Thread: Milvus lens popular with RED than BMD user?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    274
    Milvus (or any stills lens) isn't for the film or TV episode crowd. PL and rental glass all the way there. The stills lenses are typically going to be the owner/operator doing corporate or video work outside the major production hubs like LA, NYC, Atlanta, etc. Think skateboard or surfer vids, music videos, talking head corporate, wedding,etc. more one man band stuff where push button autofocus or iris control on an active EF mount is a real benefit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Taikonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,684
    Milvus is not just any still lens. It is true to some extent that it has yet to appeal to high budget productions but not because of IQ but more what these productions are use to. I suppose the same argument might be said that you typically won't be seeing Canon, Sony, Blackmagic in high end cinema production as an A camera.
    Many so call cinema lenses share the same glass as still lens but housed differently.
    Have you seen the IQ from the likes of Samyang of Sigma's forays into cinema housing lenses? They are cashing in on the idea that some might see their cheap glass as "professional" because it is dressed that way.

    https://thecinelens.com/2016/01/13/r...he-difference/



    Last edited by Taikonaut; 04-21-2018 at 11:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta Georgia
    Posts
    2,849
    Nobody is going to use those on a show unless you have to.

    It's only owner operators that would buy these and put up with them.

    I'm sure they're optically great but they're all different physical sizes, different maximum apertures, and it looks like it would be hard to fit a follow focus rig to them. They're cheap for what they are, but they're no cinema lens.

    That's not speaking to how they perform optically. It kind of doesn't matter. To really get the most from a lens, you have to be able to work with it, to pull focus with it, to have the set be of the same aperture so you can light to the same exposure and not be having to dip up and down.

    Anyone who buys these is doing so because they can't afford CPs, want to stay Zeiss and are prepared to put up with the hassle of working with them on motion based work. Or maybe they ahve some cross over into stills and like them for both work.

    I don't see the upside to these at all.

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Taikonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,684
    Then there is a problem with cheap glass in cinema housing. If the industry are wiling to compromise IQ for the sake of conformed practicality. Camera IQs are getting better all the time and there will comes a time when these cinema lens with cheap glass gets found out.
    For most in this forum using BMD cameras it is the consumer dSLR lens people here will mostly use. The Milvus is not really affordable, they are priced about the same as the Xeen and even more than the Veydra but the likes of Xeen are overpriced for lower IQ and make little sense. Perhaps the argument for cine housed lens even in cheap glass carry more weight if this was a cinema forum for production crew that exclusively care about delivering the end product on schedule than about gears catering for the Pro-Am and single shooters.

    As a single shooter I echo what others have said on here. I don't care what it looks like as long as the IQ is great, that is the most important.
    Last edited by Taikonaut; 04-22-2018 at 03:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta Georgia
    Posts
    2,849
    I don’t know what your point you’re making.

    There are many requirements from a lens. The metric that you care most about isn’t necessarily what others care about.

    Id also be careful of assuming that because it’s a top of the line Zeiss Milvus that IQ is somehow “best”. That is a subjective judgement. Lens optics are very personal and subjective.

    Lots of shooters are looking to older vintage lenses because modern optics can look perfect. Perfect and boring and bland. It’s why companies like this are popping up everywhere.

    http://ironglassadapters.com/product...-for-pl-mount/

    Just because a lens has outstanding optical performance doesn’t necassarily make it ideal for filmmaking. To infer a judgement on others for this is a bit elitist and snobbish. Users aren’t stupid. If it actually delivered something meaningfuly better then I’m sure people would flock to them. I think most users would rather use Sigma ARTs. They’d cost the same for the Cine versions but you get what for most would be a similar optical result but with the added fucntionality of a lens that you can do a focus pull with.

    You might put up with what it takes to make a lens like that work but others would rather sacrifice a version of perfection to have practical. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member ThomasHennessy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    I don’t know what your point you’re making.

    There are many requirements from a lens. The metric that you care most about isn’t necessarily what others care about.

    Id also be careful of assuming that because it’s a top of the line Zeiss Milvus that IQ is somehow “best”. That is a subjective judgement. Lens optics are very personal and subjective.

    Lots of shooters are looking to older vintage lenses because modern optics can look perfect. Perfect and boring and bland. It’s why companies like this are popping up everywhere.

    http://ironglassadapters.com/product...-for-pl-mount/

    Just because a lens has outstanding optical performance doesn’t necassarily make it ideal for filmmaking. To infer a judgement on others for this is a bit elitist and snobbish. Users aren’t stupid. If it actually delivered something meaningfuly better then I’m sure people would flock to them. I think most users would rather use Sigma ARTs. They’d cost the same for the Cine versions but you get what for most would be a similar optical result but with the added fucntionality of a lens that you can do a focus pull with.

