new Sigma Cine "Classic"

[JPNola]

Following on the heels of other lens makers, Sigma announced a "vintage-look" line of cine lenses that Sigma claims are not just the existing Sigma Cine lenses with lens coating removed but a distinct from-the-ground-up design, a claim I am skeptical of.

Note that the "Classics" are slower than the Sigma Cine line ( the "standard" primes ). I wonder if they plan to offer the Sigma Cine zooms in a "Classic" version as well.


https://www.dpreview.com/news/7023894073/sigma-to-create-classic-range-of-cine-art-primes






from a commenter on DPreview:

"the word 'Classic' engraved on the side of each Classic Art Prime lens is painted in yellow using the ancestral (16th century) technique of the Aizu lacquer.

Remember that the Sigma factory is located in Aizu."

 

[Run&Gun]

I saw this the other day, as well. As an owner/operator, and I consider the Sigma's good owner/operator lenses-like the CN-E's I own, I don't wan't "soft" "one-trick-pony" lenses like these and others that have been released, lately. Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of the soft, halated, milky look. It can serve a purpose, but generally, not a fan. I want sharp, crisp, clean lenses. And if need be, filtration can be used to "mess them up" or do it in post. Eventually, this soft, milky, flair-y "look" will become passé. To me, lenses like these are rental items, not because of the cost, but because how often are you going to want to shoot with glass like this?

JP, I'm also very skeptical that these are "ground up" designs. My understanding was that they are the same lenses, just with selective coatings removed from certain elements. They are the same 'F Stop', but the 'T Stop' is slower, because of the difference in(lack of) coatings. Which just goes to show you how important modern coating are. They make almost a stop and a half difference, in this case on most of the lenses.

BUT I have read that supposedly Sigma is working on a set of "designed completely from the ground up" cine lenses. But it's all just rumor, as far as I know.

That being said, the current Sigma Cine "super speeds" are really nice lenses. I'm still on the fence about their 105 T1.5. I demoed it and really really liked it, but I don't like that I'm stuck with either EF or PL(can't swap to/from PL to/from any other mount. EF to E and vice-versa is allowed). And I don't like the front diameter being 95mm instead of 114mm like so many other lenses, including all of my Canon cine stuff.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I saw this the other day, as well. As an owner/operator, and I consider the Sigma's good owner/operator lenses-like the CN-E's I own, I don't wan't "soft" "one-trick-pony" lenses like these and others that have been released, lately. Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of the soft, halated, milky look. It can serve a purpose, but generally, not a fan. I want sharp, crisp, clean lenses. And if need be, filtration can be used to "mess them up" or do it in post. Eventually, this soft, milky, flair-y "look" will become passé. To me, lenses like these are rental items, not because of the cost, but because how often are you going to want to shoot with glass like this?

I'm with you 100%. I look at lenses as a long term investment that can carry me through all kinds of shooting scenarios and this year's trends. I have commercial clients who have specifically asked/told me that they want a clean look, having obviously been bit by a previous DP selling them on a vintage lens that didn't give them the look or options in post to alter the look that they expected.

I own the Sigma primes and think they are great bang for the buck, and yes I too knock them back with diffusion as needed (including selective diffusion in post). And yes I too would rent specialty lenses if I truly needed the vintage look.

The market is currently clamoring for this look, the manufacturers are responding, and everyone is happy...until five years from now when the trend has moved on and the value drops on vintage look lenses.

 

[puredrifting]

The market is currently clamoring for this look, the manufacturers are responding, and everyone is happy...until five years from now when the trend has moved on and the value drops on vintage look lenses.

The way things have been the past few years, it seems that most of the fads and trends in cinematography aren't even making it to five years, more like two. I've never been a fan of the older coatings look. Those of us who have been in the business for a while can recall when we had to constantly fight against flaring, chromatic aberration and purple fringing, the result of primitive lens coatings. I have zero need to rent new or old lenses that actually degrade the image so much. With the options available in post now, it makes little sense to shoot with lenses like those.

 

[Barry1908]

Hmmm so I should keep my Zeiss and not go to old Ai-s Nikkors perhaps ! Could you give us any tips on what diffusion to look into ? I hear glimmer glass is big at the moment ..

I'm with you 100%. I look at lenses as a long term investment that can carry me through all kinds of shooting scenarios and this year's trends. I have commercial clients who have specifically asked/told me that they want a clean look, having obviously been bit by a previous DP selling them on a vintage lens that didn't give them the look or options in post to alter the look that they expected.

I own the Sigma primes and think they are great bang for the buck, and yes I too knock them back with diffusion as needed (including selective diffusion in post). And yes I too would rent specialty lenses if I truly needed the vintage look.

