Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
- Thread starter RGF
- Start date
Longer throw for focus
Manual aperture ring
Both rings above accurately calibrated for distance and aperture, respectively
Better build quality, usually a bigger front opening
More aperture blades
No focus breathing (angle of view doesn't change with focus)
Parfocal (plane of focus doesn't change with focal length)
There might be some more differences, but AFAIK these are the main ones.
Manual aperture ring
Both rings above accurately calibrated for distance and aperture, respectively
Better build quality, usually a bigger front opening
More aperture blades
No focus breathing (angle of view doesn't change with focus)
Parfocal (plane of focus doesn't change with focal length)
There might be some more differences, but AFAIK these are the main ones.
Upvote
0
I was looking into this same question recently and one possible additional benefit was the "consistent color balance" across the series of Cine lenses. Apparently small color shifts may be noticeable in video when one switches a scene filmed through a 35 mm lens to a scene filmed through a 50 mm lens. This aspect of course becomes important only if one has several Cinema lenses. This is just based on what I read; I can't quite afford to buy a pair of lenses for $10K to test this out.
From what I gathered from my research, for my specific needs the new EF 16–35mm f/4L IS would be a sufficiently good alternative to a much more expensive Canon CN-E 35mm T1.5.
From what I gathered from my research, for my specific needs the new EF 16–35mm f/4L IS would be a sufficiently good alternative to a much more expensive Canon CN-E 35mm T1.5.
Upvote
0
P
pablo
Guest
agree with all of above...
but to achieve consistency, construction quality, etc etc etc the biggest single cost to canon is not glass or metal but design.
pair this with low sales (very specialist market, likely to be a few bought by hire houses rather than many bought by private individuals - unlike say great whites that make rich amatuers look capable, cinema lenses actually make life more difficult in order to achieve optimum results - only the trained and expert need apply) makes for a high unit cost.
but to achieve consistency, construction quality, etc etc etc the biggest single cost to canon is not glass or metal but design.
pair this with low sales (very specialist market, likely to be a few bought by hire houses rather than many bought by private individuals - unlike say great whites that make rich amatuers look capable, cinema lenses actually make life more difficult in order to achieve optimum results - only the trained and expert need apply) makes for a high unit cost.
Upvote
0
RGF said:
No, none.
For the moving image there are many good reasons to use a collection, or set, of manufacturer movie lenses, for stills shooters none of it applies.
Upvote
0
P
pablo
Guest
Yes, but the 1DC is something of a chimera.
s35 has long been the base format for film shooting, which is closer to aps-c size (35mm film, but runs vertically as opposed to horizontally, so the height of a 35mm still frame becomes roughly the width of a 35mm movie frame. Smaller image circle.
Look at the c100, 300 and 500. All s35 sensors. Not so called full frame. Full frame is a nothing term. s35 is full frame, just the orientation of the film is different.
s35 has long been the base format for film shooting, which is closer to aps-c size (35mm film, but runs vertically as opposed to horizontally, so the height of a 35mm still frame becomes roughly the width of a 35mm movie frame. Smaller image circle.
Look at the c100, 300 and 500. All s35 sensors. Not so called full frame. Full frame is a nothing term. s35 is full frame, just the orientation of the film is different.
Upvote
0
RGF said:
The fact you can afford to buy cine lenses and do buy them to take Still Photography will satisfy an underlying mental need to compensate for other inadequacies you may have. Much the same as buying large white lenses will for some.
Upvote
0
takesome1 said:
Not wiling to spend the $ on something which is at best, marginally better. I'll take the $ and spend it on travel. I don't own any Zeiss glass, so Cine glass is definitely out of the question.
Just curious ..
Upvote
0
RGF said:
The one advantage I can think of is that with a cine zoom, you can zoom in tight to manually focus and then back off to your desired framing.
Upvote
0
P
pablo
Guest
takesome1 said:
+1
It's a stupid thread and a stupid question. Everybody else is trying to be nice and skirt round that fact.
Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. These are excellent high performing lenses for a very specific purpose. for a trained user they make life easier.
For an untrained amateur with deep pockets and a gnawing desire to have the best toys, most expensive toys in the playground, they will make your life harder.
