C200: Anyone used the Sigma Cine Primes in EF on the C300 MKII or C200?

[puredrifting]

Sigma is opening a west coast HQ in Burbank in a couple of weeks and I will be getting my paws on the new Sigma Cine Primes to shoot some RAW with our C200 for a story for the Jan/Feb 2019 issue of HD Video Pro.
Anyone shoot with these lenses yet on the C300 MKII or C200? I've read some early reviews and apparently these new primes are really, really nice for the money and some have said a better value that the CN-e Canon primes.
The new 14mm T2.0 and 135mm T2.0 in particular seem pretty cool. I've just shot a year using nothing but zooms but I am really thinking about going to back to using primes more often as I feel the zooms have somewhat compromised my image quality.
They were the right choice for the subject matter but now that we are working and shooting more story wraps ups, interviews and less action out on boats with racing, primes are feeling like a better choice. That nice T1.5 speed on most of them
too is appealing as I have tried to keep our lighting really small and simple with just two Kamerar Brightcasts on V mounts of our interviews and interior b-roll.

Just wondering what you guys think of the Sigma Cine Primes?

 

[Run&Gun]

Haven't played with them, but I'd like to know what you think of the 105mm T1.5. if you get your hands on it. Both Sigma and Tokina are supposed to have versions coming out shortly(if they're not already starting to hit the streets) and I'm very interested in one for interviews. My current 'go to' interview lens is the CN-E 135mm T2.2 followed by the CN-E 85mm T1.3.

 

[Dustin Svehlak]

We’ve had them in for a few rentals on RED and ARRI cameras and they’re solid. Not a ton of character but if you’re adding diffusion or just looking for a neutral look, they’re great. Nice sensor coverage as well.

 

[puredrifting]

Haven't played with them, but I'd like to know what you think of the 105mm T1.5. if you get your hands on it. Both Sigma and Tokina are supposed to have versions coming out shortly(if they're not already starting to hit the streets) and I'm very interested in one for interviews. My current 'go to' interview lens is the CN-E 135mm T2.2 followed by the CN-E 85mm T1.3.

Typically, I get what I get, we're not always a high priority for manufacturers and usually take what they will loan us. I requested the 20, 50 and 85 as those would suit our interviews best but I may get lucky and they'll loan me the full set. We'll see. They said all of their loaners are tied up for the grand opening on 11/05 so I have to patient.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I bought the set of 7 earlier this year, haven't used in EF on the cameras you mentioned but have had them on Alexa Mini, Varicam LT and F55.

They are indeed excellent value for the money. Solidly built and should hold up well. Good clean images. A little softer wide open but nothing notable in this day and age when lens defects are considered sexy. Ahem.

 

[puredrifting]

I bought the set of 7 earlier this year, haven't used in EF on the cameras you mentioned but have had them on Alexa Mini, Varicam LT and F55.

They are indeed excellent value for the money. Solidly built and should hold up well. Good clean images. A little softer wide open but nothing notable in this day and age when lens defects are considered sexy. Ahem.

I don't expect miracles for the price but it's good to hear that they are solid, which coming from someone who is new to making cine lenses is encouraging. Yes, every time I pick up the ICG 600 magazine or American Cinematographer, everyone is all in a kerfuffle about using "Kowas, Lomo anamorphics" and other weird lenses for their "hazy, low contrast look with extreme flaring". I have to say, Matthew Libatique is an amazing cinemtographer, I love his work but I think he went a little overboard with the flares and reflections for "A Star is Born". The lighting and camera movement were excellent but those flares on all of the on stage and studio stuff got a bit too much for my taste, not subtle, kind of beat you over the head with 'look at these fricken lens flares!" I prefer solid, clean images, not razor sharp Zeiss Ultra Prime and not milky old stuff from the 50s-70s for most subject matter.

 

[rob norton]

Even with a cinema prime/wireless follow focus, the c200 is a tiny, powerful RAW capturing machine. If you're working with an AC I completely see the appeal.

But if you're shooting by yourself, why make the c200 heavier and harder to use, while getting rid of its amazing AF?

 

[Run&Gun]

I can't speak for Dan, but generally when I'm shooting with Cine primes, it's for interviews and maybe some controlled b-roll. I'm a dedicated shooter, so I'm not doing other things while the interview is going on. That's my sole responsibility. So autofocus, or lack thereof, isn't a big deal in that situation usually.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Yes, every time I pick up the ICG 600 magazine or American Cinematographer, everyone is all in a kerfuffle about using "Kowas, Lomo anamorphics" and other weird lenses for their "hazy, low contrast look with extreme flaring". ... I prefer solid, clean images, not razor sharp Zeiss Ultra Prime and not milky old stuff from the 50s-70s for most subject matter.

