Affordable Parfocal zoom lenses for the AF101

jmarkham said:
depends on if you care about breathing or not.

jeff
Click to expand...

And there we have our catch! Any idea how bad the breathing is with it Jeff? Are we talking complete deal breaker if wanting to rack focus?

To the best of your knowledge is that it's only real downside?
 
Depends on your sensitivity to it. ENG shots tend to not be as "composed" as in cinematography.
You could always try it and see how it works for you. If it doesn't, the cheapest alternative (I know
of) is the Digoptical ( unless you make a major score on Ebay or something).

jeff
 
jmarkham said:
Depends on your sensitivity to it. ENG shots tend to not be as "composed" as in cinematography.
You could always try it and see how it works for you. If it doesn't, the cheapest alternative (I know
of) is the Digoptical ( unless you make a major score on Ebay or something).

jeff
Click to expand...

Cheers Jeff,

I think I might give the Sigma a go. It seems to be a cheap practical solution for occasional ENG bits and pieces.
 
We have bought an MTF lens adapter to use our B4 mount parfocal zoom lenses on the AF100. The lenses are plentiful and have incredible IQ if you can afford a 2 stop loss of light and a doubling of focal lengths. AbelCine sells a custom cable to enable the servo zoom and start/stop switch.

chris


P1000658_2.jpg
 
I have been using a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 on my camera and the breathing with this lens is negligible....have also made some very quick comparisons with my Canon L 24-70 and the sigma's image quality is right up there....even though the build, feel of the zoom (a little sticky) and focus ring isn't as smooth as the canon. Sigma doesn't have an infinitely spinning focus however which is nice.
Will be making some more controlled comparisons soon.
 
I have the Sigma/nikon 50-150 2.8 and the focus holds after focusing on the tele end. Is the Sigma 24-70 sharp at 2.8?
 
CraftyClown said:
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?
Click to expand...

I use it and I'm very happy with it, I use the Nikon Novoflex adapter. Good to have the Nikon adapter cos then you can borrow journalist lenses out on the field as well.

I believe its cheap cos they make one lens that works with almost all the camera bodies there is.
 
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?
Click to expand...

maybe the nikon 24-70 suggestion was misleading, that's indeed a 48-140 equivalent if used on a 2x crop sensor
the canon 17-40 or 16-35 (both parfocal according to the lensrentals blog) may be more useful on the AF100

the reason I'd be reluctant to adapt these lenses to M43 is that they don't have a dedicated iris ring, so unless you get an adapter that can correctly translate the electronic signals, the lens will be stuck at its maximum aperture; there are adaptors that can, in theory, do that job, but they can be quite expensive, and I've read some horror stories from people trying to get by with cheaper versions; I use lots of adapted lenses, but they're all vintage manual primes


monkeyking said:
Are The Sigma/Canon lenses parfocal - does the focus hold when changing focal lengths?
Click to expand...

actually, most of them are not, but there are some exceptions; check again the link I posted (which doesn't include sigma, I guess):
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/photo-lenses-for-video/4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top