I feel the same feeling with owning cine glass. I use a lot of cine glass but when I do I want the footage to be totally different looking than normal footage so I rent expensive anamorphic lenses. All the lenses I can afford I have a hard time justifying the price and losing all the benefits of stills lenses
I shoot both stills and cine glass. One powerful point I think you missed is that cine glass from the same series not only has the same physical dimensions but also the same "look." So take the Canon CN-E primes for instance, which I own a few of. I know that if I go from the 24mm to say the 85mm I'm going to get the same look. That has a lot to do with the coatings which I believe are different from the standard L series lenses. That same scenario with the L series stills (swapping a 24 to an 85) will likely be less consistent between the two.
oh yeah, absolutely. Good point! However the fine nuances are not important for my kinda work. On really high paying jobs that might be different for sure
@@damiencooper yeah, I totally agree with that. The L series stills and cine primes are pretty similar looking actually(kind of warm and smooth). I cut my 50mm L series to the CN-Es (because I don't own a CN-E 50) all the time. It would take a pretty discerning eye to tell the difference, and for most work that doesn't matter. Zeiss lenses though are all over the map...WAY different looks between them. My point was more about lensing being one less thing to deal with on set when they're all the same series....housings, optics...makes life easier when they go together. Great video BTW!
@@loudandclearmedia as for Zeiss being all over the place , that’s true but that is only true as it pertains to cp2 they fixed that issue on the Zeiss Cp3 …
I just got my first set of cine glass. It's budget, but the consistency in look, lack of focus breathing, and all the other pros you've said is a good enough reason for me to start shooting cine. I still have my stills lens if I need it, but it's a good transition and is helping me step up in the direction i want to go.
I agree with you on everything, especially the issues of focusing when you are a solo operator. I am currently planning to make a documentary, my first film festival entry-type film, and if I have one additional person with me when I do interviews, they will monitor sound, not focus.
Subbed! This video made me feel a little better about my stills glass. I've been a photographer for over a decade and I have lots of glass. Now I'm breaking into video and all my friends are using cine lenses. I like my stills glass though. I like the option to autofocus and I just know these lenses inside and out, so if I need to manual focus I can nail it pretty quick.
The autofocus issue was a big reason why I didn't want to make the jump to cine glass. ENTER DJI's LiDAR and Auto Focus system for the RS3 Pro and it honestly changed everything for me. I can still use the cine glass with DJI's system without the gimbal and it works great. Of course using it with the gimbal is better simply because you get focus control points but overall it has made the process of using cine glass by myself much smoother.
Thank you Damien. Good pro/con comparison, but you kept referring to stills lenses. There are even fewer reasons to go to Cine lenses if you compare with video-centric lenses. My zoom lenses are all parfocal, and if they have manual aperture, they can be de-clicked.
It's been years since I've need a cine lens for what I do, and I always would rent what I need. Every job has different requirement and it never made sense for me to own the lenses. I only shoot for UA-cam now, so am for sure will not be buying or renting cine glass. Good show!!
I do shoot both ; and only currently own 3 CN- E lenses. However, I gravitate to them as i find auto focus to not be as accurate with my STILLS lenses as me alone managing the manual focus. Interestingly, though, I’ve found using the “manual focus assist” on the 1DX3 to be unexpectedly accurate with the cin-e lenses! Even to the point of moving to hand held shooting for some short takes! So, the new tech has made using cin-e glass a little more easy. It could just be me, but i find the background blur more creamy and beautiful, and subject isolation to be noticeably more effective on the CN-E glass given the same aperture on the two. So bottom line, i prefer my cinema lenses to my still lenses for video shoots because of the resulting look of the product.
the parfocal feature with the bargain you can get the dzo 38-80 right now is enticing. My 24-70 tamron ef from 2014 went down and I need something new. I use a bmpcc 6k pro so I dont really get to use autofocus much anyway, but buying a new tamron or sigma will be about 1200 and I can get the dzo for 2400 right now. decisions decisions but I do like the parfocal thing more than you I guess lol
Nice! i was interested in IRIX new RF mount cine lens but i operate my camera also by myself which is going to be hard if i move to a cine lens like you mentionned.
I wonder when canon will start to move cine glass to RF and how it will look .. I hope the prices will be kind of entry level pricing in “Cinema pricing terms”😅
Great explanation! Tks for that! I always thinking the cine lenses was much better than still lenses. I have to try now. *The instagram animation getting inside every time, it's kind of annoying. Please, don't get me wrong.
BTW I can’t see the advantage of anamorphic lenses. They were originally used to get wide screen out of non wide screen film formats, or to gain resolution. These days, with hi res sensors with selectable shooting ratios, I am not so sure. And I really dislike the horizontal lines that flares get.
