Coco Bermudez
Well-known member
Are the digioptical lenses any good? They look interesting. For 6k, it might be a possibility for me.
Cine style zooms for AF100
- Thread starter DaveN
- Start date
It is not about zooming during a shot. It is about speed and convenience in conditions where changing lenses to get a different composition is impractical if not impossible. There are times that zoom will get you a shot you would otherwise miss. Not everything is planned.
For pure narrative work it may not be such an issue, but even then a good zoom can be a real time saver as you change setups. The TV series Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman was shot almost entirely with a single Arri SR super 16mm camera and one lens, an Angenieux T2.4 11.5-138mm zoom.
J Davis
Veteran
Your point is moot. What you are referring to is the use of a zoom as a variable prime. This can be done with still lenses. I do this all the time with a 17-55/2.8. Adjust the zoom instead of moving the tripod.
A zooming shot is what a still zoom cannot do. Buying a cine zoom to use as a variable prime just to save setup time is extravagant to say the least.
For M4/3, I still like the Olympus Zuiko Digital high grade and super high grade lenses. Should work electronically with the AF-100 for iris and focus if Panasonic does their homework and conforms to the standard. All you need is the M4/3 to standard 4/3 adapter.
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_slr.asp?section=lens
J Davis
Veteran
I think it would be fair to say that a HUGE majority of AF100 shooters will be shooting with still lenses. Those that shoot with cine zooms on this cam are probably shooters that already owned
the glass for arri, red or phantoms or whetever.
I feel that what I said about storyboarding around the zooming shot is very relevant to AF100 narrative shooters.
And if you are doing run & gun or docs with still lenses ... eeerrr good luck. You might be better off with an EX1
the glass for arri, red or phantoms or whetever.
I feel that what I said about storyboarding around the zooming shot is very relevant to AF100 narrative shooters.
And if you are doing run & gun or docs with still lenses ... eeerrr good luck. You might be better off with an EX1
Paul Vicente
Well-known member
I found this link from RedUser. Looks like a great rehouing of the super sharp Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 lens. Its called the Short RUBY. Take a look:
http://www.focusoptics.com/newruby.htm
It is pretty expensive though, about $12K. They might bring out the 24-70 range lens as well.
Cheers.
http://www.focusoptics.com/newruby.htm
It is pretty expensive though, about $12K. They might bring out the 24-70 range lens as well.
Cheers.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
I'm having trouble with cine-zooms. Trying to find a good range while remaining small and light. Check out the new Fujinon Aluras. Great ranges, kinda long, but not too heavy.
Must not be out yet, because for the life of me I can't find where to rent them!
Must not be out yet, because for the life of me I can't find where to rent them!
Coco Bermudez
Well-known member
So are these DigiOptical 18-50mm & 50-150mm for real? I've looked everywhere to see if there is any video of anything shot with these lenses and I can't find a thing.
Some speculate that these are the same lenses that were rebranded by RED but now that DigiOptical hasn't have a deal with RED, they might want to dump their surplus lenses for more than 50%+.
I read Barry state that "DigiOptical lenses can't really claim the precision focus markings and repeatability advantage that you'd find in, say, the Red Pro Zoom or any Cooke or Angenieux zoom. The DigiOptical lenses are kind of the "prosumer" version of a cinema lens." Have you used these Barry? If so would you compare it above say Canon L series lenses?
I do want to pull the trigger on these lenses but the fact that I can't find anything other than everyone questioning them makes me a little uncomfortable...geez,, they don't even have a website!
Some speculate that these are the same lenses that were rebranded by RED but now that DigiOptical hasn't have a deal with RED, they might want to dump their surplus lenses for more than 50%+.
I read Barry state that "DigiOptical lenses can't really claim the precision focus markings and repeatability advantage that you'd find in, say, the Red Pro Zoom or any Cooke or Angenieux zoom. The DigiOptical lenses are kind of the "prosumer" version of a cinema lens." Have you used these Barry? If so would you compare it above say Canon L series lenses?
I do want to pull the trigger on these lenses but the fact that I can't find anything other than everyone questioning them makes me a little uncomfortable...geez,, they don't even have a website!