The market is currently clamoring for this look, the manufacturers are responding, and everyone is happy...until five years from now when the trend has moved on and the value drops on vintage look lenses.

 

[Run&Gun]

I'm with you 100%. I look at lenses as a long term investment that can carry me through all kinds of shooting scenarios and this year's trends. I have commercial clients who have specifically asked/told me that they want a clean look, having obviously been bit by a previous DP selling them on a vintage lens that didn't give them the look or options in post to alter the look that they expected.

I own the Sigma primes and think they are great bang for the buck, and yes I too knock them back with diffusion as needed (including selective diffusion in post). And yes I too would rent specialty lenses if I truly needed the vintage look.

The market is currently clamoring for this look, the manufacturers are responding, and everyone is happy...until five years from now when the trend has moved on and the value drops on vintage look lenses.

That was exactly where I was going with that. People are willing to pay extra for these types of lenses right now(look at the Tokina Vista's that have received this treatment, for example), but in a few years they'll be worth less/be in much less demand than the clean versions.

I love the look of my Canon's, but if I was buying from scratch today, it would be a tough call between them and the Sigma's. I actually think the Sigma's are very similar to the Canon's look. When I demoed the 105, it intercut with the surrounding Canon 85 & 135 pretty seamlessly(granted it wasn't a very thorough test).

 

[JPNola]

Things have gotten a bit side-tracked here with discussion of vintage vs modern that isn't actually about the Sigma Classics themselves.

Interesting to me is the fact that de-coating resulted in the Sigma Classics being slower but the Sumires are said to be the same speed as the standard CN'e's. And same for the Tokina One's- same speed as the Vistas.

 

[Guest]

The market is currently clamoring for this look, the manufacturers are responding, and everyone is happy...until five years from now when the trend has moved on and the value drops on vintage look lenses.

^this


Also, when digital cameras improve in dynamic range and can handle contrast with finesse, they’ll want to be paired with a multicoated modern lens.

 

[Guest]

Will keep an eye out for a way to demo these soon. Thanks for the head up op!


It may be worth noting that reduced coatings isn’t the same as uncoated or non-coating.

Tokina Vista special editions state they are single coated.

Canon seems to avoid the coating issue, while still capitolizing on the trend of it.

Sigma seems to be saying “reduced” according to the article you linked. Where is the image from that claims non-coating?

Like the philosophy behind the Sumire’s, but the Tokina’s seem to have more mojo when i played around with them briefly.. But the Tokinas are superb. Huge primes, and fantastic optics. The combination of good design and mojo on the Tokinas seems very rare.

The Sumire’s felt neutral to me. They may skew warm, but i haven’t tested them, just a quick demo. It is the sort of ho hum i like in a lens. Not overly hyped in any direction, but very good optics.

If i don’t get chance to get hands on with the sigma art classics, i ‘ll try to get an idea of them at IBC.

 

[Greg_E]

With a wealth of real vintage single and non coated lenses out there, is there really a market for this? On short flange cameras you could go all the way back to Canon range finder glass in Leica Screw Mount, still covers FF35 and certainly doesn't have the look of newer glass. I have a bunch of these and they definitely have a certain look, far from what you might call sterile, yet still fairly crisp. Doesn't give the the convenience of having gears and gears in the same place, etc., but probably a lot cheaper on the whole for that real vintage look (since they are real vintage lenses). And isn't this following on the heals of Cooke, didn't they bring out a set of uncoated or single coated lenses a couple of years ago?

 

[JPNola]

When I used "de-coating" I meant "de" as in down. As with "decelerate". Not as in off. I meant reduction in coating. Should have just said that.

On a related Sigma cine topic, I wonder how much the Sigma "Fully Illuminated" versions sell. I don't see them talked about much and, as with the Classic, you pay a premium over the standard version. Given that focus pullers so often use remote focus these days, it would seem illuminated lens markings are not much needed.

I applaud Sigma for making all these options available. First a "cine" version of their Art series, then an "illuminated" version of that line, and now a "vintage-look" version to boot. And the "sets" have more focal lengths than others such as the Tokina Vistas. Sigma is on a roll right now. bravo.

 

[Guest]

When I used "de-coating" I meant "de" as in down. As with "decelerate". Not as in off. I meant reduction in coating. Should have just said that.

Ah sorry about that. I was refering to the image more than what you wrote. Was curious if whoever made that image knew something we didn’t.

On a related Sigma cine topic, I wonder how much the Sigma "Fully Illuminated" versions sell. I don't see them talked about much and, as with the Classic, you pay a premium over the standard version. Given that focus pullers so often use remote focus these days, it would seem illuminated lens markings are not much needed.