I feel the same feeling with owning cine glass. I use a lot of cine glass but when I do I want the footage to be totally different looking than normal footage so I rent expensive anamorphic lenses. All the lenses I can afford I have a hard time justifying the price and losing all the benefits of stills lenses
I hear ya. But like I said. I haven’t found any rental for anamorphics here yet 😒
I shoot both stills and cine glass. One powerful point I think you missed is that cine glass from the same series not only has the same physical dimensions but also the same "look." So take the Canon CN-E primes for instance, which I own a few of. I know that if I go from the 24mm to say the 85mm I'm going to get the same look. That has a lot to do with the coatings which I believe are different from the standard L series lenses. That same scenario with the L series stills (swapping a 24 to an 85) will likely be less consistent between the two.
oh yeah, absolutely. Good point! However the fine nuances are not important for my kinda work. On really high paying jobs that might be different for sure
@@damiencooper yeah, I totally agree with that. The L series stills and cine primes are pretty similar looking actually(kind of warm and smooth). I cut my 50mm L series to the CN-Es (because I don't own a CN-E 50) all the time. It would take a pretty discerning eye to tell the difference, and for most work that doesn't matter. Zeiss lenses though are all over the map...WAY different looks between them. My point was more about lensing being one less thing to deal with on set when they're all the same series....housings, optics...makes life easier when they go together. Great video BTW!
@@loudandclearmedia as for Zeiss being all over the place , that’s true but that is only true as it pertains to cp2 they fixed that issue on the Zeiss Cp3 …
I just got my first set of cine glass. It's budget, but the consistency in look, lack of focus breathing, and all the other pros you've said is a good enough reason for me to start shooting cine. I still have my stills lens if I need it, but it's a good transition and is helping me step up in the direction i want to go.
I agree with you on everything, especially the issues of focusing when you are a solo operator. I am currently planning to make a documentary, my first film festival entry-type film, and if I have one additional person with me when I do interviews, they will monitor sound, not focus.
Subbed! This video made me feel a little better about my stills glass. I've been a photographer for over a decade and I have lots of glass. Now I'm breaking into video and all my friends are using cine lenses. I like my stills glass though. I like the option to autofocus and I just know these lenses inside and out, so if I need to manual focus I can nail it pretty quick.
The autofocus issue was a big reason why I didn't want to make the jump to cine glass. ENTER DJI's LiDAR and Auto Focus system for the RS3 Pro and it honestly changed everything for me. I can still use the cine glass with DJI's system without the gimbal and it works great. Of course using it with the gimbal is better simply because you get focus control points but overall it has made the process of using cine glass by myself much smoother.
What body were you using on the RS3 Pro? Are you using cine lenses with this set up?
@@contentm3893 Canon R5C and yes.
Thank you Damien. Good pro/con comparison, but you kept referring to stills lenses. There are even fewer reasons to go to Cine lenses if you compare with video-centric lenses. My zoom lenses are all parfocal, and if they have manual aperture, they can be de-clicked.
It's been years since I've need a cine lens for what I do, and I always would rent what I need. Every job has different requirement and it never made
sense for me to own the lenses. I only shoot for UA-cam now, so am for sure will not be buying or renting cine glass. Good show!!
I do shoot both ; and only currently own 3 CN- E lenses. However, I gravitate to them as i find auto focus to not be as accurate with my STILLS lenses as me alone managing the manual focus.
Interestingly, though, I’ve found using the “manual focus assist” on the 1DX3 to be unexpectedly accurate with the cin-e lenses! Even to the point of moving to hand held shooting for some short takes! So, the new tech has made using cin-e glass a little more easy.
It could just be me, but i find the background blur more creamy and beautiful, and subject isolation to be noticeably more effective on the CN-E glass given the same aperture on the two.
So bottom line, i prefer my cinema lenses to my still lenses for video shoots because of the resulting look of the product.
the parfocal feature with the bargain you can get the dzo 38-80 right now is enticing. My 24-70 tamron ef from 2014 went down and I need something new. I use a bmpcc 6k pro so I dont really get to use autofocus much anyway, but buying a new tamron or sigma will be about 1200 and I can get the dzo for 2400 right now. decisions decisions but I do like the parfocal thing more than you I guess lol
Nice! i was interested in IRIX new RF mount cine lens but i operate my camera also by myself which is going to be hard if i move to a cine lens like you mentionned.
The crappier the lens the more I want it. Lol
Ima buy a big ass cine lens just to look cool taking stills
That’s the way!
Lead the movement! 😎
Always on point my dude
thanks
Spot on! 👍🏾🙏🏾
Man I have seen this footage 4:08 in another Creator
Did you sell this footage in artgrid???
And thanks for this explanation 👍
Haha, no. I used Artgrid for that shot 😉
Never makes sense to me to use cine lens just because it looks good on the camera. What ends up on the screen is what matters.
Thanks for sharing this, I lear a lot thank you!
Thanks for respond man and make this kind of video
thank you for saving me money
Great disussion very helpful 💚
glad you liked it ;)
I wonder when canon will start to move cine glass to RF and how it will look .. I hope the prices will be kind of entry level pricing in “Cinema pricing terms”😅
I heard they'll announce it at NAB this year
@@damiencooper That would be awesome. Most EF glass is getting pretty long in the tooth.
Its gonna be crazy expensive
Great explanation! Tks for that! I always thinking the cine lenses was much better than still lenses.
I have to try now. *The instagram animation getting inside every time, it's kind of annoying. Please, don't get me wrong.
BTW I can’t see the advantage of anamorphic lenses. They were originally used to get wide screen out of non wide screen film formats, or to gain resolution. These days, with hi res sensors with selectable shooting ratios, I am not so sure. And I really dislike the horizontal lines that flares get.
you get the background compression of a 50mm with a fov of a 25mm. That's a pretty unique look. One I for one really like
germans look funny with backwards baseball hats cause no one plays baseball in Cher many...LOL...kidding, but you know..c'mon....
I actually played baseball in high school 😂