For example, compare a cine lens like the Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 50mm/T2.1 ($3,900) to a high-end DSLR lens like the Canon 50mm f/1.2L ($1418). Both are EF-mount, have the same focal length, and it seems the Canon is a faster lens. Another example is comparing the Canon CN-E 30-300mm T2.95-3.7L ($45,000) vs. the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM ($2700).
What makes a cinema lens so expensive (construction, image quality, etc...)? What can these lenses do that normal high-end DSLR lenses can't? Can photographers benefit from the features of cine lenses?
Answer
Cine lenses do have to overcome certain limitations that don't really apply to still cameras.
Still lenses will usually exhibit the phenomenom of "breathing" during focus. Breathing will cause the image to appear to get larger when the focus shifts, a non-issue for a still camera, but a big issue when doing motion picture recording. Fixing that isn't free, as it were. :)
Zoom lenses for still cameras are often vari-focal, the focus changes as you zoom, but this is not the cases for cine lenses, these are para-focal. In other words, you can zoom in and out and the focal point will remain the same. Again, not free to fix.
Final thought... Volume. I don't think the volume of sales helps the price. That's the supply/demand side of things in play, they just won't sell enough to make the profit margins.
In terms of benefit to a dSLR user, the answer is that it's the same as a videographer when you shoot video.
No comments:
Post a Comment