I am still jonesing for a serious video-cine lens, a single lens that can be adapted to any camera (PL mount), that is in the serious budget bracket and that has a know amount of “X” factor.
The mount is important because out out of one lens (a 35mm), I would have a standard wide (full frame), standard 50mm (Super 35 or APS-c), a long standard 63mm on the GH5s and 70mm on MFT. I could even throw it on a Sony like the ZVE-1, FX30 or a Canon of some type.
The lighting was poor on my part, but the 24mm anamorphic lens surely suited the task.
The DZO Vespid 1’s are the sentimental favourite, striking for many the perfect balance between professionally sharp and characterful. These seem to still stand out in the pack even when compared to more clinical lenses, even their own Vespid 2’s. The 35 is considered a slightly better lens than the 40 I was originally drawn to and a more sensible “one lens”.
The Nisi Athenas have never appealed for some reason, but in Australia their price is off putting. They sit above the Vespid 2’s here and I feel the V2’s are better all-rounders.
I have an IRIX 150 in L-mount, so a 30mm in PL would expand that palette cnsiderably (30/45/55/60), but they are like the Nisi, very clinical, very clean a little sterile. This works for the macro, but I am not as keen for video. They are also hard to track down, huge and the most expensive.
I want clean and sharp, but not at the cost of an organic, classic vibe.
The Vespid 2’s are probably the perfect balance of all factors. They compare to the Arles, are cheaper or the same as the Nisi.
The wild card, and I hate early reviews because they smack of the early marketing push, are the 7Art Infinte (not Infinite). These look to be comparable to the Nisi, maybe a little more organic (not as perfect-sterile), cheaper than all the rest and I can in some ways see a direct line between these and the Hope series by the same brand. I really like the Hopes, but they are APS-c limited and come in a single mount.
Having a sinlge lens that can fit multiple cameras makes sense, except that I cannt use these cameras at once, so it would add consistency of look to the process, but only at the lens level. The four formats would be shared over a minimum of three different cameras and these are all a little different to each other (even if I only use Panasonic).
Could it be that I could actually match different lenses to specific cameras and get a better level of consistency, while using up to three cameras at once? I have already matched the cool Spectrum 50 to the warm toned S5II, the cooler S5 getting the warmer Spectrum 35, with some success. InV-log I could actually match them up using the cameras fine WB controls.
I need to consider also (especially considering the last paragraph), lenses I have like the Spectrum 50, Hope 25 and 50, my three anamorphic Sirui (2 MFT, 1 L-mount), Panasonic S-primes (35/50/85) and several MFT lenses that are not rubbish by any means.
The reality is, the lenses are important, but they are nt as important as other factors. For example; Vulhandes made a great video about the Vespid 1’s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2mzAT2xuc , but he makes great footage, so I could argue he could have made that with most lenses (and seeing as some shots have them all in frame, I guess he did use others).
Story Driven Thomas did this on the Sirui anamorphic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8S4ioLDlLk which in many ways influenced me to buy them. Again, great art video, so lens or maker?
Mark Wiemels made an excellent video on the Infinte https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTwDUHEwm50 , and while technically competent, the video was made to be a sample video, not an art piece, so hard to compare.
There are a lot of contradictions at play here and the internet does not help. Do you want perfection in a lens and add effects after, are you after character in lens, need AF, use filtering, like legacy glass, are ok with anything because you will control the best bits in other ways (lighting etc)? Which, if any or even all of these apply to you?
The reality is, Roger Deakins wants the best, most clinical, spherical glass you can get, effects added later, while Zack Snyder used an antique Canon range finder 50 wide open at 0.95 on an 8k Monstro sensor. Neither is subjectively “right”, they both produced professional work.
Maybe I am putting too much stock in specific glass, caught up in the hype. maybe my secret sauce should come from somewhere else, like the little Pen half frame 25mm I seem to like? I have to recognise, my choices are often mood based, such is the softness of the topic.
For me, I want smooth sharp, not “hyper” sharp, like the 8k Sigma to Sony look. I want smooth footage, with invisible technical effects, a creative transparency that lens choice should not be the primary or even a major source of (something I know only really effects the initiated).
I will use mild filtering if I have to, but would love it if much of that smoothness came from the lens. Lenses that I feel do give me some of that now are the S-Primes, my Oly 12-40, the Hope and Spectrum lenses, m anamorphics and the add legacy lens.
Do I need more?
Basically what I am saying here is, there are so many factors at play, I may be over stating the importance of a lens as fulcrum of my process and under estimating the value of good technique.