f/0.95 lenses on cameras

Loud Orange Cat

Loud Orange Cat

Pro Member
indiePRO
I've seen some HD video that were taken on cameras with f/0/95 lenses and they're mindblowing.

What cameras offer lenses like this? Personally, I'm a Canon whore myself (video, DSLRs...) and they offer nothing less than f/1.2.

What HD video cameras with a 4:2:2 colorspace offers lenses less than f/1.0?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
lens speed is not affected by camera. Nor is color space affected by lenses choice.

  • Your looking for a 4:2:2 color space camera.
  • Your looking for very fast lenses.
The interface between the two (lens mount) matters, though you may be able to adapt from one to the other.
The image circle the lens produces matters.

You pick your camera which is tells you your lens mount
then you find a lens that is the speed your require AND whose image circle will cover the sensor.

You could start from the lens, and find the camera that fits or adapts to your lens .. yada yada...

Meeting both your requirements put you in the high end of the market. Loosen up on the 4:2:2 requirement and many options open up...

I think that renting is your best option at this time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PaulGriffith said:
You can spend a little less on a camera and buy one with a clean HDNI or SDI output and record to a Samaurai or a Ninja ($1000-1500) in ProRes.
Click to expand...


How would that help in the 0.95 matter ?

These ultra-fast lenses are scarce any way. If you really want them, you'd be best pick the camera these lenses were designed for.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Loud Orange Cat said:
I've seen some HD video that were taken on cameras with f/0/95 lenses and they're mindblowing.
Click to expand...

Just curious what it is about these videos that is 'mindblowing'. Ultimately, an f/0.95 lens isn't hugely different than an f/1.2. You'll get more light to the sensor, and a slightly shallower depth of field - but in most situations we're already talking about razor-thin DOF with an f/1.2. So I'm just guessing that whatever it is about those videos that makes them 'mindblowing' to you has more to do with technique and setup than with the fact that they're using an f/0.95 lens.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
Just curious what it is about these videos that is 'mindblowing'. Ultimately, an f/0.95 lens isn't hugely different than an f/1.2. You'll get more light to the sensor, and a slightly shallower depth of field - but in most situations we're already talking about razor-thin DOF with an f/1.2. So I'm just guessing that whatever it is about those videos that makes them 'mindblowing' to you has more to do with technique and setup than with the fact that they're using an f/0.95 lens.
Click to expand...

I've used the 25mm and being able to open up to 0.95 is a blessing for the guerilla filmmaker who wants to keep his lighting setup to the minimal.

Shooting indoors with a simple practical lamp ? Fuck yeah.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Loud Orange Cat said:
I've seen some HD video that were taken on cameras with f/0/95 lenses and they're mindblowing.

What cameras offer lenses like this? Personally, I'm a Canon whore myself (video, DSLRs...) and they offer nothing less than f/1.2.

What HD video cameras with a 4:2:2 colorspace offers lenses less than f/1.0?
Click to expand...

Blackmagic Cinema Camera
Sony F3/F5/F55

I think those are the only two that are 1080 422 capable what you can attach an 0.95 to.

I've got a 25/0.95 I use with my Blackmagic-MFT:

https://vimeo.com/63493548

A good portion of the night stuff's the 25/0.95 SLRMagic on BV1-MFT.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheArtist said:
I've used the 25mm and being able to open up to 0.95 is a blessing for the guerilla filmmaker who wants to keep his lighting setup to the minimal.

Shooting indoors with a simple practical lamp ? Fuck yeah.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you can do the same thing with an f/1.2 or f/1.4. We're only talking about a half to full stop light difference, which is nice but not huge. Shooting by candlelight, maybe - but we've got quite a few cameras available now that will do that cleanly without requiring a lens that fast.

It seems to me the primary advantage of the f/0.95 is to allow shallower DOF at wider angles on cameras with smaller sensors, i.e. it'll be nice on something like the BMPC. That's fine from a technical standpoint, but from an aesthetic one it doesn't necessarily produce a look that can't be achieved with less exotic lenses on any number of cameras with larger sensors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheArtist said:
I know that 1.8 is nowhere near enough.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. It's not just a question of what f-stop you shoot at - the camera is a big part of the equation, and many of the recent cameras can produce impressively clean images at high-ISO. I'd bet you can overexpose a shot by candlelight at f/1.8 without too much trouble these days.

And that's my point overall here - rather than asking "what body has f/0.95 lenses available" the question should be "how do I achieve this mindblowing look?" That's why I asked what the OP found 'mindblowing' about it - because once you've identified the characteristics you are going for you can start working out the formula to achieve them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If Kubrick were alive, he would've shot that scene on a Sony F5 or F65 and been able to shoot at ISO 1280.

