No right clicks allowed!

$150 Lens vs $5,000 Lens vs $15,000 Lens, Can You Tell the Difference?

24 thoughts on $150 Lens vs $5,000 Lens vs $15,000 Lens, Can You Tell the Difference?

  1. Cine lenses have precise focus markings – shimmable 300grades degree of focus rotation, no breathing, matching color rendition , definition and contrast and neutral color rendition in many different T stop . There is a lot of good photography glass but those comparison is really superficial, i do not compare a nissan micra to a ferrari just because they both have wheels

  2. A DP’s choice of lenses, contrary to popular belief, is not based on how “good” they are, but instead on how they fit the story that’s being told. It’s all about using the right tools creatively, and every movie is unique and requires this kind of decisions. But yes, as already mentioned, usually the most common traits DP’s are after are the long focus throws, a color matching set, little to no breathing and accurate focus marks. The rest depends on the look intended.

  3. T-stops not F-stops, standard front barrel diameter for lens accessories, focus scale meant for focusing, no breathing, serviceability (parts that can be easily fixed/changed.) Sharpness and resolving power, light dispersion…just point your 150$ lens at a heavily backlit subject wide open and tell me that chromatic aberration (purple outline around your subject) is something you want in your footage…?

  4. The high-end primes are high-end for reasons in addition to image quality. The build, robustness, interchangeability with other lenses and filters, as well as how they play with other accessories like follow focus units and matte boxes all factor into why they are considered “better” among those who need them to make their living.

  5. this is a really stupid way to compare glass. for instance with chromatic aberration is always going to be a showstopper for cinema lenses and that’s something that the audience can tell in the big screen and that sucks.

  6. To be honest, this wasn’t the greatest of tests, but the Red prime did look better to me. If I were shooting big budget films – I’d pay the extra 4K, but the difference between that and a “cheaper” lens is not significant enough to justify a purchase for my needs. The 15K lens is definitely not worth the extra.

  7. Sometimes the difference isn’t necessarily in the image quality you get through each specific lens, but rather how it makes your job easier as a photographer/film maker. For instance, cine lenses are built like tanks and have very specific features built for filming (ie. slower focus ring, etc). The value is in being able to do a specific job in a way that is easier for whoever is behind the camera. Design, materials and build will determine the image quality, and for a high end lens it will certainly show.

  8. Thing is we rave about the sharpness and detail in the expensive lenses. Yep when we shoot portraits with them, they end up being too sharp and we end up smoothing out all that detail you captured in post. Lol. Kind of a waste.

  9. Price and brand often skews people’s perception of things. Same with wine. Many wine buffs are hard pressed to distinguish a very expensive bottle of wine from a $30 one.

  10. Yah but where are the photos to compare. All I see is the video. and you can’t compare the quality of an image that has been resized for video. Add the comparison images so we can see. Please 🙂

Leave a comment