PDA

View Full Version : stepping up to cine lenses without blowing the bank account



J Davis
05-24-2011, 12:33 PM
Just wanted to start a thread we can share info.

I've been doing a little research and my first impressions show that there are good options out there.
Take a look at the winning bid and the focal length range on this.
PL mount s35 Angenieux 20-120mm f2.6 T2.9 Cinema Zoom sold for $3250
link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&hash=item2a0fe6dfe8&item=180655415272&nma=true&pt=Camera_Lenses&rt=nc&si=nab2M87mb8DrzE%252FFq9JSXc6n2oU%253D#ht_500wt_1 071)

The flange distance is on our side and I'm sure there are other options out there. I've also been considering the now discontinued red 18-50mm f2.8 T3 which seems to be flipping for $3 to $3.5 grand. PL mount also, lacking in focal marks but still very affordable.

Postmaster
05-24-2011, 04:13 PM
No offense here, but for $3250 you can buy a lot of excellent used Nikon glass and I bet you will have a hard time, to see the difference in the finished product.

I shot Cooke Panchros and a set of vintage Nikon AIS 35mm glass on two RED-MX - they intercut absolute seamless - I would say if you are not after the cine features, like marks, deklicked iris and so on, itīs not worth the money.

On the other hand...

..letīs face it - a real cine lens looks so much better on your camera.
I have to confess, I was tempted to go that route. Not for the look of the footage, but for the look of the camera.
Yeah, stupid, I know. But the sheer size compared to a 35mm lens.. I guess itīs a male thing ;-)

It`s like huge matte boxes - they impress clients and actors and make you look so much more professional.
Simple psychology - but it works.


Frank

MadMonkFish
05-24-2011, 04:24 PM
The Angie is a great lens - IMO more cinematic than the Red. With antique Angies, a lot depends on the year they're from (coatings/mechanics etc) but the one I have has such a silky smooth manual zoom.

The older Red (18-50mm) rather than the newer 17-50mm was also rehoused and sold under the Digioptical brand (a few DVXUsers grabbed 'em for their AF100s).

It's intersting to see PL interest start to peak again (as it did with the AF100) - I've seen PL glass start moving on Ebay again.

Of course, now a certain Mr Bloom is also buying into lots of PL (New Zeiss, PL mod Tokina, Red zooms and antique stuff) a lot more ops will start to look at PL as an option.

Advantages with antique glass certainily is the look (without dialing in much correction) - disadvantage (certainly in terms of cinema zooms!) is the weight of the lens and the fact that you're rigging more of a conventional set up (rails/supports etc) so it's moving into more expensive support options (you simply won't get quality lens supports that are cheap etc) - and there's no way you'd use an Angie without decent support (for any length of time!).

Lomo's are another good option - they're not just Sqaurefront/Roundfront anamorphic - but have some really nice sphericals (with great colour rendition). Normally these will be OCT-19 and you'll mod to PL (avoid the cheaper OCT-18 variants if you're working with a crew, as they're too small to put arri pitch focus gears on).

Personally, I like cinema zooms... they were workhorses in their time and some DP's swore by them (whilst others used primes).

Other zooms to look at would be the Cookes - 20-120 being the cheaper variation (older Varotal) or the newer 18-120 Cooke. Or, if you're brave and can handle the weight (!) something like the Cooke 25-250.

Obviously, quality cinema zooms retain focus when zooming - but, if you're used to electronic lenses, the fully manual nature of the 'old school' can sometimes be daunting for users.

Ryan Patrick O'Hara
05-24-2011, 04:32 PM
I shot Cooke Panchros and a set of vintage Nikon AIS 35mm glass on two RED-MX -

Old 60's or new 2010's?

Postmaster
05-24-2011, 04:36 PM
Ryan, do you have some sort of widget that pops up when someone mentions Panchros here? :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

The older ones.

Frank

J Davis
05-24-2011, 05:05 PM
@Postmaster ... Thanks but I'm an AIs addict (link (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?203401), link (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2426/3828040040_6316663d83_o.jpg), link (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5091/5493824607_6c9463c9cc_z.jpg)) and I've been all over that for a few yrs now. Since gh1 shipped 2 yrs ago.

As far as cine glass goes I'm very interested in wide zooms with 17 thru 50 being my main focus because I crop to 1:2.39

Ryan Patrick O'Hara
05-24-2011, 05:25 PM
Ryan, do you have some sort of widget that pops up when someone mentions Panchros here? :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

The older ones.

Frank

My Spidey-sense tingles.

J Davis
05-27-2011, 08:16 AM
some good info: been reading Timurs blog
http://timurcivan.blogspot.com/2011/03/examination-of-lenses.html
and related ru thread
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?57153

J Davis
05-27-2011, 11:27 PM
Digi Optical 18-50mm PL mount cine zoom with i data for $4000 new at B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=DigiOptical+18-50mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

J Davis
05-28-2011, 12:04 AM
Gathering info on the red cine zoom 18-50mm f2.8 T3, the close focus is nice, this is like having a macro

Focal Length Range: 18-50mm
T Stop Range: T3 – T22
Maximum f Stop: f/2.8
Close Focus from Lens Front: 1.73 inches
Length from Front of Lens to Image Plane: 6.16 inches
Minimum Marked Object Distance: 8 inches
Maximum Format Covered: Super 35mm
Diagonal Angle of View for 30mm Image Circle: 75.72 – 31.27 degrees
Iris Scales: Two opposing scales, whole stops marked
Angular Rotation of Iris: 48 degrees
Iris Drive Gear: 116 teeth 0.8 metric module x 0.2 inches wide x 2.91 inches from image plane
Focus Scales: Two opposing scales, footage marked from infinity to MOD
Angular Rotation from Infinity to MOD End-stop: 175 degrees
Angular Rotation Between End-stops: 180 degrees
Focus Drive Gear: 128 teeth, 0.8 metric module x 0.2 inches wide x 4.37 inches from image plane
Zoom Scales: Two opposing zoom scales
Angular Rotation of Zoom Scales: 51 degrees
Zoom Drive Gear: 125 teeth, 0.8 metric module x 0.2 inches wide x 3.59 inches from image plane
Length from Front of Lens to Lens Mount: 4.12 inches
Front Diameter: 4.5 inches (114mm)
Weight: 1.05 kg / 2.3 lbs.
Filter thread 72mm

brunerww
05-28-2011, 03:06 AM
I agree with Frank, the best move is classic Nikon glass. But if you insist on "cine" glass, you can put together a range of primes without taking out a mortgage if you look for classic lenses on non-standard mounts.

For example, here is an old Zeiss Super Speed Prime T* 9.5mm f/1.2 on an Arri Bayonet Mount (http://cgi.ebay.com/Zeiss-Super-Speed-Prime-T-9-5mm-f-1-2-Arri-Bayonett-/130524720848#ht_2183wt_1143) ($1207) which you can combine with a Bayonet to Sony NEX E-mount Adapter (http://cgi.ebay.com/ARRI-ARRIFLEX-BAYONET-SONY-NEX-E-mount-/320699293309#ht_1050wt_1143) ($156) for a total of $1463.

And here are a couple of interesting Bausch & Lomb Super Baltars for Super 35 on Leica M mounts (20/2 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Bausch-Lomb-Super-Baltar-20-2-Cine-Lens-Leica-M-mount-/300548696034#ht_571wt_909) and 35/2 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Bausch-Lomb-Super-Baltar-35-2-Cine-Lens-Leica-M-mount-/300548696174#ht_571wt_909)) for $1584 each. With a relatively inexpensive Rainbow Imaging (http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-Leica-Camera-Adapter-USD43-99/dp/B003X1A6PC?tag=battleforthew-20), Fotodiox (http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Canadas-Minolta-Voigtl%C3%A4nder/dp/B004G1CUG6?tag=battleforthew-20) or Novoflex (http://www.amazon.com/Novoflex-Adapter-Leica-Lens-Camera/dp/B0040AJ97Q?tag=battleforthew-20) Leica M to NEX adapter, you could have a couple of nice primes for less than the price of one $3900 Zeiss CP.2 (http://www.adorama.com/ZICP228PL.html?kbid=66297)

For those of us in the U.S., these lens sellers are both overseas, so "you pays your money and you takes your chances" ;-)

Bill

J Davis
05-28-2011, 06:33 AM
Hi Bill, I appreciate your advice but I own & shoot with a lot of manual still primes and zooms, nikon and FD.

They have their limitations and would love to keep this thread on topic about cine lenses in particular cine zooms.

avro
05-28-2011, 08:44 AM
Red pro 17-50mm T2.9 and Duclos 11-16mm T2.8 ......affordable nice cine zooms. Duclos will release soon 70-200mm T2.8

LowDown
05-28-2011, 08:48 AM
For example, here is an old Zeiss Super Speed Prime T* 9.5mm f/1.2 on an Arri Bayonet Mount (http://cgi.ebay.com/Zeiss-Super-Speed-Prime-T-9-5mm-f-1-2-Arri-Bayonett-/130524720848#ht_2183wt_1143) ($1207) which you can combine with a Bayonet to Sony NEX E-mount Adapter (http://cgi.ebay.com/ARRI-ARRIFLEX-BAYONET-SONY-NEX-E-mount-/320699293309#ht_1050wt_1143) ($156) for a total of $1463.



That's a super16 format lens, it won't cover the full sensor on the fs100. The red 17-50 (the new one ) or the duclos 11-16 would be a good choice for you.

brunerww
05-28-2011, 09:04 AM
That's a super16 format lens, it won't cover the full sensor on the fs100. The red 17-50 (the new one ) or the duclos 11-16 would be a good choice for you.


Thanks, LowDown. Appreciate the correction.

Bill

J Davis
05-28-2011, 09:48 AM
I've been weighing up the newer 17-50 but buying it new is not in my budget. I'm not sure what they are flipping for or if they are even available preowned. Thats interesting about about Matt Duclos modding 70-200mm. Whats he converting, canon?

David W. Jones
05-28-2011, 10:19 AM
No it's the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8

mcgeedigital
05-28-2011, 10:29 AM
Digi Optical 18-50mm PL mount cine zoom with i data for $4000 new at B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=DigiOptical+18-50mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

Save your money and get the RED 17-50mm PL.

Better in every way.

mcgeedigital
05-28-2011, 10:30 AM
I've been weighing up the newer 17-50 but buying it new is not in my budget. I'm not sure what they are flipping for or if they are even available preowned. Thats interesting about about Matt Duclos modding 70-200mm. Whats he converting, canon?

I bought my 17-50 RPZ used.

