Anyone tried out Cine-glass? I see several Rokinon options in varying FLs...

birdman

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/lenses/wide-angle

I know Zeiss makes glass specifically for cinematic purposes, but so does Rokinon. At large apertures (ex: Rokinon 35mm 1.5) I was wondering how sharpness, Chroma, and other optical qualities would compare vs. "normal" lenses in same FL.

Has anyone tried out these lenses? I'm just curious, as they seem to be versatile -- although obviously tailored more for a specific purpose

PB_PM

The Rokinon (Samyang) are just the normal photo lenses with clickless apertures.

Vipmediastar_JZ

i have not tried any. I used the sigma 35 1.4 to record a party with a live band. i may be doing a music video in the spring. i was thinking of using the sigma again.

FlowtographyBerlin

I'd say you can boil it down like this:

The only difference between i.e. a Rokinon lens labelled "cine" vs. "still" is the aperture that clicks (still) or not (cine).

Now, what differentiates the 'real' cine lenses, as i.e. the Zeiss or Panavision lenses, from still photo lenses is that they don't compromise for size and weight that much, because there's the comparably huge cine camera behind it anyway. I can't say anything about the actual image quality, but it should be an advantage :-) Just like making a 16-200/1.4 zoom is not impossible but mainly a question of size and weight; things in that direction are available for studio tv cameras. I think I saw a comparison once between this Zeiss 70-200 CZ.2 and a "normal" 70-200, but I don't remember where...

The one main difference between cine and still photo lenses, though, is that (real) cine lenses are optimized for things you don't see in a still photo, but you can see when operating the lens in shooting a motion image. One issue is focus shift, i.e. no focus shift when zooming or changing the aperture, and no focus breathing, i.e. no "micro-zooming" when focussing. Also, there are mechanical features that you want with cine lenses, like focus scales being reliable and thorough and tight build of adjustment rings – those things lead to cine lenses being built a lot tougher and heavier, but without necessarily giving you better still image quality, just better operating quality and better moving image quality.

But again, just because Rokinon (or any other DSLR lens maker) puts a blue instead of a red ring around their DSLR lens, makes the aperture clickless and calls it "cine", doesn't give the lens any of those real "cine" lenses' qualities.

FlowtographyBerlin

Addendum: If you're just looking for nice cinematic look when using your DSLR for video, you're all set with a normal DSLR prime and large aperture. In fact, if you have an FX camera, you're even getting more bokeh than a cine camera, because a classic 35mm is the "sensor" size of DX. Remember: HD is only barely 2.1 MP anyway, so you're getting very very nice image quality even with not-super-pristine lenses.

The main concern is more the stuff that you can see even at 720-pixels width on YT: like the look of bokeh and flares of a lens.

Msmoto

There must be some reason the cine lenses at B & H begin about $60,000….. not a typo… about $20,000 for the majority, but for the cost conscious…. some are down around $3,000 each……

It would seen the ones which are much less than this may not have the same quality and thus would be even less desirable for still photos….my opinion only….

Vipmediastar_JZ

man it's quite expensive now that I look at it. I still need to rent lights, get some wheels for the tripod, compose a story and possibly look into a zeiss lens.

this first time project that i disclosed to my friend that it would be a first might give me more headaches than desired in addition to editing but if it goes well then well then ill add to my tool belt.

@birdman thanks for bringing this subject up

FlowtographyBerlin

There must be some reason the cine lenses at B & H begin about $60,000…..
It would seen the ones which are much less than this may not have the same quality and thus would be even less desirable for still photos….my opinion only….

Ok, so studio monopods (those 100 kg things) cost something like 50k and up. Does that make an RSS tripod crap and not desirable for still photos?

Those lenses do have a great image quality, but the main difference is as stated above, the different priorities and the heavy-duty construction.

And all those things are absolutely not at all comparable to the re-labeled DSLR lenses.

man it's quite expensive now that I look at it. I still need to rent lights, get some wheels for the tripod, compose a story and possibly look into a zeiss lens.

Coming up with a story is a good idea :-)

TaoTeJared

@birdman - From what I understand from reading people who use them, the Zeiss/Canon lenses are close to the "Otus" or MedFmt quality and extremely well built. I have read some who use them for photography but it's more slow of a process as the apertures are de-clicked and the focus is a very long turn. Not really ideal for photography at all. Every time I see a article on any high-end cine lens they all talk about the "look" it creates. That tells me that is the focus (like Nikkor's 58mm) is on the lenses signature and not the focus on "scientific perfection" correct.

As for the Rokinon - they all seem fairly capable lenses for cheap.

NSXTypeR

Do the Rokinon lenses have T stops?

PB_PM

The Cine versions are rated by T-Stops.

Msmoto

@FlowtographyBerlin

I agree the cine lenses are intended for a different purpose than the still photo lenses. And, some of these characteristics are not necessary for stills, e.g., the continuous aperture vs. click stops. Thus, the idea of using a cine lens for still photos makes little sense for me.

Re: the big rig pedestals…nearly $80K….camera stands can cost $25K….again a different use than tripods intended for up to 50 pounds. (The RRS stuff I do not own but simply lust after)

In my experience I have never seen a professional shooting stills with a cine lens.