GH5 Big Glass vs Small Glass

dang, I should have kept my test clips! Recently, while planning a shoot and which lens to use, I put my Rokinon CineDS against my Sigma 18-35, same settings, same mm, just to note the differences. After pulling the footage up, it was obvious right off the bat, the Sigma had a pinch more contrast and a pinch more sharpness, so the dark in the contrast lead to a PINCH richer/deeper color. And bokeh looked a little different. They were different.

THAT SAID, a couple quick tweaks with COLOR and I got them to match right up visually and on the scopes. They had personality, but not enough to make a difference when corrected and graded.
When NOT comparing side by side, they both looked and work just fine. Comparing side by side (like big TVs in a store) the sharper, more colorful one LOOKED better.
 
wwjd said:
dang, I should have kept my test clips! Recently, while planning a shoot and which lens to use, I put my Rokinon CineDS against my Sigma 18-35, same settings, same mm, just to note the differences. After pulling the footage up, it was obvious right off the bat, the Sigma had a pinch more contrast and a pinch more sharpness, so the dark in the contrast lead to a PINCH richer/deeper color. And bokeh looked a little different. They were different.

THAT SAID, a couple quick tweaks with COLOR and I got them to match right up visually and on the scopes. They had personality, but not enough to make a difference when corrected and graded.
When NOT comparing side by side, they both looked and work just fine. Comparing side by side (like big TVs in a store) the sharper, more colorful one LOOKED better.
Click to expand...

Did you test wide open? I have the Rokinons Cines (not DS) and the Sigma is MUCH sharper wide open. I'm not a stickler for lenses being perfectly sharp wide open - I actually like a little creaminess - but I've found the 35mm unusable at 4K until about f/2.8. The 85mm is a bit better, but really I wouldn't want to use it faster than f/2.8. I'm curious if the DS versions are that much better.
 
joe12south said:
Did you test wide open? I have the Rokinons Cines (not DS) and the Sigma is MUCH sharper wide open. I'm not a stickler for lenses being perfectly sharp wide open - I actually like a little creaminess - but I've found the 35mm unusable at 4K until about f/2.8. The 85mm is a bit better, but really I wouldn't want to use it faster than f/2.8. I'm curious if the DS versions are that much better.
Click to expand...

They are not. You have to move up to the Xeens to see better wide open performance. The only other option for Rokinon are their special f1.2 lenses designed specially for m43 size sensors. The MFT is much better on those lenses for the smaller sensors and they look much better wide open. They are of course limited to the m43 mount which is probably why they haven’t sold very well. They can’t use a focal reducer to turn a f1.4 into a f1.0 but since they are f1.2 and look much better wide open I think they are a better option for those that want to stick with m43. I bet those would look great on the Pocket 4k.
 
Joe, yes wide open and the DS was not as sharp, agreed. DS def do better dialed down a bit. I don't think the DS are any different than their older ones... different coatings maybe? But those heavy Sigmas don't work on my gimble :D
 
Thomas Smet said:
They are not. You have to move up to the Xeens to see better wide open performance. The only other option for Rokinon are their special f1.2 lenses designed specially for m43 size sensors. The MFT is much better on those lenses for the smaller sensors and they look much better wide open. They are of course limited to the m43 mount which is probably why they haven’t sold very well. They can’t use a focal reducer to turn a f1.4 into a f1.0 but since they are f1.2 and look much better wide open I think they are a better option for those that want to stick with m43. I bet those would look great on the Pocket 4k.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, those are even less cinema-style shooting friendly than the modified "cine" line.

I keep meaning to rent a Xeen to see if they are actually are sharper wide open, but have yet to get around to it. I would appreciate the longer focus throw, but they are so much more expensive - I just couldn't justify it unless the PQ was notably better.
 
joe12south said:
Unfortunately, those are even less cinema-style shooting friendly than the modified "cine" line.

I keep meaning to rent a Xeen to see if they are actually are sharper wide open, but have yet to get around to it. I would appreciate the longer focus throw, but they are so much more expensive - I just couldn't justify it unless the PQ was notably better.
Click to expand...

Is there such a thing as notably better anymore? All of this is subtle differences at best.
 
joe12south said:
Unfortunately, those are even less cinema-style shooting friendly than the modified "cine" line.