The 70-200 mm lens he is converting is a Nikon and it will be $10k.

He has said it is one of the sharpest lenses he has ever seen.

Lee Saxon
05-28-2011, 10:31 AM
This reminds me of the thread on Reduser, can't find it now, where someone mentioned that the Nikon 14-24 was sharper than the Master Primes in that range.

I don't know whether that's true, I've never used them, but even if it's not, the difference in price between the Zeiss ZF/ZEs and the Zeiss CPs for a bigger barrel and a different diaphram is enough to prove to me beyond doubt that cine glass is an absolute scam.


The 70-200 mm lens he is converting is a Nikon and it will be $10k.

He has said it is one of the sharpest lenses he has ever seen.

And the rehousing thing is an even bigger scam than the OEM cine glass.

IF you're buying the Nikon version that has lightening-fast AF and extremely effective VR, and putting on a camera that can take advantage of those features, it's MAYBE worth the $2.3k price. I'd wait to get it used at arond $1.5k though.

A version without those features for $10k? Scam.

It is a great lens but Nikon's 180mm 2.8 AI-s is even better and ~$500.

David W. Jones
05-28-2011, 10:41 AM
The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 is very sharp. Focus Optics has rehoused it as the Ruby 14-24.

imag
05-28-2011, 10:46 AM
Likewise, that Duclos is just the $600 Tokina lens with casing, gears, and markings. I'd rather see how the standard lens works with the Birger adaptor, which gives you complete iris and focal control on a remote. The glass will be the same, and you get remote follow focus and iris all under $2300, with an adapter that works with other lenses.

If the Birger works with the Tokina, that makes the Duclos pretty hard to rationalize to me.

David W. Jones
05-28-2011, 10:53 AM
Unless you are assembling a PL mount lens kit which can be used with any PL mount camera or PL adapter.
Unlike the Birger system which is not available.

imag
05-28-2011, 11:04 AM
Fine. But this thread is in the FS100 section, and that camera needs an adapter regardless. My point is that you can buy the adapter *and* the lens for over a grand less than the Duclos - and get even greater capability. Since the thread is also about not breaking the bank, that seems worth bringing up.

David W. Jones
05-28-2011, 11:15 AM
Fine. But this thread is in the FS100 section, and that camera needs an adapter regardless. My point is that you can buy the adapter *and* the lens for over a grand less than the Duclos - and get even greater capability. Since the thread is also about not breaking the bank, that seems worth bringing up.

It is also about Cine Zoom Lenses, which the Duclos 11-16mm and Ruby 12-14mm qualify as.

And "NO" you can't buy the Birger mount adapter for this camera and the Tokina 11-16 for over a grand less than the Duclos lens, because the Birger mount adapter for this camera does not exists at this time.
How about we keep the thread on target.

All the Best!

Dave

imag
05-28-2011, 11:27 AM
If you want to get semantic, the Duclos is "currently backordered" on their own site.

My original point was that a rebodied Tokina is not a cinema lens. It is not cinema quality glass. My further point was that if you're after the cinema *capabilities* - follow focus and iris control (which is what the gears and markings are ultimately about for most of us) those capabilities will be able to be had cheaper and better, with the exact same glass, in a month or so.

You're right though - if a cinema lens is just about having something in an aluminum case with gears and markings, then the Duclos qualifies. My expectation about cinema lenses is that they conform to a higher quality standard - and I think that is on topic. Jeepers.

imag
05-28-2011, 11:40 AM
I actually think, if you want low cost cinema glass and are willing to make an effort to find good examples, that some of the LOMO Cine glass is pretty cool.

imag
05-28-2011, 11:50 AM
Example of a LOMO lens on a GH2: http://vimeo.com/18777597

And a brief article about the lenses: http://www.eoshd.com/content/458-Russia-s-answer-to-Cooke-LOMO-Konvas-cine-primes

David W. Jones
05-28-2011, 11:52 AM
If you want to get semantic, the Duclos is "currently backordered" on their own site.

My original point was that a rebodied Tokina is not a cinema lens. It is not cinema quality glass. My further point was that if you're after the cinema *capabilities* - follow focus and iris control (which is what the gears and markings are ultimately about for most of us) those capabilities will be able to be had cheaper and better, with the exact same glass, in a month or so.

You're right though - if a cinema lens is just about having something in an aluminum case with gears and markings, then the Duclos qualifies. My expectation about cinema lenses is that they conform to a higher quality standard - and I think that is on topic. Jeepers.

What is your definition of cinema quality glass?

In my opinion most still lenses resolve just as high as Cine lenses.
It's the mechanics and engineering which make the difference most of the time.
Just my thoughts based on over 30 years of shooting professionally.

David W. Jones
05-28-2011, 11:54 AM
Example of a LOMO lens on a GH2: http://vimeo.com/18777597

And a brief article about the lenses: http://www.eoshd.com/content/458-Russia-s-answer-to-Cooke-LOMO-Konvas-cine-primes

Also note, that the OP is looking for wide Cine Zooms not Primes.

mico
05-28-2011, 12:18 PM
What is your definition of cinema quality glass?

In my opinion most still lenses resolve just as high as Cine lenses.
It's the mechanics and engineering which make the difference most of the time.
Just my thoughts based on over 30 years of shooting professionally.

I agree. Todays still lenses resolve for still images, much more than video 1080p. Zeiss Cp.2's are just rehoused Zeiss still lenses and everybody swears by those.

imag
05-28-2011, 12:55 PM
I was referring to what I think are the usual cinema lens price justifications:

- Color matching
- Lack of barrel distortion
- Resistance to flare
- Edge-to-edge sharpness
- Lack of chromatic aberration
- Bokeh quality

Here are a few quotes from a review of the Tokina (which is rightly regarded as a fantastic lens in its price range):

"Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens images readily show CA (Chromatic Aberration) in the corners at all focal lengths."

"The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens has a 9-blade rounded aperture, but the quality of that blur (bokeh), if even noticeable, is not especially great, showing a bright outline to OOF specular highlights. "

"The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens arguably trails this lens class by showing the most flare in this specific situation [with the sun in frame]."

"At 11mm, the tokina 11-16 has nearly 2 stops of vignetting in the extreme corners at f/2.8."

"Corners at f/2.8, especially at the wide end of the focal length range, are obviously softer than the center. This is not unusual and the image quality in the corners is not terrible."

I do think the lens is awesome at $700. I was actually planning on getting one at some point. However, I don't think the overall performance adds up to what I think of as a cinema quality glass worth $3500. You clearly think differently, which is fine with me. I just don't understand or appreciate the supercilious tone.

David W. Jones
05-28-2011, 01:43 PM
I was referring to what I think are the usual cinema lens price justifications:

- Color matching
- Lack of barrel distortion
- Resistance to flare
- Edge-to-edge sharpness
- Lack of chromatic aberration
- Bokeh quality

.

These are qualities one would look for in any lens, not just cinema glass.

And I'm not sure where you pulled those reviews from, but my experience from shooting with both the Tokina 11-16 and the Duclos 11-16 was nothing like those reviews.

David W. Jones
05-28-2011, 02:02 PM
Sorry if you don't like my tone, but I feel strongly that gear recommendations should be made based on actual experience with a product. Not by what looks cool, or by repeating someone else's online review.

And my apologies to J.
I don't want his thread turned into a pissing match.

mcgeedigital
05-28-2011, 04:16 PM
Sorry,

but you are so very wrong on the rehousing being a "scam"

The lens he is working on has no aperture ring, so he totally rebuilds the entire lens for cine use, including adding an aperture ring with gear, focus gear ring, and zoom gear ring.

In addition he reverses the way the focus gear turns (Nikons focus backwards in relation to cine glass) and makes the throw longer so that you have more than 2mm between 5' and 10'.

If you think you can do the same thing for less and maintain the standards to which Matt Duclos has become known for, go for it, but I highly doubt it.


http://vimeo.com/15480197

avro
05-28-2011, 04:49 PM
Sorry,

but you are so very wrong on the rehousing being a "scam"

The lens he is working on has no aperture ring, so he totally rebuilds the entire lens for cine use, including adding an aperture ring with gear, focus gear ring, and zoom gear ring.

In addition he reverses the way the focus gear turns (Nikons focus backwards in relation to cine glass) and makes the throw longer so that you have more than 2mm between 5' and 10'.

If you think you can do the same thing for less and maintain the standards to which Matt Duclos has become known for, go for it, but I highly doubt it.


http://vimeo.com/15480197

well said
there will be NEW Red PRo 50-150mm "soon"

zeke
05-28-2011, 06:54 PM
I was referring to what I think are the usual cinema lens price justifications:

- Color matching
- Lack of barrel distortion
- Resistance to flare
- Edge-to-edge sharpness
- Lack of chromatic aberration
- Bokeh quality

Here are a few quotes from a review of the Tokina (which is rightly regarded as a fantastic lens in its price range):

"Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens images readily show CA (Chromatic Aberration) in the corners at all focal lengths."

"The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens has a 9-blade rounded aperture, but the quality of that blur (bokeh), if even noticeable, is not especially great, showing a bright outline to OOF specular highlights. "

"The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens arguably trails this lens class by showing the most flare in this specific situation [with the sun in frame]."

"At 11mm, the tokina 11-16 has nearly 2 stops of vignetting in the extreme corners at f/2.8."

"Corners at f/2.8, especially at the wide end of the focal length range, are obviously softer than the center. This is not unusual and the image quality in the corners is not terrible."

I do think the lens is awesome at $700. I was actually planning on getting one at some point. However, I don't think the overall performance adds up to what I think of as a cinema quality glass worth $3500. You clearly think differently, which is fine with me. I just don't understand or appreciate the supercilious tone.

I know several people who's experience with trying to match various still lenses has caused a lot of problems in post. Zoom's less of a problem if you stick with one or two,
but either way, preperation is the key no matter what you choose. Why should I not believe them? Isn't that what forums are for?

