Let's talk lenses

That GL Optics 18 - 35mm actually looks pretty nice. I see some veiling glare and the corners look softer, but it produces a pretty picture...
Looks like quite the bargain at $4000.



 
I guess you have to take into account how soon you can get the lenses paid off, at least when you spend on the good glass it's going to hold it's price and give you a lifetime of use.


Broatch Berry

Venice CA
 
Yes. I originally considered (and bought) a set of Mini S4s. I was never interested in Ultra Primes - in my opinion they are not much better than standard speeds (optically), and they are very common so no real demand for an extra set in the rental market. Masters however are beyond the means of some smaller rental houses and of course are the top dog of lenses right now, certainly as far as Zeiss goes.
 
The DSO lenses look very interesting, and can't really be measured by any conventional standards - they are FX lenses, they're hardly gunning for Cookes or Master Primes.

Everything I hear about the company and the lenses is quite positive though. They'd certainly have their uses.
 
Anybody here ever used spherical Kowa cine prominar's? How they compare to other vintage glass?
I saw a project shot on it that looked gorgeous. (Was on alexa though)
 
No never even heard of anyone using them. Most Kowas I see are the anamorphics that are fairly popular.
 
Here is the promised Alura / GL Optics comparison...

The ARRI lenses are both beautiful things - not surprising. Built by the Japanese to German specs, that's a dream combo in lens terms. Fuji have a lot of experience with zooms too, and their latest Premier line is off-the-charts good.

The GL Optics pair surprised in both good and bad ways. The 18 - 35 is a cracker, but has some odd bokeh and is very desaturated compared to the others. The Canon has colours closer to the Aluras, but has huge breathing issues.

In any case - the GL Optics certainly held their own considering the price difference.

 
The test setup...

881952_img6982.jpg
 
A friend of mine is using my Master Primes next week, he is intending to be wide open as much as possible. I shot a couple of items quickly, on the 18mm at T1.3 to see how they looked. They do bloom ever so slightly when you're absolutely wide open but hold their contrast very well - the image does not milk out.

Unfortunately the screen grab is from the F55, and F55 XAVC just isn't good to look at after F65 raw footage :(

501823_triton13.jpg
 
JMtheDP said:
The GL Optics pair surprised in both good and bad ways. The 18 - 35 is a cracker, but has some odd bokeh and is very desaturated compared to the others. The Canon has colours closer to the Aluras, but has huge breathing issues.
Click to expand...

Thanks James!

Been wanting to test the GL Optics

How are the mechanics? Heard the rings on some 18-35mm(s) are not so smooth.
 
Surprised to hear that a Canon exhibits similar color rendition to the Aluras, I have always found the Canons warmer.

Thinking about the 18mm Master Prime, that was the primary lens I used on the piece below to emulate the look of "Les Mis", around T1.8.
https://vimeo.com/75622439
 
It's not the same colour as the aluras, but it is closer than the sigma. I personally had often found sigma glass quite yellow, but this zoom doesn't seem that.
 
JMtheDP said:
The 18 - 35 is a cracker, but has some odd bokeh and is very desaturated compared to the others.]
Click to expand...

I have the G.L Optics 18-35 and I wouldn't be without it. I have noticed that my S-Log 2 images are very desaturated. I suspect that it's due to me not using a matte box or lens hood with the lens. Did you use a matte box or lens hood in your test?

Thanks
 
I did use a matte box. I think for the 18mm comparison of the alura I took the matte box away but the other focal lengths I had it on. It was definitely on for the Sigma. The lens is not very colourful.
 
No problem Jack. I don't know where you're based but I anticipate I will have the Sigma for another couple of weeks, you would be free to come and perform your own tests.
 
Thanks for the offer. I'm based in Bradford, the so called U.K 'capital of film' lol. I trust your tests, it's just the way the lens is. It's nothing that can't be fixed in post.

I own the CP.2's 25/35/50, and they are just collecting dust since I bought the GL 18-35. When you start using an f1.8 lens, it's hard to go back as it's really handy, not just for low light material, but for S&Q motion. I would say the only real draw-backs from the 18-35 is that it's heavy at 2kg and it doesn't cover full frame. Far more expensive lenses don't cover FF either, so I think the 18-35 is probably the best bang for buck zoom lens at the moment.

When I do buy another lens I'm thinking about the GL Optics Sigma 50mm f1.4. I should really sell the CP.2's, but I'd regret it in the future just because they have the Zeiss name. Thanks
 
How is the breathing on the GL Optics 18-35mm? If it's the same as the Sigma, that would be a key factor in how it compares to real cinema glass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top