The best thing about clean footage, is that you can dial in a "look". In post production there are filters, LUTs, stock types and many other tools to give your footage the look that you want. This gives you a choice, before you do delivery. If you use a "character" lens you have basically used a physical "burn in".
It feels like everyone wants an easy path to visual interest, hence the huge jump in interest in vintage glass or swirly bokeh. It's the same trap we fell into when full frame first became available to the masses with a DSLR -- shooting at f1.4 is a great way to trick the viewer into thinking "this image is higher quality and more artistic!" As many love to point out with aperture, most DPs shoot at f2.8 and above and using ultra shallow or deep focus is a creative choice. Characterful lenses should be a creative choice with intention behind it, not a crutch to just try and make whatever you point the camera at look "better" without having to put any thought into framing, composition, lighting, movement, etc. Roger Deakins has made some of the most beautiful and visually intriguing images of our generation, and he doesn't fall back to the crutches of Helios-44 or anamorphic everything to achieve it. I am probably biased as almost all my lenses are Sony GM, but I do own a single vintage manual lens for the rare times a project needs that look.
I might sound a bit funny but I absolutely LOVEEEEE the look of Sigma ART lenses. They look so high end and make any camera that shoots RAW produce beautiful imagery
It’s pretty easy to control your look when you’re doing one man band stuff, but when working in a production environment it’s gotten all too easy for a DP to loose creative control over the final image with client/agency/artist/producer/network/shitty colorist being able to manipulate the image in post to look nothing like you intended, and even possibly make you look bad by doing that. This is why DPs choose lenses with a certain character, why they choose to shoot a certain film stock or put a physical diffusion filter. So that some stupid marketing manager won’t ruin your look that you spent blood and sweat crafting
@@DastanZhumagulov I work on smaller sets and projects where I can usually maintain control over the visuals through the editing process, or I'll be handling the process myself. You make a good point. I might be more eager to use characterful lenses if I was in fear of losing too much creative control. I usually have no issue working *for* a client, but I also haven't really had someone push very hard for something I thought looked objectively terrible. I'm okay with "different" especially when working on client projects, but I won't let "shitty" slide even if I'm being paid regardless.
F1.4 simply doesn’t suit every shot. It’s more about what we prefer as creatives, rather than what we can get away with because the audience that may not know better can be tricked. There are times where shooting that shallow is awesome, and times where it’s a silly decision. I like to have different lenses for different kinds of work because my clean lenses are clean and boring (fine for commercial work) whereas lenses with character have a creative look to them that allow me to visually tell a story more effectively and efficiently - without having to try and recreate that look in post (which often can’t be recreated without looking inorganic).
@@EyeofkamauI didn't say we should shoot at f1.4. I was saying that the mentality that leads to shooting everything at f1.4 is the same mentality that leads to shooting everything on Helios or anamorphic glass. It's not always a bad idea and some projects need that look (in camera is indeed best), but too many people just shoot crazy lenses without thinking about if it really serves the project. There was a similar wave of obsession around mist filters and glimmer glass a couple years ago that has thankfully moved past us.
Clean lenses can also be unique. I've seen countless films and series with 'Cooke look', but those straight aperture blades can be distracting, especially when shooting specular highlights through the leaves. On the other hand, a drama I watched recently had these backlit night scenes with soft waterfall bokeh, whilst the subject was crystal clear with no flare and minimal loss of contrast. I can't find what lenses they used, but I'm fairly certain Arri Master Anamorphic lenses are the only ones that can give you that.
After watching your videos, I bought my Otus 85 and love it. I take photos more than videos. I am thinking about selling my Zeiss Loxia 25 and Sony 35gm to get a second hand Otus 28mm for Otus’ best backlight performance…But I need to go to gym more often…
The new DZO Arles are looking like another fabulous sharp, compact and affordable set of FF primes with an extra stop of shallow DOF and better CA than the Vespid.
Glad to see a video about clean lenses. I appreciate that you discussed the variety across the price spectrum, each with the pros and cons mentioned in the video. For how great they look, you'd think the price of the Tokina Vista Primes would be much higher.
