Thread: Zooms

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    78
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by nsoltz View Post
    And add to that list the Sigma 50-150, which is the basis of the Red. Also f/2.8 throughout.

    Sigma has just released an update to that lens so I hope Red chooses to release a new PL version.
    Can someone explain to me why the Nikon Mount on the Sigma is around $1k and the PL mount of the RED 18-85 at a 2.9 is almost $10k? Is the image quality THAT much better? It seems like there are many great lenses out there that are considered SLR lenses that can be adapted to the F3 but as soon as a lens has a PL mount the price increases 10x.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    606
    Default
    For my solo doc work where I need to use my zooms, the Tokina 11-16, Nikkor 17-55 and Nikkor 80-200 cover the entire spectrum. I'll even use these on certain commercial jobs. If you search carefully the three of these lenses can be had for $3000.
    http://www.billthomasphoto.com/
    Sony F5 / F3/ EX-1 / Nikon D800 / BMPCC / Atomos Samurai / Zeiss & Nikon lenses


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Teaneck, NJ
    Posts
    2,514
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by WestView Digital View Post
    Can someone explain to me why the Nikon Mount on the Sigma is around $1k and the PL mount of the RED 18-85 at a 2.9 is almost $10k? Is the image quality THAT much better? It seems like there are many great lenses out there that are considered SLR lenses that can be adapted to the F3 but as soon as a lens has a PL mount the price increases 10x.
    The still version of the lens needs to be disassembled and essentially rebuilt in a new housing with gears, longer focus throw, mount, etc etc. It is a tremendously labor and skill-intensive task. And not exactly a high-volume project.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    78
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by nsoltz View Post
    The still version of the lens needs to be disassembled and essentially rebuilt in a new housing with gears, longer focus throw, mount, etc etc. It is a tremendously labor and skill-intensive task. And not exactly a high-volume project.
    I get that but what about the lenses that aren't "still lenses" (RED, Angie, etc..) and are standard PL mount. What is it about those lenses that make them that much better? The RED lens is almost 10 pounds and the Sigma is only like 2 pounds. With PL adapters for the Sigma - is the difference really that pronounced? Is it sharper? Better Color? Better in low light? Why would someone pay over $20k for an Angie Optimo Zoom when you can get the same focal length and speed in a still lens with an adapter? Is that cost justified?


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Teaneck, NJ
    Posts
    2,514
    Default
    Glass is the same in the still-lens rehousing. Glass and precision construction in dedicated PL lenses is better by many factors. Good glass outlasts many generations of cameras.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Posts
    145
    Default
    Is that cost justified?
    It was, because of the very low volumes compared to the stills photography market. But things hopefully will start changing now.
    If you don't use a focus puller. if you are on a budget and if you can live with some of the clumsiness still lenses have . You can make great footage with them. And they are small! that's really important if you are on your own.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member Jason Davenport's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    708
    Default
    " Why would someone pay over $20k for an Angie Optimo Zoom when you can get the same focal length and speed in a still lens with an adapter? Is that cost justified?"

    The answer is focus mechanics. The amount of glass and engineering in a PL lens compared to a still lens is huge. That's just it, its a "still" lens, so smooth focusing is a non issue.

    In the PL world the focus needs to track smooth with no "breathing". Also the focus throws are much longer meaning more room, more glass and gearing. Try to roll focus on your still lens without the image frame changing. That can not happen in the PL work flow. It is too distracting.
    Also the lens is one giant prism, taking light and the bands of color associated with that light and trying to have all the colors filtered perfectly so that they all hit the sensor at the same time. This is where lens coatings come in slowing up one color and speeding up another. Having all of them line up exactly together on top of one another, creating "white" light. When you see bands of color around an object of detail, that is where the lens is failing.It is called chromatic aberration.

    To do all of this correct without these problems is a expensive task.
    Jason P Davenport
    Director of Photography

    www.jasondavenportdp.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Default
    JD is right about Chromatic aberration. I have the Zeiss ZF primes and the Nikon zooms and they all have some amount of Chromatic aberration around the focus point. i've tested old Zeiss standard speed PL primes though and even though they weren't as sharp there was no aberration.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member bill totolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,643
    Default
    Once you throw a Bartek follow focus on there you can map your focus throw (barrel rotation) over 300.
    Nikon still lenses are an excellent option.
    Bill Totolo
    DP/LA

    http://alphasonic.net


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Senior Member David W. Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    La Petite Roche
    Posts
    4,860
    Default
    Kind of like asking... Why would someone use a very expensive Arri Alexa to shoot a movie when I can shoot video with a Canon T2i.
    David W. Jones
    www.joneshdfilms.com


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •