Video Lens?

[Erik Naso]

MFT got two very good friends this year. The 12-35 and the 35-100. With both these very sharp fast 2.8 lenses you have a great range to work with. The best part is they are native lenses for both the GH2 and AF-100. I have both. well I will have the 35-100 tomorrow.
With the added benefit of image stabilization these are the best you can get for a light weight digital cinema camera. They aren’t cheap but these Lumix lenses are the L class of Panasonic. Don’t take OIS for granted. It smooths out those handheld shots a lot. Especially since these cameras aren’t the easiest to handhold.

Blog https://www.eriknaso.com
My Vimeo Page https://vimeo.com/user626030
Follow me on Twitter @ErikNaso

[Bill Bruner]

Also, Panasonic video-optimized lenses have silent autofocus motors. DSLR lenses (used on their native cameras) have very noisy autofocus motors (even so-called “hypersonic” and “ultrasonic” lenses).

Not an issue when focusing manually with adapted lenses, of course.

[Ofer Geva]

Thank you.

My question is – why are there video lenses costing 4000$ when a 1000$ slr lens does the job?

[Bill Bruner]

Good question. If you mean ENG video lenses, they are expensive because of their complex servo zooms, wide apertures and small production runs – if you mean cinema lenses, they are expensive because they “declicked”, have large barrels with carefully silkscreened and widely spaced focus marks, are sometimes anamorphic, and again, have small production runs.

Yes, if you put cinema and DSLR lenses side-by-side and shoot a chart, you may be able to see differences in build quality, resolution, color rendition and aberration – but my 55 year old eyes can’t.

ASC and BSC members may disagree with me, but the real difference is one of supply and demand. Millions of DSLR/DST/DSLM lenses are produced every year – and there are still millions upon millions of classic SLR lenses out there – both in the marketplace and on dusty shelves.

So a used Zeiss 35mm Distagon f2.0 DSLR lens with a Nikon adapter costs about $900.

While a Zeiss 35mm Compact Prime CP.2 T1.5 for your AF100 costs $4900. Only you can decide whether you’re willing to pay an extra $4000 for a “cinema” lens.

Hope this is helpful,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

[Ofer Geva]

Thank you for your respond. That was exactly what I wanted to know.

[Thomas Alexander]

The issue isn’t only in the quality of the glass of the lens. If you use a DSLR lens you might get vignetting at the edges of your footage and specially if you stuck couple of filters on the front. The reason is that video lenses have a wider front lens diameter to let in more light and prevent vignetting on the edges of your footage. DSLR lenses are cylindrical and don’t allow much light and they vignette easily specially if you stuck couple of filters on the front. The other thing with photography lenses is that they have clicks between each f-stop. They are there as a measurement unit simply to control the aperture but also it can prevent a photographer rubbing his ca,era on his clothes by accident and changing the aperture and also gives you a “feel” and a sound so you know when the aperture f/stops have changed. Prime video lenses have smoother aperture blades and don’t have clicks. If you have a lens that you like it just because of the way it makes your footage look than you can take it to a professional and they can literally “de-click” them for you. We never use anyhow autofocus of the camera. We hardly ever use a photography lens. The lens must be a video lens without f/stop clicks smooth aperture and silent and for good and professional results must always be used with follow focus.

Thomas Alexander | Independent Cinematographer
Soulman Films | Nicosia Cyprus | +357-97697640