How about adding a fast zoom? Something like the tokina 28-70mm atx-pro1 f2.8

Please tell me we're not having the cinematic conversation again?!

Any lens can look cinematic if used properly. Any camera can look cinematic if used properly. Why don't our cameras look cinematic? Because we don't use them properly (me included...a 1000 times).

Can we use a dreamy f1.4 and faster lens and convince ourselves we're making cinematic images? You bet your ass.

@HillTop1 Just a heads up, go for the older version of that lens. The 28-70 2.6-28 one. The newer ones are not that good in comparison. BTW, it's almost impossible to rack focus with it because the focus ring is so damn tight.

I always thought that "cinematic" look has only to do with choosing the correct shutter speed and grading the footage so that it looks "anti plastic".

It's a lot of factors, ultimately. 2D, 3D and 4D. People that don't understand this want an easy answer. They want only one or two things to keep in mind, either the camera they select, the lens they select or the basic settings of these tools, so that they can tick their check boxes and not have to think about it anymore.

And these people will always be searching. Never finding.

Here's a basic question to ask yourself when you think you've got a rule figured out or you're told by someone "this is what you have to do". Ask yourself, "does this "rule" have any real effect on a still frame taken from my movie, seen out of context? Does this "rule" matter at all?"

I say ask yourself this because you can pull a single frame, anywhere in a film, from any Ford or Kurusawa or Leone or Scott Bros., to name just a few, or any motion picture shot by Storaro, Toll, Toland, Cronenweth, Cundey, etc., etc. and that image is obviously from a motion picture. That image will obviously carry the very essence of "cinematic"...and it's not even moving.

You can kill the cinematic feel of your motion picture by not respecting the psychology of the moving image and play fast and loose with your frame rate and shutter speed (like Michael Mann when he first went digital). But this one technical detail doesn't define "cinematic". It's irrelevant to the truth in the still image question.

Grading, like it exists today, didn't exist in the days of early cinematic masterpieces. The looks of these films were defined by far fewer controls, through photo-chemical processes that affected the inherent look of a particular film stock and its specific response to light and color. And with that in mind amazingly cinematic motion pictures have been created in a variety of looks from high contrast to flashed and milky, punchy colors and desaturated, grainy and exceedingly fine.

So, grading and look is certainly involved in the final perception of an image, using the still frame test, but for every "rule" you look for there is an equally valid counter to that assumption that "this is key". It is more relevant than shutter speed though.

It's also got nothing to do with the aperture of the film gate or sensor size of the camera. Certain characteristics of larger and smaller cameras have their aesthetic charms but there is no consistency in more or less cinematic here either. Great looking, cinematic creations have been shot on monsterous 15-perf 65mm all the way down to non-super 16mm size. So, go after what you want here but, sad to say, this isn't anywhere close to the answer either.

edit: this topic, and those like it, are difficult to discuss in forums such as this because there are too many folks who don't want to hear that it's a bigger issue than a switch or a button or a plug-in. They don't like feeling the pressure to try to understand something that overwhelms them so they'll try to shut it down, even though their participation in the discussion is completely by their own choice. That's not directed at anyone in particular, just an observation going back to the dawn of public forums. And I'm as guilty as anyone of contributing to this reality.

@vicharris, yah the atx pro 1 right? Really the focusing ring on it is too tight? I wonder how those Nikon D700 guys deal with it.

@Hilltop1 Yeah, the old 1 or 2 at 2.6-2.8, not the constant 2.8 one. The newer one is made from cheaper materials and the old one is designed after the Angenieux design and I believe it's just the 1. The newer ones have a 72mm threaded hood while the old ones have the more common 77mm with lenses of this size. Also, there's a newer version that has SV after the name and it's a piece of crap. By the way, the Ken Rockwell review of these lenses is funny. :)

@Vitaliy_Kiselev I know what page you are talking about and can't find it either. It gave the history of this line of lenses and compared all the negative and positive features. It seems very unbiased but I can't find it anymore. I agree, any one from this line needs to be stopped down in order to render good pics. I think you need at least 5.6 to get away from soft corners of any kind but out of all of them, the Angenieux design one had the best overall reviews. I was able to pick one up from Adorama for $150 since the AF didn't work on it and yep, I shot something with it at 4 or below when I first bought it and it is horrible, I stopped it down a bit and it looked great. Here's a grab from the interview footage.

@Flaaandeeers Yeah, that's it! Good find. And that's right, I have the Pro II as well. Not a bad lens. Your focus is easy to turn? Mine is so tough. My lens needs to be locked down with a support to use a follow focus.

Not trying to derail this thread but I was just about to buy the at-x-pro 1 (the one with the Angenieux design). Beside this at-x pro 1 f2.8 lens, which other lens in the 24/28-70/80mm F2.8 focal range can I get that's under $800 that's good?

Am I? The old Pro 1 and 2 are the good ones. Pros have 77 thread, the rest 72. The rest bad. Yes? No? :)

And I apologize for turning this into a damn Tokina 28-70 thread! No more from me :)

You can continue if you like, I'll split it later.

The Pro I and II actually are both 2.6-2.8, not just 2.8. These are the Angenieux design. I was wrong about the first model though before these 2.6-2.8 models. So lets just all agree that the Pro I and II Japenese versions with a 77mm ring are the ones to buy. :) And this is what's stated in the article we are referencing. I have the II with the Bayonet hood and did a lot of research before I bought this lens.

Ah, if they are 28-70 and not 28-80, maybe they were just ones released abroad and not in Japan. Got it now.