# Cinema lens versus non-cinema lens



## gkilwein (Nov 4, 2011)

Does anyone know the differences between a cinema lens and a non-cinema lens that justify the extra price? Let's take the newly announced CN-E85mm T1.3 L F, for example, compared to the existing 85mm f/1.2L II lens.


*Cinema Lens**Non-Cinema Lens**Winner**Aperture*1.31.2Non-Cinema Lens (though not significant)*Auto-Focus*NoYesNon-Cinema Lens*Aperture Control*ManualAutoDepends on the user's needs*Resolution*4096x2160 (Approx 8.8 megapixels)5616x3744 (21 megapixels*)Non-Cinema Lens*Price*$6,800 USD (est.)$2,199 USD (list)Non-Cinema Lens*Aperture blades*118Cinema lens (but will it make a difference?)*Accessory compatibility*"standard manual and electronic 
movie industry accessories"?Depends on the user's needs

_* An 18 megapixel APS-C sensor like on the 7D resolves to even smaller pixels than the 5D mk II, the latter of which is where I took the resolution figure from, so this lens may be capable of resolving to a much higher resolution than 21 megapixel. Think of what resolution a full frame sensor would be if it had the same pixel pitch as the 7D, and this lens probably could handle it._

To me, it looks like the cinema lens is a manual focus, slower, lower resolution lens for over three times the price of the existing L lens that has compatibility with unspecified movie industry accessories. Someone said that another factor was that "focus breathing" was reduced on the cinema lens, and perhaps that's important. Or, possibly the accessory compatibility makes the price worthwhile. I've also read answers like this one on dvxuser.com that highlight a few reasons. The reasons all seem relatively minor, except perhaps the hard focus stops that could make a difference in productivity during a day of filming.

However, I'm wondering if the primary reason for the price difference is the target market for these lenses is generally willing to pay more for equipment, not because the lens is better (though perhaps some of the characteristics of a cinema lens do make it significantly more expensive to manufacture). If there's a product pricing lesson I've learned in my life, it's to price products according to what the market will bear or the perceived value of the product, not according to the cost of the item, and the customers in this particular market seem to be able to be fine with a higher price. I could be wrong, though, and maybe the cinema lens is indeed somehow technically superior in a way that's significant to filmmakers. I'm not a filmmaker, so I wouldn't know, but looking at the raw specs between the lenses leaves me with the question of why they bothered to come out with these other lenses. So, there must be something else I don't know or understand, since I'm sure Canon just didn't release these to have an exercise in building lenses for the sake of building them. Or perhaps what I've outlined above are the major differences, and users of cinema lenses are fine with paying more for their lenses, in which case Canon is just capitalizing on a product with a potentially higher profit margin (though quite likely selling them at a lower volume).


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 4, 2011)

Your'e comparing t-stops to f-stops. 

Generally: One major factor is that cine lenses are parfocal, the marks on the distance scale are actually accurate at every focal length. Invaluable if you want to tell a story instead of just showing that you can get a shallow DOF.

But even with primes being able to focus on a specific distance instead of turning the loosely coupled ring until the focus seems to be ok comes handy once you think of numerically controlled focusing.

Optically the common EF prime is fine, but actually using them is...annoying at best. And how many botched takes can you afford before the cine lens becomes the overall cheaper solution?


----------



## thepancakeman (Nov 4, 2011)

Lawliet said:


> And how many botched takes can you afford before the cine lens becomes the overall cheaper solution?



42


----------



## gkilwein (Nov 4, 2011)

Thanks. I figured it had to do with the usability of the lens itself saving time throughout a work day. The cost of a lens pales in comparison to the cost of wasting everyone's time while the camera operator fiddles with focus settings while filming, so if it saves time, that more than would make up for any cost difference in the long run.


----------



## gkilwein (Nov 4, 2011)

Lawliet said:


> Your'e comparing t-stops to f-stops.



Oops, I didn't notice that - thanks! *slaps forehead*


----------



## thepancakeman (Nov 4, 2011)

I get the difference, the question I have is whether or not such lenses are actually that much harder to manufacture to justify the cost, or if it's simply that the market will bear such prices? I'm inclined to think it's more option 2 than 1.

And considering how much great work has been done with the 5D MK II, it seems that the answer to "how many takes before it becomes cost effective" certianly seems to be coming down. Or is that going up? ??? Or at least people are figuring out a way to get good shots without requiring the big buck toys tools.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 4, 2011)

Lawliet said:


> And how many botched takes can you afford before the cine lens becomes the overall cheaper solution?


