Best run n gun zoom lens suggestions

I take it Mac that you don't completely disagree that at this point, given the lens situation, the AF100 is not ideal for "run and gun" (or, to eschew that term, situations where events are unplanned, develop quickly, and the shooter has only a few moments to get the shot--that doesn't quite roll off the tongue though...). And if you'll look at my complete post, you'll see that I noted the possibility for a proficient documentary operator to get the kind of amazing shots the AF100 can produce on the fly. Don't get me wrong--I sold my EX1 and Letus for the AF100 and have never regretted it--I just happen to shoot very little "run and gun."

I'm just saying that if you have, say, $10K to spend (AF100 plus a decent lens set), and shoot primarily "run and gun," that this might not be the best solution. This may not apply to the original poster, but since others use these forums for info, I think the strengths and weaknesses of the AF100 should be pointed out (I fully realize I am far from the first to point this out).

Overall, my point is that (in my opinion and experience) the AF100 with the 14-140 (the only close-to-ENG lens available at the moment) does not produce significantly better images than the HMC150, EX1/3, or HVX200, and that with that lens the selective focus capabilities are not significantly better either.
 
Mac said:
Nice: I had mine rigged with a follow focus originally, but it was such a hassle changing lenses that I gave up on it... The FF really makes things easier though - I would go back to it IF THERE WAS A DECENT ZOOM so I wouldn't have to shuffle lenses all the time.

BTW, try mounting your mic holder upside down and making a rectangular rubber spacer/gasket to position it exactly where you want, and also provide a little more isolation. That way it will fit in a case without disassembly (I hate taking things apart and putting them back together ten times a day).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip on the mic holder, I'm going to look into it.

I feel your pain regarding the lack of 5x or 6x zooms, but I think it's just part of the territory when you switch to a large sensor camera. I believe that an Angenieux Optimo or a Red/DigiOptical zoom are the only choices... neither of which I can afford or carry.

I have the Canon 6x zoom for my XLH1 HDV camera. How I wish something like it was available for the AF100 sensor.
 
No you're right, in fact much of what I've seen shot with the AF100 is significantly worse than the footage produced by those cameras. There really is an Emperor's New Clothes syndrome here and I think some are beginning to figure it out.

But it's just a matter of the tool for the job. I have an Aaton super16 camera with 5 lenses and four magazines, but unfortunately it isn't "ideal for run and gun" either, because no one will give me the budget to use it anymore. All I am saying is that the AF100 would be a much more useable camera for many purposes * other than sticking it on a tripod in a hurry-up-and-wait production * if there were well-designed dedicated lenses available.

I shoot documentaries primarily now, but I focused on cinematography in film school and shot many commercials, TV and feature second unit and rock and roll films (not "videos" then), and there are many times even when working on a story-boarded production that it is an advantage to be able to quickly change focal lengths and grab a quick shot. In fact, many of my best and most used images have been acquired that way.

I have raised eyebrows here by saying that I think panasonic did a disservice by rushing to market with this camera before filling in some of the gaps first. The biggest gap is the availability of a zoom lens designed specifically for this camera... I know "Panasonic doesn't make lenses". Well, they certainly have been able to contract to have some nice lenses available for the 100, 200, 370 etc. I don't care if the name on the barrel is Zuiko, Canon, Fujinon or Leica, the customer base just wants and needs something better than what's available now.
 
Completely agree that's it's all about the tool for the job. I'm no expert on bringing cameras to market, but I was one of the early owners and have never felt like anything was missing (not that I wouldn't welcome some new lenses)--I knew what I was getting though. I feel sorry for those who just have the 14-140. I had one from GH1 purchase a ways back and luckily sold it a month or so before they started giving them away with the camera.

I shoot a lot more than hurry-up-and-wait, some shoulder-mounted doc-style stuff, and as long as I have some time and control, I'm fine with my lenses (Nikon 17-35, Voigt 25, Panny 7-14 & 20, Nikon 50 & Zeiss Nikon-mount 85--the latter two not for handheld of course).
 
I have the older style 18-50 & 50-150 'RED' zooms, although they are branded 'DigiOptical'… I've used them both extensively on hand held / hand rigged jobs here in Toronto and recently on a shoot in Costa Rica where we did travel / lifestyle webisodes for Air Canada (shot on horseback, while zip lining, off the edge of a boat, in a tree, on the beach, etc). I think they are great lenses for this type of thing - if you are on your game with manual focus and able to judge and ride the iris in uncontrollable situations. Unfortunately this seems to be something that a lot of us have gotten lazy about, always relying on auto focus/ auto iris.

