What about high-end cine lenses?

[Marshallarts]

I want to be careful how I approach this question since it can easily be taken in a number of directions.  Professionally I do video, photography is a hobby I take very seriously.  But the two are very different in many regards, I do appreciate and prefer the photographer's approach and feel DPs in the motion world can learn a lot from photography technique.  The biggest difference stems from shooting for the end result, something that may be blown up but will be projected or displayed on screen and needn't be a fraction of the resolution as a still.

When discussing lenses, in the motion world the best lenses are WAY more expensive than still lenses (look up Cooke or Master Primes).  They have excellent contrast that makes a huge difference.  Obviously photographers don't need or want a cine lens (free from breathing and with cine mechanics), but what about these optical characteristics?  For motion picture the images they produce look better then even the best "L" lenses.  The resolution may even be less (it isn't needed) but the contrast is different and it shows.

The loss in resolution aside, what do pro photographers feel about these superior (subjective, I know) characteristics?  Wouldn't you want to have them in your still images?  They make such a difference in motion I'm confused why it doesn't come up in still.

[madmanchan]

I think there's no question that such high-quality attributes are desirable. The main question is how much would it cost and whether it's really feasible. For example, how many users of DSLRs (which cost from roughly $500 to $7000 USD) would be willing to spend over $10000 per lens? There would be some. But how many?

[Marshallarts]

I think there's no question that such high-quality attributes are desirable. The main question is how much would it cost and whether it's really feasible. For example, how many users of DSLRs (which cost from roughly $500 to $7000 USD) would be willing to spend over $10000 per lens? There would be some. But how many?

Agreed.  But what about renting?  In film/video we rent practically everything and I know photographer rent a fair amount too.  I'm just surprised to not hear more about these attributes and wanted to get your opinions.  Thanks for sharing.

[madmanchan]

True. Renting would likely be feasible for pros, and even enthusiasts. In any case, getting back to the original question ...

One thing to consider is the design space. As you mentioned, these are somewhat different for video & stills. For example, the best lenses are now being designed for 6 micron and smaller pixels. (I recall Peter Karbe of Leica mentioning aiming for around 80% MTF at 40 lp/mm for the S-series lenses, so the lenses would hold up well not only for the S2, but also future models which would presumably have higher resolution and smaller pixels.) I cannot say for sure, but I suppose it is possible that some of the aberrations that one may try to suppress for "stills" would be different and place different constraints on the design.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The loss in resolution aside, what do pro photographers feel about these superior (subjective, I know) characteristics?  Wouldn't you want to have them in your still images?  They make such a difference in motion I'm confused why it doesn't come up in still.

Hard to answer without a side-by-side comparison at full sensor resolution. Lenses can be designed to have an optimal MTF performance at given spatial frequencies. Those design goals differ a lot between, let's say, 4K and 21k+ sensors.

So, what it boils down to, how good do the Cine spec'ed lenses perform at full 24x36mm sensor array resolution? The Cine lenses probably have higher contrast resolution at 'moderate' (from a 'stills' perspective) spatial frequencies, which would most likely compromise contrast at the limiting resolution of a stills camera. Are there MTF curves available for performance at 80-100 cycles/mm?

Price is, amongst others, a function of production volume. With a larger market to serve, prices would go down.

Cheers,
Bart

[BJL]

So, what it boils down to, how good do the Cine spec'ed lenses perform at full 24x36mm sensor array resolution?

The vast majority of cine-lenses are designed for cine-35mm formats that are smaller than the 36x24mm still 35mm format, with performance guaranteed only over an image circle diameter of 31mm or less. So it is quite likely those at focal lengths under about 100mm would vignette on 36x24mm format, and maybe anti-flare baffles would cause problems with longer ones too.

But I find this speculation silly, as if lens makers like Carl Zeiss that produce both high quality still and cine-camera lenses have been saving some "secret sauce" for the cine-lenses only, deliberately holding back in some respects on the performance of even their best still lenses, so that those high end still camera lenses are in some ways distinctly inferior to their cine-lenses for the purposes of still photography. Why on earth would a lens maker like Zeiss hobble its best still camera lenses against the still camera lens competition?

Perhaps the mistake is taking the far higher price of cine-lenses as evidence of higher quality. Far more likely is what Bart suggests: that the prices are forced to be far higher by the inherently far lower sales volume for lenses that have to be designed differently than still camera lenses to meet design constraints like avoidance of focus breathing. And with many cine-lenses having inadequate image circle size for use with 35mm still cameras, there is not much potential of sales for high end still photography, so the economies of scale are unlikely to improve.

[Rob C]

Didn't they also shoot some films on 70mm stock? That would give a fairly expensive set of lens prices if true.

Rob C

[feppe]

Perhaps the mistake is taking the far higher price of cine-lenses as evidence of higher quality. Far more likely is what Bart suggests: that the prices are forced to be far higher by the inherently far lower sales volume for lenses that have to be designed differently than still camera lenses to meet design constraints like avoidance of focus breathing. And with many cine-lenses having inadequate image circle size for use with 35mm still cameras, there is not much potential of sales for high end still photography, so the economies of scale are unlikely to improve.

While I think you're right on the money with this, there is a reason why Zeiss et al. might keep their cine lens secret sauce bottled up when making still lenses: cost.

It might be that there is no economical way to sell the secret sauce still lenses to a market which is used to lenses costing a few hundred to a few thousand euros. Low volumes driven by high prices might make such a lens economically infeasible to produce.

Also, it might make more financial sense to make thousands of affordable lenses than making tens of über-expensive ones.

[BJL]

While I think you're right on the money with this, there is a reason why Zeiss et al. might keep their cine lens secret sauce bottled up when making still lenses: cost.

