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.

@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.

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.

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

@stonebat don't you use the Nokton 58 1.4 in your set?

All from my set except the FD lens can have relatively high maximum magnification ratio and minimal lens breathing.

Also I have a set of Lumix 14mm and 20mm pancakes and M.Zuiko 45mm 1.8. Very sharp at max aperture. Well balanced on Gh2. Relatively low cost.

Horses for courses.

@christianhubbard - All f2.8 except for the 50 which is 1.7

@TheRuggedAdventurer

I'm not super happy about the Canon FD at max aperture. But it's good enough. Cheap. It can be declicked easily.

Alternatively OM 50mm 1.4, Hexanon 40mm 1.8, AI-s 50mm 1.4.

All those legacy lenses are sharp at 2.8. That might sound meh. But most modern lenses are sharp at 2.0 or 2.8 at best.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev - Exactly. Especially in my over priced local market.

@stonebat

Leica DG 25mm 1.4 gets in-body distortion correction treatment :)

How can you tell?

@artiswar

One smart thing is that resale value of Zeiss lenses is usually better :-)

@LPowell Leica DG 25mm 1.4 gets in-body distortion correction treatment :)

Recently opted for some Contax glass so I hope to do a little video covering the price, quality, sharpness, etc. more comprehensively. A set can be had for CHEAP if you search long enough.