Hi, I am relatively new to doing video : ) !!! I have read that many people talk about cine or video primes. They may look like this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/844732-REG/Canon_6569B001_CN_E_24mm_T1_5_L.html or like this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/687443-REG/Zeiss_1836_178_Compact_Prime_CP_2_25mm_T2_9.html Their "counterparts", are regular still photography lenses, like this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html or this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839986-REG/Zeiss_1871767_Distagon_T_25mm_f_2_0.html I would like to do some very short documentaries with a dSLR and with two or three still photography lenses. In the documentaries I plan to do, for the most part, I'll interview people. So, the focus does not really move. I may include buildings and/or landscape, but the focus is pretty much fixed. (A friend of mine wants to film a dialogue from a script he wrote. The people in the dialogue stay mostly in the same boring plane as well ; ) !!!). So, there will always be very little movement back and forth of the "focus plane"! So, assuming that there is more or less the same video quality in the video/cine lenses as in the still photography lenses, there is no need to be interested in those video/cine lenses. That assumed, since there is very little movement of the subjects, and therefore no breathing! Would this be correct? I found this video on the internet, and I couldn't see much of a difference between using video/cine lenses, and using still photo- graphy lenses: http://nofilmschool.com/2012/12/canon-cinema-prime-test-magnanimous-media/ Thank you in advance, kind regards, igmolinav : ) !!!