Let's talk glass: Lenses for the AF100!

You are paying $300 for 20 cm. A pretty expensive ride ( a bus ticket will take you a long way for this kind of money)
;)
But, if you intend to film flowers, snails or a love story between a frog prince and ... whatever, the macro is your ticket.

Do you really want a good lens? Pentax 50mm f 1.4: superb! Both the M42 and the K mount are brilliant lenses in their own way. And much cheaper, unless you want a kit of Zeiss only...
 
JesterJJZ said:
Right, makes the Cinevate lenses cheaper for us in the US. So which one would you get for an all around workhorse 50mm?
Click to expand...

I will shoot with this camera mostly in the studio so the diff between *T2 & *T1.4 is negligible (plus any on location work we have a truck full of lights). Also my clients aren't clamouring for the hyper shallow depth of field, they want something that looks like the 35mm they are used to without paying for an Arri & Film & process & transfer. (academy 35mm not still camera 35mm).

G.
 
Multi-Media said:
The question is... how would it work with the larger sensor of the AF100? So, for an extra $2 - $3 K, you could have it all... right?
Click to expand...
It wouldn't. It would only project a tiny circle on the huge AF100 frame. The AF100 sensor is about 16x as large as the HPX300's frame, and the lens you're talking about only projects an image big enough to cover that 1/3" frame.
 
JesterJJZ said:
Why is the slower one more expensive? Which one is "better"? Does the Macro Planar just allow me to focus closer?
Click to expand...
I've got the 50/1.4. I wish I would have spent for the Macro, but I didn't.

Yes the 1.4 is faster, but just looking at the two, you can tell the 2.0/Macro is a higher quality piece of gear. All the ZFs exude a rich feeling of quality, but the 50/1.4 is the least of them (which is also why it's the least expensive). I asked Duclos this same question, because they sell and cine-ize both, and he put my mind more at ease. I was asking because the chromatic aberrations are pretty severe on the 50/1.4 when wide open, and I asked if the Macro wasn't the better lens, and he said yeah, it is, but ... keep in mind that by the time you stop the 50/1.4 down to f/2.0, much of the chromatic aberration cleans up ... and then you're at 2.0, which is how fast the Macro goes anyway. So ... at least with the 1.4, you have the option of opening up that additional stop, which you can't do with the macro.

So I kept the 1.4. It's fine, and I do like the ability to go to 1.4. But I still think the 2.0 is the better lens...
 
Barry_Green said:
I've got the 50/1.4. I wish I would have spent for the Macro, but I didn't.

Yes the 1.4 is faster, but just looking at the two, you can tell the 2.0/Macro is a higher quality piece of gear. All the ZFs exude a rich feeling of quality, but the 50/1.4 is the least of them (which is also why it's the least expensive). I asked Duclos this same question, because they sell and cine-ize both, and he put my mind more at ease. I was asking because the chromatic aberrations are pretty severe on the 50/1.4 when wide open, and I asked if the Macro wasn't the better lens, and he said yeah, it is, but ... keep in mind that by the time you stop the 50/1.4 down to f/2.0, much of the chromatic aberration cleans up ... and then you're at 2.0, which is how fast the Macro goes anyway. So ... at least with the 1.4, you have the option of opening up that additional stop, which you can't do with the macro.

So I kept the 1.4. It's fine, and I do like the ability to go to 1.4. But I still think the 2.0 is the better lens...
Click to expand...

That's what I was looking for! Thanks!
 
Barry_Green said:
I've got the 50/1.4. I wish I would have spent for the Macro, but I didn't.

Yes the 1.4 is faster, but just looking at the two, you can tell the 2.0/Macro is a higher quality piece of gear. All the ZFs exude a rich feeling of quality, but the 50/1.4 is the least of them (which is also why it's the least expensive). I asked Duclos this same question, because they sell and cine-ize both, and he put my mind more at ease. I was asking because the chromatic aberrations are pretty severe on the 50/1.4 when wide open, and I asked if the Macro wasn't the better lens, and he said yeah, it is, but ... keep in mind that by the time you stop the 50/1.4 down to f/2.0, much of the chromatic aberration cleans up ... and then you're at 2.0, which is how fast the Macro goes anyway. So ... at least with the 1.4, you have the option of opening up that additional stop, which you can't do with the macro.

So I kept the 1.4. It's fine, and I do like the ability to go to 1.4. But I still think the 2.0 is the better lens...
Click to expand...


