Primes v. Zoom

[Tail Ends]

Harry Clark, Mitch Gross, Dylan Macleod and others have been discussing the pros and cons of various prime lenses under "Ultraprimes vs. S4s vs. Superspeeds" I'm aware of the purists out there who only want to work with primes, and I'm aware of the "don't zoom" concept, but I would like thoughts from you readers as to the use of zooms such as Cooke 18-100 and similar cinema high end zooms as a straight lens , not necessarily using the zooming characteristics. Other than the weight issue (and lack of some mobility) and maybe loss of a stop, it would seem to me that zooms allow the shooter a lot of flexibility not available in buying primes. At NAB and other venues, most DP's and cameramen talk the love of primes, but I simply don't know why other than tradition. In talking to Cooke today, it seems you can get an infinite number of angles in the range of the lens at $50,000 while primes are $19,000 a pop (rounded prices only) and all you have is the one angle. What am I missing?

I look forward to your insight.

Tail Ends

[David Mullen ASC]

The good 35mm cine zooms that are fast and sharp and low in distortion all tend to be bigger and heavier than their prime counterparts, that's one reason people still prefer primes. I'm shooting a movie right now on Primo primes and Primo zooms, and T/2.8 looks better on a Primo prime than the Primo zoom and the primes are smaller, lighter, faster (open to T/1.9), focus closer generally, and flare less.

[stevesherrick]

Nothing says you can't use a zoom as a variable prime. But as David mentions, there are tradeoffs. A zoom will give you quick focal length adjustment, but you may find that a prime just looks better at a given focal length and exposure. I have a Techno 18-90 that some have said looks very prime-like throughout the range, but it is big. For a lot of things, I want to have a lightweight zoom or primes. There may be other times when the Techno will be the right lens to go to. There really is no right answer to the question I suppose. It really depends on what you have access to and what tool works for you in a given set of circumstances.

[Mitch Gross]

Another aspect of shooting with primes is visual discipline. A close-up always with an 85mm, a medium always with a 50, a full body always with a 25. It creates a subtle visual structure to the images that creates a consistency in the photography. These numbers could vary according to the look you desire (say, a close-up on an 18mm Terry Gilliam style), but it is good to have consistency. That way, when you choose say, a 35mm for a close-up at a dramatic moment it will have a very different impact.

Of course there's no reason that this cannot be done with a zoom, but the temptation for visual laziness and the "easy way out" of just zooming to find the frame can be quite hard to resist.

Technically, pretty much all modern primes are sharper, contrastier, more flare-resistant, better at chromatic abberation control, drastically lighter in weight and smaller in size and open to a wider aperture than their zoom counterparts.

[Mike Prevette]

On a far more esoteric level, I find myself a much better photographer with primes. With a zoom I adapt to the scene to find my framing, but with a prime I adapt my scene to fit my framing. Not sure if that makes sense. Primes force me to really negotiate my framing with the physical constants around me.

I've always thought of it more like the difference between being a journalist and an artist. A journalist (zoom) tries to record reality by selectively adapting to the important details of a scene. With a prime your always building a scene around the lens.

Can't say if this is all true, but time after time if I leave the house with a prime I come home with better photographs than with a zoom. Not necessarily on just a technical side, but compositionally as well. I think this applies to my film work as well.

[Tail Ends]

Guys, as usual, really good feedback. My problem is that I have Reds on order but I have no cinema quality lenses to use. All along I thougt I'd be going with Red, but their collection keeps getting pushed back further and further. I can't wait; I need to get something now. Problem is that "something" is expensive. I can come up with $50,000-$100,000 for the lenses, but I can't afford to do it wrong. I don't live near a supply house such as Able Cine, so I have to own since travel back and forth will be expensive. (And my financing package allows for the purchase.)

I've read all the thoughtful comments between the advantages and disadvantages of Cooke v. Arri v. Zeiss, Angineux, etc, so I think I'm going in with eyes wide open. Is it unreasonable for me to think I can find a zoom that will allow me to cover the bases I need to cover without buying primes?

If you go with the more crisp lenses, can they be toned down with softening filters when needed?

One thought has been to simply push back my project, which I've done before, to wait for Red and their pricing, but there are no guarantees here either. We're told the quality will be great, but were also told that we need to wait until Fall or 2009. And if Cooke can't keep up with production, then I don't see how Red is going to meet demand, especially if based on order of camera number, until late 2009 at the earliest.