Dino
Veteran
The Fujinon/Arri Alura 18-80 is much shorter(11") and lighter(10 lbs.) than the Fujinon 18-85, and half the price($25K). It's T2.6 vs. T2.0 for the latter. I would expect Abel Cinetech to offer them for rental since they are an Arri dealer. This could be a great lens for the AF100 and the soon to be released large sensor P2 Varicam. The Zeiss light weight zoom is lighter, but not nearly the coverage and more expensive($29K), ditto the Angenieux Rouge lenses, which would require two lenses to match the Alura coverage and $40K vs. $25K.
Barry_Green
Moderator
That's what I've read too. And they look like 'em.
Yes, and so has everyone else that used the early Red, -- meaning, if they are the rebranded Red zooms, yes we've all used them, and they're pretty much universally disliked for mechanicals. People generally say the optics are fine, the mechanicals are not up to cine standards. There are no witness marks and the focus is not precisely marked or guaranteed to hit those marks.
[quote[ If so would you compare it above say Canon L series lenses?[/quote]
Far above, yes. Because even though they're not hyper-precisely marked, they're still a darn sight better than a stills lens.
The problem with most 35mm cine zooms, as has been stated elsewhere, is that they are very heavy, especially if they are T2.8 or better. I don't know what the structural integrity of the AF100 camera body is, but if it isn't pretty robust, these things can cause a lot of stress unless coupled with a well designed support - and that is an engineering feat in itself because of the parts of the lens that need to rotate freely, like focus and zoom rings. Even a T3.5 25-250 Angenieux is a monster.
I wish there was an option to "downsize" the usable area of the chip so that super16 lenses could be used. I know many people are jumping on the DOF bandwagon and want the larger size, but super16 lenses that are T2 are available that would make up for the T4 available on the larger zooms. These super16 lenses are readily available used for decent prices, are optically excellent, lighter and faster. Barry suggested an adapter that makes them useable on the 4/3 mount, and I'm looking into it... But the obvious problem, without a downsize option, is that the image in the viewfinder would be smaller and would make it difficult to frame and focus accurately.
I wish there was an option to "downsize" the usable area of the chip so that super16 lenses could be used. I know many people are jumping on the DOF bandwagon and want the larger size, but super16 lenses that are T2 are available that would make up for the T4 available on the larger zooms. These super16 lenses are readily available used for decent prices, are optically excellent, lighter and faster. Barry suggested an adapter that makes them useable on the 4/3 mount, and I'm looking into it... But the obvious problem, without a downsize option, is that the image in the viewfinder would be smaller and would make it difficult to frame and focus accurately.
Last edited:
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Not for handholding it won't... My days of lugging around a 35C are way behind me - that's the dark ages, and this is a new century.. and, even though I'm a documentary filmmaker, the fact is that many narrative features are shot handheld as well, especially low budget independents... Hopefully a fully functional light zoom will be made for this new wave of cameras. P+S introduced a digital magazine for the SR.. Don't know how good it is, but I sure wish they made one for my Aaton.
Coco Bermudez
Well-known member
Hey Barry, do you mean the mechanics as the way the lens operates when you zoom, aperture blades etc etc or it only has to do with the lack of witness marks and focus not being precisely marked?
ALL still lenses, even if they are Zeiss lenses. Not being picky here...just picking your brain.
It seems like for the work we do (corporate, shorts and regional spots) these lenses might just do the trick. The only scary thing is that if anything were to happen to them, where the heck would I get them serviced...seems like a company that makes lenses at the edge of the world.....
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Optimo DPs at 2.8 are pretty fast.... and at 4lbs, not too shabby.
The 18-80 Alura (T/2.6?) is about 7 lbs if I remember.
Fujinon is a great zoom manufacturer, so their recent re-surge into Cinema PL mount lenses is a welcome one for me. I expect things will just keep getting better. I also am very happy they have adapted Cooke's i/technology into the lenses. Only Zeiss is the ONLY big PL cinema glass manufacturer without i/technology.... Cooke, Angenieux, Fujinon, and Red (although they are not a manufacturer imo) incorporate i/tech.
The 18-80 Alura (T/2.6?) is about 7 lbs if I remember.
Fujinon is a great zoom manufacturer, so their recent re-surge into Cinema PL mount lenses is a welcome one for me. I expect things will just keep getting better. I also am very happy they have adapted Cooke's i/technology into the lenses. Only Zeiss is the ONLY big PL cinema glass manufacturer without i/technology.... Cooke, Angenieux, Fujinon, and Red (although they are not a manufacturer imo) incorporate i/tech.
Last edited: