SJX
Veteran
What affordable FF glass you mean? Still lenses?
ARRI Launches ALEXA Mini LF
- Thread starter Teddy_Dem
- Start date
What affordable FF glass you mean? Still lenses?
SJX
Veteran
OK. But my point is that this is only hand held. Not stabilized it seems?
SJX
Veteran
Ok. But most of these are rehoused still lenses right? Most not PL I think? Or PL is not a thing with FF? I love my PL mount.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I believe all of those lenses are available in PL mount.
PL Mount and not rehoused: Zeiss CP.3s, Canon Sumires, Schneider Xenons, Rokinon Xeens, Angenieux EZ zooms
Rehoused and PL Mount: Sigma Cine, Tokina Vista
I'm not familiar with the Nisi primes. Are they any good?
I was just looking at the Fuji 28-100 FF zoom. Looks pretty nice and a nice zoom range. I wonder how well that would pair with Arri Signature primes.
Last edited:
Grug
Veteran
Most of Panavision's lens fleet is rehoused and repurposed glass. Leica's Thalia large-format lenses are rehoused glass, and they sell the set of those for somewhere up around $200,000. Arri Rental's DNA large format glass for the Alexa65 is all rehoused glass too, and they cost thousands of dollars to rent.
What's your point? That glass from still camera lenses isn't good enough for motion pictures? The evidence suggests otherwise. I've seen the Sigma Cines projected up against Leica's Summicron-Cs (which cost about $100,000 for a set), and at T/2 they were shocking close to each other in optical performance.
It's the economies of scale that make these lenses affordable. We should be thankful for that.
And all of the lenses I listed are available in PL mounts.
G
Guest
Guest
I think you’d be in good company. The fuji will be a little softer, and i don’t know the color shift, but both signatures and primas are really neutral lenses. They get out of the way.
One director was really turned off by the mini LF and signature prime duo. Said it just didn’t feel like anything. No grain, no character. Then i said then maybe put something interesting in front of the camera. We laughed.
For me, the signatures are useful in that what little flaws they have, they don’t visually cause alarm.
It is laughable to compare Sigmas and Signatures. Defeats the purpose of Signatures. They are meant to be the Mary Poppins, practically perfect in everyway. The Sigma Cine’s are clean and sharp, but far from perfect. It doesn’t matter how much cheaper, that is besides the point. Better to compare Sigmas with CN-E or CP.3, or even Supremes, where they share some design goals. It is nonsensical to mention Sigma and Signature in terms of dollar value. Different goals. Different results. Different looks.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Basically what I'm seeing is the Angenieux EZ lenses with FF adapter cover 22-135 while the Fujinon is 28-100, both at about T/2.8, so not terribly different coverage, but the Fuji means you don't have to keep changing lenses all the time, which is great. The Angeniuxs cost $25k and the Fuji is $38k, so the Fuji is a bit more expensive, but not terribly so. The Fuji is twice the weight, but in terms of size is not much longer than the Angies, mostly just fatter.
Weight mainly concerns me in terms of staying under 24 lbs for my Steadicam Zephyr; my 4.8 lb CN-e zooms work on the Amira on the Zephyr, typically on the edge of maxing it out, and the Amira body is about 4 lbs more than a Mini body, while the Fuji is 4 lbs heavier than the CN-e zooms, so it may pretty much even out in terms of weight, though the Mini needs more base rigging to work at all which could tip the scales to a heavier setup. Of course I could always upgrade my Steadicam, but going up just a few pounds to an Archer say costs over $10k to do so.
One of the reviews on B&H noted that from T/2-T/2.8 on the Angie, there was little change in lighting, like a quarter stop, which I noticed in my two day shoot with the Angie as well, almost like it's not really a T/2 lens, which makes me wonder if you put the adapter on if it'd then instead of becoming closer to T/2.8, could become closer to T/4 if it was never really a true T/2 lens to begin with. Perhaps in terms of depth of field it's a T/2 (or perhaps more accurately, f/1.9ish) lens, but in terms of light transmission I have doubts.