And David, if Cinema lens are such a scam, why do you show a large brace onf Zeiss primes on your web site? For show? to charge your clients more? You've been doing business in LR for quite some time. I remember driving by your studio when I used to live there. Surprised at your snippy attitude when your own advertising says otherwise about quality lenses.

nyvz
05-28-2011, 07:51 PM
I was referring to what I think are the usual cinema lens price justifications:

- Color matching
- Lack of barrel distortion
- Resistance to flare
- Edge-to-edge sharpness
- Lack of chromatic aberration
- Bokeh quality


Yeah none of those are usually cine lens justifications, those are just good lens justifications. Cine lenses are worth it if you need a lens that is parfocal (for zooms), minimizes breathing, has accurate and precise focus marks, long focus throw, smooth t-stop calibrated aperture, internal focusing, internal zooming, real circular aperture or at least many blades, matched lens characteristics, matched for 3d, faster than f2.8 or longer range than 3x for zooms, faster than f1.4 for primes, etc. If you do not need or do not want any of those things, there may not be any reason to pay the large premium in price and size/weight for cinema lenses, but some of those features sure can come in handy for certain applications and are absolutely critical in other applications.

zeke
05-28-2011, 08:01 PM
Yeah none of those are usually cine lens justifications, those are just good lens justifications. Cine lenses are worth it if you need a lens that is parfocal (for zooms), minimizes breathing, has accurate and precise focus marks, long focus throw, smooth t-stop calibrated aperture, internal focusing, internal zooming, real circular aperture or at least many blades, matched lens characteristics, matched for 3d, faster than f2.8 or longer range than 3x for zooms, faster than f1.4 for primes, etc. If you do not need or do not want any of those things, there may not be any reason to pay the large premium in price and size/weight for cinema lenses, but some of those features sure can come in handy for certain applications and are absolutely critical in other applications.

Precisely +1.

David W. Jones
05-28-2011, 08:35 PM
I know several people who's experience with trying to match various still lenses has caused a lot of problems in post. Zoom's less of a problem if you stick with one or two,
but either way, preperation is the key no matter what you choose. Why should I not believe them? Isn't that what forums are for?

And David, if Cinema lens are such a scam, why do you show a large brace onf Zeiss primes on your web site? For show? to charge your clients more? You've been doing business in LR for quite some time. I remember driving by your studio when I used to live there. Surprised at your snippy attitude when your own advertising says otherwise about quality lenses.

When did I ever say that Cine lenses were a scam???

LowDown
05-29-2011, 12:14 PM
When did I ever say that Cine lenses were a scam???

I believe that was Lee that said that. I highly disagree with his statement.
I own both the zeiss zf primes and a set of the zeiss compact primes. I much prefer working with the cp's and so does my AC. The beauty of this camera is the fact that it will take pretty much any lens out there and I'll probably usually use my cp's but if I need a macro, I'll use my zeiss 100mm nikon mount or a long lens, then the nikon 300/2.8 ais. For a short zoom ( or rather variable prime) I'll use my nikon 17-35/2.8 which is a fantastic lens but not one that you want to follow focus with.
The problem with this camera is that it'll take any lens out there so now I'm looking at ebay and thinking that it would be nice to have some leicas to play with. The lens obsession never stops.

In reply to the original question, the issue with cinema zooms is that most of them are big and heavy. You don't get away with just buying the lens, you then have to add lens support, a sliding baseplate, rods and usually a 6x6 mattebox which is why I would hold out for a used red 17-50.

J Davis
05-29-2011, 12:36 PM
The lens obsession never stops.

yep



In reply to the original question, the issue with cinema zooms is that most of them are big and heavy. You don't get away with just buying the lens, you then have to add lens support, a sliding baseplate, rods and usually a 6x6 mattebox which is why I would hold out for a used red 17-50.

I've come to this conclusion as well. And also hoping zeiss rehouse glass to make a cp.2 zoom at f2.8

LowDown
05-29-2011, 01:40 PM
yep



I've come to this conclusion as well. And also hoping zeiss rehouse glass to make a cp.2 zoom at f2.8

I think that the zeiss lightweight zoom 2 (lwz2) is intended to be used alongside the CP2's but it's 29K to buy.

MadMonkFish
05-29-2011, 01:42 PM
Cine zooms - as I previously mentioned... advantages & disadvantages. Weight & rigging being primary things to look at. Angie 20-120 is a little under 5kg and Lomo 20-120 about 6kg - heavy for handheld, but if you get a 35mm prime (say lomo prime & zoom) you're good to go with a similar glass 'look' on your lenses.

If you intend to use a zoom only - and do everything in terms of your shooting with the unit (from sticks, steadicam & hand-held etc) the Red 17-50 is probably a good choice.

avro
05-29-2011, 05:05 PM
I think that the zeiss lightweight zoom 2 (lwz2) is intended to be used alongside the CP2's but it's 29K to buy.
Apart from buying EL-chepo PL zooms like RED Pro 17-50 and Duclos 11-16, there is nothing left except to go for Angenieux Optimo range (16-42 & 30-80) ... and that is too much for most of FS100 buyers.
As a owner of Nikons 17-35 & 28-70 Zooms i would much rather prefer to be working with Red and Duclos Zooms then Nikons. Just received MTF Nikon to E-Mount adaptor for $380....very well made-solid.

FelixGER
05-29-2011, 05:48 PM
Is there any possibility on the modern Nikons to know what F-Stop youīve actually set ?
Iīm using a Tamron 17-50 2.8 (for Nikon) on my GH2 but itīs distracting not to know the exact F-Stop.

nyvz
05-29-2011, 10:48 PM
Is there any possibility on the modern Nikons to know what F-Stop youīve actually set ?
Iīm using a Tamron 17-50 2.8 (for Nikon) on my GH2 but itīs distracting not to know the exact F-Stop.

Yeah, measure and mark up the aperture control ring yourself. Or maybe something like this: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?249647-New-lens-mount-options-from-P-S!&p=2340705&viewfull=1#post2340705

J Davis
05-30-2011, 10:04 PM
For that lovely Cooke look i just spied a 20-100mm T3.1 on eBay, 20hrs left, no bids, starting price $3999
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200612467584#ht_1095wt_1082
oh wish I had the extra cash !

Doctor Wu
05-30-2011, 11:26 PM
I am going to avoid these heavy old zooms myself. The camera body is so light, the center of gravity is going to go way forward on the lens. You CAN rig it with extended rods, a zoom support/bidge, etc, people have done it with the AF100, but if I were to choose one zoom it would be the RED 17-50 due to its (relatively) light weight compared to many other zooms.

It's $6000. That's a lot to some, and that's to cheap to others. Probably worth it cuz you can probably use it with the 2nd generation of these cameras coming out next(?) year.

J Davis
05-30-2011, 11:47 PM
cooke 20-100mm = 12lbs
red pro 17-50mm = 3.2lbs
red 18-50mm = 2.3lbs

but everything I have read about the character of the cooke image ... well lucky for me I can't afford it.

Postmaster
05-31-2011, 03:22 AM
Suuuueeeet!

http://www.mtfservices.com/images/stories/pl-to-fs100-apl.jpg

Frank

brunerww
05-31-2011, 05:22 AM
Frank - does this mean that you have an actual production model in your hands? If so, congratulations!

Bill

David W. Jones
05-31-2011, 05:37 AM
Have always like the look of Cooke lenses when shooting people.
Right now I'm leaning toward a Cooke 18-100 with the Duclos 11-16 on the wide end.

J Davis
05-31-2011, 06:26 AM
Frank/Postmasters link goes to the mtf website so I am guessing he is just pointing to the adapter (am I wrong Frank?).
Adapter is €350 (link (http://www.mtfservices.com/home.html?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=102&category_id=2)) but for that price I am surprised that there is no mention of back focus adjustment with the adapter.

edit:
on the product description page for that adapter it says

(Please note. Using this adaptor will introduce a magnification factor of 1.11X with full 35mm format lenses)
which doesn't make any sense to me. I'm pretty sure they are not referring to full frame still lenses as this is E to PL mount. Anyone know why they are saying this?

LowDown
05-31-2011, 08:13 AM
Yea, that didn't make any sense to me either. I think that they are talking about sensor crop factor for those people coming from a 5d. Field of view for any lens should be similar to super 35.

nyvz
05-31-2011, 08:47 AM
Yea, that didn't make any sense to me either. I think that they are talking about sensor crop factor for those people coming from a 5d. Field of view for any lens should be similar to super 35.

It's hard to imagine what they mean. It doesn't really make sense that they would be talking about FF35 since PL mount is primarily used for 35mm and 16mm lenses, not full frame stills... My best guess that might work with that number might be that they are comparing lenses designed with an image circle for full 4perf 35mm cine aperture ~31mm compared to e-mount aps-c ~28mm image circle, which is a crop factor of ~1.11x. Seems like an odd statement for them to make since there are so many different formats the lenses can cover, and crop/magnification factors really only are useful at all if you are very specific of what format you are comparing to what other format...

LowDown
05-31-2011, 08:54 AM
I think my camera is coming in today and I have a pl and nikon adapter from ceico7 ready to go, so I'll get the definitive answer soon.

optitek
05-31-2011, 09:31 AM
I think my camera is coming in today and I have a pl and nikon adapter from ceico7 ready to go, so I'll get the definitive answer soon.
you don't need a camera to know a definitive answer. If there is no glass there is no crop- simple as that. Clearly an error that will be corrected as soon as they reread it...

timbook2
05-31-2011, 09:34 AM
For that lovely Cooke look i just spied a 20-100mm T3.1 on eBay, 20hrs left, no bids, starting price $3999
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200612467584#ht_1095wt_1082
oh wish I had the extra cash !

me too....heavy but a really good deal...oh well...

MadMonkFish
05-31-2011, 10:12 AM
me too....heavy but a really good deal...oh well...

Well - someone has put a bid in now. Hope they're prepared for the weight & extras (large mattebox & filters etc) - but, really worth the hassle IMO (went this way with Lomo & Angie zooms). The Ebay Cooke looks nice (not sure about the cleaning marks on the rear lens)... but I don't think my lens budget can stretch to another vintage zoom - hope it goes to a good home!

cgold
05-31-2011, 10:18 AM
Frank/Postmasters link goes to the mtf website so I am guessing he is just pointing to the adapter (am I wrong Frank?).
Adapter is €350 (link (http://www.mtfservices.com/home.html?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=102&category_id=2)) but for that price I am surprised that there is no mention of back focus adjustment with the adapter.

edit:
on the product description page for that adapter it says

which doesn't make any sense to me. I'm pretty sure they are not referring to full frame still lenses as this is E to PL mount. Anyone know why they are saying this?

Isn't that about the crop factor of Super 35mm to APS-C, perhaps they are saying that because most e-mount cameras are APS-C.

nyvz
05-31-2011, 10:21 AM
Isn't that about the crop factor of Super 35mm to APS-C, perhaps they are saying that because most e-mount cameras are APS-C.


Yeah that's basically what I was saying.

Postmaster
05-31-2011, 11:04 AM
Frank/Postmasters link goes to the mtf website so I am guessing he is just pointing to the adapter (am I wrong Frank?).


