Just to clarify this is looking at cine lenses which are derived from stills lenses. The very expensive cine lenses that are designed as cine lenses have no focus breathing and are par-focal, which stills lenses generally don't have to reduce costs - but as stablemate cine lenses carry the same optics they have the same result
Easy to see the difference in design in the image at 8:55. All the other expensive cinema lenses have optical elements protruding back from the mount, since you have no mirror in a cinema camera you can do this and it opens a whole world of possibilities in optics design.
@@revocolor Never considered to be releventant until all the internet expert arrived. Only ever became relevant as Zooms moved from Par focal to varifocal. But to know that one would have years of experience in the film industry. The internet has a lot to answer for in terms of youtube experts. I despair.
You forgot two important differences: 1: Cine lenses have a much MUCH longer throw on the focusing ring which makes it way easier to pull focus especially with moving objects. And there might be a chance when doing film that things move. 2: Cine lenses usually have the same color matched coating throughout a series which is not always the case with still lenses but makes a hell of a difference on set and in post production. All in all and in summary you could say that Cina lenses are much more precise then stills lenses hence the price difference.
There’s nothing like seeing someone entirely in command of his subject give a quick rundown of how and why it all works, and keeping things clear and logical even for the uninitiated like myself. A masterclass in only a few minutes. Brilliant. Thanks. Subscribed
There's just a bigger incentive for it in film. If everything already costs so much, you're hauling so much gear around, and time is extremely precious, you really don't want to have to rent out and lug around a whole different mattebox kit for each individual lens. Also, you need a lot more consistency if you're constantly cutting between shots taken with different lenses.
There isn't really a reason to match everything on stills lenses. Generally during a photo shoot you're not switching between 5 different lenses and you also aren't using accessories that are attached to the lens. I think most photographers prefer having their lenses cost as little as possible for the quality and features they provide while also being as small and light as possible, all of those things go out the window when you want all the lenses in a line to match.
Many cine lenses do work hard to be different from still, optically. They try to avoid aberrations, make things more even across the glass, fix light angles, deal with reflection. The catch is that these are the ones where you end up paying a lot more than double for the same thing. And then, of course, all of those things you mentioned are also true. Focus breathing is also important, if that's compensated.
Why don't they put the same optic quality efforts into still lenses? Is it because movie production companies are more ready to pay for expensive gear?
@@okebaram 1. I personally won't be buying a $40,000 lens for my camera. 2. Movie companies very commonly work by renting equipment. That's a great way to disguise real cost.
I loved the disclaimer at the beginning. Always concerned when browsing recommend videos and other reviews and that quickly made the video trusted and fun.
The most viewed video in last 6 months. Don't you think there is gap of lens knowledge that you filled with this ,I think you should make more videos like this filling the gap . Your channel will grow super fast
I've been doing a load of research on videography and photography recently, which is how I found this channel, and this is by far and away the best explanation I've seen... even as a lay person it's all understandable, interesting and relevant. Plus there's a sleeping springer spaniel. Thanks for a great video, I'll be watching many more of them from you now!
Well done, Dave! Clear, concise, thorough, including “so what” factor. Does similarity of optical performance include color rendition and uniformity of optical characteristics across the cine lens line?
I believe they'll be similar but not identical, since the stablemates are using the same optics as the stills they've have the same differences across the lineup as the stills do. But I doubt they'll ever get an 11mm lens to have identical characteristics to a 150mm macro for example
Do you have any info on this? I was wondering about exactly that after using Irix 30mm. The cine version has pretty much zero breathing, but the stills version does. Clearly something is different in the optical design, but it's not the number of elements, or what they are, but it is something.
Thanks so much for explaining this! I haven't seen a comprehensive breakdown of the cine/still (as opposed to cine still film!) Lenses before. It actually makes a heck of a lot of sense that cine lenses standardize like that, it also makes me feel a lot better knowing that I can use my still lenses for videos and still get good results within reason! Perfect for people like me that dabble in both but don't want to lay out too much cash for something I may not really actually need at my level
Absolutely Dan, I do a fair amount of videos but never use cine lenses as half the time I'm in front of the camera and needing autofocus, so to use cine lenses would also require a cameraman, and for the times I able operating the camera and using manual focus I fine the stills lenses still do I perfectly fine job for what I need.
Great info I knew some differences but have a more complete picture now. Would be nice to do a follow-up where you show off the focus pulling advantages of the cine lens.
Great suggestion, although I only had the lenses on loan from Irix and have since been returned but it's something I'll keep in mind for the future if I can get hold of some other stablemate lenses
Good points! Just wanted to add that some 5k+ cine lenses are parfocal as well, IE they can zoom without affecting af sharpness or af at all. That is a staple of Broadcasting lenses for example. As well as an insane zoom range most often.
This is good effort to explain the difference between cine and still lenses. It would have been better if the breathing focus effect can be explained early in the video. I hope this suggestion will help. Thanks.