This is a premise that we need to accept.... modern dslr technology can make the most rancidly untalented photographer turn out reasonable shots. So some think the more you spend the better the better your photography will be. And so the extension of that cod logic is that 'these cinema lenses must be the mutts nuts, and they will make my insipid flat boring anodyne inoffensive pictures slightly better'
They are the mutts nuts. But they aren't for you. Most of you.
I'm not saying don't hanker after, buy and enjoy using nice kit, just do a little research. This is like buying an f1 mclaren for a trip to the mall. There are better things for your needs. Most of you.
If you need to do a trumbone shot, you know, the raging bull shot, where you need shift the focal distance, focal length and perhaps shift the aperture slightly, all at the same time, without acutally touching the lens, and on a moving platform, where you know that the focus scale on the lens has been calibrated so that it matches your tape measure, so that you will hit the marks on your follow focus, so you know that the carefully worked out corelation between camera positions and lens movements won't be scuppered by unexpected 'breathing', so you know that having to bring your iris down a half a stop to counter-act the inverse square law as your camera moves towards your key-lit subject isn't going to click an aperture stop, is going to be visibly seamless and isn't going to affect your carefully set up focus marks then the money spent on hiring cinema lenses is good value.
If you just want more bifs, closer in at airshows, or just want the biggest great white because you can. You really should make the step up to cinema lenses.
And if you do, please please do come back and share your results. I'm sure you'll be given attendant reverence.
Upvote
0
I gotta be honest pablo... kinda harsh, dude! I have wondered the same thing about C lenses so I don't consider this to be a stupid question or a stupid thread.
Personally, I have spent way more money on photography equipment than I need to as an amateur. It's embarrassing how much money I've spent to do what I could likely do with a Rebel and some kit lenses. But that doesn't make me stupid, it just makes my bank account poorer. I've taken thousands of images I probably wouldn't have taken with just the Rebel and kit lenses. I've learned a lot more than I would have ever learned otherwise with all the extra experience of those 1000's of images than if I had just stuck with the Rebel and kit lenses and given up long ago due to boredom. And ultimately, a lot of friends and charitable organizations have benefited from my obsession as a result of that spending.
So please, next time post something less condescending because your previous post does little to contribute to the discussion other than show everyone a side of you that isn't very considerate. I mean, really, did someone with a cine-lens kick your dog, call you names or something?
Personally, I have spent way more money on photography equipment than I need to as an amateur. It's embarrassing how much money I've spent to do what I could likely do with a Rebel and some kit lenses. But that doesn't make me stupid, it just makes my bank account poorer. I've taken thousands of images I probably wouldn't have taken with just the Rebel and kit lenses. I've learned a lot more than I would have ever learned otherwise with all the extra experience of those 1000's of images than if I had just stuck with the Rebel and kit lenses and given up long ago due to boredom. And ultimately, a lot of friends and charitable organizations have benefited from my obsession as a result of that spending.
So please, next time post something less condescending because your previous post does little to contribute to the discussion other than show everyone a side of you that isn't very considerate. I mean, really, did someone with a cine-lens kick your dog, call you names or something?
Upvote
0
I'm wondering if we need a moderator to look at some of the posts on this thread. This started as a friendly question, but some of the replies are hateful, bitter...
I'm all for freedom of speech in a political discussion, but lately, some of the replies are just venting anger that truly has no bearing on the topic. This is a generally helpful forum for questions, rumors, speculations--not personal attacks.
Is this cyclical or a new low?
I'm all for freedom of speech in a political discussion, but lately, some of the replies are just venting anger that truly has no bearing on the topic. This is a generally helpful forum for questions, rumors, speculations--not personal attacks.
Is this cyclical or a new low?
Upvote
0
P
pablo
Guest
RustyTheGeek said:I gotta be honest pablo... kinda harsh, dude! I have wondered the same thing about C lenses so I don't consider this to be a stupid question or a stupid thread.
So please, next time post something less condescending because your previous post does little to contribute to the discussion other than show everyone a side of you that isn't very considerate. I mean, really, did someone with a cine-lens kick your dog, call you names or something?
