I agree. He's kinda overselling the inconveniences that are negligible in practice.

Very Fair.

100 percent. Lighting adjustments + final tweaks before roll will almost always take longer than any adjustments by camera department short of jib or steadicam stuff. Lens switches happen so fast that (even as a DP) sometimes the ACs do it before I can even notice. When I gaff, camera is nearly always ready when lighting things get handled. The worst kept secret on professional sets really is that the money pays for convenience more than it does fancy toys. Unless it's disney+. Then it's always fancy toys.

Though he argued against vintage stuff on smaller shoots, micro budgets, etc... but thanks anyway! :)

I'm not sure how you're putting Xeens or DZOs and Cookes in the same table. You may be talking about buying a kit of lenses against a single Cooke at that point. Id take the set over the single lens since I hate telling a director or client: "no, I can't take that shot my lens is too wide/long".

I think that I understand what you are trying to communicate. I happen to believe too in obtaining special and unique tools even if that means that they are flawed and more high maintenance or maybe even hard to work with. So I think I get your point. I do have two thoughts to share though. 1) By the examples you use I understand that your focus is mostly on the artistic side of filmmaking and particularly feature films. That's what interests me too. But in reality this side of filmmaking only accounts for maybe less than 5% of productions. Most people are involved in more commercial aspects of filmmaking such as events, music videos, corporate videos, commercials etc. In all of these cases you need actual tools you can count on. On a daily basis, repeatedly and with ever changing conditions and crews. There is no don Kichotism here. You need to be able to count on your equipment in order to deliver. This can mean the difference between a job well done and a job that caused you trouble. So in most cases people need to think sensibly and practically about the way they choose gear if they are serious about and if the intent to make money by using it. Also even the people who do use old lenses for a certain aesthetic such as in The Batman or in Blonde it's most often lenses rehoused so that practicality is not compromised. 2) On your point regarding the aesthetics of these new lenses and what their long term value might be I think of it this way: why does a cooke or a zeiss lens have to be by definition better? I understand a few things about lenses and I have worked with so many of them. And I would say that at this point the gap is closing more and more. Both in terms of build quality as well as aesthetically and optically. I understand that companies such as Zeiss or Cooke or Leica were the first ones and established a name for themselves and people associate them with class and prestige but at the same time KZfaq reviews and blogs have started revealing a different picture: Cookes breathe too. They have CA too. They have fringing and are not very sharp. And yet we call that a look because you know... It's the Cooke S4! And Zeiss ultra primes also breathe and also have medium sharpness and are optically flawed. And yet they are sought after and revered and expensive. Even if when you watch them side by side with Dzo you will not be able to tell the difference in a blind test. But Dzo when it exhibits those same characteristics is considered uncool and lesser because it is a new and not established Chinese or whatever it is company. Well I am not ok with that at all. Because it turns out that those brands are essentially overcharging for things that can be produced equally good if not better for so much less. And more than that I like the idea that the establishment is being challenged at this point. I like the idea that as with what happened in the automotive industry a Toyota at this point is considered an equal car to a vw which would be laughable in the past. And obviously people still buy Bmws and Mercedes and they are still more prestigious but it's perfectly fine to own a Honda and to sensible people it's desirable even. Why should we side with those that came first and take advantage of it; Had it been in Zeiss's hands you would still be unable to own any real piece of equipment to do your personal project or micro feature film because of cost alone. Do not buy into the myth of the product. See it for what it is. In your own example that is what Kubrick essentially did with Nikon. Chose the outcast and the underdog. Went off the beaten path. So I say that we need to embrace this revolution and democratization. I hate this romanticized version of how good the old Uber elite players are. Just my thoughts. Take care.

