Primes or Zooms [Archive]

PaulClements

06-08-2007, 07:44 AM

Primes:
Usually Faster (better for darker scenes)
Sharper
Lighter
Smaller
Typically Less breathing
Typically Less chromatic abberation
Typically Shallower depth of field (Because they're faster)

Zooms:
Variable Focal lengths (No need to swap out the lens, you can setup shots quicker)
Different types of shots achieved by zooming that cannot be done by primes
Usually cheaper than a set of primes
Guaranteed colour matching throughout the range (Though a good set of primes ought to have good colour matching throughout)

To name a few, I'm sure I can think of more but my brains mush today! Anyone else feel free to add to the list.

Stephen Williams

06-08-2007, 08:00 AM

Hi,

Zooms probably distort more.

Stephen

PaulClements

06-08-2007, 08:12 AM

Primes are typically closer focus is probably a fair comment too.

Michael Schrengohst

06-08-2007, 12:09 PM

And it depends on the shooting assignment....
There are some producers I have worked with
where I would not bother using primes.
And some producers I have worked with
abhor zoom lenses.

Antoine Fabi

06-08-2007, 02:38 PM

Thanks guys,

Yeah...there seems to be a lot of personnal preferences... ?

So in the end, for a given sharpness (if they are actually equally sharp), the real advantages of using primes are that they are faster (typically) and closer to focus. (and other Paul's considerations)

I was watching Evin's lenses reviews and i had difficulty to "see" that the primes were sharper...hence my question.

Sanjin Jukic

06-08-2007, 02:44 PM

More basics about zoom lenses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_lens

Prime lens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_lens

Zoom vs. Fixed Focal Length (Prime) Lenses - Which to choose?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Zoom-Vs-Prime-Lens.aspx

PaulClements

06-08-2007, 02:52 PM

If you are going the Nikon route then yes the 17-35mm compares very well to the primes, sometimes it betters than them. If you go PL some of the zooms are also comparible with their prime counterparts and even seasoned pros would have a hard time guessing one from the other when looking at a still.

My personal preference is a PL mount zoom, or even a couple of zooms. It allows me the ability to take the camera out on my own to experiment and so on. A set of primes is more cumbersome because you need to handle any lens with care and the more you carry the more care you must take! I don't mind sacrificing the pro's of the prime set for the sake of the flexibility and affordability a good zoom offers. Personally I say own a good zoom or two and rent primes.

I know Stephen is fond of both of his Cooke Zooms and has been very helpful with advice for my own zoom purchases.

Antoine Fabi

06-08-2007, 09:47 PM

I think i'll take the Nikon route for now.
Makes a lot of sense and superb performance/price of their Zoom lenses and flexibility.

...then...maybe i'll buy the primes.

thanks !

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 09:56 PM

Since zooms have more glass elements in them, they can be more prone to flare in extreme cases, like pointing the camera into the bright glare of an ocean, etc. Of course, there are older primes that are prone to flare and newer zooms that handle flare pretty well.

Jaime Vallés

06-08-2007, 09:56 PM

If I had to buy one lens right now, and money was no object, then the Cooke 18-100 T3 zoom lens would be it. If I could wait until the RED 18-85 zoom was available, then that would be it.

But, money is an object, therefore I'm going with Nikon lenses, probably the 17-35 to start off.

PaulClements

06-09-2007, 05:57 AM

Another good link:

http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/PrimesvsZooms.htm

Matt Uhry

06-09-2007, 11:13 PM

Are we talking about still lenses, cine lenses in general or speculating about Red's lenses?

Zooms have gotten most of the recent attention of lens designers, and benefited hugely from super computer aided design, high index / low dispersion glass and aspheric elements.

Mid range primes in the last 30 years were usually pretty good and still are. They may hold their value better than zooms and probably have less maintenance issues.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Leo Ticheli

06-10-2007, 08:44 AM

Here's my choice for a lens set:

Primary, for shooting from the Chapman dolly, Cooke 18-100. This covers most of the focal lengths I need, though not enough on the wide end. Cons are size & weight and deeper DOF. I've used this lens a great deal and like it a lot for the kind of work I do.

