Cinematography : Lenses by Ken Willinger, Soc

Two of my cinematography students have been having a friendly disagreement over which they like better - the cooke or the ziess primes. We did a feature with them both and it wasn't easy to see the difference. But when we put up the old Russian 250mm lens, boy you could really see it. What's your take on Cooke vs Ziess?

I find the Cooke lenses to be a bit creamier. The Ziess lenses have a bit more contrast. But it is very subtle. Personally I like the look of the Cookes and find them to be a bit warmer than the Zeiss. Often times the choice comes down to what you are familiar with or have worked with in the past and are comfortable with (or what the production budget will handle). The trend over the past few years has been extreme shallow depth of field, so folks are looking for the fastest lenses they can find, which often are more expensive to rent or buy. The old Canon FD's I used on the crime drama film had a real kind of 70's look about them (along with a 70's era Angenieaux 25-250 T3.9 that I have). It is fun playing with lenses... almost as much as lighting! I have an old Russian Lomo 37-140 T4.5... talk about creamy!

I find the cookes warmer and a bit smoother, which I really like. But I also like the contrast of the Ziess. The two students were both ACs on my last feature and each liked the other for the amount of resistance of the focus. You are right about the 70s look - we shot a short with the Arri 16BL with an Angenieaux zoom and the students all commented on how "old fashioned" it looked - which actually fit the subject matter. And that 70s Russian lens is a hoot. Low contrast and milky colors - a dreamy look. The colorist will be adding contrast and saturation to the shot to match the new lenses. I love playing with lenses and filters - we have some of the new tiffen filters - the pearlesence, glimmer glass and the black silk. Subtle and fun differences to the look.

Using filters is always fun. I've found though that a lot of directors that I've worked with recently want a fairly clean negative (data) and tend to mess around with various filter looks in post (often to my chagrin and why I try to be involved in the timing of the film). As a DP I like to create the image as much as possible in camera. I often use black pro mist. Recently on a low budget horror film I used a blue streak filter which added a nice element to the flashlights. With the old still glass available I've found some pretty sweet specialty lenses as well. I got a great wide angle (28mm) close focus lens that has come in super handy. Also some good macro lenses and even a tilt/shift, all fairly reasonable compared to equivalent cine glass.

Ken, I too am a fan / owner of Contax Zeiss glass... used in on film bodies as intended but am just now resurretning for cine use. I actually often use older Pentax Takumar lenses in EF mount- all hold up on DSLR for video and 2k cameras, some of them will hold up on 4K RED but not all. It's also important on full frame to be certain of mirror shutter clearance- some wides are iffy on a Mkiii. Having a set from 17 through 500mm, I get lots of requests when a less contrasty look is OK. And of course many are slow, but then I usually light to a mid stop so it's not as much of an issue. I am fairly stubborn at this point about delivering footage without my handprints all over it; too many people heist a DPs work and I'd rather decline a gig than lose control of the image. My last 2 DVD releases are not what I shot, they are the result of someone's aimless knob twisting. For high end work, Leica Summicrons are an interesting new trend. See BIRDMAN.

Yeah, the Lieca Summicrons are a lens I'd like to play with. They looked terrific in Birdman. I've not played with the Pentax lenses but I've heard good things peripherally through users like you. It is pretty amazing that so much of the old glass, which many had thought was obsolete, has now become quite relevant again with the advent of digital cinema cameras and their ability to easily change mounts. Many of the major professional camera manufacturers are now making various mounts to allow the use of pretty much any kind of lens. I think we'll soon be seeing mounts for medium format still lenses. There is some great glass in that arena as well. And of course with the ability of the new cameras to reach high and noise free ASA/ISO speeds, the slow lenses can be quite useful.

The glass debate will live on forever. Cookes, Angineux, Schnieder, Zeiss, Primos, etc. They all have their distinct characteristic. However, be cautious with in front -of- the -lens filters. With motion picture film, once the filter factor was addressed, there was generally no problem, since you were processing usually on a digital output anyway. However, raw video data needs to be just that: RAW in digital. Use your effects in post. I always try to find the fastest lens with the highest contrast. A fast lens in extremely low light is a must, and you can always adjust higher to lower contrast later. Just NEVER get in the lazy mind-set that you can just "fix it in post". Excellent way to piss off an editor.