    You might put up with what it takes to make a lens like that work but others would rather sacrifice a version of perfection to have practical. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    JB
    You speak much truth Mr. Brawley

    I worked on shoot yesterday, where had a scene done in a single shot. We were on a 50mm CP.2, 2/2.8 split. The scene starts looking at a guy about 15' away at a table, the camera pans right and we shift focus to a tight close up on a character 2 and 1/2 feet away. He says his line to someone on his left, then looks right, the camera pans right, and we pick up another character 6' away. This character delivers a line, the camera pans back to the left, we get a line from our guy 2.5' away, then continue left to our 4th character about 4' away for the last line of the scene, before racking back to our gentleman at the table 15' away.

    All the image quality in the world doesn't do you any good if the mechanics of the lens can't do what you need them to do or what the scene requires.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Taikonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,684
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    I don’t know what your point you’re making.

    There are many requirements from a lens. The metric that you care most about isn’t necessarily what others care about.

    Id also be careful of assuming that because it’s a top of the line Zeiss Milvus that IQ is somehow “best”. That is a subjective judgement. Lens optics are very personal and subjective.

    Lots of shooters are looking to older vintage lenses because modern optics can look perfect. Perfect and boring and bland. It’s why companies like this are popping up everywhere.

    http://ironglassadapters.com/product...-for-pl-mount/

    Just because a lens has outstanding optical performance doesn’t necassarily make it ideal for filmmaking. To infer a judgement on others for this is a bit elitist and snobbish. Users aren’t stupid. If it actually delivered something meaningfuly better then I’m sure people would flock to them. I think most users would rather use Sigma ARTs. They’d cost the same for the Cine versions but you get what for most would be a similar optical result but with the added fucntionality of a lens that you can do a focus pull with.

    You might put up with what it takes to make a lens like that work but others would rather sacrifice a version of perfection to have practical. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    JB
    The point I'm making at are IQ and I ask why the Milvus is popular over in REDuser. If people seek imperfection that is a matter for them. I like to have the option of controlling that through filter. I mention the cheap glass in cinema housing as an example of low quality lens being found out. You see them soft wide open with CA all over the place. If that is what some people want fine, not me. I want good IQ. I understand why Cine housed lens useability wise are great but unless you work in in a big production were your job is to deliver on schedule were you rig all the lens the same, for many single shooters that is not the case. To imply that I might be elitist/snobbish I can say the same about you refering those who put focus gears on lens because they cant afford cine housed lens when the real reason is people see no point paying extra for essentailly the same glass.

    BTW you will find Sigma Art is a lot less than the Cine version, the 18-35 is like 600 and the cine version is almost 4k
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member Taikonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,684
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasHennessy View Post
    Y

    All the image quality in the world doesn't do you any good if the mechanics of the lens can't do what you need them to do or what the scene requires.
    And all the mechanics in the world won't do you any good if the image quality cant hack what the scene requires.

    Other than BTS if people watch a scene from your video they not going to be watching how you rig and focus pull.
    Last edited by Taikonaut; 04-23-2018 at 02:48 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    95
    If I were to stick my nose in here I would agree that for me IQ is most often more important to me than being perfectly housed and having focus and front diameter being truly consistent. In a fast paced production or with emotionally sensitive acting I absolutely agree consistency across the board is key. You need to trust your gear and be able to nail a shot consistently for the directors choice. In my experience though I've shot on ruggedly rehoused CP2s that have bad CA at 2.8 and don't shine and stand out to me. And then shabbily rehoused Cooke Speed Panchros that are beautiful but have focus slipping and perform a little sticky. For me the Cooke Speed Panchros made it worth it because of the character they provided. Like John said people are using rehoused old Soviet glass which should always be researched for in PrePro if you want that look. Prep and testing is key and if you trust the glass and gear you have hopefully all will go well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta Georgia
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Taikonaut View Post
    And all the mechanics in the world won't do you any good if the image quality cant hack what the scene requires.
    If it's not in focus then what's the point in having the best (out of focus) image quality ?

    The average audience are more likely to notice poor focus than poor image fidelity.

    Your situation isn't everyone's situation. MOST people want to be able to pull focus reliably and repeatably. Maybe you don't see that as important for your work and you prefer what you think is better IQ from a lens that is harder to pull focus on.

    That's the wonderful thing about having a choice.

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Milvus 25mm f1.4
    By Taikonaut in forum Lens Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-28-2017, 08:11 PM
  2. Zeiss 50mm Milvus
    By Mestizo Devon in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-19-2016, 10:42 AM
  3. Zeiss Milvus
    By townio in forum Lens Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-10-2016, 09:36 AM
  4. Zeiss Milvus 50mm 1.4 ZE
    By Dafilman21 in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-27-2016, 09:44 PM
  5. Why false colors so popular?
    By AndyGandy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-17-2015, 03:43 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •