Lets Talk Cine Lenses - AF100 With Cine Style Zoom - Super16?

T

TheWakePlace.com

Well-known member
Need to get my hands on a PL cine style zoom for the AF100.

Seen the Red 17-50, but seen good and bad chat about it, so not sure on this - otherwise it would be perfect!

Also looking at the Cooke 20-60 and 20-100, anyone experienced these with an AF100?

Will Super16 lenses work on the AF100 without vignetting? Especially the canon 8-64mm S16 lens?

Or does anyone have any recommendations?

Thanks in advance!
 
I have a Cooke 10.4-52 that I've owned for 30 years - I had hoped it would work - Before buying an adapter, I tested it by placing it on a sandbag and lining up the camera with black wrap, hoping the vignetting wouldn't be significant - but it exhibited a hard circle vignette - virtually unusable, unless you're willing to zoom in about 200% in post. I wasn't willing, so I gave up on the idea... I would assume that the 8-64 would be as bad or worse.

The BMDCC has a smaller chip, but even then I would think S16 lenses would be unusable. The mysterious Digital Bolex has an S16 size sensor - But who knows if that camera will actually become available.
 
Erik Naso said:
The Red 17-50 is very good especially for the price.
Click to expand...

Does it hold focus throughout the zoom, keep hearing conflicting reports. Do you have any test footage i can see? Also, highlights, how does it handle sunbursts and overexposure? Keep hearing that it is a rebodies sigma, but then that Oakley made it from scratch :)
 
It does hold focus and it should because its a cine zoom lens. :) The lens will flare outside without a matte box but most cine lenses do. haven't really stressed tested the lens but like I said I love it and won't be selling it anytime soon. It's a hard lens to find used so that should tell you something about it. It's a solid cine lens. Many people say it's a rehoused lens but no one from RED confirms this and I don't care if it is or not. It works and it works well.

Did a little blog post.
http://eriknaso.com/gear-talk/red-pro-zoom-17-50mm-the-perfect-fit-zoom-for-the-af-100-for-now-yes/

Used it here but not exclusivly. The lens isn't light so I use it when it's appropriate for me. The paint commercial was almost all 17-50 with a couple Zeiss CP2 85mm CU.

https://vimeo.com/48037474

https://vimeo.com/39509758

https://vimeo.com/37279228
 
OK, so Jim Jannard has expressed that the lens is not a rehoused lens, and does have oakley optic technology in the construction. They even showed an X-ray side by side of the Sigma/Tamaron with the Red 17-50 to show the difference between them. So i guess that takes care of that one.

What about the 18-85? As mentioned, the 17-50 is hard to find....
 
TheWakePlace.com said:
So i guess that takes care of that one.
Click to expand...

I think you may be confused with an earlier Red zoom. The 17-50 Pro is definitely a rehoused Tamron 17-50 non-VC. Get them side by side and see for yourself, it's obvious.

That's not a bad thing. Said Tamron is the best bang for the buck in an APS-C parfocal stills zoom out there, bar none. Red couldn't have made a better glass choice, in stark contrast to their earlier less than stellar zooms. They should own up to it and quit denying, they definitely added value to it with the rehousing and have nothing to be ashamed of.
 
Last edited:
nothing said:
I think you are confused with an earlier Red zoom.
Click to expand...

Can't find the post i read yesterday, bit it was a post that Jim added to quiet the discussion on if it was a rehoused lens.

I've used that Tamaron, and what i can't understand is the price increase to the Red lens, and that the Red is a sharper lens. Doesn't make sense to me in terms of them being the same. But of course, i could be mistaken with my judgement on this....
 
TheWakePlace.com said:
I've used that Tamaron, and what i can't understand is the price increase to the Red lens, and that the Red is a sharper lens. Doesn't make sense to me in terms of them being the same. But of course, i could be mistaken with my judgement on this....
Click to expand...

You can't understand how the Red is more expensive? You think they should engineer a rehousing for free? I don't understand what you are saying.

The Tamron is just as sharp, yes you are mistaken.
 
TheWakePlace.com said:
Need to get my hands on a PL cine style zoom for the AF100.

Seen the Red 17-50, but seen good and bad chat about it, so not sure on this - otherwise it would be perfect!

