new Sigma Cine "Classic"

JPNola said:
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.
Click to expand...

*and thirdly, people like to smooth out the digital look, and few manufacturers till now made new lenses without excellent sharpness and/or contrast. Few lenses road the line between good and bad like high end vintage.

*and fourthly, film is a language, and sometimes lenses define a look or way of communicating that the viewer subconciously identifies with.
 
Last edited:
A corollary to that is how some focus motors actually destroyed the focus rings of some stills lenses when the 5DM2 first took off. Hefty motors on lightweight lenses with thin metal or even plastic innards was not a good look. The cheaper the lens the greater the damage and the less it was worth it to try to repair them. Just toss the things.
 
Yes Mitch, that was indeed the case--I was glad for the adjustable torque settings on the Preston FIZ back then. And also glad to land on Zeiss ZE's and the old Tokina zooms that had hard stops. I did have a funny time doing a music video in NYC once where I spent 15 minutes trying to convince an AC that using ZE's with the lens mapping function of the FIZ effectively turned them into CP2's--he kept saying "yes except with a short distance throw on the barrel". Lots of "let me trying explaining it this way" later, light dawned.

HEY we digress once again.
 
JPNola said:
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.
Click to expand...

That may not have been the best parallel to draw. I wasn't trying to say Sigma is doing anything dishonest. I was just trying to say it seems like a very un-proportionate amount of money vs. what you are getting(glow-in-the-dark paint), just like what a lot of people are saying about the "mark-up" on the RED mini-mags(coupled with the accusations of lying about the quality of components on top of it).
 
Run&Gun said:
That may not have been the best parallel to draw. I wasn't trying to say Sigma is doing anything dishonest. I was just trying to say it seems like a very un-proportionate amount of money vs. what you are getting(glow-in-the-dark paint), just like what a lot of people are saying about the "mark-up" on the RED mini-mags(coupled with the accusations of lying about the quality of components on top of it).
Click to expand...

No, you’re good. We understood what you meant. Not sure why jp is all about dropping a grand on extra glow in the dark paint. Especially with all the way the forum has been up about the Apple stand amd mini mags. At least you get a whole stand from apple. ;)
 
James0b57 said:
No, you’re good. We understood what you meant. Not sure why jp is all about dropping a grand on extra glow in the dark paint. Especially with all the way the forum has been up about the Apple stand amd mini mags. At least you get a whole stand from apple. ;)
Click to expand...


I mentioned that it is an option, dh.
 
Luminous markings are a pretty big deal (for me at least) with the crazy low light levels we're so frequently shooting in these days, they make a BIG difference. And not all jobs can afford to have a FIZ system on-hand.

I'm pondering moving back to primes from zooms at the moment, and the Sigmas are high on my list, so I'll have to weigh these things up.

I am going to make some local enquiries as to whether a lens tech here could simply paint the standard lenses with luminous paint for me - $1000 per lens is pretty bloody steep.

As for the "Classics", I'm really interested to see how they perform. As with most people here, I have no real desire to own a 'vintage' lens set. I prefer clean and crisp lenses that I can dirty up to taste with nets and filters. But it never hurts to have options. And if by simply swapping out the coatings Sigma can offer a "vintage" set at a nice price, that makes the look more accessible through rental companies when they do arrive.
 
Grug said:
Luminous markings are a pretty big deal (for me at least) with the crazy low light levels we're so frequently shooting in these days, they make a BIG difference. And not all jobs can afford to have a FIZ system on-hand.

I'm pondering moving back to primes from zooms at the moment, and the Sigmas are high on my list, so I'll have to weigh these things up.

I am going to make some local enquiries as to whether a lens tech here could simply paint the standard lenses with luminous paint for me - $1000 per lens is pretty bloody steep.

As for the "Classics", I'm really interested to see how they perform. As with most people here, I have no real desire to own a 'vintage' lens set. I prefer clean and crisp lenses that I can dirty up to taste with nets and filters. But it never hurts to have options. And if by simply swapping out the coatings Sigma can offer a "vintage" set at a nice price, that makes the look more accessible through rental companies when they do arrive.
Click to expand...
Have you experimented with different colors for luminous lens barrel markings?

I know in lowlight situations and when you have to keep the markings in the side of your vision while you look at the subject, there is argument for blue, in particular for the main witness mark.
 