Lightweight Zoom; we have the Red 18-50 on order. Great general purpose lens for hand-held, jibs, Steadicam, etc.

For the longer focal lengths, which I don't do that much of, I'm considering a 25-250; they are widely available on the used market at very low prices. For anything longer, I'll rent as required.

On the wide end, which I do a lot of, I need something like a 14MM and 10MM. I'm considering both the used market and new lenses from Elite. If we decide on the Red prime set, I'll just use the 15MM and purchase only a 10MM or 9.5MM in the case of the Elite. This will sort of "subsidize" the purchase of the Red primes; that's why I love having the 15MM rather than the 18MM in the set.

I do think a set of primes is essential, obviously not for the angles of view, but the low light capability and the shallow DOF. We're looking at the Red and the used market. By the way, the availability of used prime lenses, such as Super Speeds, seems to have really dried up; I believe Red may well be responsible. I'm betting the price of good used 35MM glass goes up when Red starts delivering.

I'm still toying with the idea of a Noctilux with a custom PL mount but it's a lower priority; my first goal is completing a set ranging from 9.5MM or 10MM to 250MM with some fast primes.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Matt Uhry

06-10-2007, 09:16 AM

Here's my choice for a lens set:

On the wide end, which I do a lot of, I need something like a 14MM and 10MM. I'm considering both the used market and new lenses from Elite. If we decide on the Red prime set, I'll just use the 15MM and purchase only a 10MM or 9.5MM in the case of the Elite.

Leo

I've had a look at the elite's the 9.6mm t2.1 (sup 35 format) and it is very impressive. Silly sharp, low distortion. 6300 euro.

http://optica-elite.com/price/pages/price.aspx

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Emanuel A.

06-10-2007, 09:49 AM

Good tip Matt. Really low distortion?

BTW, can you get any sample?

EDIT -- On the other side, there's a strong possibility for trouble with the portholing effect since we're working with a digital sensor. Take a look on this thread (Stephen's findings):

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2501

Matt Uhry

06-10-2007, 12:11 PM

EDIT -- On the other side, there's a strong possibility for trouble with the portholing effect since we're working with a digital sensor. Take a look on this thread (Stephen's findings):
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2501

+++ EDIT: I'm wrong about the Zeiss T2.1 Distagons, which are of retrofocal design+++

I don't think so due to the 9.6's retrofocal design... The Zeiss T2.1 16mm and T2.1 24 mm are old designs and non-retrofocal.

It will be easy enough for me to test out as soon as a I get delivery of my camera, and hard to know anything for certain until someone fortunate enough to have one of the first cameras tries it.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

+++ EDIT: I'm wrong about the Zeiss T2.1 Distagons, which are of retrofocal design+++

Leo Ticheli

06-10-2007, 02:21 PM

It will be easy enough for me to test out as soon as a I get delivery of my camera, and hard to know anything for certain until someone fortunate enough to have one of the first cameras tries it.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

I know I would greatly appreciate your evaluation, Matt. As "cheap" as the Elite lenses are (compared to new primes from others except Red), they are still quite an investment.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Stephen Williams

06-11-2007, 12:00 AM

The Zeiss T2.1 16mm and T2.1 24 mm are old designs and non-retrofocal.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Hi Matt,

Are you sure. I thought only the Planar's in the Zeiss range were not retrofocal or telephoto design.

Stephen

Alexander Nikishin

06-11-2007, 12:07 AM

I've had a look at the elite's the 9.6mm t2.1 (sup 35 format) and it is very impressive. Silly sharp, low distortion. 6300 euro.

http://optica-elite.com/price/pages/price.aspx

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

God they're in serious need of a decent web designer.