Also looking at the Cooke 20-60 and 20-100, anyone experienced these with an AF100?

Will Super16 lenses work on the AF100 without vignetting? Especially the canon 8-64mm S16 lens?

Or does anyone have any recommendations?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

16mm & Super 16mm lenses are a no-go with the AF100.

As far as 35mm cine zooms go, I'm guessing you are looking into lower budget zooms from your post.

I have a Cooke 20-100 which I have used with the AF100. In my opinion it is a great low cost production zoom. But be aware it is rather large and heavy, and aside from the M4/3 to PL mount lens adapter, it will likely require 19mm rods with lens support, and extended Arri style dovetail plate to balance properly on the AF100. The Red 17-50 would be a better choice for handheld work.
 
I have had the Red 17-50 for awhile now, and like it a lot. Pair it with the Duclos 11-16 and your set. Sharp, medium contrast, nice lens. And using a cine style is great for pulling focus.

I've been wanting a Cooke 20-100 for quite awhile. However, it makes for a huge rig with all that lens and all the extra rails needed. The Red 18-85 is also large. This is what keeps me from pulling the trigger on one (oh ya, theres also that money thing...)

The Red 17-50 makes for a heavy rig, but is manageable for handheld. Theres also the old Red 18-50, which I've seen sell for $2500-3000.
 
May I ask why you want a PL zoom?

In my opinion the PL mount's biggest advantage is to give you access to the huge selection of nice cine primes out there. But if you are going with a zoom, I don't believe PL is the best option at all for a camera like the AF100 and specially not if you are on a budget. The best 35mm PL zooms out there are pretty expensive. S16 will not work as already mentioned and if you are going to buy cheap, you will most likely be limited to older zooms which are slower and heavy or lower end zooms with a limited range and which still quite expensive for what they are. One thing is for sure, you do not want an older zoom. Just as of lately, as in the last 10 years or so, 35mm cine zoom have become of comparable quality with primes and even then, only in the high end. Avoid old cine zooms no matter what. They are just not worth the trouble.

Are you interested in a PL zoom because of follow focus use? If so, I would just go with a very nice stills zoom lens and have it professionally geared by a company such as Duclos.

If not that, then I would be curious to know why you would like to use such heavy and expensive lenses with an AF100. If what you want is related to quality, you will be hard pressed to see any differences with a camera such as the AF100 unless again you go with the higher end expensive zooms.

I'm a big advocate for PL lenses and have a set of CPs myself. But if what I needed was a zoom for the AF100 I would not bother with a PL zoom. Unless all your other cameras were PL mount and you were trying to get an universal mount lens set to fit all your cameras.
 
Last edited:
^^^ While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I do not agree with your thinking on the subject of cine zooms. ^^^

Like your advice of buying still lens zooms over cine zooms. And if buying a cine zoom only choose one 10 years old or newer.

For the record I do own a set of newer still lens zooms which I use according to the job at hand. But I also own a set of cine zooms, and a couple of sets of prime lenses. Each lens has it's place depending on the type of work I'm doing. And as far as older lenses go, I happen to prefer the look of older Cooke and Zeiss lenses over newer lenses like your CP.2s for example. And also for the record, I have had absolutely no troubles with any of my older lenses, including older cine zooms, which you advise to avoid because they are not worth the trouble.
 
David W. Jones said:
^^^ While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I do not agree with your thinking on the subject of cine zooms. ^^^

Like your advice of buying still lens zooms over cine zooms. And if buying a cine zoom only choose one 10 years old or newer.

For the record I do own a set of newer still lens zooms which I use according to the job at hand. But I also own a set of cine zooms, and a couple of sets of prime lenses. Each lens has it's place depending on the type of work I'm doing. And as far as older lenses go, I happen to prefer the look of older Cooke and Zeiss lenses over newer lenses like your CP.2s for example. And also for the record, I have had absolutely no troubles with any of my older lenses, including older cine zooms, which you advise to avoid because they are not worth the trouble.
Click to expand...

David, you seem to be a guy who has several lenses. This is when the look of the lens starts coming more into play than versatility. But would you advise somebody to buy an old cine zoom as his only zoom? I'm not saying this is the OP's case, but I have the impression it will be his first PL zoom.
Yes, I also like the look of some older lenses over some newer ones. This is a matter of taste, logically and if you have many to choose from, versatility becomes less of an issue. But how fast are your old zooms? How heavy? How sharp, for those who are sharpness freaks?
 