You are right, I guess I still have to wait till Monday till mine arrives :-(

You can bet, the first thing I do when it comes in is, I post a photo with the camera and me, with the biggest grin evar!

Sorry for not posting the link with the photo, I got distracted while typing.

Frank

LowDown
05-31-2011, 12:24 PM
you don't need a camera to know a definitive answer. If there is no glass there is no crop- simple as that. Clearly an error that will be corrected as soon as they reread it...

that's what I thought Jacek and why I wasn't worried about it.

zeke
05-31-2011, 01:14 PM
When did I ever say that Cine lenses were a scam???

Sorry, got things mixed up.

zeke
05-31-2011, 01:28 PM
The Zeiss zooms for the Alpha mount are less than 2K apiece (plus the adaptor). Autofocus is slow, but other than that, you can treat them like manual lenses if needed. I saw them at E.C. Pro in NYC. Very small compared
to regular Cinema type lenses. I believe it was Mark Forman who had them.

David W. Jones
05-31-2011, 01:40 PM
No problem!

One thing to think about when considering some of the older cine zooms is their minimum close focus ability.
Cooke 20-100mm 28"
Cooke 18-100mm 28"
Cooke 25-250mm 5'5"
Angenieux 20-100mm 40"
Angenieux 25-250mm 6'

TimurCivan
05-31-2011, 02:44 PM
My Spidey-sense tingles.

Hah!

TimurCivan
05-31-2011, 02:49 PM
Have always like the look of Cooke lenses when shooting people.
Right now I'm leaning toward a Cooke 18-100 with the Duclos 11-16 on the wide end.

Greeeeat combo...... just; preend the 18-100 doesn't have a T3. Just go directly to T4/5.6 split. Its amazing there....

David W. Jones
05-31-2011, 07:41 PM
Well it looks like I'm the new owner of an old Cooke 20-100.
Not the 18-100 I was looking for but this will let me stretch my budge a little farther for F3 glass.

MadMonkFish
05-31-2011, 08:03 PM
Well it looks like I'm the new owner of an old Cooke 20-100.
Not the 18-100 I was looking for but this will let me stretch my budge a little farther for F3 glass.

A bargain for sub $5K. Welcome to the Antique Cine Glass club.

Postmaster
06-01-2011, 09:21 AM
Just saw this - just in case someone else wantīs to go that route:

Cooke Varotal 20-100mm, f.2.8 T3:1 PL Mount Buy now for 4000 Euros

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/$(KGrHqEOKjEE3FtbrZDjBN5ifhz4,g~~_3.JPG

http://cgi.ebay.de/Cooke-Varotal-35mmZoom-20-100-2-8-T3-1-ARRI-RED-SONY-F3-/250828873347?pt=Filmkameras_projektoren&hash=item3a6690de83

J Davis
06-01-2011, 10:21 AM
nice ! vintage cooke would go nicely with a 17-50 rpz, optimo rouge and arri allura (buys lottery ticket then joins glass-a-holics anonymous)

Postmaster
06-01-2011, 10:22 AM
Yeah, welcome to the club :beer:

David W. Jones
06-01-2011, 11:38 AM
Hi, my name is Dave, and I'm a lens whore.

zeke
06-02-2011, 08:55 AM
Hi, my name is Dave, and I'm a lens whore.
I'm pretty sure that's illegal in Arkansas, hehehe.

Postmaster
06-02-2011, 09:30 AM
Hi, my name is Dave, and I'm a lens whore.

WOAAAAH! http://www.ask1.org/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

JMartin
06-02-2011, 09:32 PM
On the more portable and lightweight side of things, these look interesting...

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2011/6/2/re-housed-zeiss-lenses-baby-primes.html

LowDown
06-02-2011, 09:44 PM
Hi, my name is Dave, and I'm a lens whore.

The correct term is lensbian.

David G. Smith
06-02-2011, 11:21 PM
Hi, my name is Dave, and I'm a lens whore.

Hi Dave!.... is there a 12 step program for that?

J Davis
06-02-2011, 11:39 PM
... no its 12 stops
:)


@ David W Jones, c'mon post a pic of your newly acquired cooke !

Rick Burnett
06-03-2011, 12:24 AM
How the heck do you decide which lens to use with that many?!? :) Haha, do you have to use a forklift to carry your lens bag?

MadMonkFish
06-03-2011, 03:43 AM
The correct term is lensbian.

Yup - and Lomosexual if you're into Lomos as a sideline!

There was a funny thread on Reduser about these conditions that are specific to our industry!

MadMonkFish
06-03-2011, 03:45 AM
Just saw this - just in case someone else wantīs to go that route:

Cooke Varotal 20-100mm, f.2.8 T3:1 PL Mount Buy now for 4000 Euros

Went for 3300 Euros with a support plate - less than Ģ3K - a very good price! Lens/body looked in great condition.

David W. Jones
06-03-2011, 05:21 AM
I can hear my wife now... Do you have your camera stuff on my table again?

Both the Hotrod PL mount and Cooke 20-100 get here Tuesday. If the Berkey lens support arrives by then I'll mount everything up and post a pic.

olindacat
06-04-2011, 03:02 AM
Went for 3300 Euros with a support plate - less than Ģ3K - a very good price! Lens/body looked in great condition.
I saw that too.

David W. Jones
06-04-2011, 02:14 PM
Wow, Berkey lens support arrived today. This company is really on the ball!

olindacat
06-04-2011, 10:19 PM
I have a line on an 18-55 Red PL. I already own a Nikon 17-55mm2.8 DX. But I might want to use it on B or C cams, or could use other Nikon glass. Is the Red 'cine' lens worth the $2800 investment? I heard it was Sigma glass, which is or isn't always praised....

Doctor Wu
06-04-2011, 10:41 PM
My two cents - I would put that $3K towards the 17-50mm RED pro. Save up some more if you can and wait. Use still glass in the meantime.
I'm not going to bother with PL glass on my FS personally. I'll wait until I can justify at an F3 or Epic - S purchase, or a future camera that comes with PL (AF-300?). I figure I'm going low budget indie with the FS100 and if I break that mold, I'll do it with a more capable camera.

David W. Jones
06-05-2011, 06:41 AM
One thing is for sure, the era of high quality inexpensive interchangeable lens cameras is upon us. Cameras like the FS100 and AF100 are so cheap compared to what they offer the shooter, that I almost think of them as throw away cameras. In two years something even more impressive will be released for a price point so low that you and I both will say... damn, I've got to buy one. And many who do will be in the same boat that new AF100/FS100/F3 owners are now. Scrambling to find a lens solution. For some a set of inexpensive Nikon still lenses or the like will be plenty. But for others who will be using their new camera in a professional environment, a set of still camera lenses might not be enough. My take is that it makes the most sense to purchase camera assist and support gear that will last a lifetime rather than replace it each time you purchase a new camera. Things like a very good tripod and fluid head, along with nice cine glass should last you for decades. And as far as waiting till a better camera comes along like the Epic-whatever before you purchase nice glass, the current crop of large sensor interchangeable lens cameras available now can deliver 93% of what an Epic can deliver. If your deliverables requirements are not for the big screen, and lets be real here, how many of you are honestly shooting movies that will be played in theaters, then a 1080HD workflow will be plenty. But Dave, a 5K workflow will allow me to reframe in post. Seriously, if such little thought was put into the production that you need to reframe a shot in post well... Now that I've gone off on a caffeine tangent, I'll put down the coffee cup and close by saying that in my opinion, high quality cine glass is an investment that will last a lifetime and is well worth the investment.

All the Best!

Dave

mcgeedigital
06-05-2011, 07:42 AM
Spot on Dave.

J Davis
06-05-2011, 08:54 AM
My two cents - I would put that $3K towards the 17-50mm RED pro.

I've been thinking this as well and just passed on an opportunity for an 18-50 red zoom. Especially after reading threads like this (link (http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?44957))


One thing is for sure, the era of high quality inexpensive interchangeable lens cameras is upon us. Cameras like the FS100 and AF100 are so cheap compared to what they offer the shooter, that I almost think of them as throw away cameras. In two years something even more impressive will be released for a price point so low that you and I both will say... damn, I've got to buy one. And many who do will be in the same boat that new AF100/FS100/F3 owners are now. Scrambling to find a lens solution. For some a set of inexpensive Nikon still lenses or the like will be plenty. But for others who will be using their new camera in a professional environment, a set of still camera lenses might not be enough. My take is that it makes the most sense to purchase camera assist and support gear that will last a lifetime rather than replace it each time you purchase a new camera. Things like a very good tripod and fluid head, along with nice cine glass should last you for decades. And as far as waiting till a better camera comes along like the Epic-whatever before you purchase nice glass, the current crop of large sensor interchangeable lens cameras available now can deliver 93% of what an Epic can deliver. If your deliverables requirements are not for the big screen, and lets be real here, how many of you are honestly shooting movies that will be played in theaters, then a 1080HD workflow will be plenty. But Dave, a 5K workflow will allow me to reframe in post. Seriously, if such little thought was put into the production that you need to reframe a shot in post well... Now that I've gone off on a caffeine tangent, I'll put down the coffee cup and close by saying that in my opinion, high quality cine glass is an investment that will last a lifetime and is well worth the investment.

All the Best!

Dave

The camera is the 'throw away' component of the setup thats for sure. I've been noticing this for a while as that is the part that depreciates the fastest and gets replaced the most.

I'm wary of this thread becoming a epic red flame war so I would ask everyone to hold off on that, we have all trudged thru it ad nauseum.

optitek
06-05-2011, 10:22 AM
I will say that lenses are not safe either as far as investment goes. I've been preaching it for a while and now actually starting to get serious about it. Finally have a client big enough to commission this project. Still lenses offer speed, range and weight advantage that Cine lenses won't touch for a long time- if ever. Their optical performance is adequate for 20+Mpix cameras. Their field flatness, unlike motion lens design- is the basic requirement. Price point is unparalleled. On top of that they are already equipped with fast and silent motors, image stabilization, encoder feedback, etc. No cine lens will scratch the surface of these features.
The only issue with the still lenses for motion is the interface. My ProLock system takes care of the mechanical part. Has been working on RedOnes for two years with great results.
As soon as we finish the electronic interface development you'll see the next phase of convergence. The new breed of DSLRs allowed for still/motion convergence of cameras. The next step is lenses.
Your PL glass will be sitting on the shelf and the only time you'll look at it will be to dedust it once a year.
Breathing? please-unless you buy a set of Master Primes and Optimos all the others breathe the same.
So unless you have work now that requires cine glass and will ROI quickly a 20 year investment this is NOT.

mico
06-05-2011, 10:42 AM
I will say that lenses are not safe either as far as investment goes. I've been preaching it for a while and now actually starting to get serious about it. Finally have a client big enough to commission this project. Still lenses offer speed, range and weight advantage that Cine lenses won't touch for a long time- if ever. Their optical performance is adequate for 20+Mpix cameras. Their field flatness, unlike motion lens design- is the basic requirement. Price point is unparalleled. On top of that they are already equipped with fast and silent motors, image stabilization, encoder feedback, etc. No cine lens will scratch the surface of these features.
The only issue with the still lenses for motion is the interface. My ProLock system takes care of the mechanical part. Has been working on RedOnes for two years with great results.
As soon as we finish the electronic interface development you'll see the next phase of convergence. The new breed of DSLRs allowed for still/motion convergence of cameras. The next step is lenses.
Your PL glass will be sitting on the shelf and the only time you'll look at it will be to dedust it once a year.
Breathing? please-unless you buy a set of Master Primes and Optimos all the others breathe the same.
So unless you have work now that requires cine glass and will ROI quickly a 20 year investment this is NOT.