I keep meaning to rent a Xeen to see if they are actually are sharper wide open, but have yet to get around to it. I would appreciate the longer focus throw, but they are so much more expensive - I just couldn't justify it unless the PQ was notably better.
Click to expand...

There is a cine t1.3 version of the m43 Mount 50mm lens. A bit faster than the t1.5 cine DSLR lens and a bit better wider open due to its APS-C based design vs FF design. Have not used one personally but I do use the Rokinon t2.2 12mm that is also a APS-C based design and it works pretty good wide open. Not as good as native m43 glass but part of that is due to the lack of electronic correction in camera.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Is there such a thing as notably better anymore? All of this is subtle differences at best.
Click to expand...

I watched a video or two of comparing the Rokinon Cine to the Xeen ones, and they looked SO CLOSE. Depending on one's need and usage, one could say one or the other was "better". Size, weight, build and focus throw on the Xeen are true cine like, of course, but the focus throw on the DS are way longer than regular old dslr lenses. Just looking at the Xeen, you'd think it was the exact same size glass, maybe THE SAME glass in both lines.
 
wwjd said:
I watched a video or two of comparing the Rokinon Cine to the Xeen ones, and they looked SO CLOSE. Depending on one's need and usage, one could say one or the other was "better". Size, weight, build and focus throw on the Xeen are true cine like, of course, but the focus throw on the DS are way longer than regular old dslr lenses. Just looking at the Xeen, you'd think it was the exact same size glass, maybe THE SAME glass in both lines.
Click to expand...

Weird, this video appeared on my home page on Youtube today, XEEN VS Rokinon $800 Lens VS $2,500 Lens! But videos and articles like this are all over the place. To those who are undecided, just google it!
 
Come on fellas - enough talk already. Post some pictures and show me this ‘ big’ look ( I’m now paranoid the images I’ve shot on my native M43 glass could be too small.....)
 
wwjd said:
here ya go


View attachment 133493
Click to expand...

That's really great. Not only does the image taken with the Rokinon look bigger than the one with M43 lens but the image taken with the M43 lens looks smaller than the one taken with the Rokinon. Case closed as far as I'm concerned and I'm just going to be using big glass from now on to ensure my images not only look bigger but are at the same time actually bigger!
 
hahahhaahaha I hope to HECK, everyone knows it was a joke. Let's have fun in life. :)

I do have that native 12-35 m43 lens, and the rok cine ds "full-frame format" lens, should I do a side by side video test? (I never take stills, not sure I could do a stills test any justice)
 
There is one big elephant that no one has mentioned... Increased flare causing lower contrast. Since the full frame lens projects a full frame sized circle, there is a lot of spill onto the sides of everything behind the lens mount. We've noted several times that you can get better results by flocking the inside of the adapter that you are using. Part of this goes away if you are using a focal reducer of some kind, but there are still minor issues with them as well. Any straight through adapter needs to be designed with proper light baffles or it needs to be flocked (prefer both when possible). Proper light baffles are not just a block cut to the size needed for the imager, there is a design that keeps the reflections to a minimum while absorbing those reflections.

And flocking goes both ways, that nice chrome plated lens mount will reflect a lot of light, the light that bounces off the imager, then hits the lens mount, and then comes back to the imager (over and over).

So make sure you flock it! The stuff is cheap and you can buy it from telescope manufacturing places online. Yes people are really grinding their own lenses for telescopes and building everything.
 
Greg_E said:
There is one big elephant that no one has mentioned... Increased flare causing lower contrast. Since the full frame lens projects a full frame sized circle, there is a lot of spill onto the sides of everything behind the lens mount. We've noted several times that you can get better results by flocking the inside of the adapter that you are using. Part of this goes away if you are using a focal reducer of some kind, but there are still minor issues with them as well. Any straight through adapter needs to be designed with proper light baffles or it needs to be flocked (prefer both when possible). Proper light baffles are not just a block cut to the size needed for the imager, there is a design that keeps the reflections to a minimum while absorbing those reflections.

And flocking goes both ways, that nice chrome plated lens mount will reflect a lot of light, the light that bounces off the imager, then hits the lens mount, and then comes back to the imager (over and over).

So make sure you flock it! The stuff is cheap and you can buy it from telescope manufacturing places online. Yes people are really grinding their own lenses for telescopes and building everything.
Click to expand...

What the flock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top