And yet when you check the technical specs on imbd. The Tokina vistas are never mentioned. For example when you go to the Tokina website and go to the movies it was shot on. For example “El Camino” they only mention the higher end lenses on IMDb for that movie. I dont know why that bothers me so much lol
@@REMY.C. season 1 was Venice and the t series. Season 2 was mini LF and the vistaprimes. I can’t remember where I read it, but you can see them in the Assembled behind-the- scenes video
I love my Fujinon MK zooms, they're cleaner than most primes and I absolutely understand why Cameron shot Avatar 2 on them, even though they're a budget lens.
great video! I’ve used the Sigma’s and really liked them! I’m prepping for a horror shoot and I’ve been looking into clean, fast lenses, but also thinking of semi compact for some handheld shots
I think we tend to fixate so much on camera’s and the technology of sharpness that we can forget the other departments. I was at a recent panel and a hair and makeup up deisnegrr was talking about how on the recent season of Bridgerton the swap to 8k (I assume leaping form Sony Venice 1 6k to Venice 2 8k) caused the wigs to look horrible.* Like the hair nets they have always used were suddenly very noticeable so they had to try and relearn their craft and techniques for cheating. And the same thing applies to production design and costuming. Do I think vintage or grungy or character lenses also have the benefit of saving time and money in other departments since sharp 8k, won’t only add to the cost of data storage! Though ultimately as with most things it’s up to the artists involved and the story should come first. I just don’t want to see a whiplash effect where everyone starts saying “only the best DPs shoot sharp and with deep focus.” Like people so often assumes a trend = bad, and the mindset should be more about finding what you need for the specific project not worrying about what other creatives are over using or under utilizing. *bridgerton films on arri signature prime lenses
Thanks for the great video as always. I'm planning a similar one, further exploring what you hint at towards the end: using a clean lens but optionally making it dirtier in post. I'm VERY interested in the new DZOFilm Arles set, can't wait to test them out at Cinegear,
In relativity new to cine lenses and I find the technicalities really interesting. Have you got any videos on your channel covering lens basics?? I just find it all fascinating.
When Blackmagic introduce the Ursa Mini 12k and claim its nothng to do with resolution but everything to do with have better colours they could not really prove it except when using the Zeiss Otus, clean aterfefact free lens that properly deliver colour seperation from the sensor that vintage and other inspired modern lenses cant do.
A suggestion for a recommendation video oriented at small budgets: What Super 35 cinema lenses have a large enough image circle so that they can also used with L-Mount adapters on Full-Frame cameras without issues like vignetting?
I really enjoyed this video, thank you! Have you had an experience with the Zeiss CP.3 cine lenses? I've heard these described as "clean" and they sit at the more affordable end of the cine lens scale.
Lots of very good info. I am wondering what you think of the Xeen CF and if they classify as clean, but even so thank you for the video and God bless you.
Why cinematographers (the best ones like Deakins) use clean sharp lenses? It is because he knows his lightings and create conditions with lights to achieve what he wants. Deakins don't even use diffusion filters. In effect a perfect artefact free lens is liken to a blank canvas. Lens that are soft with artefact and warm cast, etc, full of problems but lend itself to what others describe as "character" to tell a story are useful but cannot be useful for all types of stories or projects.
Another useful informative video, thanks! Is there a reason you left out Irix cinema lenses in your value for dollar category? Have you tested them? Do you offer them? I would have really found it useful to see your assessment.
I makes sense to shoot it clean, then add the characteristics as needed. Otherwise, if the shoot calls for an artsy feel from the start and its possible to find said visual style before post, then full send. Learning film making there are so many competing feelings, but the audience has no Idea of the technicalities especially if the visual story is well communicated.
It’s really interesting to me how cleaner optics have somewhat fallen out of fashion, I wonder if or more likely when they’ll be popular again. There’s also this fun in between area of vintage lenses (that I’m a fan of) that almost fall into this category of cleaner optics Vintage Leica R lenses definitely come to mind, or my own personal “clean” set of Mamiya 645 lenses
Lenses with a very imposing "look" can be so distracting if used without a valid narrative reason. It's so inside baseball, no viewers could give a toss. If you're shooting projects on wanky lenses primarily to impress other cinematographers than you're running a fools errand.
Makes you feel less of an idiot using the same E mount G lens for the Alpha cameras onto a Venice I or a Burano...but of course, directors and cinematographers have that look they want to achieve. Seeing how these "still" cameras have rather good video features and performance, their lenses won't be out of place shooting video...
@@CVPTV Yes Jake, I saw those ones too. 😁 I was curious, with all the Zeiss mentions throughout why the CP3 and the new mirrorless mount ones weren’t discussed though. I would consider those “clean”. Great video, bud.
