The problem with your narrative regarding these lenses, is that you expect $350 lens performed well wide open like Arri primes. this are flowless at their price.
Just got the 35mm and I am enjoying it. I have to say i prefer the smoothness and ease of use on the manual focus. It makes it easy to use when manually focusing with your finger.
The thing about cine lenses is they don’t lap strive for crazy fast apertures. Some of the really good ones may only open as wide as f2.8 for example. So having a budget cine lens that does look good stopped down to f2.8 is actually not far off of higher end lenses. It’s about perspective. If a higher end lens is f2.8 then you kind of should compare the optical quality at f2.8. Anyone more wide open is just a huge bonus really. It is the difference between having to use ISO or setting up larger or stronger lights on set. ISO also has its own negatives to image quality. Not just noise but it impacts dynamic range as well. Some of the film greats like Spielberg also shot at f5.6 so to compare image quality you really have to look at that aspect as well. Even in high end productions a lens may not be used wide open because a lens is never at its best optically when wide open. This is true of all lenses photo or cine. Vignetting, contrast, sharpness, flare, and chromatic aberration are all factors that impact every lens. So buying a f1.2 lens isn’t always about being able to shoot f1.2. It’s about knowing when stopped down you are targeting more of a sweet spot of the lens. Som3 higher end professional lenses will do better when opened up wide but there is a reason some of those big end cine lenses only open as wide as f2.8. Because any wider and they would also fall apart. Yes stopping down requires a lot more light. This is what separates the low and high end productions. The lens should add the character and look. It should capture the details but it’s not meant to replace light. very few narrative productions should be using f1.2 without a really darn good reason. Even small spaces are not a valid excuse. We have so many lighting tools at our disposal now. Tiny cube lights, rope lights, tube lights. My point is these lenses are attractive to me because of the character and cine features they provide. I don’t even really pay attention to the f1.2. To me that’s sort of an odd turbo mode that’s there in unique situations.
The CA on this lens isn’t too bad. Cine lenses aren’t designed minimize it. There are lenses over $10k that have it because of the character it provides - which is what Cine lenses are about - character. Some are CA-free, but it isn’t uncommon or even unfortunate for some, that there is CA. Like you said, some people love it. Especially anamorphic shooters
Very informative review. I was thinking about the set for specific need but you talked about CA and quality better at f4. I was planning to use those at 2, 2.8 in controlled low light and contrasty scenes so that seems like an issue.
Thanks for the very thorough and helpful video. How do you feel about the 24 mm used primarily for still photography at night? Are there others you would prefer at this lower price point. For reference, I am using the OM1. All the best to you, Bob
well...not precisely an enthusiastic endorsement! I may get the 24mm for my Sony FX30 in metal grey...looks awesome...but I won't use it as my main lens
The problem with your narrative regarding these lenses, is that you expect $350 lens performed well wide open like Arri primes. this are flowless at their price.
Just got the 35mm and I am enjoying it. I have to say i prefer the smoothness and ease of use on the manual focus. It makes it easy to use when manually focusing with your finger.
The thing about cine lenses is they don’t lap strive for crazy fast apertures. Some of the really good ones may only open as wide as f2.8 for example. So having a budget cine lens that does look good stopped down to f2.8 is actually not far off of higher end lenses.
It’s about perspective. If a higher end lens is f2.8 then you kind of should compare the optical quality at f2.8. Anyone more wide open is just a huge bonus really. It is the difference between having to use ISO or setting up larger or stronger lights on set. ISO also has its own negatives to image quality. Not just noise but it impacts dynamic range as well.
Some of the film greats like Spielberg also shot at f5.6 so to compare image quality you really have to look at that aspect as well. Even in high end productions a lens may not be used wide open because a lens is never at its best optically when wide open. This is true of all lenses photo or cine. Vignetting, contrast, sharpness, flare, and chromatic aberration are all factors that impact every lens. So buying a f1.2 lens isn’t always about being able to shoot f1.2. It’s about knowing when stopped down you are targeting more of a sweet spot of the lens. Som3 higher end professional lenses will do better when opened up wide but there is a reason some of those big end cine lenses only open as wide as f2.8. Because any wider and they would also fall apart.
Yes stopping down requires a lot more light. This is what separates the low and high end productions. The lens should add the character and look. It should capture the details but it’s not meant to replace light. very few narrative productions should be using f1.2 without a really darn good reason. Even small spaces are not a valid excuse. We have so many lighting tools at our disposal now. Tiny cube lights, rope lights, tube lights.
My point is these lenses are attractive to me because of the character and cine features they provide. I don’t even really pay attention to the f1.2. To me that’s sort of an odd turbo mode that’s there in unique situations.
Received mine last week, can’t wait to use them this weekend for a couple weddings!
My only gripe with them is the 24mm has a bit of a yellow cast (but mine are pre-production units) 😋
They all felt a bit warm to me. And lacking in contrast as well
😹😹😹😹
9:40 It's so crazy you said this, they're about to be apart of mine literally!
The CA on this lens isn’t too bad. Cine lenses aren’t designed minimize it. There are lenses over $10k that have it because of the character it provides - which is what Cine lenses are about - character. Some are CA-free, but it isn’t uncommon or even unfortunate for some, that there is CA. Like you said, some people love it. Especially anamorphic shooters
What is the slider used at 6:50?
What’s the song playing at 1:25 ??
Very informative review. I was thinking about the set for specific need but you talked about CA and quality better at f4. I was planning to use those at 2, 2.8 in controlled low light and contrasty scenes so that seems like an issue.
Nice detailed review. Did you see the same results for all three, or only looked at the 55?
These lenses are really intriguing! Might have to try them out 👀
Thanks for the very thorough and helpful video. How do you feel about the 24 mm used primarily for still photography at night? Are there others you would prefer at this lower price point. For reference, I am using the OM1. All the best to you, Bob
would yall choose this lens over the 7artisans?
Same question
Thanks!
Chromatic aberration is a deal breaker thanks for saving me money… appreciate it
Always here to help
I find the 16mm and 75mm better. Another TH-camr did a whole content about them 2. It was nice.
Looks like it has everything built-in. Well without option turn it off sometimes ;)
well...not precisely an enthusiastic endorsement! I may get the 24mm for my Sony FX30 in metal grey...looks awesome...but I won't use it as my main lens
What do i need to do to win one of these from you?
Giveaway would be fun. Maybe at 20k
nah challenge me to do a video :)@@kylemeshna
the fermented cheese bit got my subscribe
Consistency ❤🎉
You should make a shirt that says “creameh bokeh”
Consistency
Booyah
Consistency
Consistency
Consistency
Consistency
Consistency