But as I said, it seems very unlikely that (unit) cost is the issue: the far worse economies of scale for far more specialized designs are a known and adequate explanation for the higher prices, and so the principle of parsimony leads me to skepticism about claims (not backed by any evidence) that Zeiss and other high end lens makers are holding back on offering the best still camera lenses that they can make.

And by the way, what are the imagined performance advantages, given the systematically lower image quality needs of moving images?
I do not buy this claim that good still lenses offer lower contrast than cine-lenses. In fact, the still frames I have seen taken from motion pictures (not publicity stills, which are taken with still cameras) look worse than good still camera images! Which is why publicity stills are usually taken with still cameras and their allegedly inferior lenses in the first place!

[BJL]

Didn't they also shoot some films on 70mm stock? That would give a fairly expensive set of lens prices if true.

Yes, though only one or two films in the last decade were shot on 70mm (about 54mm frame width) film. I cannot see any lenses for such cameras listed as new products (though ARRI still offers the cameras!) so I suspect that the lenses left over from the 70mm glory years are all that are needed. There must also be a few lenses around for the even larger format IMAX cameras, though most recent IMAX prints have been enlargements from movies shot in standard cine-35mm format, or from 2/3" format digital in cases like the Avatar IMAX prints.

But I doubt you want to use 70mm or IMAX cine-lenses on your DSLR! Have you seen an IMAX lens?

[Rob C]

But I doubt you want to use 70mm or IMAX cine-lenses on your DSLR! Have you seen an IMAX lens?

Unfortunately, no. I wanted to get into film at one time but I was still at school and lived in Scotland while the industry was in southern England, a lifetime away - might as well have been living on the Moon. Even stealing and selling the nice parental home would have bought little but a garage down there in the south.

Rob C

[K.C.]

I think Zeiss produces what they can sell and the market has changed significantly. Based on my 30+ years experience in the trade I think the high priced primes are a dying breed.

Here's the latest Zeiss entry into the market. Under $20K for a complete set with EF and PL mounts.

http://www.zeiss.com/cine

[jjj]

I do not buy this claim that good still lenses offer lower contrast than cine-lenses. In fact, the still frames I have seen taken from motion pictures (not publicity stills, which are taken with still cameras) look worse than good still camera images! Which is why publicity stills are usually taken with still cameras and their allegedly inferior lenses in the first place!

Not the reason at all. The reason why stills are also shot is because you can get sharper images, due to being able to use higher shutter speeds, than 1/48th sec and the fact you can pose a subject that isn't moving, again increasing sharpness. Plus 35mm film has a bigger capture area than 355mm movie stock, which is better/sharper for print or poster ads, not to mention, you could use an even larger format if you wished.
And finally a film is made up of edits, so sometimes when doing film stills I try and compress the montaged elements of a scene or indeed the entire film into a single image. Agood stills photographer, simply doesn't just record the same image as the movie camera just shot, but one that works as a still image in its own right.

As an aside if you shoot movies with higher shutter speeds so the individual frames are sharper, the end result is not a nice one as the image tends to 'strobe'. This can be used to good effect as in Saving Private Ryan's beach scenes or in various horror movies to make say zombie movement look more disturbing.

[smthopr]

For motion picture the images they produce look better then even the best "L" lenses.  The resolution may even be less (it isn't needed) but the contrast is different and it shows.

The loss in resolution aside, what do pro photographers feel about these superior (subjective, I know) characteristics?  Wouldn't you want to have them in your still images?  They make such a difference in motion I'm confused why it doesn't come up in still.

Sounds like you have a little lens envy:)

In the last 15 years, new motion picture lenses have gotten sharper, more contrasty, and more flare resistant than those used trough the 1980's.  They've also gotten really big (even prime lenses) and heavy. And, has been pointed out, the image circle only covers about 1/2 a full frame 35mm still camera negative or chip.

I wouldn't assume that motion picture lenses have less resolution, but are probably close to the best in still camera lens design, maybe a little sharper.  Contrast and resolution are really two sides of the same coin. A softer lens will have less contrast.

I will say that these new, super sharp, contrasty lenses don't always have the best look.  They can seem kind of harsh, and they are often distressed with fuzzy filtration to defeat them. (but so were the older lenses:) )  Strange, but true.  The major selling point is that they're flare resistant (movies use a lot of back lighting) and they are very consistent so that it is easy to cut from a shot on one lens to another with a consistent look and feel.

I think that if the modern motion picture lens style of design was "up-res'd" to full frame 35mm still camera size, there would be very few photographers who'd want to lug these around.  And the massive glass might be rather slow to auto focus.  Ziess used to make a set of "variable prime" zoom lenses that had rather small zoom range, and they were awfully heavy.  And a bigger zoom lens can easily reach 20lbs or more.  Ironically, when a lightweight zoom is needed for motion pictures, they are often adapted from still camera zooms

When Dalsa was making their 4k digital motion picture camera, their lenses were made from old Leica"R" lenses rehoused in movie style lens barrels and mounts. So this lens envy goes the other way as well!

I guess what I'm trying to say in too many words is not to get too hung up on this lens thing.  Especially if you don't shoot most of your shots at f2.5.  If you really need a noticeable increase in image quality, please upgrade to a medium format digital camera

[BJL]

Not the reason at all. The reason why stills are also shot is because you can get sharper images, due to being able to use higher shutter speeds, than 1/48th sec and the fact you can pose a subject that isn't moving, again increasing sharpness.

Those sharpness limitations of motion picture frames due to low shutter speeds is another part of the reasons to be skeptical that cine-camera lenses are superior to high-end still camera primes for the purposes of still photography: why design for very high sharpness/resolution in what is inherently a low resolution situations compared to still photography?