I think you're right, Barry, about the 2.0 being the "better" lens. But from what I've seen, for video use, that difference just isn't translated into the final image.

I'd suggest going with the f1.4 50mm, and if someone wants macro, the Zeiss 100mm.
 
Barry,
Have you heard more about the Nikon to M4/3 adapter that has electric control of lens aperture?

Papa,
Yes, that is it.
 
DigiOptical zooms

DigiOptical zooms

I keep coming back to this DigiOptical, which seems to be a clone or manufacturer surplus of the early Red 18-50.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/665589-REG/DigiOptical_DO_18_50M_DO1850M_18_50mm_T3_PL.html

It was suggested earlier in this thread that this lens is, in fact, a repurposed Sigma lens with so-so quality in the optics.

The discussion then veered away from the DigiOpticals. Does any one have more information on these?

They seem to fit the bill for an all-around zoom, albeit without auto-focus.
 
Well, if they are anything like the red 18-50, its not a true zoom (doesnt hold focus while zooming-in/out), it has the illusion of a long focus scale but really its quite short (look at the marks in the 5-10' range or lack there of), it breaths a ton while focusing, and the mechanics are pretty shotty at best.

So even if its AS good as the RED branded lens, all your really getting is a cheap variable prime lens with a PL mount. Id say your money would be better spent on either a nice fast photo zoom lens, or something like a cooke 20-100mm if your looking for a cheap pl zoom.
 
Stephen Mick said:
I think you're right, Barry, about the 2.0 being the "better" lens. But from what I've seen, for video use, that difference just isn't translated into the final image.
Click to expand...
On a DSLR-type camera, it definitely won't be. But you will see the CA from 1.4 and 1.8.

I'd suggest going with the f1.4 50mm, and if someone wants macro, the Zeiss 100mm.
Click to expand...
That's the way I went.
 
SantaCruzMichael said:
It was suggested earlier in this thread that this lens is, in fact, a repurposed Sigma lens with so-so quality in the optics.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I don't recall there being too much complaining about the optical quality of the Red zooms. The mechanical quality, yes -- they simply weren't in the same league as professional cinema zooms (nor, it should be pointed out, were they priced in the same league as professional cinema zooms).

But optically they're pretty good.
 
Quick question: Is there a nice, cheap 50mm m4/3 lens? Something like the 20mm f1.7 pancake, but in 50mm?

I know about the Noktor 50mm f0.95, but that's $800, and seems to be backordered. Am I better off using a Nikon 50mm f1.8 for $100 plus an adapter?

Thanks in advance!
 
Here's a chart listing all the Micro Four Thirds native lenses as of right now:
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lens_chart.html

Looks like nobody's making a single-focal-length 50mm in native m43 mount, other than the Noktor. There's a Panasonic 45mm macro lens on there, but it only opens to f/2.8.

If you want something inexpensive, the Nikon or Canon would be the way to go.

*edit: well, it's all the m43 lenses except the Noktor and the new Voightlander 25mm...
 
Barry_Green said:
Here's a chart listing all the Micro Four Thirds native lenses as of right now:
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lens_chart.html

Looks like nobody's making a single-focal-length 50mm in native m43 mount, other than the Noktor. There's a Panasonic 45mm macro lens on there, but it only opens to f/2.8.

If you want something inexpensive, the Nikon or Canon would be the way to go.

*edit: well, it's all the m43 lenses except the Noktor and the new Voightlander 25mm...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the chart, Barry! Wow, they're really missing fast primes in m4/3 format, aren't they? Hopefully that will change soon. And one can certainly use Nikon lenses with an adapter, but then you don't get any of the nifty auto-focus tricks that the 20mm f1.7 can do.

Though that 50mm f0.95 Noktor sure looks tempting...
 
That chart is for photography right? When it says 35mm equivalent, you'll probably be best to keep in mind that 35mm photography is different from 35mm cinematography... as far as FoV is concerned. DoF will be the same.
 
Barry_Green said:
No. The Canon adapter is coming first, they'll worry about Nikon after they've got the Canon sorted out.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm waiting for also...
Is there a place (other than bugging you all the time) where we can keep apprised as to the current status of the Nikon adapter?
Thanks
Dale
 
The Birger Canon thread is the only place any info has been shared, and we know Birger registered and is following it, so ... I'd say post there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top