Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 80
  1. Collapse Details
    The missing lens - a standard cine zoom?
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Byron Bay, Australia
    Posts
    1,347
    Default
    Hi All,

    Just wondering what people are currently using as a standard zoom for s35 sensors? It seems to be one section of the market that has had very little (or NO) development since the 7D came out.

    I've been shooting on FF (or with speedboosters) for the past few years and have been using either 24-70 or 24-105's. But my next camera will likely be s35 in either EF mount of PL (think EVA1, USRA, C200, Kinifinity, or maybe a Red). I'd like to move beyond still lenses, but there doesn't seem to be a clear pathway.

    Of the current options, none of them seem to fit the role properly;

    Canon 17-55 f/2.8: Cheap stills lens, heavy vignetting on many s35 sensors which are slightly larger than Canons APS-C format.
    Fujinon 18-55 T2.9: Mirrorless mounts only.
    Canon 15.5-47 T2.9: Costs double or triple what the cameras I'm looking at do.
    Sigma 18-35 T/2: Not enough zoom range or reach to be a true all-rounder.
    Red 17-50 T2.9: Discontinued & rare, PL only.

    The Red comes closest to what I want & need, and might steer me towards getting a PL mount camera, but they are hard to find, particularly here in Australia. Fujinon also seems perfect but won't fit on most of the cameras I'm looking at.

    Does anybody else find it baffling that nobody has yet made a lens to clean up in this market? Something that suits the current range of <$10,000 cameras that use EF mount - fully manual with geared rings, ~3x zoom, internal zoom so we can use it with matte boxes, and under about $5000. The above examples show it can be done well enough at this price level, but still nobody has jumped in and really made a winner in this category.

    Thoughts?
    VIDEO PRODUCER ON THE NSW NORTH COAST, AUSTRALIA
    Sony FS700 || Shogun Inferno
    Adobe CC 2018


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,549
    Default
    You were doing just fine with the wants until you hit the under $5K button. There's the Zeiss 21-100 zoom for $10K, the Fuji 20-120 for around $12K, and soon the Laowa 25-100 for who knows how much (I'm guessing $6-8K). After that you're SOL unless you're interested in the Canon 18-80 Compact Servo Lens, but that's a crossbreed between an ENG video lens and a stills lens, plus it's a T4.4.

    It's difficult for a lens maker to do a cine style zoom for so low a cost, because the volume for cine zooms is tiny compared to stills. I suggested to a lens manufacturer a while ago that they take their already-existing 24-105 f4 full frame stills lens, stick an optical reducer on the back to turn it into a S35 18-85 T2.8, rehouse the whole thing as a basic cine type zoom in PL but available in EF with electronic iris control option for all those people who live by that and sell the thing for around $5K, which is something like 6x the price they sell their stills 24-105 source lens for. Hasn't happened yet.
    Mitch Gross
    Cinema Product Manager
    Panasonic System Solutions Company


    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,401
    Default
    I dont know why it has happened.. the lack of that lens.

    I think it is the fault of customers, bloggers and manufactuers (of cameras and lenses). I guess overall the market does not 'need' the lens that I (and you) would consider to be 'the' thing missing from the camera market.

    This is what I 'see' as the route

    The lens needs to be 16-150 FOV.

    To make that possible on a sensible budget of mass/price the lens would be like this..

    16-100 T4 with swing in 1.5 converter, probably with an inch or so of 'tromboning' and maybe even some digital zoom built in to the camera. The lens is unlikely to be buildable with a long flange lens mount.

    Lets go to some meetings..

    EVA1 development..
    Engineer department - we need a short flange
    Market department - its got to be canon mount to sell to ex 5d owners

    Zeiss development
    Engineer - we can do you a 21-100 at this budget
    Marketeer - fine 21 is close to 16

    Zeiss development

    Engineer - we can do you T4.4 at this budget
    Marketeer - customers demand 2.8

    Here customers are being stupid.. T4 is great on a 2000 ISO camera

    Deltiod Production meeting.
    'Im buying PL or EF'
    Walk away from these cameras, tell the makers why you cant buy a deep flange camera.

    I daily tell Mitch why Ill never buy his EVA1 - deep flange

    (he probably hates it but im trying to help!)


    Deltiod production meeting.
    I need non tromboning for my matte box.
    Get real - this lens will tombone, save your matte box for primes - buy a camera with ND.

    Deltiod production meeting.
    I need 2.8
    Get real this lens will be T4
    Make your movie with primes

    Blogger on new 21-100 zoom..
    Writes.. "exciting new lens"
    Should write "just not wide enough for actual professional use"


    Blogger on new T4.4 zoom
    Writes 'not really fast enough"
    Should write 'an excellent and realistic choice of Tstop for a light zoom, mass and cost are kept reasonable'

    The truth is Canon and Sony have applied themselves to this problem and done the best they can, 18-110 and 18-80. Sony got more range cos of thier shorter flange depth. They are in the shops now.
    Last edited by morgan_moore; 01-03-2019 at 09:51 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,451
    Default
    Well, it's more than 5x what you wanna pay, but in my book, the Canon 17-120 is it. Covers at least s35. Manual everything AND servo everything. Internal focus. 17mm-91mm at constant T2.95, 92-120 ramps to T3.9. Huge(for cine) 7x zoom range. EF and PL mount(I have a user swappable mount system on mine). Great image quality.