I beg to differ with an anti-filter sentiment- I have shot millions of feet of film for both photochemical and digital finish, plus how many gazillion bits of digital. There are indeed a few caveats regarding filtration for digital, but the idea that generally putting something in front of the lens makes an image less than raw is a misunderstanding of imaging itself. That would also presuppose I dare not control color temperature of light- or mix color temps. A DP can and SHOULD do whatever they desire in front of the lens to burn in certain qualities and start a direction of a look that can be augmented in post in color grade, just as was done in timing sessions on negative... just as much as an production designer should have a pallet of controlled colors and tones to implement in front of the lens. You will find some filters, like corals or 81's, 85s that were common with film are less used now. You never need an optical flat for close quarters sound. And you will use various IR filters with some digital cameras. You also may find care is needed using textured or shaped filters ( Schneider Classic Softs jump to mind ) as some sensors read a pattern from a filter where emulsions do not. Filters are a great tool for digital, and not everything has to can be or should be left til later... particularly when the DP knows what they intend, and intend it to be respected through post.

I agree with Royce regarding the use of filters. And I agree that the DP is the one creating the look of the film, thus will do whatever it takes to bake that look in before post and in camera (but at least in my experience with a lot of input with the director). Over the years I've amassed a pretty good collection of filtration. I use Polas almost all the time when filming outdoors, and often stack ND's or graduated ND's on top. I'm partial to the Schneider glass. Though a bit more pricey the quality is really there. I can't say I've had any issues putting filters in front of the lens with digital cameras though I can imagine that there are specific filter patterns that could cause, as Royce mentions, a pattern with some sensors. Testing is key! The only issue I've had with stacking filters is because of the mattebox not being exactly square to the lens, thus causing a ghosting effect... unwanted. I couldn't see that in the viewfinder but when seen on a large screen it was very evident. Has never happened again. Definitely a learning experience! Speaking of matteboxes, when using older glass, you have to be aware that much of it is external focus. Therefore the lens does telescope when focusing and can bump into the glass in the matte box. You just have to adjust for that, and maybe use a little black wrap if there is too much light leak because of it. My old Angenieaux 25-250 telescopes quite a bit. Using a mattebox with it can be a challenge.

Zeiss compared to Cooke? Differences in colour, contrast and in the bokeh primarily. In general, Zeiss are more accurate with great colour reproduction and linear contrast while the Cookes tend to have a slightly warmer look and some softening of the contrast. Nice thing about generalities is that there are a number of exceptions. Lenses are very personal choices made for a lot of reasons. Many people see little if any differences in lenses, while others think of lenses as some sort of “secret advantage” that will make their work better. Remember that unless you take pains with LUTs and charts at the beginning of each roll, the subtle colour the lens will probably just be dialed out. Leica’s Summilux-C and Summicron-C are quite spectacular and always a consideration when making choices for a project. So are a number of other lenses. They do maintain the traditional yellow hint of Leica lenses. Again personal choices but you will hardly go wrong when choosing one of the major brands. Modifying stills lenses for motion picture work comes at a few different levels. Certainly de-clicking is one thing that can be done easily, but to me it is more important to have the focus modified to work accurately so that there is absolutely no free play at any place in the focus ring range of rotation. This will entail machining work on either screw type or cam type focus movements. Stills lenses have to be sharp in one place for a fraction of a second to make the picture, while motion picture lenses have to be able to change focus back and forth in either direction smoothly and accurately without free play and without any uncontrolled motion of the internal elements in order to keep the desired object in focus. Such modifications are done by few, are time consuming and expensive. Then we come to breathing. In stills, breathing does not come into play because the focus almost never changes during the exposure. Lenses work well for what they were designed to do. There are a few companies making lenses by taking the glass from still lenses and fabricating an entirely new housing. The attraction of older lenses is the flaws that can add an unexpected accent to a shot. Lens flair, internal flare, and vignetting are some of the effects we might like. The problem is that they are unexpected so no control and since these are flaws in the image, they may not always work favorably. The new lens sets that are available without multi coating with lots of flare but still have modern sharpness and lack of distortion.