Well, I do too, but cinematography has always been about revolving through trends, this is the one we are in at the moment. I see some pretty work and some that bores me (and is badly suited to the material IMHO).

Given all this I think you would like the Sigmas.

 

[puredrifting]

I can't speak for Dan, but generally when I'm shooting with Cine primes, it's for interviews and maybe some controlled b-roll. I'm a dedicated shooter, so I'm not doing other things while the interview is going on. That's my sole responsibility. So autofocus, or lack thereof, isn't a big deal in that situation usually.

Bingo. This. I am mainly interested in trying them out for sheer image quality. We all know that generally cine primes will look somewhat better than zooms and at least a little better more than still zooms. I live and die by DAF, love it, it's changed my way of working but when shooting tabletop, artsy stuff with talent where I get a rehearsal and multiple chances to nail focus, why not cine primes? I shoot a lot of run & gun and MF primes aren't the right tool for most of that but I also am shooting stock footage, studio, tabletop stuff where the primes will just look plain better than my still zoom lenses. Different tools for different jobs. Who cannot be tempted by using the best lenses you can afford rather than the most convenient, at least once in a while?

 

[puredrifting]

Well, I do too, but cinematography has always been about revolving through trends, this is the one we are in at the moment. I see some pretty work and some that bores me (and is badly suited to the material IMHO).

Given all this I think you would like the Sigmas.

I guess I prefer artists who either ignore trends or invent better versions of them. Case in point, I was watching the latest episode of Crazy Ex, which I know you worked on S1. Not sure who the latest DP is for this last season but there were several scenes with HEAVY blue and purple hairlights, mostly in the music video sequences, that just looked bad, really bad. Are blue/purple heavy hairlights a trend or just a poor artistic choice?

Same with lens flares, bleach bypass, tilt shift lenses, anamorphic flares, ever roving gimbal cam/Steadicam with no story motivation, etc. Gimmicks. Sometimes cool looking gimmicks but they look so dated a few years later. I'm all for innovation and trying new things, but it seems as if we are in an era where there is much Lemming-like behavior in production like the current fetishism of FF cameras and lenses. They're just a tool, an aesthetic choice but touring the lens manufacturer displays at CineGear earlier this year, you'd think that you were an outdated Dinosaur shooting S35. I've been talking to people, trying to convince them that the FF trend is a very successful marketing campaign, that's it. It wasn't and isn't driven by DPs and directors, it's the manufacturers, through clever marketing and advertisement, influencing the industry that S35 is so 2017 and to be considered part of the game in 2018/19, you HAVE to be shooting FF. I'm probably too cynical for my own good but as in politics and espionage, follow the money. It's a win-win for the industry, not only does everyone have to abandon their now antique S35 gear, they have to buy not only new FF cameras, but all new lenses unless they are amongst the few that already own FF glass. Brilliant but makes me frustrated for the market manipulation that FF is.

 

[Run&Gun]

I guess I prefer artists who either ignore trends or invent better versions of them. Case in point, I was watching the latest episode of Crazy Ex, which I know you worked on S1. Not sure who the latest DP is for this last season but there were several scenes with HEAVY blue and purple hairlights, mostly in the music video sequences, that just looked bad, really bad. Are blue/purple heavy hairlights a trend or just a poor artistic choice?

Same with lens flares, bleach bypass, tilt shift lenses, anamorphic flares, ever roving gimbal cam/Steadicam with no story motivation, etc. Gimmicks. Sometimes cool looking gimmicks but they look so dated a few years later. I'm all for innovation and trying new things, but it seems as if we are in an era where there is much Lemming-like behavior in production like the current fetishism of FF cameras and lenses. They're just a tool, an aesthetic choice but touring the lens manufacturer displays at CineGear earlier this year, you'd think that you were an outdated Dinosaur shooting S35. I've been talking to people, trying to convince them that the FF trend is a very successful marketing campaign, that's it. It wasn't and isn't driven by DPs and directors, it's the manufacturers, through clever marketing and advertisement, influencing the industry that S35 is so 2017 and to be considered part of the game in 2018/19, you HAVE to be shooting FF. I'm probably too cynical for my own good but as in politics and espionage, follow the money. It's a win-win for the industry, not only does everyone have to abandon their now antique S35 gear, they have to buy not only new FF cameras, but all new lenses unless they are amongst the few that already own FF glass. Brilliant but makes me frustrated for the market manipulation that FF is.

Within the last five or so years, professional gear and equipment has fallen into the "consumer cycle" of almost yearly updates. In the past, a camera would last close to a decade or more. Lights- a good portion of ones career. Now companies like RED update cameras on essentially a yearly cycle. Lights are the same. People freak and wonder "where's the Fs7 replacement?" or "where's the new C300?". Even in audio. I've seen people asking for a new SD 664/688. Tomorrow I'll be covering the NFL with my seven year old 2/3" 720P P2 VariCam- and it still looks damn good. Pretty sure my shoot Tuesday will be with my original C300. And I'm hoping to get several more years, at least, out of my F55.