Very nice comparison. However, other than the better build quality (which I find dubious), the reasons cited for the increased cost of the cine lens and cine lenses in general - and I’m referring to fixed-focal length lenses only, not zoom lenses - really don’t make sense. After all, a slow focusing system simply requires different internal gearing; the focusing distances indicated on a stills lens can be measured and marked on the focusing ring; you can calibrate any stills lens to specific t-stops (and mark them on the aperture ring); an aperture adjustment mechanism without detents should be less expensive than one with detents, since detents are an added complication; etc. This leaves few plausible reasons why the cine lens is more expensive, such as, far fewer are sold in comparison to stills lenses, the typical customer is much better endowed than the typical stills photographer and can easily recoup the cost by renting out the lens, and there is perhaps less “focus breathing,” and less of a tendency to develop internal reflections from off-axis light sources, where the latter can always be blocked when shooting a still.
The reason that the have markings on both sides is, because you’ll have a focus puller(1st AC). And the cine lenses, at least the professional ones, have a much better focus ring, smoother and longer.
Excellent video. You provide clear and concise explanations about the differences in the types of lenses. Thank you! Please give your dog a hug for me....
AS a DP I want to make a couple of statements ; - Cine productions tend to use proper cine lenses, not derieved from any still ones. ( ranging from 5K€ to 30K€, and even more if we're talking anamorphic ) - Cine lenses DOES NOT have focus breathing, 99% of still lenses have that issue. - Up until 6 or 7 years ago, pretty much all cine lenses ever made ( since the 1890's ) were to cover Super 35, so essentially they are APS-C lenses. - They are built like a tank, but also design for easy maintenance if something break. - modern high end cine lenses are flawless, some are optically perfect, even by Zeiss Otus standards - Those lenses, along side all the equipment, are rented and not bought. a full set cost more than a Ferrari or Lamborgini. ( Panavision lenses ; the Rolls Royes of cine lesnes, cannot even be purchase by rental companies. ) - A full set of cine lenses have more focal choices ( 15mm,18,20,25,28,32,35,40,45,50,65,75,85,100mm....) - Only the DP change or allow to change the aperture, but he don't take in charge the focus ring, that's the job of the 1st AC.
Excellent points Jeyycie, although those attributes could be put into a stills lens and sold for the same sort of price, but this was really more aimed at the stablemate lenses as I've seen a few people for example using cine versions for shooting stills believing that there are optically better etc
@@DaveMcKeegan yes, but that's for small cine lens like the Canon cine primes with comparaison from the stills L seriers, which are optically identical. but if you take real cine lens, although you could mount it on your mirrorless, I don't think someone would buy a still version of a 50mm at 20 000€ and 4kg just because it takes nice pictures. ( apart from Leica users, even though 4kg is too much for them ) utility is more important than performance, but for cinema the more is better, and you hire the pepoele and get the logestics to make use of it, for photography, small video production or low budget films, that would be ridiculus, unpractical even. There's plenty of good lenses out there, especially with mirrorless cameras since you can adapt pretty much anything with it.
I bought Samyang 35mm t1.3 for my Fuji x-t20 2 days ago. There is exact same model but still version with 35mm f1.2. I looked at their technical sheets. Every single thing is same, except gear focus and aperture rings, non-click aperture and longer focus travel. I'm starting to astrophotography and I need sensitive focus so I decided to buy cine version. But everone said "no that should not work for photo that is cine lens" I bought it anyway. Now I'm waiting for my lens and with the help of this video I'm very happy. Thanks a lot. I also watched a video about f1.4 lenses and f2.8 lenses. They shoot some pictures with f4 f8 f11 and they say "we don't understand why f1.2 one is expensive". That channel has 250.000 subs. There are many dumb people that just take some great photos at some time in their life and get famous and they think they know everthing. The same dumb people like you mentioned in the video compares apples and bananas.
This was very informative. I learned a lot. Thank you! One tidbit. The "optical setup/design" is referred to as the "optical prescription" in world of lens design.
There have been stepless apertures on camera's since the 1960's, starting with the Yashica Electro GSN, which later saw use with the Minolta Hi-Matic and GT models in the mid-70's. All of these were adaptations on Rangefinders for the consumer markets. The earliest Cinematic lenses also followed that equation, with Bell & Howell, and even Kodak capitalizing on that technology. Even with the advent of gear driven, motorized, focus and zoom being on many of the he current video camera's being offered, why hasn't the still industry just taken the stops out of circulation with button touch, pre-programmed, focus and zoom to alleviate all this nonsense about having to dedicate a type for either one or the other. Transmitted light is really the end game in the first place, isn't it?
Great information. Your lenses and/or camera body sensor are dirty as heck, though. I was seeing multiple fibers, specks, etc., all throughout your video. I mean, a lot. Pretty convinced that in your couch scene, those are two specks off to the left of the frame. One above the molding and one below, shoulder level. Despite how good your presentation was, I could not spot seeing these fibers and specs everywhere to the point that it was very distracting.
