mercer

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.

Anyway, here’s yet another shot from my film...

With all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I know you enjoy arguing with people around here, but trust me, you CANNOT just go and film with a crew in public places and think you’re going to get the shots you need. And even if you could squeak by once or twice, you will eventually get caught and be put on someone’s radar. Then what if you need B-Unit or pick up shots? And I am making a feature film, otherwise it would have been done a year and a half ago.

It’s not about embarrassment, it’s about legally being allowed to shoot at the places I’m shooting at. You need permits and insurance to shoot a film. In a lot of places, you can’t shoot a film in your own house without a permit. Now I would assume that 7 out of 10 times, nobody would care, but when I need to get a shot on a crowded boardwalk, without a bicycle cop giving me grief, I need to be as fast and as inconspicuous as possible. Hell, when I have my Rode Micro and deadcat attached to my camera, I get more looks and atttention than you can imagine... Getting this shot handheld, outside of a motel room, ended in a 5 minute conversation from someone who thought I may be a Peeping Tom... Also, you mentioned earlier about never needing to shoot with an f/1.2 or 1.4 lens... well when you shoot in public, if you get a bystander on video, you would need a release form from them granting me permission to use their image in your film. With a fast lens, they’re so blurred, it doesn’t even matter.

I’m gonna watch this tomorrow when I get on my computer. But, in spirit, I agree with your assessment... Samyang/Rokinon lenses pull a lot more than their weight. There was a great article written by Shane Hurlbut a few years back that I am sure you have read about still lenses that are good enough for the big screen... https://www.hurlbutacademy.com/director-of-photography-still-lenses/ That article has always resonated with me and my recent lens tests were born from my desire to shoot with a lens that could fit that criteria. Other than the Leica and Hasselblad Zeiss, I’ve tested a couple lenses from all of his options and as a set, as you’ve said from your test... Nikon lenses seem to offer the biggest bang for the buck. And although I am a walking contradiction that changes my mind with every passing minute, deep down I think a good set of Nikkors based around my two favorite Nikon lenses, is probably the best path for me. I’m sure the Samyang lenses could fill the criteria I’m looking for, but I can’t relinquish the size advantages of the ai-s lenses. I think my biggest question going forward is if I should introduce a modern zoom and an L prime into my kit. I’ve been testing the 35mm 1.4 L recently and it’s a pretty remarkable lens but I’m unsure if it’s worth double the price of the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 and since I’m not selling the Nikon, is it worth having both.

As I assume you do not intend any disrespect and in fact intend to inspire the opposite reaction, please take my reply in the same context... You sound like a cute, inspirational poster on a pediatricians wall. As a writer first, I have endless opportunities to create a world to my exact taste. But it’s not always possible in the real world to get exactly what you want, so you write and create according to those limitations. And there is no amount of “leading” or “just getting it done” that will change that. There’s a reason why most truly indie films take place in one location with only a few characters. I’m already breaking a couple “rules” with the film I chose to make. And you know what gets me some of the most looks and attention... changing lenses. So, although, I’d rather use a prime lens, or multiple prime lenses, in the end, the story must be told and if a zoom gets that story told, I’d be a moron not to take advantage of it. I mean, Spielberg used a ton of zooms early in his career. And I’m sure if Hitchcock or Spielberg or Scorsese or DePalma were starting out today, shooting no budget, indie films, they’d shoot handheld on a camera that had IBIS with a native zoom lens attached and they would “get it done.”

I appreciate the sentiment behind your comment but reality is reality and more often than not the straightest line between points A and B is the best option. Otherwise, everybody would use manual cinema lenses instead of AF or other modern conveniences. I have a friend that owns two native lenses to shoot his films... a prime and a zoom. One day I brought an adapter and a good manual lens along with me for him to try on his camera and although he preferred the image from the vintage prime, he never has asked me to borrow the lens. And although he prefers the image from his native prime, 99% of his shots are taken with the native zoom. And I don’t blame him one bit. Native lenses are way more convenient and native zooms, especially good modern ones, are more than good enough to tell a great story. Hell, if I was a smarter man, I’d probably sell off all of my lenses and buy a Canon 24-70mm 2.8 lens and make my films with just that lens until I have the resources to truly utilize a set of prime lenses. In fact, the more I test my lenses and realize what matters with this hobby of mine, I can truly see myself doing something like that. I’d keep a small set of Nikkor primes and pick up the Canon 24-70mm 2.8. For the films that are more run and gun, I’ll use the zoom and for the projects where I have a little more time and freedom, I’ll use the Nikkors. But whoever said I was smart... hahaha.

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.”