I realize that this thread is somewhat subjective, but I would appreciate your continued input on how to go.

Tail Ends

[chuck colburn]

Aloooong while back some one at RED said the sensor would need to see 93lpm (I think) from what ever lens to achieve the maximum resolution that the camera is capable of. This is not to hard to achieve nowadays both from cine and still camera lenses. Which gives one lots of choices espically if one can cope with some of the facts of life of still camera lenses ( there are some that have minimal lash in the focus threads and also focus cinewise) such as ones made by Zeiss and Leitz. If it was my camera I would set it up with a couple of still camera lens mounts and then if I had to use a cine lens for the availble speed or focale length or whatever I would pop on the PL mount and rent those very espensive cine lenses for a given shot.

[Tail Ends]

Chuck, I have a slew of Nikon high end lenes. i was going to use them for practice until the cinema lenses came in. My recollection is that in previous threads, people liked Nikon, but only because they had them and/or they were inexpensive as opposed to what was actually needed for a professional image. I have not read any comments on Nikon lenses producing the quality needed by professional DP's. Comments anyone? Same applies to Canon for that matter.

Tail Ends

[Stephen Williams]

Chuck, I have a slew of Nikon high end lenes. i was going to use them for practice until the cinema lenses came in. My recollection is that in previous threads, people liked Nikon, but only because they had them and/or they were inexpensive as opposed to what was actually needed for a professional image. I have not read any comments on Nikon lenses producing the quality needed by professional DP's. Comments anyone? Same applies to Canon for that matter.

Tail Ends

Hi,

On the assumption you are shooting moving images with a moving camera a professional DP would expect suitable motion picture lenses, if your shooting background plates still lenses will work fine.

Stephen

[Mike Prevette]

Tail Ends,


We've been using nikons for years. I have a nikon mount Arri IIc under my desk right now. The VFX and vistavision guys have been shooting stuff with them since the late 70's. The problems with them are almost never optically. It's more about sample variation because they are a mass produced item, and mechanical quality. Find a good one, and they will do quite well against most cine lenses.

[chuck colburn]

Right oh Mike,

As Stephen said in some cases you would be expected to provide professional cine grade lenses as that is what the DP, operator and 1st AC want. But you can shoot quality product with still camera optics though it might not be as easy. So far as consitentcy (sp?) of quality the better made lenses can somewhat take care of that problem.

[chuck colburn]

Don't know if this test has been posted but that new 14-24 Nikon looks pretty darn good.
The second test is just to show how good a still camera lens can be. The Contax 21, be it only f2.8, probally has no competion no matter what other lens is out there.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_21mm/nikon1424_21mm1.html

[Harry Clark]

Have you thought about the Zeiss Variable Primes? They are very underrated lenses, very sharp and fast (T2.2) for a zoom. 3 lenses, VP1 (16-30), VP2 (29-60), VP3 (55-105) They cover Super 35, don't breathe much, and are nice and contrasty. I'd choose them over the T.2.1 primes of the day (early 1990's) Larger than primes, smaller than zooms, likely handholdable with a light camera like the Red. They have nice large scales too.
Their relative unpopularity probably makes them a good candidate for a rental house purchase; a CSC or a Clairmont might be willing to let a set go because they mostly sit on the shelf. In a tight lens market, they might be a bargain if you can find a set.
The discipline of using specific focal lengths is a good craftsman's habit. But of course if you're REALLY disciplined you can stick with the same focal lengths on a zoom.
I'd keep an open mind. If you're buying lenses for your own use as DP, or you own the production company, you can think outside the box a bit and not feel like Master Primes or S4s are a "must have".
But I also believe that good cine lenses (primes or zooms) will have a mechanical and quality advantage over still lenses for everyday use. For specialty use (telephoto, fisheye, whatever) that gets used fewer days, still lenses offer some compelling choices.
Isn't it nice to have choices? ;)
Cheers,
Harry

[Tail Ends]

This is what I like so much about RedUser. You guys really take time to help and I appreciate every moment of your time.