I stand by every word. They are specialist tools. I don't know how good or how bad, how rich or how poor the op asking the questions is. I paint a scenario of where these lenses come into their own, what they are designed for, what no other type of product would do. I think that goes some way to answering the question of why they cost so much... sorreeeee.
I also stand by my other comments, and nowhere do I consider them a personal attack on any other specific forum user, I am critiquing the fairly recent trend in photography where everybody wants the latest and greatest and most expensive. The technology has been static for 5 years as far as bodies go, and probably 10-15 years as lenses go. Part of that trend is confusing cost with performance or value. Simply put, a bright ring type USM lens will give a talentless photographer more keepers, but the photographs still won't be that great. Obviously they would give the talented professional more keepers too, but the talent would shine through regardless.
If the question was, will these cinema lenses make my still photography better, then, apologies if the timbre of my reply frightens the horses, but no, they will not. They will make your still photography worse.
There, I've just saved you 25k.
If anybody reading this has a spare 25k to drop on a lens, and will buy or not based on what somebody on a forum says... then I really consider that I'm doing them a public service. Find a charity close to your heart or something instead. It will be more rewarding.
Quite where you think I'm having a go a cinema lenses or cinema lens users, I fail to see. Cinema lenses are great. For cinema. And in that regard, the answer is in the question, so maybe 'obvious' is kinder than 'stupid'.
Upvote
0
pablo said:RustyTheGeek said:I gotta be honest pablo... kinda harsh, dude! I have wondered the same thing about C lenses so I don't consider this to be a stupid question or a stupid thread.
So please, next time post something less condescending because your previous post does little to contribute to the discussion other than show everyone a side of you that isn't very considerate. I mean, really, did someone with a cine-lens kick your dog, call you names or something?
I stand by every word. They are specialist tools. I don't know how good or how bad, how rich or how poor the op asking the questions is. I paint a scenario of where these lenses come into their own, what they are designed for, what no other type of product would do. I think that goes some way to answering the question of why they cost so much... sorreeeee.
I also stand by my other comments, and nowhere do I consider them a personal attack on any other specific forum user, I am critiquing the fairly recent trend in photography where everybody wants the latest and greatest and most expensive. The technology has been static for 5 years as far as bodies go, and probably 10-15 years as lenses go. Part of that trend is confusing cost with performance or value. Simply put, a bright ring type USM lens will give a talentless photographer more keepers, but the photographs still won't be that great. Obviously they would give the talented professional more keepers too, but the talent would shine through regardless.
If the question was, will these cinema lenses make my still photography better, then, apologies if the timbre of my reply frightens the horses, but no, they will not. They will make your still photography worse.
There, I've just saved you 25k.
If anybody reading this has a spare 25k to drop on a lens, and will buy or not based on what somebody on a forum says... then I really consider that I'm doing them a public service. Find a charity close to your heart or something instead. It will be more rewarding.
Quite where you think I'm having a go a cinema lenses or cinema lens users, I fail to see. Cinema lenses are great. For cinema. And in that regard, the answer is in the question, so maybe 'obvious' is kinder than 'stupid'.
This is kind of fair and kind of unfair.
The CN-Es are by all accounts pretty similar to the Ls, not different enough for the 2% improvement in coatings or whatever and 9-bladed aperture to make up for the vastly huge increase in price.
The majority of what makes movie zooms movie zooms (parfocal, lack of breathing, mechanics) are helpful only for movies... but who wouldn't want an 18-85mm f1.8 (for APS-C only) that's as sharp as the sharpest Canon prime. (Okay it's 15lbs and $90k but still Fuji makes such a lens.)
I know of someone who converted a Zeiss Master Prime to his 5D or 7D for astro photography. If you have the money go for it, but as most just cover APS-C (other than the CN-Es, which, again, are not that much different from the Ls) it seems silly to spend up toward a smaller format rather than a bigger one. (IMAX uses modified Hasselblad and Pentax 6x7 lenses is the rumor.)
Also there is a longer history of still lens conversion than people realize. There was a 70-200mm Nikkor I think on one of the Bourne movies, Panavision has a host of converted Leica primes, some of which I've played with... they're nice! But the cost is in the rehousing... although the 280mm f2.8 Leica is sick.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
