This is ridiculous--2 more lenses on the way.

Ira Ratner · January 14, 2009

25ASA at 250 for 35mm still.

David Rakoczy · January 14, 2009

If you always use the same lens, doesn't everything you shoot always LOOK the same?

No, not really.. and if you are exercising your craft, it won't. There are many, many choices we have... with regard to our Stock choice, Filter choice, Processing, Transfer etc etc... and then yes.. in the end.. hey "I want a different lens because I have used every other lens thus far"... like digging for a Set of Pancros from Clairmont... which I have done... and loved!.. but really.. you can alter your look with many other techniques that make more of an impact on your image (esp in 16) than the lens choice. Being an owner of a Set of S16 Super Speeds I too wage this battle.

How do we make the next show look (feel) different?

This is the rabbit we chase...

btw.. don't blame Christ...

Edited January 14, 2009 by David Rakoczy

Ian Cooper · January 14, 2009

<yawn>

I came back to this party even though this is a losing battle where logic is concerned:

Ian is in agreement - although for probably differing reasons! :lol:

Ian thinks that the stock K3 Meteor Zoom is all you'll ever need in life...

To the best of his knowledge, Ian has neither said nor written that down anywhere. To do so would be hypocritical as Ian uses a wide angle prime on his K3 (12.5mm) to extend the range of focal lengths available to him. He was also in the process of machining an adapter so Arri Std mount lenses could be used on his K3, which would also offer the option of other focal lengths. For his R16 Ian has both a 6.5mm and 12.5mm prime lens in addition to his Canon Zoom, he also has recently purchased an additional zoom which covers a different range of focal lengths - although he didn't feel the need to announce the fact.

Second, that a 20mm 4.5 fixed Super-Takumar for 50 bucks on eBay is totally ridiculous...

Ian once again doesn't remember making that comment, although reference to the thread does show the original poster thought it "ridiculous", and other people have offered the opinion that the stated lens wouldn't be of much use.

If what is wanted is a very wide angle lens for 35mm photography, then Ian feels it makes a lot of sense. Such wide angle lenses tend to get used by landscape photographers who'll plonk the camera on a tripod, close the aperture right down and might have exposure times measured in seconds. £34 for such a lens sounds quite reasonable. Ian no doubt felt a similar level of satisfaction when he secured an Arri Cinegon 10mm prime for £22 from EBay. Ian often feels he has secured good deals on EBay, but doesn't believe the collection of professional cinematographers assembled on this forum are all that interested in learning that he's won filmstock, fluid heads, lenses, empty spools and whatever else - Ian presumes they might be more interested in seeing the results from him using the equipment, which is why he has posted links to online examples in the past.

Third, that there's something wrong with anyone who disagrees with his logic that his zoom is as good as primes...

Ian has difficulty taking the opinions seriously of someone who states categorically, and lectures condescendingly to him, that NO zoom lens ever holds the same maximum aperture across its range of focal lengths. Ian also struggles to respect the opinion of someone who is prepared to lecture to him and tell him that he doesn't know what he's looking at or talking about when viewing the results of tests carried out on his equipment. Ian hasn't been spoken to in such a manner since leaving the world of secondary education.

Ian has carried out practical testing which has shown that his example of the Meteor zoom will produce images that don't show any great difference to what might be classified as 'consumer' grade FF35mm prime lenses when viewed in a domestic environment on a TV. On that basis Ian can't see himself rushing out to buy prime lenses in the range of focal lengths already covered by the zoom, given that they are unlikely to offer any significant advantage in image quality. Ian would much prefer to spend his time and energies in actually shooting film and learning the craft using the equipment he has, making additional purchases as when thought necessary. If someone else should arrange their priorities differently, then who is Ian to stop them?

Ian also fails to understand why a zoom lens only offering one "LOOK" (to quote the original text) should be a such a disadvantage.

Ian believes much more in testing, and basing his own choices on the results of those tests, than making his decisions based on theoretical differences or advantages. High speed lenses tend to be of higher optical quality than slower lenses, prime lenses offer the potential for higher optical quality than similar zooms, due to evolutions of the design process older lenses can appear softer than newer designs. Most lenses reach optimum sharpness closed down around 2 stops, some manufacturer's lenses are better than others.... etc. etc.

All these things have an impact, without testing Ian would not like to categorically state any one given lens will produce a better/sharper/higher-contrast/etc image than any other. When the subject of conversation includes the Meteor zoom - and the reports of possibly questionable quality control found with that lens, the answer is even harder to predict.

Ian has found his example of the Meteor zoom will hold a given aperture as the focal length varies, and other posters to the thread seem to confirm that the lens is designed to achieve that. It is clear that through testing Ira has discovered the light admitted by his example of the lens varies according to focal length. Given this, it would seem to suggest Ira's lens is faulty, and as such it is not unreasonable to guess there may be other issues affecting image quality with it as well. Given this situation it possibly makes sense for Ira to choose not to use the zoom. But comparing the quality of a high speed cine zoom to a range of miscellaneous slower 35mm lenses - Ian wouldn't presume to state which offers 'better' or 'equal' quality without seeing test results, preferably projected onto a larger screen, as viewing the results on a TV might not make the differences all that clear.

And finally, that in Florida sun, you can't use a 4.5 lens!!!!

Even in the windswept, rain drenched shores of the UK an f4.5 lens can find use with 50asa film stock... but if the cinematographer wishes to isolate the subject matter from the background through limited depth of field, or is shooting in shaded conditions, indoors etc. then higher speed lenses might offer certain benefits, not least that lenses offering higher speeds tend to be of higher optical quality than cheaper slower speed varients. Ian has even sucessfully shot Std8 B&W film at 10asa near the rain capital of England (Manchester) and needed to stop the lens down to around f8 - Florida doesn't have exclusive use of the sun!

As already stated, Ian wishes Ira well with his projects, and believes the finish material and how it is recieved by an audience is much more important than the equipment used to produce it.

David Rakoczy · January 14, 2009

David finds it interesting that Ian writes in the third person.

Ian Cooper · January 14, 2009

David finds it interesting that Ian writes in the third person.

:lol:

Well it seems use of the first person narrative conveys statements and opinions which the author can't remember writing, and can't find by reading back through the thread. Use of third person is slightly different and no less valid - who knows, perhaps if words are placed in the author's mouth yet again, he may choose to respond in the second person? :P :lol:

...think of it as a creative artistic choice - no better or worse than any other, but until it's been tested the results are unknown! ;) :rolleyes: