Francesco, you are the Technical Director at Panalight and are responsible for the lens inventory. I’d like to have a chat with you about the current situation regarding the lenses used in Italy by both Italian and foreign cinematographers, with a particular focus on contemporary photographic preferences and how these influence the selection, research, and customisation of lenses. To start, I’d like to get an overview from you, and then we can delve deeper into the topic.
At present, older-generation lenses are very much in vogue, having gained popularity with the advent of new camera sensors. The resolution of these new sensors encourages a search for a slightly softer look; otherwise, there’s a risk of achieving an almost “clinical” image, more akin to documentary style than the artistic aesthetics of narrative film. As you well know, in the past, with film, the tendency was to use clean and sharp lenses, but things have changed somewhat now.
So, with a greater number of processes, there was a loss of definition through all the stages before printing.
We start from the premise that when you shoot on film, you still have two or three emulsions that you mainly use, and you have to make choices. You also have to consider the economic side; for example, when it comes to lighting, if the budget is limited, you need “faster” lenses. The lenses that were released always aimed to offer maximum brightness and sharpness, such as the famous Zeiss Master Primes. If you used sharp and clean lenses, designed specifically to ensure optical perfection, like those produced by Leitz or Zeiss, you had a greater number of optical elements inside to eliminate aberrations, as these tended to increase with film. The job, therefore, was to eliminate aberrations and excessive softness. With current digital sensors, which have resolutions up to 8K and beyond, their extreme sharpness can cause discomfort, even for actors and make-up artists. If you use a sharp, clean lens on a latest-generation sensor, you can see many more details, including the pores of the actor’s skin, the makeup on the face, and this can be distracting. So, filters like Promist often have to be used to soften the image as much as possible.
Is it correct to say that the trend of using diffusion filters on lenses has decreased in favour of lenses that are already naturally softer?
Exactly, by using softer lenses or older generation lenses, where the glass has also been subjected to wear and tear like anything else. The coating on the surface tends to wear slightly with repeated cleaning, creating a patina on the lens.
Does the passage of time contribute to defining the characteristics of the lens itself?
Absolutely. Glass is an inorganic substance subject to wear, so it is normal that with use and repeated cleaning, as well as atmospheric conditions… the lens gradually loses some of its characteristics.
Going back a bit, what material are lenses made from?
Lenses can be made from various materials depending on the manufacturer. They can be made of crystal or plastic. The composition of the glass varies based on the mix of silica sand and other substances, and its melting process. Manufacturers carefully study the composition of the glass to achieve the desired characteristics.
So, manufacturers start by studying the components that create the glass.
I would say so. The refraction of the glass and its composition determine the look and characteristics of the lens. Different materials can give different effects, such as more flare or increased softness. Other lenses are also made of plastic…
There was a trend for vintage lenses that boosted the market, even introducing lenses originally intended for other uses, such as photographic lenses.
The world of photographic lenses came into play strongly when sensor sizes increased.
In recent years, there has been an increasing trend to use cameras with sensors larger than Super 35…
Exactly. If you want to work with a full frame or a larger format, you need a lens that covers a larger diameter.
Since photographic lenses usually cover a sensor that we can define as full frame, that is, 24 by 36 millimetres, can they consequently cover up to Vista Vision, more or less?
Almost, it depends on the lens. Cinematic lenses used to be made to cover the Super 35 format, so anything beyond that was a bonus. In fact, there are some vintage lenses, such as the famous Canon K35s, that can cover full frame, except for the 18mm.
And in that case, you need to use a 14mm FD photographic lens or even a more modern lens… In this regard, you’ve created sets to offer to cinematographers who rent from Panalight. How’s that going? What impact has this search for vintage lenses had on your rental service?
It has increased the prestige of our services. Also because now there are incredible prices on some vintage sets.
Which you’ve had for years.
Not just us… I, myself, grew up professionally in London, and I remember that the same Canon K35s were practically left abandoned on the shelf in the warehouse because no one wanted them; they were considered too soft for film, so they were put aside. Today, a set of K35s can fetch astronomical prices. At that point, other lenses came into play, like the Zeiss, which marked a turning point. The Super Speeds T1.3, the Ultra Primes, T2.1, and so on, were designed to offer the right balance between sharpness and softness. From my point of view, lenses like the Zeiss T1.3s are stunning: fast, not too sharp, a good compromise.
The same Ultra Primes appear softer in digital compared to film.
Yes. Today’s cinematographers often seek to explore and experiment with different looks. With digital, you have many more possibilities to manipulate the image, allowing you to work primarily with LUTs to achieve the desired look. There’s not always a need to use filters, but obviously, every cinematographer wants to create their own unique look, so they experiment.
Do they ever ask you for customisation of lenses?
Yes, it has happened a few times.
Are we talking about vintage lenses?
Well, nowadays even the Super Speeds 1.3 and the Ultra Primes are considered vintage. All the lenses from the 1980s, in my opinion, are vintage. We can no longer call them modern lenses.
Well, perhaps all lenses built for film can be considered vintage, even the S4s, which date back to the 1990s.