You kept repetaing the same things again, and again. But never realy answered any questions!!! Did you talked to any of the directors??? no... Then why is your title "why do directors choose" ???? No director in your video said anything. You just babled about lenses... And realy said absolutely nothing... I guess you are on the right track. But kinda realy got lost on the way. Or just REALY mistitled the video. Do some interwievs next time. So its no you talking about the lens. But actual directors telling what they think. The video actualy should be titled "what i think of clean lenses!"...
Great topic, seeing that most discussions tend towards lens "characteristics"...
The best thing about clean footage, is that you can dial in a "look". In post production there are filters, LUTs, stock types and many other tools to give your footage the look that you want. This gives you a choice, before you do delivery. If you use a "character" lens you have basically used a physical "burn in".
I bought the Zeiss Otus set based on recommendations by CVP and I was not disappointed, thank you
It feels like everyone wants an easy path to visual interest, hence the huge jump in interest in vintage glass or swirly bokeh. It's the same trap we fell into when full frame first became available to the masses with a DSLR -- shooting at f1.4 is a great way to trick the viewer into thinking "this image is higher quality and more artistic!" As many love to point out with aperture, most DPs shoot at f2.8 and above and using ultra shallow or deep focus is a creative choice. Characterful lenses should be a creative choice with intention behind it, not a crutch to just try and make whatever you point the camera at look "better" without having to put any thought into framing, composition, lighting, movement, etc. Roger Deakins has made some of the most beautiful and visually intriguing images of our generation, and he doesn't fall back to the crutches of Helios-44 or anamorphic everything to achieve it.
I am probably biased as almost all my lenses are Sony GM, but I do own a single vintage manual lens for the rare times a project needs that look.
I might sound a bit funny but I absolutely LOVEEEEE the look of Sigma ART lenses. They look so high end and make any camera that shoots RAW produce beautiful imagery
It’s pretty easy to control your look when you’re doing one man band stuff, but when working in a production environment it’s gotten all too easy for a DP to loose creative control over the final image with client/agency/artist/producer/network/shitty colorist being able to manipulate the image in post to look nothing like you intended, and even possibly make you look bad by doing that. This is why DPs choose lenses with a certain character, why they choose to shoot a certain film stock or put a physical diffusion filter. So that some stupid marketing manager won’t ruin your look that you spent blood and sweat crafting
@@DastanZhumagulov I work on smaller sets and projects where I can usually maintain control over the visuals through the editing process, or I'll be handling the process myself. You make a good point. I might be more eager to use characterful lenses if I was in fear of losing too much creative control. I usually have no issue working *for* a client, but I also haven't really had someone push very hard for something I thought looked objectively terrible. I'm okay with "different" especially when working on client projects, but I won't let "shitty" slide even if I'm being paid regardless.
F1.4 simply doesn’t suit every shot. It’s more about what we prefer as creatives, rather than what we can get away with because the audience that may not know better can be tricked. There are times where shooting that shallow is awesome, and times where it’s a silly decision. I like to have different lenses for different kinds of work because my clean lenses are clean and boring (fine for commercial work) whereas lenses with character have a creative look to them that allow me to visually tell a story more effectively and efficiently - without having to try and recreate that look in post (which often can’t be recreated without looking inorganic).
@@EyeofkamauI didn't say we should shoot at f1.4. I was saying that the mentality that leads to shooting everything at f1.4 is the same mentality that leads to shooting everything on Helios or anamorphic glass. It's not always a bad idea and some projects need that look (in camera is indeed best), but too many people just shoot crazy lenses without thinking about if it really serves the project. There was a similar wave of obsession around mist filters and glimmer glass a couple years ago that has thankfully moved past us.
Clean lenses can also be unique. I've seen countless films and series with 'Cooke look', but those straight aperture blades can be distracting, especially when shooting specular highlights through the leaves. On the other hand, a drama I watched recently had these backlit night scenes with soft waterfall bokeh, whilst the subject was crystal clear with no flare and minimal loss of contrast. I can't find what lenses they used, but I'm fairly certain Arri Master Anamorphic lenses are the only ones that can give you that.
After watching your videos, I bought my Otus 85 and love it. I take photos more than videos. I am thinking about selling my Zeiss Loxia 25 and Sony 35gm to get a second hand Otus 28mm for Otus’ best backlight performance…But I need to go to gym more often…
The new DZO Arles are looking like another fabulous sharp, compact and affordable set of FF primes with an extra stop of shallow DOF and better CA than the Vespid.
