best parfocal midrange zoom under $5k

O

Orlando McNulty

Active member
I'm wondering if there is any consensus on this.
I am thinking about buying either the Nikon G series 24-70 f2.8, or possibly the RED 18-50mm, which seems to be a little bit more expensive nowadays. Not to say those are in the same class, but I am looking for something in that range, preferably a light weight cine-lens like the RED. I know the newer 17-50 runs around 6k. Are there any other parfocal zooms in this price range and class?
 
Paul Hudson said:
I have a Cooke 20-100 that I will sell for $5500.
Click to expand...

I used one of those on a short the other weekend and absolutely loved it, aside from the weight.

I am looking for something I can stay handheld with, preferably under 5 pounds or so. The RED zooms are really the only cine lenses that I have found that would work for that...
 
I found my Red 17-50 for $4500. There was just an 18-50 on reduser for $2500. if your persistent and patient, you could get one of those for under $5k.
 
My Red 17-50 is my main lens, & i use it for most projects. Nice look, easy to use, versatile. I rarely need a longer lens, just wider.

Theres one on reduser.com right now for $5k, tho i know

nothing about it or the seller.
 
It is a bit heavy, but one can do handheld. You really need rods and a
PL adapter that keeps the weight on the rails, not mount. I just add a zacuto shouder pad on the back of the rails, and use a handle out front.
 
The Tokina is also a great lens. I have one of the later ones, the SV, which is not supposed to be as good as the original 2.6-2.8 version, but I still love it. I did a series of spots last year where we shot one location with the Tokina and the other with the Red 17-50, and the edit went back and forth. The Tokina has great saturation, but can be a little soft wide open, which is not even that wide. Its also a great lens for interviews.
 
metrospace said:
The Tokina is also a great lens. I have one of the later ones, the SV, which is not supposed to be as good as the original 2.6-2.8 version, but I still love it. I did a series of spots last year where we shot one location with the Tokina and the other with the Red 17-50, and the edit went back and forth. The Tokina has great saturation, but can be a little soft wide open, which is not even that wide. Its also a great lens for interviews.
Click to expand...

Is the Tokina parfocal?
 
Not sure what sort of mount you are using, but if you are considering Canon EF options, you should know that the 24-70mm is considered parfocal (and I shoot stills with it handheld all the time).

I'm not sure if the 24-70mm L II retained that characteristic, though: they didn't publish it as a characteristic of the first one so it took testing to find out.
 
While it's not a great hand held lens, Paul does have his Cooke 20-100 up for sale.
Which in my opinion, is one of the best low cost cine lenses available bar none.
The newer Cooke 18-100 is only 2mm wider, just a smidgen faster, and at t5.6 look identical.
You would need a baseplate/rails and lens support with any full size production zoom of this size, including the Red 18-85.
And a M4/3 PL Mount adapter.

The other low cost option in cine glass would be the Red 17-50, which would make hand held work easier.
And even less money would be the Red 18-50, if you could find a good example.

Or you could take your $5K budget and purchase a set of SLR zooms and mount adapter to cover your shooting range with 3 lenses like 11-16mm, 16-50mm, 70-200mm, and then deal with any issues.

There are some really nice modern cine zooms out now, but the cost is much more than your $5K budget.

Good Luck with your search!

Dave
 
David W. Jones said:
While it's not a great hand held lens, Paul does have his Cooke 20-100 up for sale.
Which in my opinion, is one of the best low cost cine lenses available bar none.
The newer Cooke 18-100 is only 2mm wider, just a smidgen faster, and at t5.6 look identical.
You would need a baseplate/rails and lens support with any full size production zoom of this size, including the Red 18-85.
And a M4/3 PL Mount adapter.

The other low cost option in cine glass would be the Red 17-50, which would make hand held work easier.
And even less money would be the Red 18-50, if you could find a good example.

Or you could take your $5K budget and purchase a set of SLR zooms and mount adapter to cover your shooting range with 3 lenses like 11-16mm, 16-50mm, 70-200mm, and then deal with any issues.

There are some really nice modern cine zooms out now, but the cost is much more than your $5K budget.

Good Luck with your search!

Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave!

Yeah I have a baseplate, rails, and a good pl adapter. I've used the cooke a few times and would reaaaaaly love to get one. The cooke look is for me, that's for sure. soon, I hope.

I have the tokina 11-16, it's been my main lens in a lot of ways, other than my duclos'd nikkor primes.

I'm just really trying to decide whether to jump into a cine lens with the RPZ 17-50, or if I should stick with a high quality build slr lens like the nikkor 24-70.
I'm shooting/directing a number of documentary shorts over the next couple of months, and I gotta stay on the shoulder rig for a lot of it.

It's amazing that there's such a wide expansive wilderness between the red zooms and any other cine zoom like the zeiss digizooms or the cooke 15-40 Cxx... I would've thought someone would exploit that market gap... guess not though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top