Yes, true.
I’d like to talk more about the trend of the proliferation of new lens sets. Often, those who use prestigious brand lenses consider these new sets to be of lower quality. However, as you said, the price-to-quality ratio of these lenses is surprisingly good. How do these companies manage to offer lenses at such competitive prices? Something that European companies can’t seem to do. How do they reconcile the price with a quality comparable to that of the historic brands? And how do you, as a rental company, adapt to this market?
Let’s say that lens production today isn’t what it used to be. In the past, manufacturers made manual mathematical calculations, designed angles and distances on paper. Now there’s software that allows you to input various parameters such as T-stop, the number of elements inside the lens, etc. You enter all this data into the software, press a button, and the software develops the lens. It’s a much faster process.
And can you also predict production costs?
Certainly, and if you then produce in the East, where labour costs perhaps a third of what it does in Germany… you save a lot. I’ve been to companies like Zeiss and Cooke…
I’ve been to Cooke too; much is still done by hand.
There’s a different conception of production. Today, even the mechanical part, which used to be an obstacle, is no longer a problem. There are companies in China or elsewhere that are so advanced, with CNC machines, that they can perfectly manufacture any mechanical part of the lens.
I was surprised by the build quality of the Vespid Prime DZO lenses you showed me. As far as the optics are concerned, I can’t give a judgement since I haven’t used them, but from a mechanical point of view, they seem like lenses that don’t have anything to envy from others.
Mechanically speaking, they’re compact and robust. The movement is smooth; let’s say they’re well-made. The difficulty in creating the mechanical part always depends on the type of lens you’re making, for example, if you have floating or fixed elements. It largely depends on how many elements need to move inside.
Some of these lenses might not even be made of glass?
Well, yes, or they might be made of lower-quality glass, with a different coating. The study of coating is crucial for eliminating unwanted reflections. You can have different combinations of coating: on all lenses or just the external ones. The amount of coating affects the internal and external reflections of the lens. It’s both an artistic and engineering choice by the manufacturer. The quality of the glass is still important. A high-quality crystal is noticeable in a lens. However, today, there’s no longer that obsessive care, that pursuit of a perfect image. I’ve met cinematographers, even award-winning ones, who prefer lenses that have been marked by time.
Do these companies mainly focus on the coating? Is the coating what gives the lens its identity, I imagine?
Let’s say that when there are prestigious brands, they seek their own identity. Cooke has its famous “Cooke look,” based on both the glass and the coating. This gives their lenses that warm, not-too-sharp look that has been Cooke’s trademark since the 1940s. They varied slightly with the introduction of sharper lenses like the S5i, but the base remains the same.
But now they’ve introduced the SP3s, and we’re wondering where they’re made. Hardly in England…
They might be produced in another country. This would explain why a Cooke lens can cost much less than before. However, someone might come in here and ask for the SP3s “because they’re fantastic, just like the Panchros!”
I’d like to finish with a couple of questions. We were talking about new lenses made with different materials and glass compositions. Major companies often use their coating patents to make lenses similar to more expensive ones. Another trend is to create customisable lens sets at the source, like the Black Wing Tribe 7, where you can choose different characteristics to create that specific production for you, such as the coating to make them warmer, or cooler, with a certain type of flare or softness. How do you see this? Does it make sense to you?
It can make sense for a DoP who wants to experiment with a different look while maintaining the same lens. The Tribe 7s allow you to do that. The Tribes are a new product developed with the support of a cinematographer, Bradford Young, who knew the needs and issues of lenses on modern sensors. They worked to achieve the right softness and the ability to change the front and rear lenses “AMBER SKIN kit” to vary the look.
Is it similar to what Angenieux does with the rear diaphragm?
Yes, but on the Angenieux Prime, you can change the number and shape of the diaphragm blades, not the coating.
Like the Impression Filters?
The Impressions are something else entirely; they’re additional lenses.
But once the lens is set that way, you can’t change it anymore, right?
Changing the blades or glass isn’t practical on set; it requires time and a controlled environment…
A controlled environment is necessary for these modifications; the set isn’t the right place. Do you ever do work on existing lenses, such as adjustments to change the focal point to have more depth of field?
These are things that aren’t often requested, and it’s not always feasible. More often than not, it’s a technique we used in Panavision to soften the lens or treat the glass. This can happen. I’ve made these modifications on both Master Primes and Panavision lenses. We called this treatment “noir,” and it made the lens a bit softer.
You showed me some Supreme lenses that you had modified for Arnone’s film (Mimì – Il principe delle tenebre by Brando De Sica). If I’m not mistaken, you had softened them?
Yes, and also added a milky, White Promist effect.
Those are very sharp lenses in themselves.
Clean and sharp lenses, let’s say, help you a bit more. You have a better chance of making them all more similar to each other. Also because with lenses like the Panchros from the 1940s, it’s practically impossible to find two that are identical. Modifying vintage lenses is very difficult and makes little sense to me; you might increase their coverage by expanding them, but at that point, you’d have to deal with a loss of brightness and definition.
