VaricamLT: Lightweight zooms

M

Milan O.

Well-known member
I'm placing this thread here since I haven't found a specific place on the forum for lens discussion.

I'm considering to buy a PL-mount zoom lens and I'm interested to find out if any of you have used these lenses, what you think about them, their pros and cons, which you would prefer and why:

Angenieux EZ-2 15-40mm T2
Angenieux Optimo DP 16-42mm T2.8
Angenieux Optimo Style 16-40mm T2.8
ARRI 15.5-45mm T2.8
Canon CN-E 15.5-47mm T2.8
Zeiss LWZ2 15.5-45mm T2.6

These are all wide zoom lenses which I need most of all, but I will probably want to buy standard zooms later, so if you want to talk about them too, please do.
 
Shot with the Optimo DP, CN-E, and the LWZ2. All nice lenses. I think it's just a personal preference thing here. I don't remeber if the other two cover full frame but I'm pretty sure the Zeiss does. Also look at Tokina 16-28. Really lightweight budget option. Has some focus breathing though.

The DP is a bit older than the others but is a solid choice and matches well with other Angenieuxs. And I've seen some really good used deals for sets.

I see the Canon on all sorts of corporate shoots and it has the benefit of Duclos' interchangeable mount. I liked the CN-Es greater range.

I'm pretty sure you can change the Zeiss mount too, but it requires a bit more work. The markings on the Zeiss are great.

I've used them on different cameras in different scenarios so I can't give direct comparisons as to sharpness and color, etc. But I will say they all were nice to use and you should really try to get your hands on them before you buy.

Personally I'm more in the market for a longer focal length zoom. The Fuji 20-120 is very high on my list for the LT. But I do a lot of docu style work and the lens changes kill me.
 
If price is a factor, the Red Pro 17-50mm T2.9 V.2 is very affordable, with solid build and very little breathing. It won't have the look of an Angie, but it is very cheap at around US$4k used. I'd say they look very similar to the CNEs
 
BerkeCreative said:
Shot with the Optimo DP, CN-E, and the LWZ2. All nice lenses. I think it's just a personal preference thing here. I don't remeber if the other two cover full frame but I'm pretty sure the Zeiss does. Also look at Tokina 16-28. Really lightweight budget option. Has some focus breathing though.

The DP is a bit older than the others but is a solid choice and matches well with other Angenieuxs. And I've seen some really good used deals for sets.

I see the Canon on all sorts of corporate shoots and it has the benefit of Duclos' interchangeable mount. I liked the CN-Es greater range.

I'm pretty sure you can change the Zeiss mount too, but it requires a bit more work. The markings on the Zeiss are great.

I've used them on different cameras in different scenarios so I can't give direct comparisons as to sharpness and color, etc. But I will say they all were nice to use and you should really try to get your hands on them before you buy.

Personally I'm more in the market for a longer focal length zoom. The Fuji 20-120 is very high on my list for the LT. But I do a lot of docu style work and the lens changes kill me.
Click to expand...

Thank you! The Fujinon 20-120 seems nice but it isn't wide enough. Had it been 18-100 it would have been much better and I might have even ignored that it's "only" T3.5.
If the Zeiss LWZ2 covers full frame that is definitely something very good. I've only found one test but it seems like it doesn't breathe at all which is a big plus. I've also seen tests with the Canon 15.5-47 and it seems like a great lens.

abreu-canedo said:
If price is a factor, the Red Pro 17-50mm T2.9 V.2 is very affordable, with solid build and very little breathing. It won't have the look of an Angie, but it is very cheap at around US$4k used. I'd say they look very similar to the CNEs
Click to expand...

That focal range is great. Unfortunately I think it breathes too much and therefore I can't justify the cost of it, even though it is cheaper than the alternatives above.
 
I own the Arri Alura 15.5 - 45 and it is a fantastic lens (built by Fujinon for Arri). The Fujinons are extremely well-built, solid modern lenses. It is current vogue to discredit them and often the current Zeiss lenses as "characterless" or "clinical" because they are built to be flare resistant, sharp and contrasty. I find it a little amusing that those terms are currently considered negatives by many, but that's what happens when one follows trends I guess. I'm able to get many looks with selective diffusion and lighting style but again, it's not a popular approach. I specifically chose the Aluras over the Optimos when I purchased because I felt they were a better lens. Who knew.
 
At the 2016 NAB, the Zeiss rep was talking about the full frame and nothing but full frame. Geoff Boyle, shilling for Canon, was far less amused (Geoff also didn't like Red Vista Vision but that's an old story) by full frame.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I own the Arri Alura 15.5 - 45 and it is a fantastic lens (built by Fujinon for Arri). The Fujinons are extremely well-built, solid modern lenses. It is current vogue to discredit them and often the current Zeiss lenses as "characterless" or "clinical" because they are built to be flare resistant, sharp and contrasty. I find it a little amusing that those terms are currently considered negatives by many, but that's what happens when one follows trends I guess. I'm able to get many looks with selective diffusion and lighting style but again, it's not a popular approach. I specifically chose the Aluras over the Optimos when I purchased because I felt they were a better lens. Who knew.
Click to expand...

Thanks Charles! I don't mind them being sharp or flare resistant, on the contrary. Regarding the contrasty bit: Isn't it easy to add a bit of contrast in post? It might be a stupid question, but I've been curious about this. Is there a difference in the contrast that you get if it's done in post?
 
DLD said:
At the 2016 NAB, the Zeiss rep was talking about the full frame and nothing but full frame. Geoff Boyle, shilling for Canon, was far less amused (Geoff also didn't like Red Vista Vision but that's an old story) by full frame.
Click to expand...

For me full frame is not very important, but it's of course always better to have that option if renting it to someone or making it more future proof. I'm very happy with the S35 format and see no particular reason to go beyond, but maybe in the future I won't have the choice not to.

Mr Boyle did an interesting comparison between lenses a while back:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/04/...-lens-supertest-the-results-may-surprise-you/
 
BerkeCreative brought up the Fuji 20-120, but you said that it's not wide enough(my feeling as well). Have you considered the Canon 17-120? You are in the same ballpark as the lenses you listed, just not quite as wide(17 vs. 15-16), but more reach(91 vs. 40-47)for essentially the same aperture(T2.95 vs. T2.8). Then you have "bonus" coverage of 92mm-120mm ramping from T2.95-T3.9. Plus you also have a servo grip with servos for not only zoom, but focus and iris. It is a great lens that I feel still does not get the respect it deserves. The only real negative, in my opinion, is it's weight.
 
Thanks guys, I'm following the Behind the Lens-tests (great initiative by Abel Cine). The Canon 17-120 seems to be great in many ways, but the size and the breathing (although it isn't much) together with the price makes it less interesting. Of course it would be a great lens to own, just like the Fujinon 19-90, but not something that I can afford at the moment and they also haven't got all the qualities I'm after at the moment which are: lightweight, fast, no breathing, good image (little CA, sharp, and so on) and not too expensive.
 
puredrifting said:
Milan:

In case you missed it, Matt Porwell had pretty nice things to say about the Canon 17-120. It's probably the best all purpose lens in it's class but it is a bit of a beast if you are shooting a lot of handheld.
http://blog.abelcine.com/2017/07/12/behind-the-lens-canon-cine-servo-17-120mm/
Click to expand...

Most of the reviews you run across tend to be generally favorable, but it still seems to be sort of looked down upon by people. I was actually surprised that he brought up breathing in his review, because it's never been anything that's jumped out at me in real world conditions. Maybe part of that is my ENG background and our lenses(especially long lenses) that REALLY breath, in comparison to high-end cine glass. I like to think I can be fairly objective and call it down the middle, but I have to be honest and say that of course I'm slightly biased, because I do own one.

I guess everyone just has to sit down and evaluate and prioritize what they need, want and can afford and what faults, shortcomings or trade-offs they can live with to get the most of what they want.

17-120:VLT.jpg
My 17-120 on an LT.
 
Milan O. said:
Thanks guys, I'm following the Behind the Lens-tests (great initiative by Abel Cine). The Canon 17-120 seems to be great in many ways, but the size and the breathing (although it isn't much) together with the price makes it less interesting. Of course it would be a great lens to own, just like the Fujinon 19-90, but not something that I can afford at the moment and they also haven't got all the qualities I'm after at the moment which are: lightweight, fast, no breathing, good image (little CA, sharp, and so on) and not too expensive.
Click to expand...