How fast? Same as most fast still zooms.

How heavy? Considerably more than a still zoom.

How sharp? Very, with a nice roll-off to out of focus areas rather than an abrupt change you see in still lenses, which a lot of people mistake for sharpness.

You have to remember, lenses like the Cooke 20-100 and 18-100 sold for more than $30K when new, were the top of the line cine zooms equal in quality to primes, and are still preferred by many DPs today.

If I'm doing what some would consider a run N gun minimal equipment spray job in a hospital, I would take a couple of still zooms for the job.

If I were shooting single cam sit-down interviews, I would likely choose a Cooke zoom.

Something else to remember, for those that actually need to zoom during a take, a real cine zoom with a fluid drive or motor is heads above a still lens on all counts.
 
Thankyou all for your input. I don't want to start people saying what is better than others for this and that, because thats the one thing i hate about forums today - too much opinion dressed up as fact.

I think everyone is right here, and there is not going to be a mega super awesome lens that is the quality of a cine zoom that weights 2lbs and is only 3inches long :) I have a whole host of still lenses, zooms and primes, but for what i now need, i think a PL zoom can help me. I love primes, and i have been quoted for "only using primes" for a lot of the commercial work. But i find work is becoming quicker nowadays, and the idea of a short zoom is very appealing.

I really do not like the idea of still lenses being used in commercial or cine applications. They were never designed to do that, and the ever so sort focus throw on them is so terribly annoying. Show me a dozen videos on vimeo that are shot on a DSLR and DO NOT have focus finding in them (you know that annoying in and out of focus effect that you see), and i'll show you 100 feature films that don't ever seek focus. My point is that the 'film look' is about a camera, the control of that, is in a lens and lighting. I don't personally feel i have the control over that focus with a still lens without seeking all the time (unless you pre mark everything on the marking ring of your FF).

I am also after PL lenses to go between a AF100, Red One and Scarlet. Hense my increased interest in what lens works nicely on the AF100.....

Thanks again for the input, let the debate continue :)
 
TheWakePlace.com said:
Thankyou all for your input. I don't want to start people saying what is better than others for this and that, because thats the one thing i hate about forums today - too much opinion dressed up as fact.

I think everyone is right here, and there is not going to be a mega super awesome lens that is the quality of a cine zoom that weights 2lbs and is only 3inches long :) I have a whole host of still lenses, zooms and primes, but for what i now need, i think a PL zoom can help me. I love primes, and i have been quoted for "only using primes" for a lot of the commercial work. But i find work is becoming quicker nowadays, and the idea of a short zoom is very appealing.

I really do not like the idea of still lenses being used in commercial or cine applications. They were never designed to do that, and the ever so sort focus throw on them is so terribly annoying. Show me a dozen videos on vimeo that are shot on a DSLR and DO NOT have focus finding in them (you know that annoying in and out of focus effect that you see), and i'll show you 100 feature films that don't ever seek focus. My point is that the 'film look' is about a camera, the control of that, is in a lens and lighting. I don't personally feel i have the control over that focus with a still lens without seeking all the time (unless you pre mark everything on the marking ring of your FF).

I am also after PL lenses to go between a AF100, Red One and Scarlet. Hense my increased interest in what lens works nicely on the AF100.....

Thanks again for the input, let the debate continue :)
Click to expand...


Oh, ok. Now you have given a bit more info. Under these circumstances, I now understand why you are after a PL zoom.
I have never used the RED zooms. I'm a prime type of shooter as much as I can these days and only currently own one zoom, which is the one that came with my EX3. But the RED zoom seems to be a good bang for your buck if you want to buy new or a more recent zoom and need lighter weight. I would still stay away from cheaper older zooms, unless you will mainly be shooting outside, don't mind the deeper dof, and like the softer look that some of them produce. But I will honestly leave the advice for people who are more into using zooms. I haven't really worked with zooms all that much for the last few years when doing production work. But yes, when the day light is going away quickly and you still have a couple of set ups to do, I do wish I had a zoom sometimes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top