Mr. Paul White

06-11-2007, 03:06 AM

Hi Matt,

Are you sure. I thought only the Planar's in the Zeiss range were not retrofocal or telephoto design.

Stephen

What exactly does it mean? Retrofocal or telephoto design? Aren't they wide lenses??

Stephen Williams

06-11-2007, 04:29 AM

What exactly does it mean? Retrofocal or telephoto design? Aren't they wide lenses??

Hi,

A retrofocal is an inverse telephoto. A telephoto is physically shorter than it's focal length & a retrofocal is longer than its focal length. If retrofocal lenses did not exist the widest lens you could use on a movie camera with a spinning mirror would be about 28mm.

Stephen

Mr. Paul White

06-11-2007, 05:45 AM

And the old lenses are not retrofocal?

Is this worst? Planar?

Is this the portholing effect?

Stephen Williams

06-11-2007, 05:59 AM

And the old lenses are not retrofocal?

Is this worst? Planar?

Is this the portholing effect?

Hi,

Fairly sure Zeiss distagon is retrofocus.

The Planar's don't porthole, their exit pupil is large, it's a simple good design,

Stephen

Matt Uhry

06-11-2007, 08:38 AM

I stand corrected, I thought the reason the Zeiss T2.1 16mm distagon protruded into the camera body so far was due to the non retrofocal design.

Anyway there seems to be a consensus that it's not a good lens choice for digital sensors or 35mm depth of field adapters due to the angle of light exiting the rear element causing a porthole effect ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Stephen Williams

06-11-2007, 08:41 AM

Anyway there seems to be a consensus that it's not a good lens choice for digital sensors or 35mm depth of field adapters due to the angle of light exiting the rear element causing a porthole effect ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Hi Matt,

Exactly.

Stephen

Roberto B

06-11-2007, 06:37 PM

hey man.. dear stephen.. don't spread the FUD over here, okay?.. i know matt had attacked moi-même.. not even a couple of weeks ago.. but i like him.. a matter of personality, perhaps.. but above all, he's a real indy dp.. truly.. i advice to all to check his website.. his things rule.. (who knows man?.. if one day we'll work together.. the world has so many rounds around.. thus, you'll know how i work, that is, when i work.. :))

on subject: the boss here in redland (himself.. Mr. Land) said that his experience with the Zeiss 14mm (!) didn't porthole at all, so..

edit
Elite 9.6mm should be fine.
now more seriously.. why shouldn't it be?
i'm all hears, Mr. Williams..

Matt Uhry

06-11-2007, 07:06 PM

i know matt had attacked moi-même.. not even a couple of weeks ago.. but i like him.. a matter of personality, perhaps.. but above all, he's a real indy dp.. truly.. i advice to all to check his website.. his things rule.. (who knows man?.. if one day we'll work together.. the world has so many rounds around.. thus, you'll know how i work, that is, when i work.. :))

Cheers! I guess...

The zeiss T2.1 16mm and 24mm seem to be the only ones that manifest this problem, the 14mm is not related from a design standpoint as far a rear exit pupil etc.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Roberto B

06-11-2007, 07:34 PM

Cheers! I guess... sure.. me likes free spirits and open mind people.. my rants with a few DoPs are just because not all want to shoot for the box office or in order to satisfy a customer.. my shooting time can go up to a half of a year.. more exactly between 7-9 months.. like a baby.. as average.. lol.. i have a movie that i've been shooting since 1995.. or more exactly (once again) since 1990.. when i was a boy (super8 first.. later hi8 but i gave up because i had disliked the absence of dof, latitude and so on..) before film school..

most part s16 (i was the DoP 30% of time.. once.. without lightmeter i took the light measure with my SLR from a 1/60th shutter and it worked! :) at lab they didn't want to believe.. not under nor overexposed.. at all..) and it will be finished in 2k after an ultimate red shooting.. and i have reels waiting for my bank account :blush: at lab.. :whistling: since 2000.. :watsup:

Roberto B

06-11-2007, 07:35 PM

i have a movie that i've been shooting since 1995.. or more exactly (once again) since 1990.. when i was a boy (super8 first.. later hi8 but i gave up because i had disliked the absence of dof, latitude and so on..) before film school..

most part s16 (i was the DoP 30% of time.. once.. without lightmeter i took the light measure with my SLR from a 1/60th shutter and it worked! :) at lab they didn't want to believe.. not under nor overexposed.. at all..) and it will be finished in 2k after an ultimate red shooting.. and i have reels waiting for my bank account :blush: at lab.. :whistling: since 2000.. :watsup:same feature.