So most of the features you mention would explain a lower price tag on the cinema lens, not a higher one. Standardisation, click-less aperture rings, lack of electronics etc. mean lower manufacturing costs. The only feature that is indeed more expensive is the T vs F number calculation. I guess that it's more a matter of production volume, since cine lenses are made in much smaller numbers than still photo lenses. And their target customers are willing to pay the premium.
Click-less aperture ring needs to be more smooth to operate and be damped better than a clicking ones. Standardizing the position of gears and the size of the external housing means means additional components or larger pieces being manufactured (think a 50mm lens being physically size matched to a 100mm lens, the 50mm now needs a larger housing than is necessary to just hold the optics). A lot of the time cine lenses also have colour matched coatings on the elements, even if the the optics are shared with stills lenses, another more expensive part of producing them.
Brilliant video. Very well shot and, far more importantly, very well explained. Video was concise, but crystal clear. You demonstrate a very thorough understanding of lens. I loved the video. Top effort lad.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the price difference isn't just about features it's about their prospective markets. Stills lenses are for photographers who make a professional income (or nothing) Cinema lenses are (mainly) for movie studios who have enourmous amounts of money to throw around, and who will buy in bulk or as a set and save some money off that RRP. Most videographers I know just use stills lenses and produce awesome results. They can't justify the cost for cinema lenses.
For studios - read rental companies. Film studios/companies have little to no assets - everything from people to props is rented - this includes of course cameras, lenses grip etc
idk much about cine. but, given you mentioned canon. they started their cine lens lineup, based on the already existing FD line of photo glass. and, they were amazing. (hence todays old k35 prices)
Wow, I really learned a lot! Great breakdown. IMO I'm not sure that the build quality and physical changes for focus pulling are quite worth double. Do you feel there is any premium being paid because they're most likely for professional use and "budgets" rather than "wallets" are paying for them?
Part of it is the economics of supply and demand, with cine lenses being a much more niche product then the R&D costs and the costs of setting up new machines can't be spread across as many units sold
Time = Money my friend. You have trained professionals expecting a certain work environment. Cine lenses cater to them. A single operator has serious diminishing returns. You can learn any kit for your own purposes. Group dynamics on a cinema shoot are a different beast. Build quality definitely plays a part in rental scenarios. Again, single operator/owner it's severe diminishing returns. Resell value may play a part, though.
Fantastic explanation of the differences between cine and stills lenses. Clear, concise, engaging. Good job. Perhaps make a companion video to explain why true cine lenses are so much more expensive than these stills lenses in Cine bodies.(if you have not already done one)
10:00 i think cine lenses are perfectly calibrated to focus on the exact engraved distance. there could also be the case they are less prone to change focus with varying temperatures.
focus and breathing? color rendering ? transmitted light ? all these things actually is different. try 70-200mm still lens VS Cine servo zoom lens and you will be amazed how much things are different.
It’s similar to the canon FD and K35 lenses. The k35s were changed a little bit but they are almost exactly the same elements as the FD lenses. FD has a clicked aperture and different housing.
It is also worth noting, there is also a distinct supply-and-demand aspect that drives the difference in pricing. It is very easy to complain about the seemingly absurd prices of cine lenses over photo lenses without understanding the economics involved(beyond all the technical differences.) I don't know the statistics when comparing the average number of photo lens buyers versus cine lens buyers but it wouldn't surprise me if the ratio was something like 10 to 1, photo to cine. This all affects every aspect of lens making all the way back to the R&D and engineering costs, even if you are essentially just rehousing an already existing photo lens in the first place.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
You could also mention, that most cine lenses are parfocal, which is not the case for stills lenses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parfocal_lens . Although I can't find if Irix cine lens has that feature.
Brilliant. I shoot stills. Been doing it for decades. Would love to shoot video and just wanted real honest no bullshit info. Best explanation I could has asked for. Thanks
Very good comparison! But you could have mentioned that there is often a difference with focus breathing (more or less slightly changes in the viewing angle when focussing) or flange (loss of focus when zooming).
On the topic of f stops and t stops. I wish all lenses had both f and t stop ratings, I’m looking for the brightest lens on the market for ultimate low light so t stop ratings matter to me. I heard the mitakon speed master 50mm f0.95 is a t1.3, that’s pretty good but there’s gotta be something brighter.
Some aspects I already knew or guessed (just looking at a rig or seeing a focus-pull done by the assistant gives away many of the aspects covered). What I didn't know was the standardized front and filter diameters - makes perfect sense! I'll stay with still photography, though, not only because of the insane pricing of cine lenses … ;-)
The purpose made cine lenses do have a few other key differences such as no focus breathing etc and are generally much better optically which account for the much higher prices, they still really aren't much benefit to stills for the money though
@@DaveMcKeegan May I ask you if there's any practical use during a shot of the external aperture grid and how is it eventually compensated? Okay, normally one would compensate with the shutter speed or the ISO, but since you can't change the shutter speed while filming, can you compensate with the ISO? Or its function is simply to quickly set everything up before shooting and you don't change the depth of field after you started recording? I hope my question is comprehensible!
