PL vs SLR lenses on P+S? at DVinfo.net

Haris Sarajlic · September 22nd, 2004, 04:47 PM

Can anyone elaborate this few thousand $ difference in final result. Any frames online to compare?

Charles Papert · September 22nd, 2004, 05:57 PM

Haris:

The difference between SLR lenses and cine lenses has less to do with the resulting image than the practicality. Pulling focus for moving images is very different than the process of shooting still images. Still lenses may have a tendency to "breathe", i.e. the image size zooms slightly during a focus rack; this is most apparent with zooms. And the zoom may not be perfectly linear, it may wander side to side during the move. The process of pulling focus at a wide-open stop generally requires a camera assistant, and without useable marks on the barrel combined with a short throw (amount of rotation of the barrel), it is much trickier to maintain focus with a still lens.

A lot of this depends on the complexity of the shots themselves. If you have an SLR, you can see for yourself what is involved by zooming to 100mm (use a tripod so you are not distracted by the camera shake) or so and having someone stand six feet away. Now have them move forwards and backwards, and manually focusing on them. Not easy, huh!

Barry Green · September 22nd, 2004, 06:59 PM

Exactly. There's not much image quality difference, but the usability is quite different.

I had the opportunity to use Zeiss SuperSpeed lenses on the mini35, and then swap out the mount and use some Zeiss Jena still-camera lenses from the '70's on the same camera/same mini35.

There wasn't a hair's difference in image quality between the two. Maybe on 35mm motion picture film there would have been, but when you're talking about it getting recorded on standard-def video, AFTER getting shot through a piece of vibrating ground glass, well, there was *no* discernable image quality difference.

But as Charles says, it's a whole different world zooming/focusing using cine lenses vs. still-camera lenses.

Charles Papert · September 22nd, 2004, 09:00 PM

There are certain types of shooting that will show up optical differences more than others. Flares are a big one. Shooting tests with highlights like raw light bulbs can reveal significant characteristics particular to a type of lens. Some will produce multiple "sunspots" or halos while others will take the highlight.

Eric MacIver · September 29th, 2004, 12:46 AM

A nice set of cine primes will have more consistency from lens to lens as well, rather than most still lenses that can have varying f/stop abilities. For instance, the Ziess primes we have are all t1.3, but the Nikon's are from f1.4 - f2.0 depending on the lens.

September 22nd, 2004, 04:47 PM	#1
Haris Sarajlic Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sarajevo Posts: 25	PL vs SLR lenses on P+S? Can anyone elaborate this few thousand $ difference in final result. Any frames online to compare? __________________ poiu

September 22nd, 2004, 05:57 PM	#2
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Haris: The difference between SLR lenses and cine lenses has less to do with the resulting image than the practicality. Pulling focus for moving images is very different than the process of shooting still images. Still lenses may have a tendency to "breathe", i.e. the image size zooms slightly during a focus rack; this is most apparent with zooms. And the zoom may not be perfectly linear, it may wander side to side during the move. The process of pulling focus at a wide-open stop generally requires a camera assistant, and without useable marks on the barrel combined with a short throw (amount of rotation of the barrel), it is much trickier to maintain focus with a still lens. A lot of this depends on the complexity of the shots themselves. If you have an SLR, you can see for yourself what is involved by zooming to 100mm (use a tripod so you are not distracted by the camera shake) or so and having someone stand six feet away. Now have them move forwards and backwards, and manually focusing on them. Not easy, huh! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

September 22nd, 2004, 09:00 PM	#4
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	There are certain types of shooting that will show up optical differences more than others. Flares are a big one. Shooting tests with highlights like raw light bulbs can reveal significant characteristics particular to a type of lens. Some will produce multiple "sunspots" or halos while others will take the highlight. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

September 29th, 2004, 12:46 AM	#5
Eric MacIver Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 121	A nice set of cine primes will have more consistency from lens to lens as well, rather than most still lenses that can have varying f/stop abilities. For instance, the Ziess primes we have are all t1.3, but the Nikon's are from f1.4 - f2.0 depending on the lens. __________________ http://www.IndieRentals.com RED Rentals, Camera, Grip, Lighting, Sound, Post and More. http://www.madmojo.com Production blog.

September 22nd, 2004, 06:59 PM	#3
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Exactly. There's not much image quality difference, but the usability is quite different. I had the opportunity to use Zeiss SuperSpeed lenses on the mini35, and then swap out the mount and use some Zeiss Jena still-camera lenses from the '70's on the same camera/same mini35. There wasn't a hair's difference in image quality between the two. Maybe on 35mm motion picture film there would have been, but when you're talking about it getting recorded on standard-def video, AFTER getting shot through a piece of vibrating ground glass, well, there was no discernable image quality difference. But as Charles says, it's a whole different world zooming/focusing using cine lenses vs. still-camera lenses.