would likely be Samyang again  

This 50mm lens shootout is about as comprehensive as it gets and includes the Cooke Panchro.

http://www.mikkotimonen.com/50mm-shootout

Thanks - that is truly spectacular!

It will spoil me for life of course, but you know, no pain no gain.

What is especially good about it is that it compares mythically expensive lenses with a common lens that links it to many other lesser lens tests, so you can compare a cine lens to a budget one by seeing how each compares to the Rokinon.  Very useful!  And yeah, like @mercer was implying - screw carrying around one of those behemoths!!!

[BTM_Pix]

48 minutes ago, kye said:

That's very interesting.  I read a bunch of stuff in there and came up with the idea there were the accurate / neutral lenses that were called "modern" because lenses have gradually been getting more neutral over time, and those that were inaccurate / coloured / flavoured / etc but that the imperfections were aesthetically pleasing and were called "vintage" because older lenses were more likely to be like that.  To me it seemed to be kind of useful shorthand and seemed to be relatively consistent, but maybe I missed some of the nuances of how the phrases were used.

They spoke about having two sets, one modern and one vintage, but because the modern ones are expensive (CP.2, Zeiss, etc) either they normally owned the vintage ones for personal projects or low budget doc work and hired the modern ones when the project required it, or they were the ones owning and hiring out the modern ones, and were contemplating if there was enough of a market to buy a vintage set for a different aesthetic and maybe justify the price by also hiring it out.
 

I'll preface this by saying I've got a pretty jaundiced view of that place and one that is pretty outdated as the Koolaid wore off a long time ago with me and this doesn't apply to every discussion or user on there but....

One very cynical and blunt interpretation of many of the conversations that I used to see on there was that when they say "modern" they mean too expensive for them to own and when they say "vintage" they mean the ones they can afford to own.

That melting pot of high end pros and ambitious indies that I was referring to that were brought together on there led to a nuance around that language that, again, a cynical and blunt viewpoint would be suggestive of a snobbery/class divide.

Because of that there was definitely a vibe that many people were dressing for the job they wanted rather than the one they had if you know what I mean and would offer up that caveat of "of course these lenses would only be for personal projects" to offer a shield against some perceived ridicule or scorn from people higher up the food chain when the reality was that the only projects they were doing were personal projects or low enough budget one where hiring let alone buying higher end lenses wasn't on the cards.

I'm not saying everyone was doing that but there were certainly a lot of them that were and it was pretty sad to see.

Instead of just feeling free enough to be able to say "I could just about afford the camera but fuck me the lenses and everything else are killing me, anyone got any suggestions for cheap stuff that I can use to get going with?" (which is exactly what would happen on here) a lot of discussion became couched in people not wanting to be thought of as not shooting this summer's Hollywood blockbuster so a kind of euphemistic/nebulous masking language developed.

The cultism aspect of Red ownership and Reduser isn't just limited to the "How shall we fuck off oh Lord?" deference to the billionaire founder and his colleagues but also extends to the grip it has on the perception of a number of its more rabid followers in somehow elevating them into the higher echelons of film making.

With some of them it was borderline cosplay.

48 minutes ago, kye said:

I am torn between the minimalist attraction of having one camera, one lens, one mic and getting to know it inside and out and just shooting it to death, and the alternative which is to have more flexibility and the complexity that comes with it.

In about three or four years when everyone is sick and tired of cobbling stuff together and manufacturers are sick and tired of being caned by cellphone advances eating their real camera sales, we will all get camcorders again.

And breathe a massive sigh of relief at the liberation of it all.

I mean, I seem to recall you only wanted a bit of a bump in quality and shallower depth of field from your XC10 and look at the absolute rabbit hole you've tumbled down  

[mercer]

1 hour ago, Geoff CB said:

Canon 70-200 2.8 IS on URSA Mini Pro (Prores 2K 4:4:4). Still from an upcoming short.

Nice light... gotta love golden hour down the shore. How did you like that 70-200mm? I know a lot of people go gaga over it? Was this handheld?

1 hour ago, kye said:

am torn between the minimalist attraction of having one camera, one lens, one mic and getting to know it inside and out and just shooting it to death, and the alternative which is to have more flexibility and the complexity that comes with it.

For me the difference is if you are in control of the situation or not.  If you are then you pick the lens you want and say "stand here" and it all happens, but the less control you have the more flexibility you need in your kit.  Otherwise wildlife photographers would just use their favourite 50mm lens and tell the birds / leopards / elephants where to sit, where to land, etc

And that’s the appeal of zoom lenses. If I’ve learned anything about getting it done over the last couple years, I’ve learned that in the end, the film is all that matters and if a zoom lens can give you a better shot ratio, more efficiently, then they’re worth their weight in gold. 