@@ItsJoeHut if I am understanding correctly you mean would you normally change the aperture in the middle of recording? If so then the answer is yes, if you have a shot where you want to go from focusing on a single subject within the scene to then having a lot more of the scene in focus for example, or moving from very bright areas into low light
@@ItsJoeHut if I am understanding correctly you mean would you normally change the aperture in the middle of recording? If so then the answer is yes, if you have a shot where you want to go from focusing on a single subject within the scene to then having a lot more of the scene in focus for example, or moving from very bright areas into low light You can compensate with your ISO but you still run the risk of sudden/stuttering changes like you get with changing any settings in camera
@@DaveMcKeegan Yeah, that's exactly what I meant! So I guess that it can be done, but veeery carefully like when you plan the exact same movement for a dolly or something like that
Thanks for this comparison! One question remains, though: focus breathing. My understanding is that, at least for the more expensive cine lenses, this is not an issue whereas still lenses don‘t correct for it.
Focus breathing can be more apparent in still lenses although it varies from lens to lens, some still lenses actually have little to no focus breathing The focus breathing generally remains around the same between cine lenses that are derived from stills lenses, where as higher end, dedicated cine lenses generally have absolutely no breathing at all
Fantastic video, thanks so much. I thought I knew a lot about photography, I know realise my knowledge is pretty limited (to stills). I hadn't realised how different the requirements would be for video. Great explanations.
Just to clarify this is looking at cine lenses which are derived from stills lenses. The very expensive cine lenses that are designed as cine lenses have no focus breathing and are par-focal, which stills lenses generally don't have to reduce costs - but as stablemate cine lenses carry the same optics they have the same result
Easy to see the difference in design in the image at 8:55. All the other expensive cinema lenses have optical elements protruding back from the mount, since you have no mirror in a cinema camera you can do this and it opens a whole world of possibilities in optics design.
i was surprised that u didnt mention focus breathing in the video, thanks for pinning it here.
@@revocolor Focus breathing is relative to Zooms not fixed focal lenses.
@@orsoncart9441 u need to update your knowledge. It is relative to both lens types ;)
@@revocolor Never considered to be releventant until all the internet expert arrived. Only ever became relevant as Zooms moved from Par focal to varifocal. But to know that one would have years of experience in the film industry. The internet has a lot to answer for in terms of youtube experts. I despair.
7 minutes passed and I just noticed there's a dog on the couch.
He's a ninja-dog 😉
Same, and only after reading this comment.
Took me 11.
He has mastered the ability of staying so perfectly still, that he has become invisible to the eye
You forgot two important differences: 1: Cine lenses have a much MUCH longer throw on the focusing ring which makes it way easier to pull focus especially with moving objects. And there might be a chance when doing film that things move. 2: Cine lenses usually have the same color matched coating throughout a series which is not always the case with still lenses but makes a hell of a difference on set and in post production. All in all and in summary you could say that Cina lenses are much more precise then stills lenses hence the price difference.
Very good points, although incidentally the focus throw on these 2 lenses is identical at around 270*
@@fto5935 You are a real charmer. I would guess you work by yourself.
This is the best explanation for the two types of lenses I've seen on TH-cam. Good job
Thank you Nick :)
Indeed
I concur!!!!!
+1 Brilliant. Thank you.
There’s nothing like seeing someone entirely in command of his subject give a quick rundown of how and why it all works, and keeping things clear and logical even for the uninitiated like myself. A masterclass in only a few minutes. Brilliant. Thanks. Subscribed
Never has the difference been so clear! The best explanation so far. Thank you!
I knew the difference between f stops and t stops, but you taught me about the rest . Excellent video
I had no idea, so I learned that part too.
I appreciate the uniformity and consistency in the cine lens world. The still world could use that consistency of design.
Lol you never used a vintage Cook cine lens...
Modern still lens series i.e. Zeiss Milvus are matched.
There's just a bigger incentive for it in film. If everything already costs so much, you're hauling so much gear around, and time is extremely precious, you really don't want to have to rent out and lug around a whole different mattebox kit for each individual lens. Also, you need a lot more consistency if you're constantly cutting between shots taken with different lenses.
There isn't really a reason to match everything on stills lenses. Generally during a photo shoot you're not switching between 5 different lenses and you also aren't using accessories that are attached to the lens. I think most photographers prefer having their lenses cost as little as possible for the quality and features they provide while also being as small and light as possible, all of those things go out the window when you want all the lenses in a line to match.
Man this guy's video quality is so good it feels like he's sitting right in front of me.
Many cine lenses do work hard to be different from still, optically. They try to avoid aberrations, make things more even across the glass, fix light angles, deal with reflection. The catch is that these are the ones where you end up paying a lot more than double for the same thing. And then, of course, all of those things you mentioned are also true. Focus breathing is also important, if that's compensated.