I like your optimism about the future…

​ @konstantinosstag6436 Great thoughts! I actually agree, totally understand what you're getting at. No part of me wants to prioritize "cool" brand recognition more than anything else. I do NOT believe just because a brand is legacy it's special, either. I like your pragmatic attitude. The caution you express is valuable. Obviously, I maintain a lot of what I was getting at. Frankly, brand or not, even to an untrained eye, product speaks for itself, if you listen to what it's telling you. One of the things I love about Laowa or Dulens (another gem: SLR Magics APO Hyperprimes) is their products speak for themselves. They make gorgeous, beautiful lenses and offer specialized products, for super fair prices. They cut well with vintage and modern glass and on their own, have their own unique style. Your comment about CA or fringing being "uncool" on DZO I completely agree with, just to clarify: those same flaws are always flaws. What else does the lens do, though? That's the thing. When I see how beautiful color, pleasing and versatile skin rendition, and fantastic out of focus areas - CA can be forgivable. Personally, if there's CA - AND ugly out-of-focus areas & boring skin rendition. That's more what I'm getting at. Not to be unfair,. Since my last comment, DZO has had more of my attention. Their newer glass looks subjectively nicer to me, I like the 18-35 FF, the vespid 21 & 40 too. And the prices on those seem fairer than the Macro Gnosis or the Pictors. That's the main gripe. I'm not in love with inappropriate, self-important, over-estimated "legacy brand"-prices for what's basically a fine or "passable" product. Those protocols / de facto choices bug me. My point earlier was just removing the bullshit. Me: I love how a super speed looks. I know I'll be glued to it on every gig & will have to rent it too often to justify recurring expense. Now, I suck at modifying lenses - total amateur. So, I'll get one that's already in PL. Just put extra effort into research, investigating, & ensuring quality. I recently got a full frame HFT 35mm 1.4 (with a lovely nine-bladed aperture) Great condition. No blemishes. Excellent metal gears, declicked, shimmed. Ready for any set. And it will last me a lifetime. Fun fact: it was the first design ported over to the original B speeds (that and the equally gorgeous 85mm). Way more neutral color rendition, but sharp as a tack (to my eye, even prettier / more "hi-fi" than the same design on Contax for the MM / AE versions). Of course, most clients don't know all this. Nor might they "need" to. Except I'd counter that what a smart client wants more than anything is you, and your taste & discretion and understanding of what they're looking for. They hired me for a reason. No risk, no reward. Clients LOVE knowing they're in good hands. Regardless of brand name. Of course, brand recognition rarely hurts. But what matters more is giving them the assurance and the feeling you've put thought & care into their product, you want them to have something special, not just okay. That, combined with (more importantly) YOUR taste and creativity is what matters. I get your point about if zeiss were left to their own devices, they'd charge fortunes for everything - in that situation, however - I'll still just save up (if it's worth it / feasible - we're not talking about buying a set of Supremes). Also, I'm not so sure that it's that black and white. Look at the Otus lenses. Product manager for those literally told the designers in the brief to take price off the table as a consideration, yet even brand new - expensive as they were - they aren't infeasible. I get what you're saying. Still though. They're not much more used than a brand new Macro Gnosis prime - a lens they still outperform it in most of the right ways way, minus breathing (an annoying, but easy fix: a keyframe zoom i/o post) Milvus have more flaws but they're sharper in some cases, and absolutely gorgeous. Program it in reverse on a follow focus unit if you don't like the Nikon focusing. Or have it worked on if its finicky. If it's really bugging you, get some CP3's or Sigmas (Arts or Cine-line, those lenses are as "uncool" as it gets - and worth every penny if you want perfect) For context: my aforementioned HFT lens *was* expensive when it originally came out - hardly far off though from what DZO's charging new. Plus, the results stood the test of time. I'm a lot more secure knowing what I have is special - frankly, unless *I* fail, *it's* not going to "fail" on set any time soon. Thanks for sharing your thoughts nonetheless though! I like how you think. Just to clarify, too: I don't mean to discourage people from buying budget productions. In fact, did you know there's a lens Rokinon makes that's *still* the record holder for widest lens available on long flange full frame cameras? The 10mm special performance! Nice lens. Look, they may not be "cool" but Rokinons were unbeat for ages because they charged like a few hundred bucks for a perfectly passable performing cinema prime. A cinevised vintage Nikkor lens actually did cost more, and was back-focusing. So it actually was smarter to get a Rokinon. Contrast that with a manufacturer releasing a Rokinon-level product at the same price as a legacy lens manufacturer. Also remember: cinema lenses by their nature were always designed to be the highest performing *glass* period (not just in terms of mechanics) so this idea of proper "cinema-mechanics" super-ceding the dozens of other relevant factors in a lens seems misguided to me, almost self-defeating. Get whats good, whats worth it, and whats feasible. Otherwise you're just abandoning really great tools.

@@ubir9743 Those new Cooke SP3's also seriously look so gorgeous. Even if they weren't "Cooke's", they are stunning.

Some common issues that you will have with photo lenses: 1. Different focus distance between different lenses. 2. Inconsistent focus distances from closest distance to infinity (e.g. from 10-30, 30-50, 50-100 all will have different wheel distances). This is HUGE. 3. Inconsistencies in look and colors in post. 4. The time wasted while exchanging lenses and mentally re-calibrating your focus pulling sensitivity since it will be all over the place. 5. Lack of complete manual control like the aperture and focus rings (unless you use declicked vintage). 6. F Stops aren't reliable. Switching from one F2.8 lens to another F2.8 won't have the same amount of light tranmission (e.g. Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 has a value of T3.3 - Quite big). 7. Electronic focus and aperture rings aren't reliable for film work and require electronic connections exclusively to control the rings. These are strictly meant for photography or vlogging in auto-mode. 8. Bad focus breathing on a lot of photography lenses. This is arguably a fault when used to shoot a film. If you haven't had any of these 8 issues in your +8 years of focus pulling, that should come as a huge surprise.

