Behind the Cine Lens Manual: The Nature of Lens Character 

I think I know what you’re trying to say but you step on your own feet a bit in the explanation. If you need one lens + a certain aperture to match that of another (ie 2.8 vs 1.4) then yes there is an inherent difference. It’s not the same at all. There is absolutely more data being captured on a bigger negative than that of a smaller one. Why do you think Hoyte chooses IMAX 70mm instead of 35mm? When it comes to lenses an 80mm acts way different than a 40mm. It’s not just about the ‘crop’

@@tylerfukuda No, there won't be a perceivable difference unless you're talking about the resolution difference between the two cameras mentioned in my example. The depth of field will look identical. The difference in look you're describing is purely in spatial resolution i.e. the larger format will always look cleaner if both are projected on the same canvas size (if we're shooting film). You can't generalize it though because of the different properties of digital sensors and cameras. A S35 6k image with a shorter, fast focal length will look identical to the larger format 6k sensor with a longer, slower focal length (at same focus distance of course).

@@MaxKissler Well we have to figure out what “identical” means? If I take a 40mm and stick it on an LF vs S35 (negating the obvious coverage) than sure you will have the same DOF and characteristics of that of a 40mm. If you were to set both cameras down at the exact same distance to that of the subject then you would need to change the lens of one of the cameras to match that of the other-which is where things begin to change. If we are in a small room where we now need an 20mm on the s35 to get a 35mm equivalent to that of the large format camera, it inherently changes the DOF, distortions and etc.

@@tylerfukuda You don't seem to understand that you can scale every optical system to some degree. There are some physical limitations; when it gets too small it becomes unfeasible bc it'll get difficult to manufacture things, if it gets too big it becomes unfeasible because it gets too expensive and heavy. But it doesn't matter if you're shooting a 25mm f1.0 on Super16 or an 85mm f3.4 on digital FF. The depth of field will be identical. As said, the only difference will be in resolution.

@@MaxKissler Fair point! I guess I was thinking more generally in regards to all characteristics of different focal lengths besides DOF! But after re-reading what you’d posted it was pointed directly towards DOF

What do you think of Zeiss Contax?

Older lens are a magnifier for the on-screen emotion. As least to my sensibilities. You can have a lens with more character and additionally focusing on creating the emotion in the frame with the actors and blocking and various techniques with angles, movement, cutting, music and craft. These ultra-clean, clinical lenses we see a lot of now as a film buff I am unimpressed by. Mike Figgis talks about this as well. It's akin to impressionist painting vs realism. A less clinical image, on a subconscious level, will have us bring more of ourselves to the image as viewers. Painting is a good analogy as it's also a visual medium. When you observe a perfectly realistic painting you see clearly the object, location or person, but when we observe an artistic impression we see not just what we are looking at, but also into the heart of the painter and artist. We bring more of ourselves. Good looking less clinical lenses do something like this, albeit mostly subconsciously.

@@gaffgripman9010 No, please enlighten me.

@@dreweldridge4631 So what is it then?

Helios 44-2 and 100's of other similarly gorgeous SLR lenses. Pros tend to have a blind spot about cheap still primes, and we DIY folk are thankful for that.