Why don't they put the same optic quality efforts into still lenses? Is it because movie production companies are more ready to pay for expensive gear?
@@okebaram 1. I personally won't be buying a $40,000 lens for my camera. 2. Movie companies very commonly work by renting equipment. That's a great way to disguise real cost.
I loved the disclaimer at the beginning. Always concerned when browsing recommend videos and other reviews and that quickly made the video trusted and fun.
The most viewed video in last 6 months.
Don't you think there is gap of lens knowledge that you filled with this ,I think you should make more videos like this filling the gap . Your channel will grow super fast
Thanks for the view
I've been doing a load of research on videography and photography recently, which is how I found this channel, and this is by far and away the best explanation I've seen... even as a lay person it's all understandable, interesting and relevant. Plus there's a sleeping springer spaniel. Thanks for a great video, I'll be watching many more of them from you now!
Thank you, glad you found it useful 😊
Like for Lada 🤣🤣
Well done, Dave! Clear, concise, thorough, including “so what” factor. Does similarity of optical performance include color rendition and uniformity of optical characteristics across the cine lens line?
I believe they'll be similar but not identical, since the stablemates are using the same optics as the stills they've have the same differences across the lineup as the stills do.
But I doubt they'll ever get an 11mm lens to have identical characteristics to a 150mm macro for example
Most cine lenses have additional unit inside the lens which compensate 'focus breathing', which is another major difference. Great video!
Do you have any info on this? I was wondering about exactly that after using Irix 30mm. The cine version has pretty much zero breathing, but the stills version does. Clearly something is different in the optical design, but it's not the number of elements, or what they are, but it is something.
The is the BEST explanation of stills lenses vs cinema lenses on TH-cam, to date... Thank you!!!!
Thanks for making this well crafted video. I have been curious about this for a long time.
Best video on this topic i hv seen
Thank you 😊
Thanks so much for explaining this! I haven't seen a comprehensive breakdown of the cine/still (as opposed to cine still film!) Lenses before. It actually makes a heck of a lot of sense that cine lenses standardize like that, it also makes me feel a lot better knowing that I can use my still lenses for videos and still get good results within reason! Perfect for people like me that dabble in both but don't want to lay out too much cash for something I may not really actually need at my level
Absolutely Dan, I do a fair amount of videos but never use cine lenses as half the time I'm in front of the camera and needing autofocus, so to use cine lenses would also require a cameraman, and for the times I able operating the camera and using manual focus I fine the stills lenses still do I perfectly fine job for what I need.
Great info I knew some differences but have a more complete picture now. Would be nice to do a follow-up where you show off the focus pulling advantages of the cine lens.
Great suggestion, although I only had the lenses on loan from Irix and have since been returned but it's something I'll keep in mind for the future if I can get hold of some other stablemate lenses
I had no idea that I needed to know any of this, but I was oddly hooked from the start. And now I feel smarter...
Good points! Just wanted to add that some 5k+ cine lenses are parfocal as well, IE they can zoom without affecting af sharpness or af at all. That is a staple of Broadcasting lenses for example. As well as an insane zoom range most often.
This is good effort to explain the difference between cine and still lenses. It would have been better if the breathing focus effect can be explained early in the video. I hope this suggestion will help. Thanks.
Love the no nonsense approach. Informative and fun to watch!
Thank you Harold 😄
That wheel is called a follow focus and the markings are on the side for the focus puller.
Very nice comparison. However, other than the better build quality (which I find dubious), the reasons cited for the increased cost of the cine lens and cine lenses in general - and I’m referring to fixed-focal length lenses only, not zoom lenses - really don’t make sense. After all, a slow focusing system simply requires different internal gearing; the focusing distances indicated on a stills lens can be measured and marked on the focusing ring; you can calibrate any stills lens to specific t-stops (and mark them on the aperture ring); an aperture adjustment mechanism without detents should be less expensive than one with detents, since detents are an added complication; etc.
This leaves few plausible reasons why the cine lens is more expensive, such as, far fewer are sold in comparison to stills lenses, the typical customer is much better endowed than the typical stills photographer and can easily recoup the cost by renting out the lens, and there is perhaps less “focus breathing,” and less of a tendency to develop internal reflections from off-axis light sources, where the latter can always be blocked when shooting a still.
The reason that the have markings on both sides is, because you’ll have a focus puller(1st AC).
And the cine lenses, at least the professional ones, have a much better focus ring, smoother and longer.
Thank you for the video! It's by far the most objective and comprehensive one I've ever watched.
Thanks Andrew, glad you enjoyed it
Excellent video. You provide clear and concise explanations about the differences in the types of lenses. Thank you! Please give your dog a hug for me....
I understood everything instantaneously, very informative and well done video!
Thank you! :)
AS a DP I want to make a couple of statements ;
- Cine productions tend to use proper cine lenses, not derieved from any still ones.
