Paris

by Jon

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A number of manufacturers, including Canon and Zeiss, make cine-optimised lenses for still photography mounts (e.g. EF). For reasons well-covered elsewhere, these lenses are stupendously expensive, mostly for reasons which aren't particularly relevant for still photography: none of focus breathing, a varifocal lens or slight colour shifts between lenses are a serious problem for most applications of still photography.

If I did suddenly happen to come into a ridiculous amount of money, would I notice any significant advantage in using one of these very high priced lenses for still photography, or would it be just a waste of money because they're optimised for a different use case, and I'd be better off using a regular still photography lens instead?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 8 down vote accepted

There are a few potential advantages, for example:

  • The really long focus throw on some cine lenses is very nice for accurate manual focus.
  • A stepless aperture enables some extremely specific special effects (e.g. simulated apodization) by way of changing aperture during an exposure.

None of them I would call "significant" when compared to the added weight and bulk of cine lenses which will just slow you down unless working in a studio.

Being parfocal, which you dismiss, is actually of benefit to action/sports photography.

share|improve this answer
2  
    
Could you give me a one-liner as to why a parfocal lens is advantageous for action photography? Thanks :-) –  Philip Kendall Feb 17 at 22:58
    
@PhilipKendall, ask that as a separate follow-up question. –  Reid Feb 18 at 3:42
1  
@PhilipKendall the one line answer is that it allows you to take a tight cropped photo and then quickly zoom out and get a wider shot without losing focus on the subject. –  Matt Grum Feb 18 at 15:22

While it may not cause a difference in image quality, you'd be better off with photography lenses because of their features, such as autofocus and image stabilization. Granted, not all lenses have these features, but most of your quality lenses are going to.

share|improve this answer
    
lots of quality lenses dont. –  Michael Nielsen Feb 17 at 19:47
    
Most currently manufactured "mainstream" lenses do. The ones that don't are sold in significantly smaller numbers, so "most" quality lenses do include AF and a good many of them also include IS. –  Michael Clark Feb 17 at 20:38

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.