+1 Awesome. You can see the changes happening already. Like with those coming cine style rehoused zeiss baby primes at 35% less cost than their big brothers. With more big sensor cams coming there's alot of companies working on lower cost quality cinestyle lenses that won't break the bank and the electronic abilities of the lenses is just starting to be dealt with. Nothing stands still even lenses. And the size and weight issue is major.

David W. Jones
06-05-2011, 11:31 AM
I'm wary of this thread becoming a epic red flame war so I would ask everyone to hold off on that, we have all trudged thru it ad nauseum.

Agreed! This was not meant to be a Red bashing post, As I was a Red owner up until a couple of weeks ago.
Just some insight from someone who has used the platform.

Alvise Tedesco
06-05-2011, 11:49 AM
As soon as we finish the electronic interface development you'll see the next phase of convergence.

Electronic follow focus driving precisely internal motor of modern professional still lenses, Jacek?
Birger competitor?

Ryan Patrick O'Hara
06-05-2011, 12:16 PM
@optek and mico: I don't think many readers quite understand why a cinema lens is a cinema lens. Most people here on dvxuser don't shoot material that requires them, and they don't know it.

there is a reason lenses that cost more than a sports car don't have internal motors and other electronic features. The same reason most performance sports cars don't have automatic transmissions...

not a long term investment? Your af100 and F100's (R1'ls too) will be long gone in 5 years, yet all of you are drooling over super-speed lenses from 40 years ago. I think most of you don't need cine-style lenses and that is confirmed by the features and usage many of you desire or describe.

David W. Jones
06-05-2011, 12:19 PM
there is a reason lenses that cost more than a sports car don't have internal motors and other electronic features. The same reason most performance sports cars don't have automatic transmissions...


Speaking of which, I have a 1977 Ferrari 308 GTB up for sale if anyone is interested.
Yes I really need to stop buying glass.

J Davis
06-05-2011, 01:22 PM
Actually I want a cine zoom so I can zoom.

olindacat
06-05-2011, 02:07 PM
me too. par- vs. vari-focal.

J Davis
06-05-2011, 02:09 PM
no still glass, modern or vintage can give me a steady and even zooming shot

echo9
06-05-2011, 02:14 PM
@optek and mico: I don't think many readers quite understand why a cinema lens is a cinema lens. Most people here on dvxuser don't shoot material that requires them, and they don't know it.

there is a reason lenses that cost more than a sports car don't have internal motors and other electronic features. The same reason most performance sports cars don't have automatic transmissions...

not a long term investment? Your af100 and F100's (R1'ls too) will be long gone in 5 years, yet all of you are drooling over super-speed lenses from 40 years ago. I think most of you don't need cine-style lenses and that is confirmed by the features and usage many of you desire or describe.


Would you mind expanding on this a bit and listing those reasons? Not trying to be snarky or anything, I'm just curious. I'm definitely not a pro, but I'm sure there's a reason a $20K Zeiss Ultra Prime is worth it. However, from my layman's perspective it seems like the main reason would be for ease of mechanical operation versus any sort of optical superiority.

In other words, a Canon L lens is designed to resolve a sharp, full frame image at well over 20 megapixels (22 MP in the 5D mII for example). Today's best digital cameras (excluding film or IMAX) top out around 13 MP as in the Red Epic-M (I could be wrong on that number). Optically, it would seem that still glass is more than capable for cinema/film production, i.e. if it can sharply resolve at 20+ MP that's more than enough for today's current technology.

As far as lens speed, that's a push as still glass is just as fast if not faster. So I guess the real difference would be in the mechanical aspects of the lens? That is, things such as these: cine glass has a longer focus throw more suited for film focus pulling. It has a mechanical iris with an iris wheel with smooth operation vice clicks to each f-stop. It's a consistent size and barrel diameter across a range of focal lengths (for primes). There is little to no lens breathing.

Are there other reasons I'm missing? No doubt a 20K Zeiss Master Prime is a phenomenal lens. But what makes it so much better than a Canon L prime lens? I'm sure it is (as far as cinema/film is concerned), but why?

A good example/comparison is the Zeiss ZF versus the CP.2s. Optically they are the exact same lens (literally the exact same), but the CP2s have been rehoused to a traditional cine style and the price goes up from $1300 to $4000. The difference is purely mechanical.

olindacat
06-05-2011, 02:20 PM
Are there other reasons I'm missing?

I'm no pro either but I think the ability to zoom and maintain focus is unique to a cine zoom, due to the way it is built, versus a variable zoom, which doesn't accomplish that.

J Davis
06-05-2011, 02:40 PM
Are there other reasons I'm missing?
Already told you at post 99 and post 101. Still zooms can't zoom

echo9
06-05-2011, 03:03 PM
Already told you at post 99 and post 101. Still zooms can't zoom

Right, but what about prime lenses? What about the optical qualities? And that seems like an awfully large premium to pay for a shot you'll use once or twice, if at all (I'm trying to think of the last movie I saw that had a legitimate zoom shot -as opposed to a dolly move- in it), unless I'm mistaken on why else you'd use a zoom. If you're using it so you don't have to constantly change lenses, sort of as a "variable prime lens," then the zoom quality wouldn't really come into play.

BannedinDV
06-05-2011, 03:04 PM
I will say that lenses are not safe either as far as investment goes. I've been preaching it for a while and now actually starting to get serious about it. Finally have a client big enough to commission this project. Still lenses offer speed, range and weight advantage that Cine lenses won't touch for a long time- if ever. Their optical performance is adequate for 20+Mpix cameras. Their field flatness, unlike motion lens design- is the basic requirement. Price point is unparalleled. On top of that they are already equipped with fast and silent motors, image stabilization, encoder feedback, etc. No cine lens will scratch the surface of these features.
The only issue with the still lenses for motion is the interface. My ProLock system takes care of the mechanical part. Has been working on RedOnes for two years with great results.
As soon as we finish the electronic interface development you'll see the next phase of convergence. The new breed of DSLRs allowed for still/motion convergence of cameras. The next step is lenses.
Your PL glass will be sitting on the shelf and the only time you'll look at it will be to dedust it once a year.
Breathing? please-unless you buy a set of Master Primes and Optimos all the others breathe the same.
So unless you have work now that requires cine glass and will ROI quickly a 20 year investment this is NOT.

So I guess an unsteady, breathing wobbly focus motion is acceptable?

J Davis
06-05-2011, 03:07 PM
@echo9
when an actor is talking on MCU I like to zoom in gradually to add gravity to what he is saying - dolly is a waste of time for this also some times a gradual zoom out can reveal surroundings around an actor to add story. There are a million creative uses for zoom shots other than a kubrick 20x zoom from wide to CU

echo9
06-05-2011, 03:11 PM
@echo9
when an actor is talking on MCU I like to zoom in gradually to add gravity to what he is saying - dolly is a waste of time for this also some times a gradual zoom out can reveal surroundings around an actor to add story. There are a million creative uses for zoom shots other than a kubrick 20x zoom from wide to CU

Thank you for your reply. I rarely use zooms in my own personal style, but it's always good to hear other people's uses.

J Davis
06-05-2011, 03:30 PM
Thank you for your reply. I rarely use zooms in my own personal style, but it's always good to hear other people's uses.

:)

David W. Jones
06-05-2011, 04:30 PM
Right, but what about prime lenses? What about the optical qualities? And that seems like an awfully large premium to pay for a shot you'll use once or twice, if at all (I'm trying to think of the last movie I saw that had a legitimate zoom shot -as opposed to a dolly move- in it), unless I'm mistaken on why else you'd use a zoom. If you're using it so you don't have to constantly change lenses, sort of as a "variable prime lens," then the zoom quality wouldn't really come into play.

Prime lenses can't zoom either. ;)
And not all of us are shooting movies. In my case most of the work I do are TV commercials where there is always a producer who wants to zoom, moans and groans if you want to break out a dolly, does not have the budget for a 1st AC but then bitches that lens changes take too long. With advertising budgets shrinking this happens more than people realize. Hey the days of catered meals at the edit are long gone at my place. Get the spot shot and get it on the air. If a production zoom can help me do this I'm all for it.

Ryan Patrick O'Hara
06-05-2011, 06:04 PM
I'm on set right now and typing this from my smart phone, but the advantages of a cine-lens are many, sharpness not exactly being one. It's 2011, any professional lens, photo or cinema can adequately resolve a sharp enough image. In fact, with the new super digi-cine cameras, I sometimes feel too much.

With that said, cine lenses are:

1. Color matched. Some sets are matched more than others and sometimes then not enough for some cinematographers standards, but none-the-less, they are matched better than ordering a bunch of older manual nikons from KEH. Color matched can also mean the characteristics of how a lens flares, reproduces contrast, bokeh shape and etc also match. Sure lenses of the same make and series, such as Canon L-series will match better than Canon's made in 1977, but I would doubt it is as much as cine-glass, considering photographers don't have to juxtapose two images together for 'real' life like continuity.

2. Focus witness marks. The construction of the cine lens is usually on a larger scale, thus the area around the barrel can have many many more informative marks to help the AC do his job well... Saving time and risk of error.

3. Long barrel rotation. Most cine lenses have barrel rotation of over 270 or 300*. This allows more control within focusing and allows for more marks. Still lenses have much shorter throws and much less marks.