( ranging from 5K€ to 30K€, and even more if we're talking anamorphic )
- Cine lenses DOES NOT have focus breathing, 99% of still lenses have that issue.
- Up until 6 or 7 years ago, pretty much all cine lenses ever made ( since the 1890's ) were to cover Super 35, so essentially they are APS-C lenses.
- They are built like a tank, but also design for easy maintenance if something break.
- modern high end cine lenses are flawless, some are optically perfect, even by Zeiss Otus standards
- Those lenses, along side all the equipment, are rented and not bought.
a full set cost more than a Ferrari or Lamborgini.
( Panavision lenses ; the Rolls Royes of cine lesnes, cannot even be purchase by rental companies. )
- A full set of cine lenses have more focal choices ( 15mm,18,20,25,28,32,35,40,45,50,65,75,85,100mm....)
- Only the DP change or allow to change the aperture, but he don't take in charge the focus ring, that's the job of the 1st AC.
Thanks for the insight
Excellent points Jeyycie, although those attributes could be put into a stills lens and sold for the same sort of price, but this was really more aimed at the stablemate lenses as I've seen a few people for example using cine versions for shooting stills believing that there are optically better etc
@@DaveMcKeegan yes, but that's for small cine lens like the Canon cine primes with comparaison from the stills L seriers, which are optically identical.
but if you take real cine lens, although you could mount it on your mirrorless, I don't think someone would buy a still version of a 50mm at 20 000€ and 4kg just because it takes nice pictures.
( apart from Leica users, even though 4kg is too much for them )
utility is more important than performance, but for cinema the more is better, and you hire the pepoele and get the logestics to make use of it, for photography, small video production or low budget films, that would be ridiculus, unpractical even.
There's plenty of good lenses out there, especially with mirrorless cameras since you can adapt pretty much anything with it.
Aren't cine lenses par focal too?
Generally yes the purpose made cine zoom lenses are par focal but the rehoused stills/cine lenses still usually suffer with this to some extent
I bought Samyang 35mm t1.3 for my Fuji x-t20 2 days ago.
There is exact same model but still version with 35mm f1.2.
I looked at their technical sheets. Every single thing is same, except gear focus and aperture rings, non-click aperture and longer focus travel.
I'm starting to astrophotography and I need sensitive focus so I decided to buy cine version.
But everone said "no that should not work for photo that is cine lens" I bought it anyway.
Now I'm waiting for my lens and with the help of this video I'm very happy. Thanks a lot.
I also watched a video about f1.4 lenses and f2.8 lenses.
They shoot some pictures with f4 f8 f11 and they say "we don't understand why f1.2 one is expensive". That channel has 250.000 subs.
There are many dumb people that just take some great photos at some time in their life and get famous and they think they know everthing. The same dumb people like you mentioned in the video compares apples and bananas.
This was very informative. I learned a lot. Thank you!
One tidbit. The "optical setup/design" is referred to as the "optical prescription" in world of lens design.
The best explanation of the differences I've seen.
At least an easy and friendly video about this! Thank you!!!
6min in and this is so much clearer to me know. Thanks so much.
There have been stepless apertures on camera's since the 1960's, starting with the Yashica Electro GSN, which later saw use with the Minolta Hi-Matic and GT models in the mid-70's. All of these were adaptations on Rangefinders for the consumer markets. The earliest Cinematic lenses also followed that equation, with Bell & Howell, and even Kodak capitalizing on that technology. Even with the advent of gear driven, motorized, focus and zoom being on many of the he current video camera's being offered, why hasn't the still industry just taken the stops out of circulation with button touch, pre-programmed, focus and zoom to alleviate all this nonsense about having to dedicate a type for either one or the other. Transmitted light is really the end game in the first place, isn't it?
Great information. Your lenses and/or camera body sensor are dirty as heck, though. I was seeing multiple fibers, specks, etc., all throughout your video. I mean, a lot. Pretty convinced that in your couch scene, those are two specks off to the left of the frame. One above the molding and one below, shoulder level. Despite how good your presentation was, I could not spot seeing these fibers and specs everywhere to the point that it was very distracting.
It really bothered my OCD. I saw every little speck and thought "did he not see those?".
@@EnterSpacebar I'm really trying not to be overly critical, but it was just so much. Even the bokeh had fibers and specks.
@@KungPowEnterFist No, I saw the same. It's pretty distracting, although the video was otherwise really well done.
Finally someone explains this perfectly clear!! I GOT it!!! Thanks Dave!
You're welcome Dave, glad you found it useful 😊
That was such an amazing video. I learned soooo much more about the difference in Cine vs photo lenses. Subbed! Thank You!
Great video and explanation.I think this will help some people.(I think many might be confused between video and film)
In "analogic" lenses you can remove the "click" aperture and have a smooth transition with some moding.
7:41 was doggo there the whole time??
Yes, ninja-dog is always there 😄
So most of the features you mention would explain a lower price tag on the cinema lens, not a higher one. Standardisation, click-less aperture rings, lack of electronics etc. mean lower manufacturing costs.
