Affordable Parfocal zoom lenses for the AF101

CraftyClown

CraftyClown

Active member
Hi guys,

I hope this isn't a totally stupid question. I am still very new to this world of interchangeable lenses.

I'm wondering what parfocal zoom lenses people are using with the AF101, if any? I very occasionally have to do a little bit of ENG style work, but because the only zoom lens I have (Lumix 14-140) is varifocal, I have to dig my HVX200 out, to do the job. This is the only reason I'm hanging on to the HVX however, so I'm wondering if it's just easier to flog that and get a parfocal zoom.

Am I being naive here though? Is a parfocal zoom going to break the bank?
 
What do you consider Affordable?
I just purchased an old Cooke 20-100mm zoom that I consider very reasonable price wise.
It's big and heavy but parfocal, does not breath, and best of all has that Cooke look.
 
If your goal is to use the AF100 for ENG style shooting, are you also planning
to get a rig (of some sort)?

Can you bound the list of possibilities by giving a max price point you would
consider?

jeff
 
Last edited:
to pose another question regarding ENG with the AF. Won't your subject (usually) be constantly moving or changing (not just laterally)? Therefore, without AF, wouldn't you still be constantly having to re-focus on your subject?
 
David W. Jones said:
What do you consider Affordable?
I just purchased an old Cooke 20-100mm zoom that I consider very reasonable price wise.
It's big and heavy but parfocal, does not breath, and best of all has that Cooke look.
Click to expand...

Isn't that think like 10 pounds of glass though? not exactly an ENG style lens. I was thinking
maybe something like a Fujinon...

jeff
 
Thanks David. As I said, I know next to nothing about lenses, so I'm not really sure what is even reasonable. I can probably get about £2000 for my HVX and accessories, so ideally no more than that, however I appreciate, that isn't necessarily realistic. I guess I just want to know what is available.

The Cooke 20-100 is quite pricey is it not? Do you mind me asking how much you paid?

How did Panasonic manage to pack a parfocal lens into the HVX200 for that money?
 
jmarkham said:
If your goal is to use the AF100 for ENG style shooting, are you also planning
to get a rig (of some sort)?

Can you bound the list of possibilities by giving a max price point you would
consider?

jeff
Click to expand...

I have just purchased one of Olof's shoulder rigs and new record handles, that should be delivered tomorrow. I ideally don't want to spend more than a few thousand pounds, however I will stretch that within reason and if necessary.
 
reygun said:
to pose another question regarding ENG with the AF. Won't your subject (usually) be constantly moving or changing (not just laterally)? Therefore, without AF, wouldn't you still be constantly having to re-focus on your subject?
Click to expand...

I'm quite happy to focus manually if the subject moves. My problem is losing focus when I'm static and I need to zoom
 
CraftyClown said:
Thanks David. As I said, I know next to nothing about lenses, so I'm not really sure what is even reasonable. I can probably get about £2000 for my HVX and accessories, so ideally no more than that, however I appreciate, that isn't necessarily realistic. I guess I just want to know what is available.

The Cooke 20-100 is quite pricey is it not? Do you mind me asking how much you paid?

How did Panasonic manage to pack a parfocal lens into the HVX200 for that money?
Click to expand...

HVX has a much smaller sensor to cover.
I paid just over $5K for the Cooke, and I think it's closer to 13 pounds.
A fluid zoom controller can also be used to give super smooth zooms.
 
David W. Jones said:
HVX has a much smaller sensor to cover.
I paid just over $5K for the Cooke, and I think it's closer to 13 pounds.
A fluid zoom controller can also be used to give super smooth zooms.
Click to expand...

Thanks David. Of course it's a much smaller sensor! Why didn't I think of that :)

The price of a Cooke lens doesn't seem too unreasonable, however it really does seem like a weighty beast!

Where would one get a fluid zoom controller from? Is this an accessory that can be used on any lens?
 
NormanBates said:
the Panasonic 7-14 f/4 and the Olympus 11-22 f/2.8-3.5 are both parfocal, but maybe the focal length is not what you were looking for

if you're brave enough to use a nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S with an adaptor, that focal length seems more general-purpose

some others here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/photo-lenses-for-video/4
Click to expand...


The focal range on the Panasonic and Olympus would be far too limiting for general use, however The Nikon sounds interesting.


Can I ask why you said "if you're brave enough to use a nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S with an adaptor" Is there some kind of issue I should be aware of?


EDIT:

Although now I think about it, with the 2 x crop factor is this the same as 12 - 35 in Micro four thirds? In which case I'm still very limited on the focal range.
 
Last edited:
More like a 50 to 140 when comparing to full frame photography.

CraftyClown said:
The focal range on the Panasonic and Olympus would be far too limiting for general use, however The Nikon sounds interesting.


Can I ask why you said "if you're brave enough to use a nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S with an adaptor" Is there some kind of issue I should be aware of?


EDIT:

Although now I think about it, with the 2 x crop factor is this the same as 12 - 35 in Micro four thirds? In which case I'm still very limited on the focal range.
Click to expand...
 
CraftyClown said:
I have just purchased one of Olof's shoulder rigs and new record handles, that should be delivered tomorrow. I ideally don't want to spend more than a few thousand pounds, however I will stretch that within reason and if necessary.
Click to expand...

You may wish to consider the Digoptical lens then. It does take an adapter ... and they're
based out of the UK.

Many of the Canon EOS lenses (70-200mm for example) are parfocal. Lack of a quality
adapter to the MFT format is an issue at this time (however).

jeff
 
The lack of practical m4/3 EFP style zooms is one reason I have decided to stay with 2/3"-16mm sized format cameras. Fast, broad range, lightweight cine/video grade zooms don't exist for the larger formats. You either put up with relatively large an heavy 35mm cine zooms, or go with a B4, or 16mm/S16mm zoom and a 2x optical extender which costs you two stops of light. M4/3 is still in its infancy as a format but hopefully there will be some new cine grade zooms coming down the road within a year or two. Even so, an M4/3 zoom has to cover twice the optical circle of 2/3 format, so for the same speed and equivalent zoom range it will be twice as large and heavy as the 2/3" version.

My suggestion for a reasonably compact 35mm zoom: http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail03.asp?productID=107&Cat=8&Cat2=20&Cat3=29
 
Igelkott Film said:
This lens is as parfocal as they can be http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/17-50mm-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm-sigma

I can zoom in on a hair, and zoom out and never loose critical focus. And in again :)

Here is an exampel of an ENG situation: http://www.igelkottfilm.se/video/Sigma_ENG_Zoom.MTS 315mb
Click to expand...


That seems to work great! But why so cheap? I feel there must be a catch here. I wish I understood a little more about the pros and cons of some of these lenses!

Is this what you are using Igelkott? What kind of adapter would I need?
 
Ok, so I'm considering purchasing the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 Nikon mount, with an adaptimax adapter. Any thoughts on this?/reasons why this might be a bad move?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top