I'd suspect the Fuji is better optically, but I'd just say that because of the heftier price tag and the Fuji being Fuji's best offering in that category, while the EZ lenses are Angie's lower end offerings. It's also nice from a marketing perspective that the Fuji is Fuji's best offering in this category, as in an ideal world when marketing to the high end, you have the absolute best equipment available, and not a lens company's lower end offerings.
Fuji made it sound like they were hoping to make an LPL mount version of that lens, but what exactly is the advantage of LPL? My problem with LPL at this point is that not all other camera systems have it. Let's say I got a C500 Mark II with user changeable mounts and got PL mount, then I'd want my Fuji to be able to work with it. I don't think there's an option to currently use LPL on the C500 Mark II. Get the Fuji in PL mount and then with Arri's PL adapter you can use it on LPL and PL mount cameras. The improved versatility of PL mount on the lens seems like a win win.
All of the images I've seen online show the Sony Venice with the Fuji, and the Venice is a heftier camera than the Mini, so I'm curious how well the Fuji would work ergonomically on a camera that the lens is heavier than, particularly for shoulder work. I guess you'd just need to shift the shoulder mount plate far forward, which would just mean any buttons on the camera would be shifted back behind your ear and more difficult to easily access.
As far as the Signature primes, as an owner/op you could probably get away with owning 4-6 of them instead of a full set to save some money. I could afford one or two of them to start and then work my way over time into a more usable set. The Leitz FF primes are about two pounds heavier than the Signature primes, so if they do outperform optically, you'd have to live with that weight.
It's also interesting how with all this talk of FF lenses costing more, the Fuji 28-100 is less than half the price of its Super35 counterpart, the Fujinon 18-85mm, while also being smaller and lighter weight.
Last edited:
SJX
Veteran
My point was not that still lenses is not good enough for motion pictures. I was trying to see if my suspicion was right. That you meant cheaper rehoused lenses when you said affordable FF cinema lenses.
Panavision is not a good example. They don't only rehouse. What I heard is they basically do the engineering again, change coats etc. Very different from duclos rehousing a sigma. Some cheap still lenses are not good. I used rockinon and didn't like and Xeen is rehoused rockinon. I heard they improved coat but also heard it's not the case. I used still lenses many times for video and image is nice. Don't mean I would prefer them than cookes if I could afford cooke though.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Eric, the EZ zooms are T3 with the full frame adapter on.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
T/3 is "about T/2.8," which is what I said. I guess I'd remembered wrong of it loosing a stop with the FF adapter on, when it actually looses a smidgen more. The Fuji is T/2.9. I was suggesting though that given the EZ lens does not gain a full stop of light going from T/2.8 to T/2, that it may not actually be a T/2 lens, and therefore with the FF adapter on, it may not actually be the advertised T/3, but closer to T/4, which would make the Fuji with I'd assume accurate T/2.9 considerably better. It's kind of like, "How did Angie make a T/2 zoom that's similar price, weight, and size, to it's T/2.8 competition?" Maybe the answer is, "They didn't." I'm just looking for an explanation for why the Angie doesn't gain a full stop of light when going from T/2.8 to T/2. The Fuji at least has a hefty size and weight to get to it's T/2.9 and zoom range, so I'd be less likely to suspect it not really being T/2.9.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Right. But your are also saying the Angie set is potentially darker than rated wide open. A stop of light is a big deal in a work day. Also, the Premistas are much more composed wide open than the EZ’s. So, you may want to stop down even further on the Yeezies. If only Angenieux had an APSH version for the Yeezies.
The EZ lenses are something like a 2.5 base, and an apsh circle. When they go to s35, they are using a focal reducer, and when they are going to ff, they are using an expander. So the loss of a stop or gain, may have been in relation to the base, not s35. That is how they made a T2 s35 cheaper than their Optimos.