The only feature that is indeed more expensive is the T vs F number calculation.
I guess that it's more a matter of production volume, since cine lenses are made in much smaller numbers than still photo lenses.
And their target customers are willing to pay the premium.
Click-less aperture ring needs to be more smooth to operate and be damped better than a clicking ones. Standardizing the position of gears and the size of the external housing means means additional components or larger pieces being manufactured (think a 50mm lens being physically size matched to a 100mm lens, the 50mm now needs a larger housing than is necessary to just hold the optics). A lot of the time cine lenses also have colour matched coatings on the elements, even if the the optics are shared with stills lenses, another more expensive part of producing them.
Brilliant video. Very well shot and, far more importantly, very well explained. Video was concise, but crystal clear. You demonstrate a very thorough understanding of lens. I loved the video. Top effort lad.
Thank you very much Nick 😊
I think it's also worth pointing out that the price difference isn't just about features it's about their prospective markets.
Stills lenses are for photographers who make a professional income (or nothing)
Cinema lenses are (mainly) for movie studios who have enourmous amounts of money to throw around, and who will buy in bulk or as a set and save some money off that RRP.
Most videographers I know just use stills lenses and produce awesome results. They can't justify the cost for cinema lenses.
For studios - read rental companies. Film studios/companies have little to no assets - everything from people to props is rented - this includes of course cameras, lenses grip etc
@@nelsonclub7722at large studios we are not rented.
Really informative video. I always wondered what the difference was between the two types.
idk much about cine. but, given you mentioned canon. they started their cine lens lineup, based on the already existing FD line of photo glass. and, they were amazing. (hence todays old k35 prices)
Wonderful! Thank you for this. Just now getting into Cine lenses and this was extremely helpful!
Thanks for this well done insight into lens types! It was really helpful! Keep it up!
Fascinating, I love the detail the creators, and you, went in to their craft.
Wow, I really learned a lot! Great breakdown.
IMO I'm not sure that the build quality and physical changes for focus pulling are quite worth double. Do you feel there is any premium being paid because they're most likely for professional use and "budgets" rather than "wallets" are paying for them?
Part of it is the economics of supply and demand, with cine lenses being a much more niche product then the R&D costs and the costs of setting up new machines can't be spread across as many units sold
Time = Money my friend. You have trained professionals expecting a certain work environment. Cine lenses cater to them. A single operator has serious diminishing returns. You can learn any kit for your own purposes. Group dynamics on a cinema shoot are a different beast. Build quality definitely plays a part in rental scenarios. Again, single operator/owner it's severe diminishing returns. Resell value may play a part, though.
Fantastic video! Extremely concise and sharp to the point, without missing anything. Sincere respect Sir!
Thank you Ivan 😊
Well done Mate, such a thorough review. You’ve answered many questions I had about lenses in the past . Thx for educating. Cheers
Wait! That pillow is a DOG? ;-) Seriously, though, great video!
Fantastic explanation of the differences between cine and stills lenses. Clear, concise, engaging. Good job. Perhaps make a companion video to explain why true cine lenses are so much more expensive than these stills lenses in Cine bodies.(if you have not already done one)
Thank you Raymond, if I'm ever fortunate enough to be able to get hold of such lenses then i'll certainly want to do such a video
Super great video explaining the differences. Thank you for sharing this. Your dog is really cute too :)
Is there a lot of dust and hairs on the camera sensor?
Just a hair in the gate mate ;)
None that I'm aware of, I regularly check my sensor for dirt, could possibly be something on the back of the lens
Dave McKeegan that makes sense I just see hair outlines in the bokeh are times
Extremely thorough explanation. Thank you so much for this.
10:00 i think cine lenses are perfectly calibrated to focus on the exact engraved distance. there could also be the case they are less prone to change focus with varying temperatures.
Great great explanation. Btw, love the dog, what a cutie
focus and breathing? color rendering ? transmitted light ? all these things actually is different.
try 70-200mm still lens VS Cine servo zoom lens and you will be amazed how much things are different.
thanks boss finally you switched to 4k ,what a quality bro
It’s similar to the canon FD and K35 lenses. The k35s were changed a little bit but they are almost exactly the same elements as the FD lenses. FD has a clicked aperture and different housing.
This was crazy helpful!!!! Definitely subscribing👌🏾
Highly educational video. Every high quality overall, thank you for the upload. Your channel is surely going to grow with content this good
Thank you Matthew 😊
Good work. Recent sub and like your limited b roll, slo mo coffee pours and typical related crap. Great content.
Thanks 😊
About the car example. I think the old Lada is better then the Ferrari
Great video!
Thank you! That was a very useful and clear explanation!
Good video. Neat, clean explanation or narration with great contents. 👌
thanks for that dude! i'm a photographer for decades but never gave a thought about cines. now i know, thanks to you!
You're welcome 😊
Super informative! Much appreciated.
