Taipei-metro
Veteran
JJW said:I am a cinematographer and I think this whole business of adapting cine lenses is a bit over the top.
In reality there are very few cine lenses made other than the currenlty produced Zeiss Ultra and Master Primes and the Cooke S4s that are really worth using for still photography.
The truth is that although cine lenses are made better mechanically to withstand constant use they are NOT sharper and better performers optically. In fact most of the lenses I have seen (and own) are noticeably less sharp and have much less contrast than even inexpensive optics like the Voigtlander LTM and Canon RF lenses. Because a 35mm cine image can be projected on a 15 meter screen and is watched by an audience sitting 15 to 20 meters away from that screen in a dark room, there is the illusion of sharpness even for a lens that doesn't resolve 60+ lp/mm.
The finest vintage cine lenses in my opinion are made by Zeiss and they in fact use the very same optical formulas as the famous lenses used on the old 35mm Contax Rangefinder still cameras. I own a 50mm f/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar and a 180mm Sonnar in Arriflex standard mount. They are both very good, but the exact same lenses most of you guys have heard of.
This guy's right.
I directed a 35mm feature a few years back, those big Zeiss lenses are all Arriflex bayonet mt., a stander lens is 28mm (shooting 1:1.85 aspect ratio, 4-perforration/ fram), I remember most of the lens are T1.4 ( not f-stop, T = true or transmission), a 28-280 T2.8 may weight up to 6 lbs or more, the cinematographer needs 2 assistants, big tripod, lens board and big lens hood, etc.
When shooting non-sync sound stuff, I remember my frugo cinematographer, Mr. Chang converts a Tamron 28mm f2.5 to the lighter workhorse 35mm Arrtfle 2C-II.
My movie did not make a cent profit in boxoffice, so I joint the one-movie-director club. Pick up my old still camera, as hollywood said...And the rest is history.