Favorite lens packages

[Jaime Marin III]

Hey everyone, so lately I've been hearing a lot of different opinions about different lens packages and was curious to get an even wider range of opinions as to what lens package is your favorite and why? Also how you go about choosing a lens package for each project, and where you've gone in the past to get them.

 

Thanks

[Neal Norton]

Hi Jaime:

 

I own a lens rental company so you may want to consider my opinions with the fact that I have a financial interest in some of the lenses I would reccommend.

 

I do work with a fairly wide range of lenses and have had an opportunity to evaluate many both on a projector and on the job as a DP.

 

Every project could be designed to favor a specific look that would lead a DP to select a particular lens or group of lenses. One of the big factors to consider is what lens coverage you require for the project you are shooting. If you are working with a S-35 image circle then your choice of cinema lenses are pretty much unlimited. If you are shootin Alexa Open Gate or Red Dragon at 6K then you will need to make sure the lenses you want to shoot are capable of covering a 33.5mm image circle. In some cases I don't mind a vignette caused by a lens with an image circle that is 'too small' for the format chosen. . .for example in Arri Open Gate shooting an aspect ratio of 1:85 the Optimo 12-1 will vignette at most focal lengths to varying degrees - and for some projects that might be just what you like (or just dreadfull depending on your taste).

 

As to favorites it really depends on the look you are trying to acheive. If I were interested in a super modern/clean polished look shot with a digital camera then I might want to consider Arri Master Primes matched with the Fujinon Premier zoom lenses.

 

For a Romantic Drama or Comedy where I would be working hard to create a glamorous look for the actors I would be very interested in a set of Leica Summilux C lenses matched with an Optimo 12-1 and maybe a couple of Optimo hand held lenses.

The Leicas are just superb - they have so few flaws and they are eaasy to work with being small and perfectly matched in size.

 

Personally for many types of jobs with digital cameras I really like the TLS Cooke Speed Panchros and the TLS Super Baltar vintage lenses. They have a wonderful look with a sharp-er center image that falls off fairly quickly to softer corners. The over all image is softer than most modern lenses wide open with reduced contrast and a tendancy to flare nicely. Often these lenses are just beautiful with no diffusion added at all. The masterful lens designers at TLS have made these older lenses as easy to work with as an S-4 with widely spaced and easily read focus markings. The vintage lenses really add a lot of character to the sometimes 'too clean' look of digital.

 

For anamorphic I am a big fan of the Panavision G-series lenses. Small and fast these are some of the best looking anamorphic lenses I have worked with. The Arri Master anamorphic lenses are very clean and sharp and I would like to try out the new flare adapters they have introduced to help give these lenses more character. For anamorphic zoom lenses I think Panavision is still the best option for both long and short anamorphic zoom lenses - with the exception of lightweight zooms. Angenieux has done a great job with the new 30-72 anamorphic and the 56-152 anamorphic which are adaptations of the 15-40 and the 28-76 spherical zoom lenses. Both of the Angenieux anamorpics are great lenses that have very little geometric distortion and are sharp corner to corner with very little field curvature problems like many anamorphic lenses. The Angenieux anamorphics also focus really close at 2'2" MOD which is a big deal for an anamorphic zoom (and many anamorphic primes) which means you can leave the diopters in the filter case for almost all close ups.

 

Kind regards,

 

Neal Norton

Director of Photography

 

 

 

 

 

[Jaime Marin III]

Neal thanks for your extremely detailed response. The TLS Super Baltar vintage lenses sound awesome and seem like they'd be something I'd really love if I get a chance to shoot with them.

 

Does anyone else any other Lens Packages that they like or rental houses they recommend?

 

 

Thanks everyone!

[Stuart Brereton]

I work a lot with a mixed set of Zeiss Super Speeds (18, 25, 35, 50, 65, 85) and Standard speeds (32, 40, 100, 135). I love the way they look at t2 or t2.8. Lovely bokeh and falloff

 

The Camera House are my favorite rental place. Great service and genuinely nice people

[Jaime Marin III]

Thanks Stuart, I've never used The Camera House so maybe on my next gig I'll reach out to them.

 

Any other opinions / preferences out there?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Last 2 years I've been using Leica T1.4's a lot. They're small enough to handheld and they have a great organic feel. They are my modern go to lenses. Older lenses, I'm a big fan of the Zeiss T2.1's and the Cookes. For zooms, the Fujinon 18-85mm T2 is my favorite. That thing can truly replace primes in that range.

[Phil Rhodes]

In the interests of mentioning something here that costs less than a house, I'm very happy if I can get my hands on a set of the Veydra mini-primes. Money no object, the Fuji 19-90. Why use anything else.

[Robin R Probyn]

Canon CN7 I prefer to the Fuji.. for extra range and just that the iris,zoom,focus seem to be better placed.. and 180 degree focus travel.. although both heavy and the CN7 is a bit more front heavy.. ideal for doc,s or locations where you dont want to change primes..

[Satsuki Murashige]

Just used the Fujinon Cabrio 85-300 T2.8 lens to shoot some long lens web series title sequence material around the city. I really don't care for the 19-90 Cabrio, but that 85-300 is dead sexy. The Fujinon Premier zooms are crazy good as well. For primes, Cooke S4s are awfully nice. The old Zeiss Standard Speeds can be very pretty, I like them better than the Super Speeds.

[Miguel Angel]

On the spherical side:

 

I like and use the old Schneider Kreuznach Cine Xenon because of how organic they look, the softness and the bokeh, which is beautiful and very special.

 

As for new lenses I love the look of the Leicas, the Vantage T1 when wide open and the old Panavision Super Speed lenses.