4. Accurate light transmission. F-stops are formulas, but those don't translate into real life exactly, and can differ between lenses. That's why cine lenses have t-stops. When juxtaposing two images together, say a medium to a close up, exact matching exposure is the best way to ease the jump and create a sense of flawless continuity. Not only do they have t-stops, but many are marked with third-stops. Find a photography lens with the aperture barrel marked in thirds of a stop. Not many.

5. Build. Cine lenses are built tough. They are made to shoot in relatively warm, cold, wet, and dry places. They can handle high-torque motors on the rings. They are built from robust materials and can take a beating, day in and day out. They are made for the tough life of film production. When one needs servicing, they can be sent in for a full repair and cleaning. Try that with some photography lenses. Photography lenses are abused in the field as well, but I would venture to say, most will fall apart if used as often and as hard as cine-lenses.


6. Internal Motors, no thanks. Having motors inside the lens would be a very unwise idea. Cine motors will vary (Hyden, M1, etc) with the remote ff or fiz system being used, thus one size does not fit all. Additionally, motors are replaceable. If one dies or malfunctions in the field, you can get another motor on in 30 seconds. If internal, you would have to open the lens housing up and repair/replace the motor, or leave the lens inoperative or disconnected. When so much rides on production moving forward, internal motors are potential show stoppers.

7. Breathing... Cine lenses are designed to capture moving images, so some things have to be paid attention to that photography lenses can otherwise ignore (exact color matching), breathing, accurate and well placed focus witness marks, very accurate aperture stops, and etc are seriously attempted for. This also goes into the build with uniform size, length, aperture, front diameter, and etc. For ease of accessories and use. Photography lenses like to try and keep the front diameter uniform for filters, which is nice.

8. Perspective: Cine lenses also tend to produce wonderful flat field perspective. Photo's can get away with some image warp because it can be hard to notice still... But move the camera and oh wow you can see it. Compare most common wide photography lenses to modern high end cine lenses.

9. Flange distance. The PL flange distance is a curse and a blessing. It has a few design short comings shallower flange lenses don't have to deal with, but because it is soooo deep, (52mm) it can be adapted to almost all mounts. It's like blood type O, universal.

As I said earlier, Cine-lenses are not for everyone. They are not for weddings, news, event videography, most corporate work and etc. It's mainly for cinema use... ala, why they are called cine-lenses. If you aren't shooting cinema, don't really worry about it. There are plenty of good lenses out there. I love some of my old stuff.

J Davis
06-05-2011, 06:53 PM
Thanks for making the effort Ryan. I'm feeling your pain.

Earlier I wrote "Actually I want a cine zoom so I can zoom" from a Droid2 and it was such a pain in the ...

echo9
06-05-2011, 07:31 PM
Thanks for the replies guys! :grin:

optitek
06-05-2011, 08:48 PM
... So things photography lenses can ignore (exact color matching), breathing, accurate and well placed focus witness marks, very accurate aperture stops, and etc are seriously attempted for. This also goes into the build with uniform size, length, aperture, front diameter, and etc. For ease of accessories and use.

ok, before this little keypad falls apart, I think I hit the big points. Sorry about the spelling and grammar. I can't revise or type well on this phone.
With all due respect Ryan,
Most of these issues are either irrelevant (for electronic aquisition)or easily rectified given the right user interface.
T-stop for example- why do you need it with electronic camera? Do you expose by T-stop not in camera scopes? That seems very risky. It's IMO one of the most critical skills for digital cameras- the ability to use waveform to expose correctly.... Film is very forgiving in that aspect and that's why you can use light meter and t-stops to expose.
Color matching- why would that be different for modern still camera lenses? If anything still photographers are more discriminating when it comes to color correction.
Weather proofing/ built quality? Most modern still lenses are weather proof including o-rings and such- no cine lenses have this features. Build quality/robustness? do you think that still photographers are easier on their gear than cine production? I think not. Jungle, desert, cold, wet- the still cameras and lenses work there every day. And these lenses
hold up fine...last very long time...

But that's not even the point. My clients have all the cine lenses in the world, S4s, S5is, Master primes, Ultra primes, Optimos, etc, etc.
For what they do cine lenses are too big and heavy, zooms don't have the range needed, they are too cumbersome to setup. In short- cine lenses don't meet the requirements. Plain and simple- they can't. The only lenses that possibly can meet the specs are still lenses. End of story. No money will change that. This is why we are doing it.
The good news is that the industry will benefit. And will change their ways. This is the time.

Amr Rahmy
06-05-2011, 09:38 PM
comparing

old primes
new still primes
new cine primes

a lot of old primes have some of these in common:
soft at their optimum focus point, much softer then new still zooms (something like the newer-ish canon 70-200) - they seem almost half focus.
no edge to edge sharpness
the more vintage ones breath more than usual even when fresh out of service
less focus wobble(focus shifts from middle - not talking about breathing) then some still primes
color tint(not talking about colder and warmer lens look) - most times darker than usual and a lot of times add too much color(green or orange/brown)
slight vignetting - not as much as some people's idea of color correction in post

some of the newer cine lens:
color matching - good cine look be it warmer or colder (some things when they are not in the footage source information, they can't be really 100% achieved in post - post is not a magical place, it still have limitations)
no focus shift
edge to edge sharpness
no vignetting
smooth focus and long focus rotation
small focus distance
small lens (relatively)
small to no breathing
more quality control (much better than still lens)
really impressive bokeh and out of focus - that's the second best feature to me
better to no ca, or any imperfections

all in all i would rank lens:

affordable vintage still - it's affordable for a reason
entry level vintage cine - offers more problems to the image than still lens
better still lens - great image quality, with some inherit problems associated with new motorized still lens
more affordable cine lens (comapct primes and panchros) - it makes more sense than renting really expensive lens
really expensive rental lens - it just feels right.

optitek
06-05-2011, 10:00 PM
I have first hand information having projected all of these in lens room over the years and this info is just not accurate, another urban legend, sorry.

J Davis
06-05-2011, 10:05 PM
so optitek, i appreciate all the info you are sharing, but how do I do my zooming shots that I mentioned earlier with still glass?
my current fave is an eos 17-55/2.8

edit: quote myself



when an actor is talking on MCU I like to zoom in gradually to add gravity to what he is saying - dolly is a waste of time for this also some times a gradual zoom out can reveal surroundings around an actor to add story. There are a million creative uses for zoom shots other than a kubrick 20x zoom from wide to CU

Rick Burnett
06-05-2011, 10:21 PM
I don't think the original poster was asking for a discourse on still lenses versus cine lenses. I can also say that this topic has been beaten to death over and over again here and nothing being said is any different than the same arguments everyone has made on both sides of the fence. Everyone has different needs, everyone has different budgets, everyone has things they can or cannot live with.

I think we should try and stay on topic here. If the original poster wants cine lenses with all the good and/or bad (based on perspective) of what that comes with, then let's talk about those options and where they can get into some cine lenses without breaking the bank. If you want to contribute to talking about how to obtain these lenses, that I think that is where the discussion needs to go.

optitek
06-05-2011, 10:27 PM
Most modern still zooms are parfocal. You may run into a poor example but that's the case with cine lenses as well. I've sent brand new (cine)lenses back to manufacturer for this reason many times. I would venture to say that, in my experience , 90% issues with focus falloff has to do with inadequate lens/camera calibration. There is a massive amount of misinformation on the forums about it and, consequently , massive confusion, especially by owners/operators for the first time dealing with removable lenses, back focus, flange depth, etc. Terms they are not familiar with since they have never needed to be...
I can also tell you that 90% of image shift issues are caused by inadequate lens mounting to the camera. Since I started making the Nikon ProLock for Redone I have dozens of testimonials from customers to prove it. The image shift either went away or decreased greatly once the lens was positively locked.
Now note that I'm not talking about old worn out still primes that have never been serviced . That's a wear, tear, service, maintenence problem completely separate from engineering. Not trivial, as many users don't have the funds to maintain lenses, but have high expectations and, consequently, disappointments that reflect their posts and create urban legends like this one... Some points are definitely valid and for some genres cine lenses are the best choice. But they are not the "snake oil" cure for everything.

In order to get the performance from still lenses you need to maintain the same precision as in cine lenses. Most still lens users don't because they simply can't afford it. and that's the biggest issue here IMO....

J Davis
06-05-2011, 10:36 PM
no your not getting me, its not the image or parfocal, its the mechanics - they cannot move smoothly or have a gear to control the movement

@Rick, thanks I'm the original poster and I don't mind this discourse but after opitek answers me I agree we should wrap up this off topic soon

optitek
06-05-2011, 10:47 PM
I don't think the original poster was asking for a discourse on still lenses versus cine lenses. I can also say that this topic has been beaten to death over and over again here and nothing being said is any different than the same arguments everyone has made on both sides of the fence. Everyone has different needs, everyone has different budgets, everyone has things they can or cannot live with.

I think we should try and stay on topic here. If the original poster wants cine lenses with all the good and/or bad (based on perspective) of what that comes with, then let's talk about those options and where they can get into some cine lenses without breaking the bank. If you want to contribute to talking about how to obtain these lenses, that I think that is where the discussion needs to go.

OK so on topic:
old angies pre HR- total crap by today standards, also most likely worn out into oblivion in rentals. Same goes for Cookes- most rental 20-100 are so beat I dread opening them every time- it's just depressing...
Good 18-100 would probably fall into the " break the bank" category so no joy here.
Lomos, Baltars, Canon k-35s(little better on the canons but still)- total crap- use it only for appearance(on camera) or special period shots. Spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, field curvature, vignetting, you name it.
It's much like comparing the technology from 1960s car with todays. It's nice to look at, but that's about it. I know - I have two of them(vintage cars)
I get inquiries all the time, I even make a PL conversion for Canon K35- but facts are facts.
Still lens conversion- Century 17-35, 28-70,Expensive(break the bank) -no different than still zooms minus the PL and better markings/gears. I actually was the project manager for the 17-35 project at Century Optics so I am intimately familiar with the conversion process- no miracles there- trust me...
Anything else?

J Davis
06-05-2011, 10:55 PM
you dodged my question - I believe there is not answer or solution other than a cine zoom. But no matter, lets move on to stay on topic.

optitek
06-05-2011, 10:58 PM
no your not getting me, its not the image or parfocal, its the mechanics - they cannot move smoothly or have a gear to control the movement

@Rick, thanks I'm the original poster and I don't mind this discourse but after opitek answers me I agree we should wrap up this off topic soon
As far as mechanics I would have the lenses serviced and relubed with different lubricant if necessary for smooth movement. With few exceptions poor maintenance is the reason for mechanical issues ( see my post on previous page). You should be able to get what you need from most lenses.
And no I didn't dodge your question- there is nothing to dodge- we are not in politics here....
I just didn't see it.....