    I also wouldn't take the train of thought of just because you have a low priced camera that you can't spend a lot on glass. With the mount system the 17-120 cost me ~$8K-$9K more than what I paid for my F55 and roughly double what I paid for my C300.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,401
    Default
    Nikon too has a solution ofr the problen in the Z6. 24-70FF with digital punch in to S35


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,401
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Run&Gun View Post
    Well, it's more than 5x what you wanna pay, but in my book, the Canon 17-120 is it. Covers at least s35. Manual everything AND servo everything. Internal focus. 17mm-91mm at constant T2.95, 92-120 ramps to T3.9. Huge(for cine) 7x zoom range. EF and PL mount(I have a user swappable mount system on mine). Great image quality.

    I also wouldn't take the train of thought of just because you have a low priced camera that you can't spend a lot on glass. With the mount system the 17-120 cost me ~$8K-$9K more than what I paid for my F55 and roughly double what I paid for my C300.
    That zoom is what it is - personally to me too big and heavy and costly. But I dont think canon add that mass or price for fun. I dont disrespect those with the muscle to haul it or wallet to buy it.

    My expectations are realistic, to get it smaller cheaper and lighter I understand there will have to be compromises. Your average 'DPs' and 'bloggers' and 'marketeers' are too uneducated to realise this.
    Last edited by morgan_moore; 01-03-2019 at 09:53 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,401
    Default
    The other truth is that the 24-105 + speedbooster + FS7 give you 90% of this. And that is why 80% of productions use that combo.

    Im going to zambia tomorrow.. with 24-105, booster and FS7.. Ill live.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Byron Bay, Australia
    Posts
    1,347
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    My expectations are realistic, to get it smaller cheaper and lighter I understand there will have to be compromises. Your average 'DPs' and 'bloggers' and 'marketeers' are too uneducated to realise this.
    I think my expectations are fairly realistic too. Red have pretty much already done it at the price level I'm talking about, but then they stopped making lenses. I'm not asking for something smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, wider, longer or sharper than what already exists. That's why it surprises me that nobody has done it in a way that makes it a functional, "must-have" lens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Run&Gun View Post
    Well, it's more than 5x what you wanna pay, but in my book, the Canon 17-120 is it. Covers at least s35. Manual everything AND servo everything. Internal focus. 17mm-91mm at constant T2.95, 92-120 ramps to T3.9. Huge(for cine) 7x zoom range. EF and PL mount(I have a user swappable mount system on mine). Great image quality.

    I also wouldn't take the train of thought of just because you have a low priced camera that you can't spend a lot on glass. With the mount system the 17-120 cost me ~$8K-$9K more than what I paid for my F55 and roughly double what I paid for my C300.
    This lens is the bees knees. But it is way out of my ballpark (and most ~$10,000 camera owners, too). People who have a "low priced camera" usually own it because they don't have a $100,000 budget. And I know you can put very nice glass on a low-priced camera, but that is what renting is for.
    VIDEO PRODUCER ON THE NSW NORTH COAST, AUSTRALIA
    Sony FS700 || Shogun Inferno
    Adobe CC 2018


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    530
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    The other truth is that the 24-105 + speedbooster + FS7 give you 90% of this. And that is why 80% of productions use that combo.
    +1 on the 24-105 plus Speed Booster. I often use use the Sigma ART 24-105 with SB on interviews. Not parfocal but very flexible and with the SB the f4.0 Sigma, or a Canon 24-105 for that matter comes close to f2.8. I find the Sigma doesn't ramp on the long end anywhere near the old Canon 24-105. I believe the current Canon 24-105 is a fair bit better than the first version when it comes to exposure ramping. As for the Red 17-50 it's getting a bit long in the tooth and a few versions I've seen had to be used at at least f4.0 to be acceptably sharp on the edges. The Red lenses are IMHO way, way overpriced for the performance they deliver in today's lens market.

    I never though I would use it as much as I do but with an FS7 Sony's 18-110 f4.0 constant aperture, parfocal, servo zoom that even has reasonable stabilization offers amazing capability for the price. Sure it's not built like an Cabrio or Optimo but it's worth every cent for what it delivers. For on the move doco type work it has been a good buy.

    Don't underestimate the Tokina Cine Zooms. For the money they deliver a solid working lens with some very good value for the $$$ performance. Check them out here:

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...op+Nav-Search=

    and here:

    https://www.thehurlblog.com/zoom-len...mm-filmmaking/

    Chris Young.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member David W. Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    La Petite Roche
    Posts
    6,716
    Default
    Guess it depends on what your job at hand is.
    For example.... For a long time I used a zoom trifecta for more mobile type low budget shoots. 11-16mm, 16-50mm, 70-200mm.
    You can cover a lot of ground with those 3 lenses.

    More players on the crew or a little less mobile, and my favorite zoom would have been a Cooke 18-100mm.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... 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
  •