True, it's not exactly inexpensive or lightweight, unfortunately, but with the exceptions of the Angenieux's, the Arri, Canon and Zeiss are within a few $K US of the 17-120. And it's as fast as the other lenses you listed, in the comparable focal ranges(".15 stops" difference using the 'precise stops' setting on the stop differential calculator I use on-line or "a smidgen" when reading out to 'one-third stops'. And 1/3 stop diff between the discontinued Zeiss) and the image quality is excellent. It's probably as sharp or sharper than you'd ever want, field illumination/edge illumination fall-off and noticeable CA are pretty much non-existent in real world conditions. I feel he may have been being slightly nit-picky, but I'd rather someone be completely 100% honest if they see something than sweeping it under the rug, and full disclosure when you're talking about glass this expensive is a plus in a review. I feel the slight warmth of Canon glass(that again, some people don't like) is a benefit and part of what helps it make people look so damn good. Honestly, the video that he shot would not make me want to buy this lens(or any of them). ALL of the "interview" set-ups on all of the lenses he has shot have sh!tty skin tones. Again, maybe this comes back to the way I've been used to shooting and STILL shoot: I lay the best looking image I can down in-camera, and so many tests I see are "too neutral", and make the cameras and lenses look unappealing.
 
I had resisted the 19-90 Cabrio for a while but once I needed it on a few jobs for the range in handheld, I started to see how well it cut against my other lenses and after talking with a few lens gurus I dumped my 18-80 Alura for the 19-90, and now a big fan--and may buy a second.

Putting warmth into skintones is easy enough in color these days, and if the footage is to be handed off with no control over post, it's easy enough to dial most cameras to a warmer color temp. I've been doing that for some 25 years (used to have a little homemade book of various strength CTO, CTB, plus and minus green to hold in front of the lens to cheat the white balance) and it always worked for me. What I like about neutral lenses vs the warmth of the Canons is that I have more options to match between zooms and primes etc. with a similar palatte.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I had resisted the 19-90 Cabrio for a while but once I needed it on a few jobs for the range in handheld, I started to see how well it cut against my other lenses and after talking with a few lens gurus I dumped my 18-80 Alura for the 19-90, and now a big fan--and may buy a second.

Putting warmth into skintones is easy enough in color these days, and if the footage is to be handed off with no control over post, it's easy enough to dial most cameras to a warmer color temp. I've been doing that for some 25 years (used to have a little homemade book of various strength CTO, CTB, plus and minus green to hold in front of the lens to cheat the white balance) and it always worked for me. What I like about neutral lenses vs the warmth of the Canons is that I have more options to match between zooms and primes etc. with a similar palatte.
Click to expand...

I guess it helps in this regard that my primes are Canon, so all of my "cine glass" from primes to zoom are CN-E series.

I should have prefaced it by saying that I don't shoot narrative. The bulk of what I do is still for network/broadcast and the versatility of the 17-120 far outweighs some of the "negatives" for my use and needs and the way I'm used to working.

Something else interesting, all three of my 2/3" ENG lenses are Fujinon HA/Premiere series. I don't really like Canons 2/3" ENG lenses. Kind of ironic, huh?
 
Run&Gun said:
I guess it helps in this regard that my primes are Canon, so all of my "cine glass" from primes to zoom are CN-E series.

I should have prefaced it by saying that I don't shoot narrative. The bulk of what I do is still for network/broadcast and the versatility of the 17-120 far outweighs some of the "negatives" for my use and needs and the way I'm used to working.

Something else interesting, all three of my 2/3" ENG lenses are Fujinon HA/Premiere series. I don't really like Canons 2/3" ENG lenses. Kind of ironic, huh?
Click to expand...


That's cool, that Canon will make sense then.

For what I shoot mostly, ramping is a real issue so I steer clear of any lens that does so.

It's been so long since I used 2/3" lenses...waaaaay back (pre-HD) I used to prefer the Canons, but Fujinon has really pushed their game over the years. Their Premier series are pretty much the gold standard optically for PL mount zooms.
 
I've made an offer for a Zeiss LWZ2 15.5-45 for 8500 GBP (approx. 11000 US dollars), it seems to be in good shape. Is it a good price or am I paying too much? (AFAIK it's a reasonable price.)

Does anyone know how the CA is on this lens?
 
I must say that I have found the two Canon Compact Cine Zooms to be very attractive and they cut together perfectly. It's all a matter of taste, but these are great glass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top