There are some good companies doing cine mods on still glass. I've had both Duclos Lenses in LA and RP Lens in Michigan do work for me, both declicking and adding delrin focus gears on the Canon FD lenses and the Contax Zeiss lenses. There certainly are drawbacks to using still glass for moving pictures (particularly the breathing, though I rarely do major focus pulls that would be cause that to be emphasized). But conversely there are many positives as well (lightweight, cover 6K, organic look that is especially nice on clean digital cinema cameras). Much of the new modern glass has almost a clinically clean look. I have a set of Red Pro Primes and I find that on some productions they are just too sharp. As for rehoused still lenses, I've found that some of them are really well done and super useful. I've picked up both the Duclos rehoused Tokina 11-16 zoom. This lens has come in incredibly handy. The other that has been great especially for handheld work is the GL Optics 18-35 zoom. It is very fast (1.8), light, sharp, clean, great markings for AC and parfocal. The rehousing work on both of these lenses is robust. I use them often!

Breathing is not a function of the glass but of the mechanical way all of the elements interact when focus is changed. Properly done, with either a screw or cam focusing movement, there should be no breathing in a prime lens. The stills lenses do not have that as a parameter because there is no breathing in a still image. Indeed, properly done the adaptions can be very good. It is very nice that you are happy with yours. Covers 6K is a an odd description. It is the size of the imaging area not the number of photo sites within the area that determine coverage. Far more relevant is to talk about the actual real resolving power of a given camera system, which includes lenses. The “6K” does not describe actual image resolution, so is just an associated number that may or may not be seen but it makes for good copy in advertising. The desire for great resolution, real image resolution not advertising BS resolution, is for many reasons. It gives us more to work with so that we can choose to change, modify, or degrade the best reproduction to suit the artistic aims we have for a project. It allows us more ways to achieve the end result we see in our minds that we wish to bring to the screen. Care to define what you mean by “organic look” of a lens?

Maybe what I should have said was that the lenses cover the large chip sizes in most of the full frame sensor cameras. In my case particularly I own a 5D MKIII and a Red Dragon. Both sensors are large and the image that falls on them from these lenses completely cover them without any vignetting, barrel or wave distortion and keep very good focus across the plane. Yes, I said 6K, my bad, in reference to the Dragon camera that I have, which depending on who you talk to, may or may not have a 6K pixel count. I shouldn’t have used it as a generality. I’m not a lens technician, nor an engineer. Regarding the term “organic look” and how I’m using it to define the look and feel of a lens, and this of course is subjective and just my opinion… but compared to many of the new lenses being made today the older glass seems slightly cruder or less refined, possibly because of manufacturing techniques of the day, and have more imperfections that add a natural beauty that some modern lenses just don’t have. For certain projects I really love that look. For some projects I’ll want the cleanest sharpest glass I can find. That clean sharp glass I wouldn’t necessarily say has an “organic look”.

A close friend had started using “organic look” as a description. When I quizzed him on it we came to a conclusion about what he was seeing. To confirm, we shot a test with a “too sharp” lens and an “organic” one. The test confirmed for us that the too sharp lens did indeed resolve more that the organic lens. The difference in feel was because the organic lens only resolved slightly more at best than at the limit of depth of field for the stop. The transition from lower resolution to out of focus was a less pronounced step. Whereas the sharper lens had a much more noticeable fall off to the same depth of field limit. But this was for me and my testing, yours may be different. I always try to shoot with the cleanest sharpest lenses knowing that I can bake in the look with filters and lighten as Royce said. I can make a high resolution lens soft in many different ways but I cannot make a soft lens sharp. It is a matter of the amount of control we each want and I always want as much control as I can get As long as we like the images we create and they fit the mood of the picture properly, what they are and what we call them really don’t matter. However it is better not to refer to big bux lenses as “a hammer” when in the rental house. They get nervous.

I had a commercial job the last couple days. We were filming "artifacts", little bits of info to help flesh out personal stories for the spot. The director wanted to film this stuff macro. I pulled out an old Kiron 105mm 2.8 macro lens that is in the FD set of glass. I was very happy with the results and the director was duly impressed with this sweet old lens. Simple things that make us happy!

Kiron? that takes me back.

Is there a way to convert my 2.25 square Kiev lenses (same mount as a Hasselblad) to EF?

L.J. Since the Hassleblad has a longer flange focal length than the Canon EF, yes it can work. A simple search for a "Hassleblad to Canon EF adapter" will give you lots of choices. The field of view will be much narrower.

Thank you, Mr. Sobkovich.

I shot my first feature using some old FD lenses and enjoyed the use and results - except for the mismatched color from lens to lens. Using zeiss primes mostly now and this is never an issue.