@@VENAXIS in practice none of these things are the end of the world. People act like these are absolutely showstopping. They're not. You just work around it like literally any other limitation in the filmmaking process. I mean if it's really worth spending like $20K+ on cine lenses to not have to deal with it, you do you. But personally when i use cine lenses for a shoot vs photo i either dont notice, or don't care about virtually all of those things listed.

@@user-gj5cx9ik5m based on your username I’m gonna brush this off as a troll post.

@@VENAXIS He is right tho.

To be honest I wasn’t crazy about his definition. It’s always been my understanding that an F stop is merely the division of the lens length, by its aperture opening. It’s a mathematical equation. Whereas a T stop is an actual measure of the transmission of light. Each lens design is actually measured for light transmission.

Did you look at the sigma cine primes ? Why did u not go sigma cine primes ?

Hey man is that an A24 book under your monitor in the background? what is it, id like to look that up, i love A24

damn, I mean at least my A7R4 is versatile enough to at least tell a better story than using just a smartphone :(

I was thinking through this video "did he get rid of his Rokkors??". Glad to hear you are still using them... I've picked up a few based on your video outlining your collection. I need to pick a set and start seriously collecting something cohesive though.

Nooooooooo! Film lenses kill video!

cine lenses are about workflow and not necessarily about image quality

@@josuastangl7140 that makes my point even stronger. If you are not working on high end productions why would you need a lens that needs more advanced workflow.

@@Yodd cine lenses certainly make workflow much quicker easier, not more advanced

@@josuastangl7140 i doubt it. You need focus puller because no autofocus. They are heavier and require bigger tripods, bigger stabilisers in most cases. What is easier about cine lenses?

@@Yodd all of that is already the case for him, he is working with heavy camera rigs and never pulls his own focus. Sure, if you're a hobby videographer or running small one man productions, then you wouldn't even think about cine lenses

Modded Leica Rs, best option 🤙🏼

Also, autofocus is being integrated with cinema cameras because of photo lenses. Today’s Prosumer is tomorrow’s Pro.

Agreed. Besides got to have something to do when waiting for the lighting crew to get ready, lol

Same path, different story! Keep doing you!

Just ShotLister

But if the focus throw is the same and you set both lenses to infinity focus before the swap... isn't that one of the reasons why you would use a matched set of cine lenses? Then again I'm not a pro, just guessing

most definitely. build quality on vintage stills lenses is my main concern, plus the slow-down of having to re-calibrate the lens every swap. But these Xenons do pop up every now & then, fingers crossed i can get my hands on a couple more. Pretty good quality for the price, certainly on the used market

Yes. The absolutely best lenses are expensive. You are not supposed to own them. You are supposed to rent them on a per project basis. If the kind of work you do does not justify renting Master Primes then you do not need them. At the same time lenses are better than ever. At this point there is an abundance of good quality glass that is also affordable. There are always compromises to be made of course but many high end brands are full of optical flaws too. Many Cookes have CA and breathing and vignetting, the same goes for Arri ultra primes too. They are still being used and are desirable even. Actually it's this new market of lower cost lens sets that pushes harder for optical perfection than ever before because the market is larger and there are reviews and articles and scrutiny. This wasn't the case up until some years ago.

Once you get into the world of comparing cine lenses it’s more about the aesthetic & characteristics of each. The Sigma cine lenses are what i would call “cleaner” lenses. Really popular for green screen work.

Sensor size doesnt matter. As soon as you start getting wider than 35mm every single mm is a noticable difference. Its why most DPs request a 32 & a 35, or a 24 & a 28

Interesting thanks!@@JustinPhillip

if you had to pick one lense to do it all for shooting an indie feature DIY - would you say the 35mm?@@JustinPhillip

He tends to make a lot of - "A REAL cinematographer would NEVER do _______" - comments. When RED made the Komodo they put a photo lens mount and autofocus on their CINEMA camera. The fact that there are full frame cinema cameras is a direct result of photo lens movie making.

Go for it!

What is 3D rendering? What is flat rendering?

@@JonPais kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sJuWmMWexprDf3k.html&ab_channel=FilmmakersAcademy