 

On the anamorphic side:

 

Lomo Squarefront lenses, Cineovision and any Panavision ones (B Series if I had to pick one)

 

Satsuki, it is interesting what you say about the Standard Zeiss because in Spain people like the Super Speeds the most, and they give you loads of explanations as to why (I like both anyways)

 

Even the camera rental houses give you the Super Speeds as default.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I just don't like the CA on the Supers and find the warmer, rounder look of the Standards more attractive on faces. The rainbow flares are also pretty, although that may have been down to element separation or some other defect in that particular set.

 

A good set of Kowa anamorphics are lovely, though you really have to box in the lens with flags and hard mattes to keep them from veiling too much.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

I just don't like the CA on the Supers

 

First-world problems!

[Stuart Brereton]

Money no object, the Fuji 19-90. Why use anything else.

The Cabrio 19-90 has a tendency toward the green end of the spectrum and has zero character. People tell me it cuts really well with Ultra-Primes. I'm not sure that's a selling point for me.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I think of the Ultras as leaning toward magenta actually. Tested them alongside my Canon Compact Zooms and Super Speeds for a film and the UPs had a significant color shift.

 

Agree about the 19-90, boring lens. A set of Standard Speeds is around $250/day, $50 cheaper than Supers. See Phil, I'm being economical!

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

boring lens

 

Well, yes, but that's sort of the point. Get something clean, filter to taste. It's OK if you're renting, I guess, but I'd rather have something that didn't have an indelible, built-in characteristic that might not be appropriate for all productions.

 

P

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Ehh I dunno; I want a little pizzazz, personally-- I find both the UPs and The 19-90 about as welcoming as a german proctologist waiting area-- they lack that little bit of magic, maybe the "film look" between ENG/EFP and something-- well special, unique.

[Bill DiPietra]

...I find both the UPs and The 19-90 about as welcoming as a german proctologist waiting area...

 

Don't hold back, man! Don't hold back!...lol

[Adrian Sierkowski]

It's true; just about every times i've used UPs I've been let down by them and just not-- moved, i guess, by the images they create. Same with the 19/90-- and in fact I try my best to never use either anymore.

If I had to go favorite, Cooke S4s, else Zeiss Standard Speeds.

[David Mullen ASC]

I like the Ultra Primes just fine, it's not necessary for every project to use lenses that have "character". The Ultra Primes are very similar to Super Speeds, they just don't go to f/1.3 and they have a bigger barrel for easier-to-read focus marks and a longer rotation. They don't really have a "look". They are similar to Primos to me, clean workhorse prime lenses with minimal flare.

[Stuart Brereton]

The Ultra Primes are very similar to Super Speeds,

I'd have to disagree, David. I shoot with Super Speeds all the time, and on the odd occasion I have to have an Ultra Prime to round out a set, it stands out like a sore thumb. It's not their fault, Ultras are designed to be super clean and clinical, but the downside is a complete lack of character.

[David Mullen ASC]

Certainly Super-Speeds have character at f/2.8 and lower, but stopped down, I don't see much difference with Ultra Primes.

 

Again, why is it always necessary for a lens to have character?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I don't think it's always necessary; but I think of it like food-- sure i can survive on something rather bland-- but in the end why would I want to? That isn't that they don't serve a purpose; they of course do, but we're going moreso here for favorites, things we enjoy and things we don't.

[David Mullen ASC]

But the image isn't just the lens, it's what the lens is photographing. It's not always necessary for the lens to add an extra visual element to the subject if the subject is interesting enough, whether a human face or a landscape, sometimes an accurate representation of what is in front of the camera is enough. Just depends on the project. If I am shooting a close-up of a beautiful actress, a "bland" lens isn't going to make her less interesting to look at. Same goes for an amazing sunset over the desert; it's not like a characterless lens is going to turn it into a boring sunset.

 

Also, filters can add character to a lens that is bland. Sometimes if I know I am doing a filtered movie, I prefer to use the sharpest, most contrasty lenses so I can control the degree of image degradation I am adding with filters.

 

Plenty of interesting-looking movies have been shot on Ultra Primes, from "Ida" to "Amelie".

[David Mullen ASC]

I think part of the problem is that I'm not much of a lens fetishist -- I've shot on Primos, Master Primes, Ultra Primes, Super Speeds, Cooke S4's... I actually think they are all fine in most situations. They've never made or broken the photography. If I chose one or the other, it's either going to be a weight/size issue, a speed issue, or an intercutability with zooms issue.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Well David, you're of course right, but, I think for most of us it isn't fetish, it's more so a deeper question of what cinema can be. We can, of course, make great images despite our lenses, or through them, or however the semantics want to put it. But, at the end of it all there is a deep question about the image; whether we should err more towards an unadulterated recording of reality (as best one can) or a heavier handed, I suppose, commentary on it?

For myself, and I think many, right now, we are faced with looking at images which are too "perfect" and which lack a certain feel we have become accustomed to. Maybe this is due to the deeper issue of being surrounded by moving images and images more and more, or maybe it's just a trend, I don't know. But, I think what people are reacting to, by selecting a lens with a character, is the need to, within a certain extent, be surprised.

The "characteristic" lenses keep you a bit on your toes, and much, for me at least, like those many shots I've fretted over screwing up on film-- only to be pleasantly surprised when it came back-- something like an UP just makes the day dull.

But then again, all this comes down to how each of us as an image maker approaches our situation. I don't think there is a specific this is the right way or the wrong way to do it. I will say, though, that having been thrown into more bland situations than I care to count at the level at which I'm working (and yes, much like Shallow DoF fads of times past) there are moment on, say an Epic, where having a wonky old Lomo or something on the front of her can help elevate what's being recorded a little bit beyond what i'd get, all things equal, on a more "perfect," lens.