Ryan Patrick O'Hara
06-05-2011, 11:09 PM
As far as mechanics I would have the lenses serviced and relubed with different lubricant if necessary for smooth movement. With few exceptions poor maintenance is the reason for mechanical issues ( see my post on previous page). You should be able to get what you need from most lenses.
And no I didn't dodge your question- there is nothing to dodge- we are not in politics here....
I just didn't see it.....

you dodged my question - I believe there is not answer or solution other than a cine zoom. But no matter, lets move on to stay on topic.



Perhaps you are using 'push-pull' zooms, and not 'two touch' zoom lenses? A 'two touch' zoom with an external zoom control (such as a microforce) is what I'd prefer every day of the week if I had to do a zoom within a shot, and were using photography lenses.

Stephen Mick
06-06-2011, 03:34 PM
Just saw this…

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190542301985#ht_500wt_1156

J Davis
06-06-2011, 03:43 PM
and a lomo anamorphic

http://cgi.ebay.com/LOMO-ZOOM-25-250MM-ARRI-RED-PL-OCT-19-MT-MOVIE-35MM-/120732962088?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c1c3ecd28#ht_542wt_1141

J Davis
06-06-2011, 03:46 PM
and an rpz 17-50 for 5k at ru
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?59548-FS-Red-Pro-Zoom-17-50

(thx stephen, glad we are back on track)

MadMonkFish
06-06-2011, 04:11 PM
and a lomo anamorphic

http://cgi.ebay.com/LOMO-ZOOM-25-250MM-ARRI-RED-PL-OCT-19-MT-MOVIE-35MM-/120732962088?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c1c3ecd28#ht_542wt_1141

The lens is a standard zoom with a rear anamorphic adapter that you have to pay an extra $1000 for (which reduces the T-stop and makes it 50-500) - it's also not that fast at a T5.1 in standard zoom mode (so probably 6.5 maybe 7 is it's base when using the rear Ana).

IMO, this is not one of the better Lomo's zooms (and it's been on Ebay for quite a while - check re-lists)... not meaning this seller's item, but the lens itself (25-250) isn't one that many people use - most favour the OPF-18 20-120 (40-240 wth it's rear ana adapter).

Word of warning that, whilst lens coatings are great on this type of Lomo, you won't get the flares or Lomo 'organic' style from it... plus it's super heavy :)

Also it's in OCT-19 mount and would need to be remounted to PL then collimated - and collimated again to use the rear anamorphic adapter - so some expense there.

mcgeedigital
06-06-2011, 04:27 PM
and an rpz 17-50 for 5k at ru
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?59548-FS-Red-Pro-Zoom-17-50

(thx stephen, glad we are back on track)

Someone should jump on that.

Stephen Mick
06-06-2011, 04:28 PM
Someone should jump on that.

I'm trying to resist the urge.

J Davis
06-06-2011, 04:47 PM
I only posted it because I couldn't jump ! :)

@ madmonk thx for the intel

MadMonkFish
06-06-2011, 06:05 PM
Just saw this…

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190542301985#ht_500wt_1156

This is interesting, I think this is an older model (70's maybe) - yellow markings rather than white. Here's a later model (1981) with some sample pics. It does produce a very nice antique image. http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?54699-FS-Angenieux-20-120mm-T2.9-zoom-lens-4500

optitek
06-06-2011, 06:09 PM
Old angies are known for the soft/low contrast look. For period piece it will work but not really usable for every day. The HP/ HR that came out about 1987 or so was a revelation.Waste of money...

MadMonkFish
06-06-2011, 06:18 PM
I only posted it because I couldn't jump !

@ madmonk thx for the intel

@ J Davis - no problem, glad to be of help... as this is something I know a little about, it's wise to throw info out there to help anyone with purchasing choices... and this is a useful thread for people to get info from.

Lomos are an interest of mine - as with a few others on this forum :) But there are so many mount types and differences, that I think it's wise to share out info so potential buyers don't make a mistake. I have the 20-120/40-240 & a complete set of Squarefront primes, all grabbed whilst things were a bit cheaper, so I can prep for some projects I'm working on for later in the year.

It is interesting to note that PL/Cine zoom/prime interest goes in waves... the initial burst when the Red hit and then a resurge last year for the AF100 and now for the F3/FS100... soon the only options will be really beat up lenses and newer ones (like the Reds etc)!

MadMonkFish
06-06-2011, 06:32 PM
Old angies are known for the soft/low contrast look. For period piece it will work but not really usable for every day. The HP/ HR that came out about 1987 or so was a revelation.Waste of money...

Agreed on the soft/low con look - very applicable for period/drama etc.

I suppose this is the interesting point here, using antique lenses for a certain flavour & look. That's why I've chosen Lomo's for one project & an Angie for another. They're period drama, so give a 'look' straight out of the box (as it were - LOL!).

If an Op is after a general purpose - 'use on all occasions' style lense, the newer Red zooms or others (ie as you say Angie HR's or Primos etc) might be better - old style antique stuff isn't suited to everyday/all purpose shooting... (wouldn't want to shoot something with Lomo Squarefronts that was a TVC - but for music promo etc, then yes :)

olindacat
06-06-2011, 07:09 PM
So rehoused still glass is the only option if you want an everyday cine lens that isn't from the stone ages and won't blow your back account, as in under $4k? That is for a prime only not a zoom, except for the older Century or RPZs or the Ducros 11-17 or Canon project, which is $10K? And of these, is the CP.2 line the best way to go, in spite of the fact they have no zoom? I admit I am bummed that the 17-50 RPZ @ $5k is the bomb for an everyday cine zoom that isn't from the stone ages.... I guess that is a 'steal' but it sure feels like my bank account would be pretty blown if I was dropping $5K for every used zoom I picked up.... Then again, I'm not getting paid to shoot like the rest of you :-)

mcgeedigital
06-06-2011, 07:35 PM
I'm trying to resist the urge.

Do eet!

David W. Jones
06-07-2011, 04:59 PM
Still need a better rail with longer dovetail option but here is the Cooke 20-100 test mounted to the AF100.
Also a size comparison between the Cooke 20-100 and Tokina 16-50.

MadMonkFish
06-07-2011, 06:13 PM
Still need a better rail with longer dovetail option but here is the Cooke 20-100 test mounted to the AF100.
Also a size comparison between the Cooke 20-100 and Tokina 16-50.

I bet you'll get nice pics from the AF100 with the Cooke :D

This is useful so people can understand the size difference between lenses. The other biggie is the actual front lens diam - 138mm on some of mine and larger on others I've used... hence the need for a larger mattebox. The advantage of the AF100 was/is the in-built ND's - meaning in a number of situations you can avoid MB's... but, with the lack of ND on the FS100, it means building up a sizeable rig.

When you get the FS100, it would be an interesting test to shoot some footage to see image/sensor differences. I don't mean in terms of M43 vs S35 etc, just simply the tone/range difference bewteen the AF & FS (especially with a vinatge Cooke as the test lens - rather than the normal modern/tack sharp enses everyone would normally test with).

David W. Jones
06-07-2011, 07:28 PM
Yes I will be shopping for a new matte box as the Cooke is just slightly bigger than the rear opening of my current matte box.
Also another base plate with 19mm rails and extended dovetail to balance the huge lens.

avro
06-08-2011, 08:07 AM
Yes I will be shopping for a new matte box as the Cooke is just slightly bigger than the rear opening of my current matte box.
Also another base plate with 19mm rails and extended dovetail to balance the huge lens.
Make sure you go to Gym

avro
06-08-2011, 08:12 AM
Baby primes & Razor primes could be light choice for fs100.

David W. Jones
06-08-2011, 09:23 AM
Here is the latest news about the Baby Primes... http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2011/6/8/zeiss-distance-themselves-from-baby-primes-products.html

No warranty from Carl Zeiss!

Barry_Green
06-08-2011, 09:32 AM
No warranty? No affiliation whatsoever. Zeiss really firmly repudiates the whole concept here:
http://www.canon5dtips.com/2011/06/oups-moment-about-the-baby-primes/

Some choice excerpts:

Carl Zeiss is in no way involved in the babyPrimes project or product of and does not maintain a relationship to the manufacturer.

The company Kelvinkamera+ or the quoted persons were not and are not in any form involved in the DigiPrime project or other projects at Carl Zeiss.

Carl Zeiss cannot confirm that the optics used in the advertised product line are from Carl Zeiss, nor can we confirm that these optics meet the typically high standards of a Carl Zeiss lens

Seems doubtful that any such "babyprimes" product will ever reach the market, I'm sure there are lawyers involved at this point.

J Davis
06-08-2011, 10:40 AM
noticed baby primes are eos mount. so you would need an e to eos
at least there is aperture control, so no need for birger
http://www.definitionmagazine.com/storage/PRbabyprimes_H.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1307 031195837

GaryinCalifornia
06-08-2011, 11:22 AM
Seems doubtful that any such "babyprimes" product will ever reach the market, I'm sure there are lawyers involved at this point.

Probably why my email bounced back that I sent a few days ago....

or who knows... maybe someone at Zeiss made a mistake... selling him the lens and then someone higher up realized wait... someone can buy our cp2's for 40% cheaper... better stop it... not pro or con either way...

Unless the baby primes are the same quality and they do cost =40% less...

Amr Rahmy
06-08-2011, 04:40 PM
yeah, sure!!. you will get the exact the same quality from the off brand knock off. :Drogar-KnockedOut(D

the lens would work great with your sonnie, penosonic or connan cameras.

optitek
06-09-2011, 02:37 PM
This is what CP's should look like to begin with. That recent Zeiss obsession with the size of lenses is just ridiculous. They could build small light fast primes 50 years ago why not now.

morgan_moore
06-09-2011, 03:32 PM
This is what CP's should look like to begin with. That recent Zeiss obsession with the size of lenses is just ridiculous. They could build small light fast primes 50 years ago why not now.

because the long lens is 80mm long ish and the wide lens has a 70 or so angle of view and the lenses are all the same size with the teeth in the same place for fast changing without moving MB or FF and only using one filter size ?

optitek
06-09-2011, 03:36 PM
I have designed many lens conversions. That's my specialty. That could be done without making lenses 5 inches in diameter, trust me.
Besides, Super Speeds are half the size and have gears in the same place, and they were designed 40 years ago, by ZEISS

morgan_moore
06-09-2011, 03:48 PM
to cover 18mmFF35 ? BTW they are 4.5 in .. anyway - I think the travel is too long !

lets move on , im sticking with my 35 2.5 nikkor E I just got for Ģ45 :)

Cekko
07-13-2011, 11:31 PM
Hi.
The LOMO zoom 25-250 (15-1 OCT-19)
and
http://cgi.ebay.com/LOMO-Konvas-OCT-19-OST-19-Sony-NEX-FS100-C3-NEX-5-/260808475488?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cb9658360

Is a good choice for tourist promotional videos, documentaries, commercials .....?
Weight is not a problem.
I am looking for a solution all in one, as an alternative to my Canon EF L and FD lenses?
Thanks!