It is also worth noting, there is also a distinct supply-and-demand aspect that drives the difference in pricing. It is very easy to complain about the seemingly absurd prices of cine lenses over photo lenses without understanding the economics involved(beyond all the technical differences.) I don't know the statistics when comparing the average number of photo lens buyers versus cine lens buyers but it wouldn't surprise me if the ratio was something like 10 to 1, photo to cine. This all affects every aspect of lens making all the way back to the R&D and engineering costs, even if you are essentially just rehousing an already existing photo lens in the first place.
You could also mention, that most cine lenses are parfocal, which is not the case for stills lenses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parfocal_lens . Although I can't find if Irix cine lens has that feature.
Brilliant. I shoot stills. Been doing it for decades. Would love to shoot video and just wanted real honest no bullshit info. Best explanation I could has asked for. Thanks
I'm glad you found it helpful 😊
Thanks! This helps decide right away.
Phenomenal video! Great content!
Very good comparison!
But you could have mentioned that there is often a difference with focus breathing (more or less slightly changes in the viewing angle when focussing) or flange (loss of focus when zooming).
Which one has more noticeable focus breathing? The stills lens?
you answered all my questions with one video! thanks!!
This is exactly the video I was looking for on this topic....thank you so much.
You're welcome Joe, hopefully it answered all your queries
Why dont the put marking on the stills lens, showing precise focal distances?
I love Irix
They do make some fantastic lenses, can't wait to see what they have coming next 😊
your dog is a legend! super chilled ahahah great content as well!
On the topic of f stops and t stops. I wish all lenses had both f and t stop ratings, I’m looking for the brightest lens on the market for ultimate low light so t stop ratings matter to me. I heard the mitakon speed master 50mm f0.95 is a t1.3, that’s pretty good but there’s gotta be something brighter.
Great walkthrough of the differences!
Some aspects I already knew or guessed (just looking at a rig or seeing a focus-pull done by the assistant gives away many of the aspects covered). What I didn't know was the standardized front and filter diameters - makes perfect sense! I'll stay with still photography, though, not only because of the insane pricing of cine lenses … ;-)
The purpose made cine lenses do have a few other key differences such as no focus breathing etc and are generally much better optically which account for the much higher prices, they still really aren't much benefit to stills for the money though
Thanks for a video that explains enough detail instead of trying to bamboozle us.
You're welcome Wayne 😊
I just learned so much.
Absolutely the best video on this subject. Thank you. I get it now. Bonus points for pup in these videos.
The number of frames actually shot on these lenses for comparison, in this video: 0
That was insanely interesting! Thank you so much for the explanatioN!
You're welcome Joe
Glad you enjoyed it 😊
@@DaveMcKeegan May I ask you if there's any practical use during a shot of the external aperture grid and how is it eventually compensated? Okay, normally one would compensate with the shutter speed or the ISO, but since you can't change the shutter speed while filming, can you compensate with the ISO? Or its function is simply to quickly set everything up before shooting and you don't change the depth of field after you started recording? I hope my question is comprehensible!
@@ItsJoeHut if I am understanding correctly you mean would you normally change the aperture in the middle of recording?
If so then the answer is yes, if you have a shot where you want to go from focusing on a single subject within the scene to then having a lot more of the scene in focus for example, or moving from very bright areas into low light
@@ItsJoeHut if I am understanding correctly you mean would you normally change the aperture in the middle of recording?
If so then the answer is yes, if you have a shot where you want to go from focusing on a single subject within the scene to then having a lot more of the scene in focus for example, or moving from very bright areas into low light
You can compensate with your ISO but you still run the risk of sudden/stuttering changes like you get with changing any settings in camera
@@DaveMcKeegan Yeah, that's exactly what I meant! So I guess that it can be done, but veeery carefully like when you plan the exact same movement for a dolly or something like that
Great video !!! Thank you !!! Kisses to your assistant. However lower his salary he was sleeping all the time. Same as my cat secretary.
Thanks for this comparison! One question remains, though: focus breathing. My understanding is that, at least for the more expensive cine lenses, this is not an issue whereas still lenses don‘t correct for it.
Focus breathing can be more apparent in still lenses although it varies from lens to lens, some still lenses actually have little to no focus breathing
The focus breathing generally remains around the same between cine lenses that are derived from stills lenses, where as higher end, dedicated cine lenses generally have absolutely no breathing at all
Thanks for the quick response!
Your dog actually relaxed ME.
If that’s a Springer Spaniel, it is the chillest I’ve ever seen. Very happy, no doubt.
Very informative video, Dave. Thank you.
I have some cheap cine lens on my D750. really enjoy them over the traditional still lens
This video was fantastically well done well explained and we'll spoken.
Thank you Bryan 😊
I found this video to be clear, concise and very informative - thanks👍
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it 😊
Fantastic video, thanks so much. I thought I knew a lot about photography, I know realise my knowledge is pretty limited (to stills). I hadn't realised how different the requirements would be for video. Great explanations.