Stephen Williams

06-12-2007, 01:34 AM

on subject: the boss here in redland (himself.. Mr. Land) said that his experience with the Zeiss 14mm (!) didn't porthole at all, so..

edit
Elite 9.6mm should be fine.
now more seriously.. why shouldn't it be?
i'm all hears, Mr. Williams..

Hi,

I never said the 14mm would porthole, I have not used or tested an Elite 9.6mm so I have no idear whatsoever.

I have tested the Zeiss 16, 24, 50 & 85mm (2.1 standards) on a Phantom HD. The 16 & 24 did porthole, I am reporting what happened with a test I did not more, not less.

The only way you will know for sure if a Lens is good enough for you is to make your own tests on a Red camera when you get a chance. I carry out tests for myself & I share information for people who are interested.

Stephen

Roberto B

06-12-2007, 04:13 AM

stephen.. no worries there.. i was just joking.. you are a cool guy.. though a little bit obsessive with your porthole findings.. but anyway.. (you already found your place among us.. those 92%.. you well know about who i'm taking about.. and now i have a number to quote.. :mail1: :innocent: )

i will be waiting for your tests.. you are gold my friend.. me likes to joke with your british way of being.. not more, not less.. :)

btw, does it porthole after that T4 mark?.. i'm afraid not, right?.. so, it's useless to think that one or another (16mm or 24mm) are useless (once again) right?

Stephen Williams

06-12-2007, 04:17 AM

stephen.. no worries there.. i was just joking.. you are a cool guy.. though a little bit obsessive with your porthole findings.. but.. anyway..

i will be waiting for your tests.. you are gold my friend.. me likes to joke with your british way of being.. not more, not less.. :)

btw, does it porthole after that T4 mark?.. i'm afraid not, right?.. so, it's useless to think that one or another (16mm or 24mm) are useless (once again) right?

Hi,

The 16mm was acceptable from T4
The 24mm was acceptable from T2.8/4 split
There was no 35mm in the set.

If you stop them down they can be used, but if you can't shoot them wide open they have no advantage over a Zoom.

Stephen

Roberto B

06-12-2007, 04:22 AM

Stephen Williams

06-12-2007, 04:44 AM

we're online.. same time.. i can't believe it..

now more seriously.. sometimes.. :red_bandana:

what do you mean with acceptable? 100%?

moreover.. you say: "If you stop them down they can be used, but if you can't shoot them wide open they have no advantage over a Zoom."

is this the only advantage over a zoom?.. to be faster..

Hi,

I was in a big hurry shooting those tests, so I was just using my eyes & not a scope. I guess 90-95%, very few lenses are ever perfect.

The biggest advantage of primes IMHO is they have a faster stop. Very expensive modern zooms are very sharp.

Stephen

Roberto B

06-12-2007, 05:50 AM

maybe breathing too, what do you think?

that said and breathing issue aside, perhaps red zoom shall be enough.. what's your bet?

Stephen Williams

06-12-2007, 06:28 AM

maybe breathing too, what do you think?

that said and breathing issue aside, perhaps red zoom shall be enough.. what's your bet?

Hi,

A modern cine zoom from the top 3 manufactures would breathe less than a Zeiss standard IMHO.

No idea how the Red zoom will compare, it won't be easy to make a small lightweight close focusing zoom that does not breathe & with T stops, at any price.

Stephen