>>3850242The only reason to get one is if you really enjoy the look and bokeh and have money to burn.
Most of the features that are important/essential for motion picture use and which make the lenses big and expensive, are of no use for photography.
For instance:
1. Focus breathing. Useless for photography, since you’re capturing a single frame, not a succession of frames where you gradually alter focus distance while the camera is recording.
2. Very long throw and well calibrated focus throw with follow focus gears. Useless for photography for the same reason.
3. Parafocal zooms. Marginally useful for photography, but mostly not, same reason as above.
4. T-stop calibration. Useless for photography since you have control over shutter speed, for minor corrections.
5. Colour matching. Mostly useless for photography since each photo is edited individually and any minor change there totally trumps in magnitude the differences you get between colour matched vs not matched lenses.
There are some benefits that are relevant for photography though, like bokeh (lots of emphasis there, lack of fringing, bigger elements for the optical design to reduce mechanical vignetting and hence cateye bokeh off centre). Or you just like the rendering or flare characteristics of a particular lens.
But I hope you’re not going for resolution or sharpness because those are not priorities for cine lenses, both in film (frame size) and digital (sensor res), the size/resolution is lower in cine use than stills use, and hence the lens requirements in that regard lower.
I haven’t checked for sure but I doubt cine lenses have higher MTFs than high end photographic ones.
I know the OP scenario is probably bait, but if someone is seriously thinking about it, they should rent a set for a day and try them out.
The size and weight are no joke, and the results might not be the promised land they’re expecting. Not to mention different mounts, click less aperture, no auto stop down etc.