 

[Milan O.]

I agree with the thoughts about things being trendy, but regarding your original question Puredrifting, why not get two nice cine zooms and instead use more lighting if needed?
Even in an interview setting shooting at T1.5 will give you a too shallow depth of field, won't it? If the interviewee moves back and forth a bit (which people tend to do sometimes while talking) he or she will easily be out of focus. Also, no matter how fast your lens is, if you have to compete with daylight a fast lens won't help but lights will. You'll also spend less time changing lenses and you only have to bring two (or one if you get something like the Fujinon 19-90 or 20-120, or the Zeiss 20-100). Even if they're more heavy each, the combined weight is less and you can bring more lights.

But, if weight and size is critical on camera, then of course primes will be better. I've only tried the Sigma primes in a store. They seem well built and the image is good. The only thing I noticed is that they breathe in a "funny" way (not all of them). The breathing isn't consistent throughout the focal range but rather happens all of a sudden. If I remember correctly most of the breathing happens when focusing close to the camera. The Sigma lenses are FF but if you're only interested in S35 the Sony Cinealta lenses (SCL-PK6) are nice and affordable, but heavier.

 

[CharlesPapert]

They seem well built and the image is good. The only thing I noticed is that they breathe in a "funny" way (not all of them). The breathing isn't consistent throughout the focal range but rather happens all of a sudden. If I remember correctly most of the breathing happens when focusing close to the camera.

Breathing is probably the most significant complaint I've heard about the Sigmas. Here's my take on it:

Yes, they breathe a little. Lenses that don't are notably heavier and more expensive because their optics are more complex. That is the tradeoff.

For real world situations, breathing is generally only noticeable when the camera is static and there is a significant rack through a good portion of the range of the lens. I just shot something where the breathing showed up for the first time, racking to a tiny foreground element at minimum focus. My plan to manage it is to simply build a counter-zoom in post, a few percent of blowup. Problem solved, I think.

 

[Milan O.]

I agree Charles and they don't breathe much, I just think that the breathing is a bit odd, but as you say it will probably not be noticed in most scenarios.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

But if you're shooting by yourself, why make the c200 heavier and harder to use, while getting rid of its amazing AF?

I'm surprised how many people have bought or thought of buying the Sigma cinema lenses to put on their C200s for run n gun shooting. Like, okay, it's bigger and looks cooler, but it costs a lot more money, will make your job more difficult without auto-focus, is bigger and heavier also making your job more difficult, and has the exact same image quality as the still lenses. I feel like the market for this is new kids who just want to look cool, and people who actually use the advantages that a cinema lens has.

Bingo. This. I am mainly interested in trying them out for sheer image quality. We all know that generally cine primes will look somewhat better than zooms and at least a little better more than still zooms. I live and die by DAF, love it, it's changed my way of working but when shooting tabletop, artsy stuff with talent where I get a rehearsal and multiple chances to nail focus, why not cine primes? I shoot a lot of run & gun and MF primes aren't the right tool for most of that but I also am shooting stock footage, studio, tabletop stuff where the primes will just look plain better than my still zoom lenses. Different tools for different jobs. Who cannot be tempted by using the best lenses you can afford rather than the most convenient, at least once in a while?

Look better than still zooms lenses, I guess. But keep in mind the Sigma cinema lenses are said to have the exact same coatings and glass as the Sigma still lenses, so if you're not taking advantage of a longer focus throw, accurate feet markings, and hard stops, then you're basically wasting money over buying the still lenses. That's what makes the Sigma cinema lenses a tough sell to me; at least with the Canon's I'm told the image quality is better on the cinema lenses vs. the still lenses which helps convince me to spend big money on the cinema lenses.

 

[puredrifting]

I'm surprised how many people have bought or thought of buying the Sigma cinema lenses to put on their C200s for run n gun shooting. Like, okay, it's bigger and looks cooler, but it costs a lot more money, will make your job more difficult without auto-focus, is bigger and heavier also making your job more difficult, and has the exact same image quality as the still lenses. I feel like the market for this is new kids who just want to look cool, and people who actually use the advantages that a cinema lens has.



Look better than still zooms lenses, I guess. But keep in mind the Sigma cinema lenses are said to have the exact same coatings and glass as the Sigma still lenses, so if you're not taking advantage of a longer focus throw, accurate feet markings, and hard stops, then you're basically wasting money over buying the still lenses. That's what makes the Sigma cinema lenses a tough sell to me; at least with the Canon's I'm told the image quality is better on the cinema lenses vs. the still lenses which helps convince me to spend big money on the cinema lenses.