Thank you again for making such a subjective field as objective as possible. I think it is much needed.
Glad to see a video about clean lenses. I appreciate that you discussed the variety across the price spectrum, each with the pros and cons mentioned in the video. For how great they look, you'd think the price of the Tokina Vista Primes would be much higher.
I'm pretty sure that Loki season 2 used the Tokina vistaprimes as well.
That’s true. I listened to an interview of the cinematographer that did that season
And yet when you check the technical specs on imbd. The Tokina vistas are never mentioned. For example when you go to the Tokina website and go to the movies it was shot on. For example “El Camino” they only mention the higher end lenses on IMDb for that movie. I dont know why that bothers me so much lol
According to IMDb it's Panavision T-Series Lenses, are they the same you're talking about but rehoused or is IMDb wrong?
@@REMY.C. season 1 was Venice and the t series. Season 2 was mini LF and the vistaprimes. I can’t remember where I read it, but you can see them in the Assembled behind-the- scenes video
I love my Fujinon MK zooms, they're cleaner than most primes and I absolutely understand why Cameron shot Avatar 2 on them, even though they're a budget lens.
great video! I’ve used the Sigma’s and really liked them! I’m prepping for a horror shoot and I’ve been looking into clean, fast lenses, but also thinking of semi compact for some handheld shots
I think we tend to fixate so much on camera’s and the technology of sharpness that we can forget the other departments. I was at a recent panel and a hair and makeup up deisnegrr was talking about how on the recent season of Bridgerton the swap to 8k (I assume leaping form Sony Venice 1 6k to Venice 2 8k) caused the wigs to look horrible.* Like the hair nets they have always used were suddenly very noticeable so they had to try and relearn their craft and techniques for cheating. And the same thing applies to production design and costuming. Do I think vintage or grungy or character lenses also have the benefit of saving time and money in other departments since sharp 8k, won’t only add to the cost of data storage!
Though ultimately as with most things it’s up to the artists involved and the story should come first. I just don’t want to see a whiplash effect where everyone starts saying “only the best DPs shoot sharp and with deep focus.” Like people so often assumes a trend = bad, and the mindset should be more about finding what you need for the specific project not worrying about what other creatives are over using or under utilizing.
*bridgerton films on arri signature prime lenses
Thanks for the great video as always. I'm planning a similar one, further exploring what you hint at towards the end: using a clean lens but optionally making it dirtier in post. I'm VERY interested in the new DZOFilm Arles set, can't wait to test them out at Cinegear,
In relativity new to cine lenses and I find the technicalities really interesting. Have you got any videos on your channel covering lens basics?? I just find it all fascinating.
When Blackmagic introduce the Ursa Mini 12k and claim its nothng to do with resolution but everything to do with have better colours they could not really prove it except when using the Zeiss Otus, clean aterfefact free lens that properly deliver colour seperation from the sensor that vintage and other inspired modern lenses cant do.
A suggestion for a recommendation video oriented at small budgets: What Super 35 cinema lenses have a large enough image circle so that they can also used with L-Mount adapters on Full-Frame cameras without issues like vignetting?
I really enjoyed this video, thank you! Have you had an experience with the Zeiss CP.3 cine lenses? I've heard these described as "clean" and they sit at the more affordable end of the cine lens scale.
Zeiss CP.3 Full Frame not in line up?
Lots of very good info. I am wondering what you think of the Xeen CF and if they classify as clean, but even so thank you for the video and God bless you.
I would prefer either clean lens like Masterprime or some very charactered ones like Mercury Anamorphics. Depends on the project of course.
informative video thanks CVP
I love my Dullens APO mini primes. They help create a beautiful image.
Why cinematographers (the best ones like Deakins) use clean sharp lenses? It is because he knows his lightings and create conditions with lights to achieve what he wants. Deakins don't even use diffusion filters. In effect a perfect artefact free lens is liken to a blank canvas. Lens that are soft with artefact and warm cast, etc, full of problems but lend itself to what others describe as "character" to tell a story are useful but cannot be useful for all types of stories or projects.