MadMonkFish
07-14-2011, 08:41 AM
Hi.
The LOMO zoom 25-250 (15-1 OCT-19)
and
http://cgi.ebay.com/LOMO-Konvas-OCT-19-OST-19-Sony-NEX-FS100-C3-NEX-5-/260808475488?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cb9658360

Is a good choice for tourist promotional videos, documentaries, commercials .....?
Weight is not a problem.
I am looking for a solution all in one, as an alternative to my Canon EF L and FD lenses?
Thanks!

We already (briefly) mentioned this one a few pages back...

It's OK and has the 'look' of a Lomo - but you won't get the 'creamy' look of a Squarefront Anamorphic Lomo (or, obviously!) the horizontal flares, as it's not anamorphic. Note if you buy the anamorphic adapter, it's a 'rear of lens' type - this means you won't get the trademark flares that front ana's produce (if you're looking for that)... so, if you're comparing & looking at Lomo footage on the web, make sure you don't use anamorphic shots as your benchmark, as this is a spherical lens & will give a very different look.

It's old cine glass - if it's been well looked after (& serviced) you'll get a good image, but be prepared for regular servicing. Manual zoom (obviously) although you could add a motor... it's heavy, so you need to have it on a rig (all the time) - plus side is it should maintain focus whilst zooming. Matteboxes can be a problem, as these Russian lenses are often large. It's range is good 25-250, but, as with most zooms, you'll need to loose a stop at least (ie stop down) before the lens performs well (ie it may be soft at the edges etc).

Big downside if you are used to L & FD's is the T-stop... this one starts at T5.1 so it's going to be a very different lens to use vs your current batch.

Old Cine zooms are good if you want the look and are prepared to work 'with them'... (ie - it's not likely you'll be pulling it off the sticks to get a quick H/H shot etc, so it will define a method of work & way of shooting) :)

Hope that helps.

Cekko
07-14-2011, 09:14 AM
Thanks! MadMonkFish

on 25-250 f T3,2 (similar Canon lenses f2,8 ?)

on 50-500 f T4,5 ana adapter (then it is useless for shooting anamorphic?) Excluding the flare, which can add post, but do not seek to

(ie it may be soft at the edges etc) Can you explain this better?

Sorry my english very bad

thanks again

MadMonkFish
07-14-2011, 12:00 PM
Thanks! MadMonkFish

on 25-250 f T3,2 (similar Canon lenses f2,8 ?)

on 50-500 f T4,5 ana adapter (then it is useless for shooting anamorphic?) Excluding the flare, which can add post, but do not seek to

(ie it may be soft at the edges etc) Can you explain this better?

Sorry my english very bad

thanks again

Cekko - your English is better than my Italian - only word I know (without Google translate) is Ciao - LOL!

The 25-250 is T5.1 - T22. In F-stops T5.1 will probably by F3.2 (maybe F3.5 or F4) in it's spherical mode (non anamorphic config).

It becomes 50-500 when the rear anamorphic adapter is used. As it is a 'rear' of lens adapter, this also acts as a focal doubler (that's why it becomes 50-500). You will also loose light transmission, meaning the T-stop reduces by around a stop/stop and a half.

So, 25-250 T5.1 (F3.2) becomes maybe a 50-500 T6.1 (at a guess - you'll loose at least a stop) so that's approx F4.5 (to be safe).

Remember your minimum focus distance will also be about 1.7m (without diopters) - but, as it's a zoom, you can still get some nice out of focus effects. You will also need it collimating with & without the ana adapter, if you plan to swap between these in the field.

As with all lenses, especially zooms (cine or not) when wide open, they'll not perform at their best (you will see this even with primes - but zooms show it more - if you have a zoom now, do some focus tests on it's widest aperture vs a few stops down). Essentially, the zoom will be sharper a few stops away from being wide open. This can be exaggerated on older lenses (so you need to look out for this)... you may have softer edges or even a softer image.

Regarding the rear anamorphic adapter, it's not useless - but it will not give you the look of front of lens anamorphics. Roundfronts (of all types) or Squarefronts place the anamorphic elements in front of the lens... this means you get a minimal light loss and also the 'path to sensor/film/neg' etc is 'squeezed 'first' rather than 'last'. This is why front of lens anas give the effects everyone thinks of with anamorphic (extend ovular bokeh, creamy 'look' and the horizontal flares etc). Rear of lens adapters are the last glass in the chain, and therefore really only perform the task of doing the optical X2 squeeze. They will affect the look slightly, but don't expect a rear Ana adapter to give you the anamorphic look (in terms of bokeh/flare etc)... as they are just squeezing a normal spherical image into anamorphic. Round/Squarefronts are the reverse and have their anamorphic squeeze first, hence more distortion/look/cream/flare etc.

I have an OPF-18 (20-120/40-240) and it's very hard to get any typical 'anamorphic' lens flare from it... but my Squares flare easily. Although, I have to say, flare is over used these days. Anamorphics are all about framing in a wide aspect, rather than crazy blue streaks, IMO.

However, the advantage of having a rear ana adapter is you'll be able to get wider vistas and more cinematic framing ie when you are at 50mm, you'll have a vertical Fov of 50mm but a horizontal Fov of 25mm.

Hope all that helped :)

Cekko
07-14-2011, 12:47 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

70% shooting outdoors day light mountain
30% shooting indoor with lights

In the final of Euro 1800 is a good purchase?
Zoom + ana + adapter on my FS100
Or look for an opportunity Angie or Cooke next year?

MadMonkFish
07-14-2011, 02:37 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

70% shooting outdoors day light mountain
30% shooting indoor with lights

In the final of Euro 1800 is a good purchase?
Zoom + ana + adapter on my FS100
Or look for an opportunity Angie or Cooke next year?

No problem with the clarification :thumbsup:

If you've not used older cine zooms before, this would be a good place to start... it's not as fast as a Cooke 20-100 (T3.1) or Angie 20-120 (T2.9 )... but it's cheaper :)

Price wise around $2K (Euro 1440-1500) would be about right for lens & ana (not inc NEX adapter) IMO. This isn't one of the most in demand zooms, which is why the few that are available keep popping up on Ebay. However, at this price, if it's in good condition & the lens isn't scratched etc, you should be OK and able to sell on (if you want to move to something else later).

You're fine 70% outside with the Lomo... and 30% inside with lights is also OK. It depends what you're shooting & what your expectations are! If you're old school and are used to lighting, it's not uncommon to time a whole show at T5.1 or T8 etc. If you're used to 5DMKII lighting (ie pushing iso high) with very limited/avaialble light, then you might find the T5.1 a bit of a pain - but it depends on your shooting style.

But, if you're using an FS100, you're already getting a lot of sensitivity... so, in a sense, having a limited T-stop zoom will be useful - as you won't be wide open at F2.8 etc - it'll be wide open at F4 (or F5 in Ana). That might be useful.

Last thought, many great movies in days gone by shot on slower lenses - and we're always battling the sun outside (well, in the UK not so much - but you guys in Italia will be!), so the lens might end up being helpful (and, personally, I prefer the feeling/operation of old manual zooms).

Good luck!

Cekko
07-15-2011, 02:26 AM
thanks
I owe you a beer!
:beer:

I am 13 years of experience in television news bradcasting,
and tourism promotional documentaries,spot,.....,
Beta SP, Digitalbetacam, HPX500 HD Fuji 17x7.6x2 , HPX171, Canon 7D.

But it is the first time that I inform you on 35mm cine lenses to buy.

MadMonkFish
07-15-2011, 08:51 AM
thanks
I owe you a beer!
:beer:

I am 13 years of experience in television news bradcasting,
and tourism promotional documentaries,spot,.....,
Beta SP, Digitalbetacam, HPX500 HD Fuji 17x7.6x2 , HPX171, Canon 7D.

But it is the first time that I inform you on 35mm cine lenses to buy.

Beer is good! :beer:

Glad to be of help.

You're showing your age (LOL) - Beta SP & DigiBeta... I even remember off/on-line linear editing (RM440's to control 2 machines) so I'm a fellow oldie!

With your experience level, it should be no problem moving to the cine lenses :) and cinezooms will retain focus as you're used to with ENG style zooms.

Let us know how you get on!

profnoxin
07-17-2011, 02:43 AM
One of the primary differences that I see between cine glass and still glass is in the flaring characteristics. Most cine primes (Super Speeds, Standards, Master Primes, Ultra Primes, Cooke S4s, Panchros, most Ang. zooms etc. etc.) flare less and "more pleasantly" than still lenses do. Take a spin around the internet to find the AC article on Chicago for a really nice run down on the
flaring characteristics of several different lenses.

I say this at the same time that I personally own a set of Nikon AIS primes (24 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 105 2.5 and 180 2.8) as well as a Tokina 11-16 zoom that I use with a fader and a cheap Fotodiox adaptor on the FS100. I agree that for most of our projects good glass is good glass. The old still lenses look great, and the Nikon AIS/AFS lenses are really wonderful (and cheap!). The Tokina 11-16 is a dream lens any way you cut it, and I think it stands up against its cine counterparts very nicely.

Lastly, de-clicking your old AIS primes is simple and easy and will only take you about an hour to do the whole set if you're careful and slow. It's a bit nerve wracking at first, but simply requires a tiny screw driver, a steady hand and a deal of patience. The only tricky lens for me was the 105 which has an odd screw attached to an internal component that one should not under any circumstances unscrew. If you feel a screw with a LOT of tension, don't unscrew it, do the others an see if you can pull the mount of your lens.

Cheers!

J Davis
07-17-2011, 03:38 AM
No ones debating the usefulness of nikon ais, I use them and plenty of threads on that already. Thanks for contributing with the flare characteristics.

profnoxin
07-18-2011, 01:52 AM
Yeah, it is pretty much the worst thing about most still lenses. The flares end up being either tiny little green points of light (Nikon, Canon FD, some Minolta) or purple. The horrible kit lens I got with the 7D actually has really cool big nasty flares, so I keep that bugger around for music video shoots when I've got par cans/nine lights gunning down the barrel.