I'm definitely going to shoot some focus charts and faces with my Canon still zoom lenses, Canon still primes and with the Sigmas and compare the images. The proof will be in the pudding I guess. As for me buying them, that probably won't happen anyway as I am done buying expensive gear and a set of the Sigma primes isn't exactly cheap although it is compared to some of the competitors. I just thought it would be an interesting article as a lot of newer users are convinced that Cine lenses are leagues better than stills when in reality the differences may not be very great.

 

[New_Zealand]

I have the Sigma 18-35 T-2 and 50-100 T-2 and both are nice lens. I use them on the C300.

 

[puredrifting]

Follow up report bullets

1. I spent three weeks using the Sigma 14, 50 and 85mm Cine Primes in EF mount on my C200 and a few shoots with the C300 MKII. The EF mount on them was really nice, tight, not sloppy like a lot of my stills lenses. Overall, I really liked the lenses, they are mechanical works of art, coming mostly from using still lenses the past few years, only renting the occasional cine zoom for select projects.
2. I did notice the breathing. It varies from lens to lens and I noticed it the most on the 50mm T/1.5, a bit on the 85mm T/1.5. When I returned them to Sigma, they asked how I liked them and I said they were great but I did notice a decent amount of breathing. They felt that was due to the fact that many of the focal lengths in the set are direct descendants of the equivalent still lenses where breathing isn't really taken into account. Makes sense, even though they rehouse the elements into cine bodies, the elements are still designed to work in a very specific order and method and if reducing breathing was a design goal, they would probably have to reengineer the way the various elements work together optically. From my understanding, doing something like engineering a radical reduction in breathing isn't just an exercise in mechanics, it would also be part of the optical formula. That would mean re-desgining the actual optical elements, raising costs substantially. Rememember, in the world of cine lenses, these Sigmas are very low cost. I'm sure they could have reduced the breathing a lot but if the 50mm T1.5 then ended up being $7k or $8k, instead of $4k, that wouldn't work for this lineup.
3. I shot test charts, which I cannot post here as they will be in HD Video Pro but the summary is, the Sigmas look great but the differences in test charts were pretty subtle. I compared the 14mm T2.0 with my Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS, which is a pretty cheap, plastic mount lens and I have to say with the C200 and properly exposed test charts, the differences were small. The Sigma was a tiny bit sharper, definitely less distortion and the Sigma veered toward more saturated colors, especially noticeable in the green's on my X-Rite chip chart. But overall, the improvement in image quality was barely noticeable and with shooting footage of actual subjects, I don't think you'd notice a huge difference. I found the same results comparing the Sigma 50mm and 85mm with the inexpensive Canon EF 50mm f1.8 USM and 85mm f/1.8 small differences. What I did find interesting were the differences in FOV. I had the camera on a locked off/sandbagged tripod and all I would do was shoot the charts with the Sigma, then the equivalent Canon. The difference in FOV was noticeable, not sure why although I would suspect the Sigmas being more accurate and true to the marked focal length.
4. The Sigmas had much better flare characteristics. The still Canon lenses, overall, showed a bit more blooming and roughness in the flares and the bokeh was much nicer on the Sigmas.

Overall, I liked the Sigmas, would not mind owning a set. But as Eric mentioned, there are DPAF and IS advantages to using the still Canon lenses on the Canon cameras or the CN-e compact servo zooms. For my style of shooting, typically, I am better off with the still lenses or the CN-e compact servos. But if I was making a lower budget feature and had ACs, shooting cine style, I would consider the Sigmas right alongside the Canon Cine Primes, I think that's what they are competing against in their relative cost range. It would be interesting to do a shootout between the Sigmas and the Canon Cine Primes.

Overall, I am very impressed with what Sigma is doing and I think you'll continue to see cool new innovative and interesting lenses from them. Coincidentally, I was considering buying the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS II, Canon loaned us one for the shooting of our documentary and it's a great lens. But for shooting wildlife stock footage of otters, birds, deer as well as shooting SUP and windsurfers, I am probaby going to buy the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3 OIS. It seems to be a relative bargain and the extra 200mm on the long end is a zoom that Canon doesn't make that would be handy for what I am going to be shooting with it. I find Sigma to be the best and most interesting of the Japanese aftermarket lens makers.

 

[Parrot]

Follow up report bullets 1. I spent three weeks using the Sigma 14, 50 and 85mm Cine Primes in EF mount on my C200 and a few shoots with the C300 MKII. .....
Overall, I am very impressed with what Sigma is doing ......

I think that sums it up well. I've used the Sigma lenses both in Cine version and in stills version. I prefer the AF versions for Docu style work. I hear that the Sigma Cine Primes and Zooms are renting ok at the rental houses, mostly to Full Frame cameras. So it's not all new kids buying stuff for the cool factor, some people actually need a manual focus lens and these Sigma Cine lenses fill a need with their low price and some unusual focal length and T stop combinations.