I rigged a ⅝" aluminum plate to the bottom of both my AF's that forms a solid bridge along the bottom of the camera and PL mount. This makes a great handheld rig without mattebox and rods - but when a mattebox is needed I'll put on iris rods, an O'Connor 'O'Box and use a couple of 'O'Grip handles to give me a fantastic handheld / shoulder rig.

Last week I had a chance to play with BGundu's ZFinder, and I think that may be the last piece of the hand held Verite package.

I'll post some pictures if I get a chance.
 
Red seems to be the only company that has developed cine style zoom lenses for less than $10,000.00. How much more expensive would an Olympus 12-35 and 35-100 be if they were at least parafocal? Tamron and Sigma make some parafocal low cost still zooms with constant aperture. I keep expecting to see any day a company like canon, leica, etc to announce a new cine/video lens.
 
Have you considered the Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8? I don't see it mentioned here very often but it was originally designed by Angenieux. Make sure you find the 2.6-2.8 version of the lens! On the fixed 2.8, Tokina changed the optics and they're not as good. I actually just bought one on eBay (it hasn't come in yet) but I will shoot a short with it when it comes in and post it here.
 
ericksonpost said:
Have you considered the Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8? I don't see it mentioned here very often but it was originally designed by Angenieux. Make sure you find the 2.6-2.8 version of the lens! On the fixed 2.8, Tokina changed the optics and they're not as good. I actually just bought one on eBay (it hasn't come in yet) but I will shoot a short with it when it comes in and post it here.
Click to expand...
I have the tokina 28-80 2.8. It's pretty good it's just a little soft wide open. My friend has the 2.6-2.8 28-70. We did a side by side and we could see no difference in the image. I've read that about the angenieux design as well. It's a good lens and I'm sure it probably has better optics and or design than mine. They are both parfocal and the nose doesn't extend while zooming making it a pretty good medium range zoom. The only issue I have when using it other than not being able to shoot wide open is that the 28 end always just doesn't seem wide enough and when I go tight I always want a bit more than 80 can give me. I just wish I could use my old angenieux 12-120 2.2 that I have sitting around. That would solve a lot of my problems.
 
Currently the Nikon 17-55 is the best all around affordable alternative... unfortunately for those of us that have been using every other manufacturer's lenses for 40 years, the focusing direction is a huge problem when working fast (like that old "run and gun" thing we're talking about here). Barry recommended a gear on a follow focus, and that is a solution, I think Duclos or someone offers it.. However, as I stated above, using a follow focus really slows down changing lenses, and as good as the 17-55 may be it doesn't cover all needs.

The Red lenses are interesting, but have been criticized for the build quality - I don't know this for a fact from experience, just read it somewhere in this forum. In any case, the focal range isn't great. The 14-56 Zuiko that I'm currently using is manageable, as long as I don't have to follow stop. If I anticipate having to do that, I put on the Canon FD 20 or the Leica 28.

This is what I meant by gaps in the marketing logic. We have a camera that is capable of a lot - but it's versatility depends on specific accessories, either from Panasonic or from the after-market. And although the AF100 market may be relatively small, I would think that a well designed FT or MFT mount f2.8 5:1 parfocal zoom lens would find its way onto many other cameras as well.
 
Mac said:
I would think that a well designed FT or MFT mount f2.8 5:1 parfocal zoom lens would find its way onto many other cameras as well.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll raise the ante on that just a bit -- the lens that I think would sell like hotcakes would be a 16-80mm (or 6:1, 15-90mm) parfocal, constant T2.8 zoom with a front element that doesn't extend or rotate during focusing, a zoom servo with a rocker and handgrip like an ENG lens, with an option to plug in a simple remote zoom controller like the VariZooms, and a clickless manual aperture ring.

Nice enhancements (but not essential) would be the ability to take servo zoom power through the M43 mount, auto-iris that would work with the M43 contacts to communicate with the camera, and a stop-start button on the lens grip. These features might not be consistent with offering it in a variety of mount types, though, so I could understand if it wasn't possible.

I'd even accept a manual zoom version as long as some kind of remote controlled zoom motor was available as an option to bolt on the side.

Can this be done for $5,000 or less? I have to believe so. The Canon 9-118mm f/1.7 lens for 2/3" tubes on the first Ikegami I owned cost about $2000 back in 1982. Slap a 2X extender on that design and you would have an 18-236mm f/3.4 that would cover 4/3 -- almost there. Trim off the long end by half, make the aperture half a stop bigger, substitute some plastics and modern manufacturing techniques ... the result might not take top honors for absolute sharpness or mil-spec ruggedness, but it would be a very practical lens for a lot of applications on many of these large-sensor cameras.

Who can do this? Canon, Fuji, Tamron, Angenieux all have the capability and experience with related products. I exclude Zeiss and Cooke because they tend to have very high-cost manufacturing processes, but maybe one of them could surprise us also.

