Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 76
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member JPNola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    New Orleans USA
    Posts
    1,294
    Default
    When I used "de-coating" I meant "de" as in down. As with "decelerate". Not as in off. I meant reduction in coating. Should have just said that.

    On a related Sigma cine topic, I wonder how much the Sigma "Fully Illuminated" versions sell. I don't see them talked about much and, as with the Classic, you pay a premium over the standard version. Given that focus pullers so often use remote focus these days, it would seem illuminated lens markings are not much needed.

    I applaud Sigma for making all these options available. First a "cine" version of their Art series, then an "illuminated" version of that line, and now a "vintage-look" version to boot. And the "sets" have more focal lengths than others such as the Tokina Vistas. Sigma is on a roll right now. bravo.
    Big sources matter.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,904
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JPNola View Post
    When I used "de-coating" I meant "de" as in down. As with "decelerate". Not as in off. I meant reduction in coating. Should have just said that.
    Ah sorry about that. I was refering to the image more than what you wrote. Was curious if whoever made that image knew something we didn’t.


    Quote Originally Posted by JPNola View Post
    On a related Sigma cine topic, I wonder how much the Sigma "Fully Illuminated" versions sell. I don't see them talked about much and, as with the Classic, you pay a premium over the standard version. Given that focus pullers so often use remote focus these days, it would seem illuminated lens markings are not much needed.

    I applaud Sigma for making all these options available. First a "cine" version of their Art series, then an "illuminated" version of that line, and now a "vintage-look" version to boot. And the "sets" have more focal lengths than others such as the Tokina Vistas. Sigma is on a roll right now. bravo.
    +1


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,641
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JPNola View Post
    When I used "de-coating" I meant "de" as in down. As with "decelerate". Not as in off. I meant reduction in coating. Should have just said that.

    On a related Sigma cine topic, I wonder how much the Sigma "Fully Illuminated" versions sell. I don't see them talked about much and, as with the Classic, you pay a premium over the standard version. Given that focus pullers so often use remote focus these days, it would seem illuminated lens markings are not much needed.

    I applaud Sigma for making all these options available. First a "cine" version of their Art series, then an "illuminated" version of that line, and now a "vintage-look" version to boot. And the "sets" have more focal lengths than others such as the Tokina Vistas. Sigma is on a roll right now. bravo.
    The "fully illuminated" lenses have been available since day one with the "regular" cine lenses. I don't really get having separate "luminous" and "non-luminous" lenses. The only difference is that more of the markings and witness marks are painted with luminescent paint for better visibility in the dark/low light environments. There are some luminous markings on the "non-luminous" lenses, btw. It's just mind-blowing that they charge an extra $1,000 for fully luminous markings on a lens. Even in the context of cine lenses. My Canon CN-E's have luminous markings, at least on the AC side. Do they have artists dedicated to hand painting them and that's all they do? Even then, I can't wrap my head around it. It's akin to, actually even worse than, the whole RED mini-mag kerfuffle going on right now.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member JPNola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    New Orleans USA
    Posts
    1,294
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Run&Gun View Post
    It's akin to, actually even worse than, the whole RED mini-mag kerfuffle going on right now.
    Really? While I also find the added cost a bit ridiculous, what is dishonest about charging more for an additional feature? I don't see how that is in any manner akin to misleading customers.
    Big sources matter.


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member egproductions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NJ/NYC
    Posts
    2,795
    Default
    I own a whole bunch of vintage cine lenses including a whole bunch of zeiss standard speeds (i havent even used them yet.) I would imagine that most people that want the vintage (pre-digital) look would prefer to use actual vintage glass. Granted vintage glass rarely covers full frame sensors. Agree or disagree?
    Cameras: 2x - Sony FS7, 2x - Sony A6500, Canon 5D IV, DJI Mavic Pro, Canon 5D II, Canon 60D, Canon G16, Canon Rebel XT, GoPro Hero 7, Gopro Hero 6 (RIP), 6x - GoPro Hero 3+ Black Edition, Canon XL2, iPhone 4, iPhone 6, Ricoh KR-10, Fed-2, Fujica Half Frame, Canon ZR-100, Sony DCR-TRV 310.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Director of Photography
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,606
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by egproductions View Post
    I own a whole bunch of vintage cine lenses including a whole bunch of zeiss standard speeds (i havent even used them yet.) I would imagine that most people that want the vintage (pre-digital) look would prefer to use actual vintage glass. Granted vintage glass rarely covers full frame sensors. Agree or disagree?
    If I was satisfied with the look, I would opt for modern lenses myself. Vintage lenses are often slow and difficult to work with on set, such as binding when using a clip-on, or the geared rings are in different places (I always have motors on focus and iris for primes), or telescoping elements that complicate things with matteboxes...I could go on.

    I've been around long enough that I've seen lenses that were still current when I started become vintage (ouch) and the main difference is that we don't have the same kind of time on set to deal with these issues that we used to.
    Charles Papert
    charlespapert.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,643
    Default
    Whenever possible I would want modern lenses as well. Not only because of the usability aspects Charles points out, but because servicing an old lens is like servicing an old car. Things will go wrong more often because the parts are old and worn, and for many there are simply no replacement parts. I've seen damaged "donor lenses" go for ridiculous amounts of money just so they could be scavenged for parts. A busted K35 prime just sold for more than $5K. That's crazy.
    Mitch Gross
    Cinema Product Manager
    Panasonic System Solutions Company


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member JPNola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    New Orleans USA
    Posts
    1,294
    Default
    So we've come up with two reasons why these modern-vintage primes have a market:

    * Little of the vintage glass covers FF.

    * vintage glass isn't as durable mechanically and less can stand up to focus / iris motors.


    And maybe a couple of other reasons is that when you purchase a set of vintage primes you get no warranty. And it is impossible, or near impossible, to buy a set of vintage primes that are new and without any damage or defects from use. Unwanted defects, that is.
    Big sources matter.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Director of Photography
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,606
    Default
    This conversation has brought up less-than-nostalgic memories of wrestling with Superspeeds and "vintage" wireless lens controllers (I use the term ironically) on winter nights in Boston in the 90's...the inevitable "gug-gug-gug-gug-gug" as motors flew off the lens gears due to binding. One such long and painful night seen below, shlepping the beast on a New Kids on the Block video.

    nkotb2.jpg
    Charles Papert
    charlespapert.com


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,904
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlesPapert View Post
    This conversation has brought up less-than-nostalgic memories of wrestling with Superspeeds and "vintage" wireless lens controllers (I use the term ironically) on winter nights in Boston in the 90's...the inevitable "gug-gug-gug-gug-gug" as motors flew off the lens gears due to binding. One such long and painful night seen below, shlepping the beast on a New Kids on the Block video.

    nkotb2.jpg
    Friggin insane! Those gloves are looking fancy!

    I mostly op in warm weather and never used gloves, but recently got a pair. I like yours better.

    Shot an interview with those guys, and i think they are the nicest people!
    Last edited by James0b57; 07-17-2019 at 07:36 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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
  •