Fantastic video. Can you do one for zoom? Thanks
I’ve noticed strong focus breathing in Hawk lenses. What’s your take on these lenses? They gain increasing popularity and I wonder why…
Great video! Could you share link to that masterclass? Can’t find that excerpt from your vid after re-watching second time (with too much skimming;)
What's the timestamp where they mention the class?
any thoughts on sigma 18-35mm 1.8 art ?
Another useful informative video, thanks!
Is there a reason you left out Irix cinema lenses in your value for dollar category?
Have you tested them? Do you offer them? I would have really found it useful to see your assessment.
I makes sense to shoot it clean, then add the characteristics as needed.
Otherwise, if the shoot calls for an artsy feel from the start and its possible to find said visual style before post, then full send. Learning film making there are so many competing feelings, but the audience has no Idea of the technicalities especially if the visual story is well communicated.
0:06 what's the triangular aperture lens?
Angenieux Optimo Prime, you can change the Iris in it between a few different ones, a 3 blade one being the one in this shot. Jake
I hope I didn’t miss it but what do you think of the new Zeiss nano primes? Would you consider them another clean option?
Check our review of them out here! th-cam.com/video/f-qbZUHjOBo/w-d-xo.html Jake
The CA on those is pretty bad.
Excellent vid! As always!!!
Thanks Martin! Jake
Amazing video, coming from a vintage lens fanatic 🤣
We need a Komodo X versus C400 video after it comes out next week
It’s really interesting to me how cleaner optics have somewhat fallen out of fashion, I wonder if or more likely when they’ll be popular again.
There’s also this fun in between area of vintage lenses (that I’m a fan of) that almost fall into this category of cleaner optics Vintage Leica R lenses definitely come to mind, or my own personal “clean” set of Mamiya 645 lenses
Lenses with a very imposing "look" can be so distracting if used without a valid narrative reason. It's so inside baseball, no viewers could give a toss. If you're shooting projects on wanky lenses primarily to impress other cinematographers than you're running a fools errand.
Also, true 4k looks cleaner than 35mm film at this point which is what the majority of films have historically been shot on.
Massively false
There's only two sets of glass i've been blown away by and makes my work look really good. Sigma ART (EF w/ HSM)and Zeiss OTUS. Nothing beats them
I absolutely love the later BIG Sigma Art lenses. The 28, 40, and 105 f/1.4 are all incredible.
Love my Otus 85.
They really are fantastic! Jake
Great video, Jake
Thanks Kyle! Jake
WELL DONE, JAKE!!!
THANKS FOR THIS MASTERCLASS.
BEST REGARDS, FROM SPAIN.
NANO.
Arri Signature primes are the absolute standard ill tell ya
Thanks
Why hasn't a single word been said about Canon CN-E primes?
Because I wouldn't classify them as clean lenses. Jake
@@CVPTV me neither. They have a great, but strong look.
Otus is just missing a 35 mm or 40mm badly IMO. There are soooo many lenses in between a 28mm and 55mm.
God I would love a 40mm Otus! Jake
Makes you feel less of an idiot using the same E mount G lens for the Alpha cameras onto a Venice I or a Burano...but of course, directors and cinematographers have that look they want to achieve. Seeing how these "still" cameras have rather good video features and performance, their lenses won't be out of place shooting video...
A shame this video was made before the arles release. Arles review incoming?
Did you make this up? I mean the term "clean lens"? That's way too confusing.
The recommended book costs 200 $, even 300 $ - if available.
WTF.
Let's discuss clean cine lenses for all budgets. First up, the Grand-Uber ARRI Zeiss Signature Plus Deakins Baller. It's dope...moving on.
Shame you didn't watch the whole video as we mention several affordable sets throughout. Jake
@@CVPTV Yes Jake, I saw those ones too. 😁 I was curious, with all the Zeiss mentions throughout why the CP3 and the new mirrorless mount ones weren’t discussed though. I would consider those “clean”. Great video, bud.
Hit that “like” button if you still use Sigma Art 18-35mm F1.8 🎉
Sigma ART are pretty clean lenses.
first
You kept repetaing the same things again, and again. But never realy answered any questions!!! Did you talked to any of the directors??? no... Then why is your title "why do directors choose" ???? No director in your video said anything. You just babled about lenses... And realy said absolutely nothing...
I guess you are on the right track. But kinda realy got lost on the way. Or just REALY mistitled the video.
Do some interwievs next time. So its no you talking about the lens. But actual directors telling what they think.
The video actualy should be titled "what i think of clean lenses!"...