Is anybody listening who can actually do something to make this happen?

- Greg
 
Greg Smith said:
Well, I'll raise the ante on that just a bit -- the lens that I think would sell like hotcakes would be a 16-80mm (or 6:1, 15-90mm) parfocal, constant T2.8 zoom with a front element that doesn't extend or rotate during focusing, a zoom servo with a rocker and handgrip like an ENG lens, with an option to plug in a simple remote zoom controller like the VariZooms, and a clickless manual aperture ring.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lot of us (myself included) couldn't care less about a 'powered zoom' with handgrip - it just doesn't fit my style of shooting. Therein lies the problem: this is a very tiny and fractured community of pro / semi-pro DP's & Camera people who all have different needs. Motion is just a fraction of the market that stills occupies, hence the high costs of bringing such low volume products to market…

When I hear people ask for a lens spec (not this poster I'm quoting) and then they say it has to be under $1k or $2k I know that they aren't really using their equipment to make money...
 
heavyG said:
I'm sure a lot of us (myself included) couldn't care less about a 'powered zoom' with handgrip - it just doesn't fit my style of shooting. Therein lies the problem: this is a very tiny and fractured community of pro / semi-pro DP's & Camera people who all have different needs. Motion is just a fraction of the market that stills occupies, hence the high costs of bringing such low volume products to market…

When I hear people ask for a lens spec (not this poster I'm quoting) and then they say it has to be under $1k or $2k I know that they aren't really using their equipment to make money...
Click to expand...

Is it really a tiny community though? I don't know, it seems like everyone these days is trying to get into doing 'motion picture' type work. I agree somewhat that motion isn't as big as stills, but it
seems to be a pretty good sized market. Of course, I'm only going off what I hear, and 'big' is a very relative term, especially to me, as I grew up in a town of 90 people on an island in the middle
of nowhere in Alaska.
 
Yes please

Greg Smith said:
Well, I'll raise the ante on that just a bit -- the lens that I think would sell like hotcakes would be a 16-80mm (or 6:1, 15-90mm) parfocal, constant T2.8 zoom with a front element that doesn't extend or rotate during focusing, a zoom servo with a rocker and handgrip like an ENG lens, with an option to plug in a simple remote zoom controller like the VariZooms, and a clickless manual aperture ring.

Nice enhancements (but not essential) would be the ability to take servo zoom power through the M43 mount, auto-iris that would work with the M43 contacts to communicate with the camera, and a stop-start button on the lens grip. These features might not be consistent with offering it in a variety of mount types, though, so I could understand if it wasn't possible.

I'd even accept a manual zoom version as long as some kind of remote controlled zoom motor was available as an option to bolt on the side.

Can this be done for $5,000 or less? I have to believe so. The Canon 9-118mm f/1.7 lens for 2/3" tubes on the first Ikegami I owned cost about $2000 back in 1982. Slap a 2X extender on that design and you would have an 18-236mm f/3.4 that would cover 4/3 -- almost there. Trim off the long end by half, make the aperture half a stop bigger, substitute some plastics and modern manufacturing techniques ... the result might not take top honors for absolute sharpness or mil-spec ruggedness, but it would be a very practical lens for a lot of applications on many of these large-sensor cameras.

Who can do this? Canon, Fuji, Tamron, Angenieux all have the capability and experience with related products. I exclude Zeiss and Cooke because they tend to have very high-cost manufacturing processes, but maybe one of them could surprise us also.

Is anybody listening who can actually do something to make this happen?

- Greg
Click to expand...
 
Mac said:
Although I've posted an older picture elsewhere, this was taken during a shoot last week after replacing the Cineroid with the Z-Finder. As you can see, it is a nicely compact camera perfect for most documentary situations.. It would be only slightly larger with a decent f2.8 5:1 zoom.
Click to expand...

Sorry to derail for a second but what wind blimp os that on your mic.
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
Agreed. It's my favorite wide lens, period.
Click to expand...

Hey Jarek: I know we're both fans of the 17-55 Nikkor. Question: does the Tokina 11-16mm (NIKON version) focus in the same direction as a Nikon?

I think it's funny: so many folks say that they can't swap their brain to use a follow focus with a Nikon lens. Well, I came to this party pretty late, and have ONLY used Nikon glass. In fact, I think that using a FF with a Nikon lens is intuitive: roll the FF away from you to focus farther away, and back to camera to focus closer.
 
Does Able Cine Tech rent out their 2/3" inch adaptor (you'd need the power adaptor and 2/3" HD lens)? It's a little long for my taste, but is probably the best solution for real run and gun. Personally I've been using two cameras; the AF 100 and the HVX 200. AF100 for interviews and HVX 200 for the run and gun stuff. Use my NEXTO to download and combine master media. Works for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top