Am I the only one who prefers deeper depth of field when shooting night? Looks better, at least IMO - lifts it out of that 'I have a DSLR and no lights and so have to shoot at f/0.95 at night' look.
Light your scenes peeps :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Exactly - he didn't choose to use super fast lenses because of any special powers they had, other than their ability to let light in. He had to do this in order to accomodate the speed of the film - apparently rated at ISO 100, although it was exposed at 200 and pushed in processing.

So his f/0.7 and ISO 200 can be approximated with almost any modern DSLR shooting an f/2 at ISO 1200 - with the added benefit of slightly more depth of field (although it's still not much). If you'd like to have some room to keep both your actors nose and eyes in focus at the same time you could run up to ISO 3200 and close down to the f/4-5.6 range.

TheArtist said:
Wheat cheap camera can achieve clean high ISO ?

I never go higher than 1250. With f/0.95 you can probably shoot by candlelight at 320 ISO.
Click to expand...

The 5DmkIII will do 3200 cleanly, even 6400 depending on your tolerance for noise. The C100 too, and the FS100 is close. But I'd also suggest you could use just about any DSLR at 1200 and do something radical like lighting a second candle if there's not enough light. Kubrick used special candles with multiple wicks to produce more output, but he also used a lot of candles to light the room.

But again - my point isn't to say that an f/0.95 lens isn't useful in some specialized situations. I'm just saying that it may not be necessary to get that lens to achieve a certain look, so it seems backwards to me to start with the lens and try to find a body that fits it. Better to start with the look you're trying to achieve, and then look at the many lens/body combinations that are available to create it. That's what Kubrick did - he started with a look (period-appropriate lighting from an age before electricity) and put together the available technology that enabled him to achieve that look.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
At this time there isn't an 0.95 that covers full frame.

So, the pair that do (35/0.95 an 50/0.95) cover S35/APS-C and APS-H will give the appearance of DOF similar to 135 (Full Frame/5D). That's one reason to use it, hyper thin focus.

Also, ISO isn't always the solution to lowlight: depending on the camera you're shooting out, ISO absolutely will affect noise floors (Gain amplified) and worse, color. The closer you can get to utilizing the settings your camera head's optimized for, the better.

Being able to shoot 0.95 on BV1-MFT exterior night's pretty good. The depth isn't too shallow by any means (smaller sensor) and yet there's a lot of light coming in.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
So his f/0.7 and ISO 200 can be approximated with almost any modern DSLR shooting an f/2 at ISO 1200 - with the added benefit of slightly more depth of field (although it's still not much). If you'd like to have some room to keep both your actors nose and eyes in focus at the same time you could run up to ISO 3200 and close down to the f/4-5.6 range.
Click to expand...


This is all false. You make it sound like "wide aperture = shallow DOF instantly" which is not true. You can still get deep focus if you step back and focus farther.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheArtist said:
This is all false. You make it sound like "wide aperture = shallow DOF instantly" which is not true. You can still get deep focus if you step back and focus farther.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that doesn't make it "all false". Sure, you can step back and get some more DOF - which is fine if your entire movie consists of medium-long to long shots. Most don't, and if you're relying on being able to shoot wide open all the time to make up for a lack of lights it means you'll have to deal with razor-thin DOF much of the time.

This isn't my opinion, it's the way optics work. Here's the math on DOF for something like the Noktor 25mm F/0.95 on a m4/3 sensor at various distances to a subject:

CU = 2 feet = 3/4" in focus
MCU = 3 feet = 1.5" in focus
MS = 5 feet = 4.3" in focus
MLS = 10 feet = 1.5' in focus

Put that same lens on a APS-C camera and frame up the same shots and you'll get about half the DOF. When you're in the close up range with that lens there's simply no way to get around how shallow the DOF is other than to stop down. Even at f/5.6 you're only getting about four inches, but at least it's enough to keep your actor's entire face in focus as long as they don't move too much.

Kholi said:
That's one reason to use it, hyper thin focus. [...] Being able to shoot 0.95 on BV1-MFT exterior night's pretty good. The depth isn't too shallow by any means (smaller sensor) and yet there's a lot of light coming in.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, the primary use case I see for the f/0.95 is to get shallow DOF on a smaller sensor - I'm thinking they'll be great for the BMPC. Combine it with the speed booster for an f/0.65 equivalent and people will soon forget that Kubrick fellow and his mere f/0.7.

But, again, my point is not that there's anything wrong with the f/0.95 lens, or using faster lenses to get more light on the sensor instead of cranking up the ISO. It's just that there's nothing magical about that lens. Just because someone sees great work shot with it (like the OP did) doesn't mean that lens should necessarily be the starting point in trying to achieve something similar. There's a lot more choices in the f/1.4 range that will basically give you the same or very similar effects with a variety of current cameras.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top