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I just talked to a rep at AbelCine and they said Arri is planning an EF mount for the Mini LF. Camera is pretty back-ordered until first quarter of next year. They have 200 preorders to fill now.
EF mount for the Mini LF
EF mount for the Mini LF
Doesn't the mini LF have the same front as the Mini? ARRI already has the EF mount for it and so does OptiTek...
EF mount for the Mini LF
Doesn't the mini LF have the same front as the Mini? ARRI already has the EF mount for it and so does OptiTek...
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Yeah, but the original Arri EF mount vignettes when shooting full format, so you'd be limited to shooting Super35 on the LF until they come out with an EF mount that does not vignette in FF. I read that one a forum and the Abelcine rep confirmed that.
Have you not tested your Optikek mount with the LF yet?
I'm guessing the original PL mount vignettes as well considering they have an LPL to PL adapter that comes with the Mini LF. The adapter is kind of cool, actually, as it's way quicker to install than replacing the whole lens mount.
Last edited:
I did not know that since our mount has 44mm opening and that was never an issue...
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Are you saying your mount should work without vignetting then?
Bern Caughey
Veteran
ALEXA Mini LF FAQ
”The ALEXA Mini LF has the same interface between the camera and the lens mount as the ALEXA Mini and AMIRA, so physically, all lens mounts that fit on ALEXA Mini or AMIRA will fit on ALEXA Mini LF. However, some of these lens mounts make little sense on the ALEXA Mini LF because they will show strong vignetting. We currently recommend using the following lens mounts with ALEXA Mini LF, and are actively testing the EF lens mount and the Leitz M-Mount:
The ARRI LPL lens mount (attached to the ALEXA Mini LF in the image below) is the ideal mount for all LPL lenses, and with the PL-to-LPL Adapter (in front of the camera in the image below) it can also accept all PL mount lenses, be they Super 35 or full frame. The LPL mount supports LDS-2 and /i lens metadata, and the PL-to-LPL Adapter supports LDS-1 and /i.
Please note that the Mini PL mount was designed for Super 35 only, and the combination of LPL lens mount and PL-to-LPL Adapter shows less vignetting than using the Mini PL lens mount. Therefore, we recommend against using the Mini PL lens mount on the ALEXA Mini LF.”
https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/...d-questions/alexa-mini-lf-faq#accordion-84236
”The ALEXA Mini LF has the same interface between the camera and the lens mount as the ALEXA Mini and AMIRA, so physically, all lens mounts that fit on ALEXA Mini or AMIRA will fit on ALEXA Mini LF. However, some of these lens mounts make little sense on the ALEXA Mini LF because they will show strong vignetting. We currently recommend using the following lens mounts with ALEXA Mini LF, and are actively testing the EF lens mount and the Leitz M-Mount:
The ARRI LPL lens mount (attached to the ALEXA Mini LF in the image below) is the ideal mount for all LPL lenses, and with the PL-to-LPL Adapter (in front of the camera in the image below) it can also accept all PL mount lenses, be they Super 35 or full frame. The LPL mount supports LDS-2 and /i lens metadata, and the PL-to-LPL Adapter supports LDS-1 and /i.
Please note that the Mini PL mount was designed for Super 35 only, and the combination of LPL lens mount and PL-to-LPL Adapter shows less vignetting than using the Mini PL lens mount. Therefore, we recommend against using the Mini PL lens mount on the ALEXA Mini LF.”
https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/...d-questions/alexa-mini-lf-faq#accordion-84236
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Less vignetting? Does this mean that PL-to-LPL Adapter has more vignetting than the LPL mount and therefore you'd be better off with LPL mount lenses at the cost of those lenses having less versatility with other cameras?
Also, can someone explain the importance of lens metadata and how the LPL lenses offer more in this regard? Is this something so that say an editor doing VFX work can see the focal length and aperture and use that knowledge for matching VFX shots? What other data is there aside from focal length, distance, and T-stop?