I applaud Sigma for making all these options available. First a "cine" version of their Art series, then an "illuminated" version of that line, and now a "vintage-look" version to boot. And the "sets" have more focal lengths than others such as the Tokina Vistas. Sigma is on a roll right now. bravo.

+1

 

[Run&Gun]

When I used "de-coating" I meant "de" as in down. As with "decelerate". Not as in off. I meant reduction in coating. Should have just said that.

On a related Sigma cine topic, I wonder how much the Sigma "Fully Illuminated" versions sell. I don't see them talked about much and, as with the Classic, you pay a premium over the standard version. Given that focus pullers so often use remote focus these days, it would seem illuminated lens markings are not much needed.

I applaud Sigma for making all these options available. First a "cine" version of their Art series, then an "illuminated" version of that line, and now a "vintage-look" version to boot. And the "sets" have more focal lengths than others such as the Tokina Vistas. Sigma is on a roll right now. bravo.

The "fully illuminated" lenses have been available since day one with the "regular" cine lenses. I don't really get having separate "luminous" and "non-luminous" lenses. The only difference is that more of the markings and witness marks are painted with luminescent paint for better visibility in the dark/low light environments. There are some luminous markings on the "non-luminous" lenses, btw. It's just mind-blowing that they charge an extra $1,000 for fully luminous markings on a lens. Even in the context of cine lenses. My Canon CN-E's have luminous markings, at least on the AC side. Do they have artists dedicated to hand painting them and that's all they do? Even then, I can't wrap my head around it. It's akin to, actually even worse than, the whole RED mini-mag kerfuffle going on right now.

 

[JPNola]

It's akin to, actually even worse than, the whole RED mini-mag kerfuffle going on right now.

Really? While I also find the added cost a bit ridiculous, what is dishonest about charging more for an additional feature? I don't see how that is in any manner akin to misleading customers.

 

[egproductions]

I own a whole bunch of vintage cine lenses including a whole bunch of zeiss standard speeds (i havent even used them yet.) I would imagine that most people that want the vintage (pre-digital) look would prefer to use actual vintage glass. Granted vintage glass rarely covers full frame sensors. Agree or disagree?

 

[CharlesPapert]

I own a whole bunch of vintage cine lenses including a whole bunch of zeiss standard speeds (i havent even used them yet.) I would imagine that most people that want the vintage (pre-digital) look would prefer to use actual vintage glass. Granted vintage glass rarely covers full frame sensors. Agree or disagree?

If I was satisfied with the look, I would opt for modern lenses myself. Vintage lenses are often slow and difficult to work with on set, such as binding when using a clip-on, or the geared rings are in different places (I always have motors on focus and iris for primes), or telescoping elements that complicate things with matteboxes...I could go on.

I've been around long enough that I've seen lenses that were still current when I started become vintage (ouch) and the main difference is that we don't have the same kind of time on set to deal with these issues that we used to.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Whenever possible I would want modern lenses as well. Not only because of the usability aspects Charles points out, but because servicing an old lens is like servicing an old car. Things will go wrong more often because the parts are old and worn, and for many there are simply no replacement parts. I've seen damaged "donor lenses" go for ridiculous amounts of money just so they could be scavenged for parts. A busted K35 prime just sold for more than $5K. That's crazy.

 

[JPNola]

So we've come up with two reasons why these modern-vintage primes have a market:

* Little of the vintage glass covers FF.

* vintage glass isn't as durable mechanically and less can stand up to focus / iris motors.


And maybe a couple of other reasons is that when you purchase a set of vintage primes you get no warranty. And it is impossible, or near impossible, to buy a set of vintage primes that are new and without any damage or defects from use. Unwanted defects, that is.

 

[CharlesPapert]

This conversation has brought up less-than-nostalgic memories of wrestling with Superspeeds and "vintage" wireless lens controllers (I use the term ironically) on winter nights in Boston in the 90's...the inevitable "gug-gug-gug-gug-gug" as motors flew off the lens gears due to binding. One such long and painful night seen below, shlepping the beast on a New Kids on the Block video.

 

[Guest]

This conversation has brought up less-than-nostalgic memories of wrestling with Superspeeds and "vintage" wireless lens controllers (I use the term ironically) on winter nights in Boston in the 90's...the inevitable "gug-gug-gug-gug-gug" as motors flew off the lens gears due to binding. One such long and painful night seen below, shlepping the beast on a New Kids on the Block video.

View attachment 136174

Friggin insane! Those gloves are looking fancy!

I mostly op in warm weather and never used gloves, but recently got a pair. I like yours better.

Shot an interview with those guys, and i think they are the nicest people!