I would say none, because most EF lenses I've used change their focal length on focusing (aka focus breathing) and you will never be able to rack focus, no matter how many times you try.

Setting up a lens to work that way ought to add a great deal of expense if you want to otherwise keep similar characteristics to EF primes.


----------



## NormanBates (Nov 5, 2011)

the case of these canons seems to be the same as with the zeiss compact primes: exactly the same glass as the much cheaper stills version, but hand-picked for best possible results, and mounted with smaller tolerances into a better enclosure, with characteristics better suited for cinema (longer focus throw with hard stops and precise marks, same size of casing for all lenses, with gears in exactly the same places, etc), that make them more efficient on set

so: what others have already said

and then there are some lenses specifically designed for cinema, and they're usually a lot better than this, because they're designed with a lot less restrictions in mind: if you don't mind a 35mm prime weighting 5 pounds and costing a small fortune to manufacture (because you're selling it for a medium fortune), you can get better performance

the 30-300 cine lens that canon has introduced seems to be an example of this, but I'd bet the 24, 50 and 85 are just L glass in cinema casing

in this blog you can see a very demanding cinema professional (relatively) trashing out the zeiss compact primes, as compared to his beloved cooke ipanchro primes:
http://timurcivan.blogspot.com/2011/07/examination-of-lenses-carl-zeiss.html
http://timurcivan.blogspot.com/2011/04/examination-of-lenses-part-ii-cooke.html

it's very interesting to see what he likes and what he complains about


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> the case of these canons seems to be the same as with the zeiss compact primes: exactly the same glass as the much cheaper stills version, but hand-picked for best possible results, and mounted with smaller tolerances into a better enclosure, with characteristics better suited for cinema (longer focus throw with hard stops and precise marks, same size of casing for all lenses, with gears in exactly the same places, etc), that make them more efficient on set
> 
> so: what others have already said
> 
> ...



Norm,

You said it all. I completely agree. This is equipment for those who want excellence and have a budget to match. Actually, the new Canon equipment is a big dollar saver over some of the existing cinema equipment. Its going to shake up things a bit.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 7, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > And how many botched takes can you afford before the cine lens becomes the overall cheaper solution?
> ...



42 is the answer. Now what was the question? Sorry, have read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...

Probably much of the cost difference has to do with the exact light transmission calibration, permitting guess-free utterly predictable exposure. Also, it looks solidly built. Just like my old 50 1.4 super takumar! (I've used that thing on my 7D, and it is great!)


----------



## Policar (Nov 7, 2011)

Mostly it's economies of scale and tolerances (t-stops and distance scales that have to be calibrated much more precisely), as mentioned above, but good movies lenses are legitimately better than the best still lenses. The "resolution" numbers are so ridiculous because you're using a fake metric for mtf (megapixels) in the first place. Can the 85mm f1.2 REALLY resolve 21 megapixels fully wide open? And what do megapixels even mean considering the mtf of sensors often appears higher than their theoretical nyquist limit? Wild gaps in logic here...

Re: movies lenses, one they tend to exhibit less distortion, secondly they have nicer bokeh extending toward the edges of the frame, thirdly there's less curvature of field, fourthly there's drastically reduced breathing (so that rack focusing doesn't result in zooming in). The lenses can also be huge, with enormous optical elements and impressive construction AND perfect color matching between lenses of the same brand and type.

I recently shot a bit with the Panavision Primos and they really are unparalleled by still lenses. There's no breathing, essentially no coma or curvature of field, and they're sharp wide open and available in tons of focal lengths. And these aren't even the highest end lenses available by any means.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 7, 2011)

dilbert said:


> People are going to be screaming for Canon to make a 50/f1.8 with the same optical properties as the CN 50/T1.3. They don't understand what it takes to manufacture something that is quality, just that they can't have it for pennies.



Yes, how many comments have we seen where someone says "Its just Glass", without a clue as to the technology. 
The best lenses are ground to such accurate dimensions that they cannot be directly measured. They are then further ground by craftsmen who have long experience with tweaking the grinding even more. 

Lenses can be better, but for even a tiny amount of improvement at this level, costs go up astronomically. 

Canon will be doing what Zeiss does with their compact primes, and that is hand picking the best and most accurately ground glass to put in the lenses. That means, of course, that that best of the best glass will no longer occasionally appear in your "L" lens, since it has already been "cherry picked".


----------