1 hour ago, kye said:

In all the tests I did I found that all lenses got to be quite sharp when stopped down a couple of stops, and interestingly the affordable lenses that were sharp wide open were the same as their competitors but just didn't open that far.  For example an f1.4 lens would sharpen up by f2.8, and similar lenses that were sharp wide open only opened to f2.8, so unless you spent squillions of dollars you just buy the f1.4 one and use it at f2.8 and keep the extra two stops in case of emergency  

Traditionally, one of the reasons you would buy the faster variant of the lens is because when you stopped it down to slower lens’ maximum f-stop it would be sharper than the slower lens. Take the Nikkor ai-s 50mm 1.2 for example. Wide open it’s a dreamy mess but by f/2, it’s the sharpest, manual, 50mm lens, Nikon made at f/2.

[mercer]

28 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

In about three or four years when everyone is sick and tired of cobbling stuff together and manufacturers are sick and tired of being caned by cellphone advances eating their real camera sales, we will all get camcorders again.

And breathe a massive sigh of relief at the liberation of it all.

I know I will. I love lenses and all they can offer, but if I could have the a relatively fast zoom on a relatively large sensor on a relatively small camcorder sized body... take my money. 

Seriously, if Canon released the guts of a C200 in an XC10 body, I’d happily give them a few thousand for it.

[BTM_Pix]

4 minutes ago, mercer said:

Seriously, if Canon released the guts of a C200 in an XC10 body, I’d happily give them a few thousand for it.

They are more likely to do it the other way round just to spite everyone !

 

[Thomas Hill]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

I seem to recall you only wanted a bit of a bump in quality and shallower depth of field from your XC10 and look at the absolute rabbit hole you've tumbled down  

An XC10 with aps-c, 1.8 to 2.8 and uncrippled AF in 4k would be my dream camera.

[HienC]

anyone still use the contax 35-70mm?

[mercer]

19 minutes ago, Thomas Hill said:

An XC10 with aps-c, 1.8 to 2.8 and uncrippled AF in 4k would be my dream camera.

I don’t even mind the 1” sensor and I’d be happy with 4K compressed codec and Canon 2K RawLite.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I know I will. I love lenses and all they can offer, but if I could have the a relatively fast zoom on a relatively large sensor on a relatively small camcorder sized body... take my money. 

Seriously, if Canon released the guts of a C200 in an XC10 body, I’d happily give them a few thousand for it.

What would be the fantasy camcorder that would flip you completely do you think ?

Super35, 15-85mm f3.5, internal ProResRAW, IBIS+OIS, e-ND, BP970 power ?

If you look at basing it on something like the A6400/6500 then Sony could easily knock that out tomorrow for £4-5K.

While we are all still buying the A6*** upgrades or their 1" lower end broadcast camcorders though, why would they bother ?

I've said it before but its a pity there's not the photo equivalent of aftermarket car companies like Shelby or Brabus etc who take stock products and make new ones with them. 

They exist for lenses of course and at the higher end for cameras with Panavision but a company targeting the lower end who could take an A6500 etc and integrate it into a new product like that would be great.

[mercer]

13 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

What would be the fantasy camcorder that would flip you completely do you think ?

Super35, 15-85mm f3.5, internal ProResRAW, IBIS+OIS, e-ND, BP970 power ?

If you look at basing it on something like the A6400/6500 then Sony could easily knock that out tomorrow for £4-5K.

While we are all still buying the A6*** upgrades or their 1" lower end broadcast camcorders though, why would they bother ?

I've said it before but its a pity there's not the photo equivalent of aftermarket car companies like Shelby or Brabus etc who take stock products and make new ones with them. 

They exist for lenses of course and at the higher end for cameras with Panavision but a company targeting the lower end who could take an A6500 etc and integrate it into a new product like that would be great.

I think ProRes is a minimum for me going forward. I truly can be happy shooting my 1080p ML Raw for the next few to five years if I have to and I still don’t care about 4K that much. You’d think these manufacturers would realize that most Hollywood films are shot at 2.7K and distributed at 1080p... or even 720p... they could use that as a marketing tool to give us nearly everything we want without overheating issues.

Otherwise, I don’t really care about the sensor size that much as long as there is an equivalent zoom at a constant f/2.8. Internal NDs and IBIS would be a definite plus.

Reconfigured Cameras? Interesting. New side venture? Please include Raw in my model.