Picking up on your collective thoughts, I'm assuming that it is NOT wise to mix lens makers on a "film" project ie, don't use Cooke for one shot, Nikon on another, Zeiss, etc. My assumption is that the "feel" produced by the lens' attributes can't be changed in post. Therefore, if you're shooting two cameras, you need double the lenses or you will eat up a lot of $$$ in post, even if it can be fixed. Your insights will be appreciated.

Tail Ends

[Tail Ends]

Harry, I have not even heard of these variable primes. I'm not married to any manufacturer, though most of the guys I've talked to seem to think Cooke is best for my needs (ie features and some documentaries, people oriented, no run and gun, few long horizons, etc.)

As I said above, one of my big concerns is consistancy of image througout the shoot. To achieve this goal, I've been assuming that I need all the same lenses. And to achieve this, I need to buy pretty much new material. If this is not the case, then you and all the other guys helping on this thread may be saving me a lot of money.

I anxiously await more comments.

Tail Ends

[Mitch Gross]

Variable Primes handheld? Harry, have you been chomping steroids? Those things are huge and HEAVY. Beautiful glass, but c'mon--they're not for handheld.

[Harry Clark]

I'm a MAN, baby!
;)
I just figure since we're all used to cameras that weigh 30 lbs. and lenses that weigh 3 lbs., then using a camera that weighs 10 lbs. with a 10 lb. lens would not be a big deal.
And the CG of a Red is more adjustable than a film camera since the viewfinder is not fixed in any one position. You could conceivably end up with the camera entirely behind your shoulder and the middle of the lens next to your ear.
Not that I've ever tried it...
If he's got $50,000- $100,000 for lenses than a full set of new primes is out.
Maybe there is a combination of lenses, like a set of VP's and a few choice Ultra Primes to fill in.
Cheers,
Harry

[Nils J. Nesse]

If he's got $50,000- $100,000 for lenses than a full set of new primes is out.


How about http://www.optica-elite.com/

[Harry Clark]

Yes Nils, good point.
I myself have no experience with the Elites, although I know they've been used on many projects, large and small, by top DPs, and generally get good reviews.
There have been several threads here regarding the availability, sourcing, serviceability, and pricing of these lenses, so do a quick search.
What I have not seen is an Elite vs. MP vs. S4 test with stills like Evin's excellent shoot out from earlier this year.
Tails Ends DID say that he's not married to one brand over another, so if they perform to his liking and they're available in his time frame then they might prove an excellent choice.
Tail Ends, here's a link to a rental house that features the VPs:
http://rentacam.ru/eng/index.php?area=article&id_art=58
I agree that you should try to stay with one brand, even one type (i.e. all Ultra Primes vs a mix of UP and Super Speeds) although we mix lenses with great regularity on TV commercials and series. Features set the bar higher (due to projection) but primes, zooms, and even brands get mixed up on the same project here too. The fact that you're using the lenses with a digital and not photochemical system means that there are lots of ways to "match" the lenses later for flare, color, and contrast (every Red project by definition includes a DI, however rudimentary)
So if the Elites look good, then maybe get a set of them and a used Cooke zoom to compliment the set...
Cheers,
Harry

[Tail Ends]

Harry, thanks for the input. I tried to follow up on your Elite link, but all I got was Moscow, a bit far to go for a rental I think. Site didn't have any "partners" listed, but maybe it's under reconstruction. I'll do some more exploring over the next few days. thanks for thinking of me anyway.

Tail Ends

[Harry Clark]

Tail Ends, try sorting through this post:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11299&highlight=Elite+Slow+Motion
I didn't follow it all the way through but it seems as if the Slow Motion company is the US distributer of Elites.
Cheers,
Harry

[Marc Berger]

Hi Tail

with a $ 100000.- Budget I would go for the Red Set from Cooke.
15-40mm Zoom and 50, 75,100mm Primes. All togehther light and Quality.
Here is a link for a set of the Prime Zooms from Arri 2,2.
http://www.cameramarket.eu
Herman Verschuur is a very nice guy and offers high quality used lenses.

Cheers

Marc

[chuck colburn]

Those Vari-Primes are astounding lenses. I had a set on my bench for about a week and I would say that focale length for focale length there was nothing (at that time) that even came close to them so far as zooms went. The focale lengths are what is stated as opposed to most zooms which tend to hedge it abit when it comes to stated focale lengths.