Cine lenses?

>>2977464
do whats in your heart anon

They have a lot of fluff and added expense that isn't necessary for photography, but other than that, yeah. they'll do alright.

I love my cine rokinons for video and stills. But the Xeen series in your pic would be awkward for stills and no different optically.

You don't need it dude. All the gear threads and reviews and everything makes everyone think they need the best possible gear when you just don't.
The pros that buy pro shit like cine lens have a ledger, and if buying a cine lens can make more money than the cost of the lens, then they buy it. Does that apply to you? a de-click aperture isn't necessary, you can work around it. You can do focus pulling on any old manual lens off ebay.
The quality of image from a $5000 and a $500 lens is non existent. Yeah, if you 100% crop and zoom in on a corner it might not be as sharp. You'll be the only one who sees it. Especially for cinematography.

>>2977464
>cheap Rokinon cine lens only for video or if I invest $5,000+ on a Zeiss or Canon cine lens that I can also use for photos

Cheap Rokinon for video and stills.

Those big extensive cine lenses are only useful for focus pulling systems.
Optically they aren't any better than the cheap stuff.
You're essentially paying thousands of dollars for a bulky housing.

No, the price is in the features like construction durability, very specific focus/diaphragm throw distances, coatings, etc. If you're buying used/older cine lenses they are not optimized for high resolution still images

>>2977508
>not optimized for high resolution still images

there's no such thing as lens optimized for resolution. If you believe that, I have some premium hdmi cables to sell you, only $2000

Come lenses have a few factors that Make them "Cine"
>fully automatic
>Pre-installed gear-rings for focus-/ zoom-pulling
>Clickless aperture Rings
>(Sometimes) identical filter-threadings across the product line to save on filters
>specific Focus throws

That's more or less what you're paying for.
If you know how to declick Manual lenses you're halfway there.

>>2977530
In what sense? As in a spherical lens vs. an aspherical lens? A lens may be optimized to reduce aberrations and form an image from which a higher resolution can gather more meaningful data

Make your one yourself.

https://youtu.be/-IQptA4JeRc

>>2977464
haha.
don't.
you're wasting money paying the cine tax.
the optics are infact the same design as the stills version.

>>2977530
>there's no such thing as lens optimized for resolution.

Almost any fuckhuge objective is optimized for resolution because corrective optics make it such, compare 50/1,4 Art and 50/1,4 EF.

Since video recording does not require spectacular resolution specific objectives (particularly those which do not have a "still" optical copy produced) may be underperforming in photography but are smaller and cheaper.

>>2977508 said:
>older cine lenses

File: 11288067_742358535886360_1569601710_n.jpg (95KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 640x640px

this

File: IMG_20161129_131716.jpg (197KB, 1077x537px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1077x537px

>>2977746
get on my level


also op, cinema lenses, optically speaking, are usually no better than stills lenses.

stills lenses prioritise image quality, auto focus speed (if applicable) and usually size, weight and cost.

cinema lenses will prioritise things like full-manual linkages for repeatable focus/aperture pulls, precise distance markings, uniform sizes across a product range, minimising focus-breathing and focus-shift while zooming.
they don't care to much about size, weight, or cost (pic related, $90k lens)
none of those factors are necessary for a stills lens but can completely change the look of captured video.

a cine lens design might sacrifice overall sharpness if it can achieve better performance in one of those other areas.

after-all, even at 4k a cine lens only has to resolve for 12mp, where as your new slrs are pushing 30-50.

File: 1445702018859.jpg (62KB, 395x401px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 395x401px

>>2977770

>19mm rod
>not using 24" but screw a 15 and a 9"
>rail looks bent
>lens gonna sag as fuck
>a4 simmon star

also

>CANON CINE
>TOP KEK

>>2977783
trust me, those rails don't bend.
also in defence of canon cine; find me another 20x pl zoom for s35