As was pointed out, luminous lens markings aren't necessary when you have remote lens controls, which on my jobs is essentially all the time so I haven't had to think about this (and I'm not an AC, so even more so). But in thinking about it now--if you are using a hard follow focus, wouldn't there be ample space to mount a tiny LED gooseneck to illuminate the witness mark, for pocket change? We were using those before everything went FIZ at the end of the film era and they are only cheaper and better now.
 
CharlesPapert said:
As was pointed out, luminous lens markings aren't necessary when you have remote lens controls, which on my jobs is essentially all the time so I haven't had to think about this (and I'm not an AC, so even more so). But in thinking about it now--if you are using a hard follow focus, wouldn't there be ample space to mount a tiny LED gooseneck to illuminate the witness mark, for pocket change? We were using those before everything went FIZ at the end of the film era and they are only cheaper and better now.
Click to expand...


Most "premium" options on a vehicle are options that are not necessary but just something that is nice to have. Wood-trim. Sunroof. Instrument lights that are illuminated red instead of the white that comes with the standard package. Or fully luminous puddle lights that project the name of the vehicle model onto the ground when you open the door. ( see what I did there? )

Some may want the "fully luminous" just because it is "cool" or because it sets their Sigmas apart. But the option isn't without any usefulness. Yes, you can mount a lens-light. But that's one more thing to mount on the camera and one more thing mounted on the camera. The option could be useful when swapping lenses in the dark as well. You can see what lens you are grabbing without having to get out a flashlight. There is also the possibility that having the option makes your set of Sigmas more desirable as a rental. If one owner has the luminous versions and the other owner has the standards versions and both are renting for the same rate the owner of the luminous set might be the one to get the rental because his set offers more for the same rate. One owner only has the "base" model but the other owner has the "luxury" model or "upgraded" model.

Think the option silly and of little use, but no one is forcing you to buy it. When I saw how much Sigma wants for the luminous option I too found the additional cost exorbitant. But it is all relative. Even at $5K with the additional cost of the luminous option the Sigmas are still well below the price of many cinema primes. Tokina Vistas are $5k without any glow in the dark markings. Cooke mini's retail for around $7300.00, no illuminated markings, and they don't even cover FF. Beaten-up Zeiss super speeds which also do not cover FF command as much as $12,000 used.

I don't recall seeing if the Sigma "Classics" will be offered with the fully luminous option or not. ( my attempt to get this thread back on the Sigma Classics, that. )
 
JPNola said:
Most "premium" options on a vehicle are options that are not necessary but just something that is nice to have. Wood-trim. Sunroof. Instrument lights that are illuminated red instead of the white that comes with the standard package. Or fully luminous puddle lights that project the name of the vehicle model onto the ground when you open the door. ( see what I did there? )

Some may want the "fully luminous" just because it is "cool" or because it sets their Sigmas apart. But the option isn't without any usefulness. Yes, you can mount a lens-light. But that's one more thing to mount on the camera and one more thing mounted on the camera. The option could be useful when swapping lenses in the dark as well. You can see what lens you are grabbing without having to get out a flashlight. There is also the possibility that having the option makes your set of Sigmas more desirable as a rental. If one owner has the luminous versions and the other owner has the standards versions and both are renting for the same rate the owner of the luminous set might be the one to get the rental because his set offers more for the same rate. One owner only has the "base" model but the other owner has the "luxury" model or "upgraded" model.

Think the option silly and of little use, but no one is forcing you to buy it. When I saw how much Sigma wants for the luminous option I too found the additional cost exorbitant. But it is all relative. Even at $5K with the additional cost of the luminous option the Sigmas are still well below the price of many cinema primes. Tokina Vistas are $5k without any glow in the dark markings. Cooke mini's retail for around $7300.00, no illuminated markings, and they don't even cover FF. Beaten-up Zeiss super speeds which also do not cover FF command as much as $12,000 used.

I don't recall seeing if the Sigma "Classics" will be offered with the fully luminous option or not. ( my attempt to get this thread back on the Sigma Classics, that. )
Click to expand...

Now you know how it works around here. We can't allow that...
 
I keep seeing all of these lens makers releasing similar sets of prime lenses and while it's great to have more options and more competition, I'm blown away that nobody has yet made a roughly 17-50mm T3 standard zoom (or, with more and more cameras going full frame, a 24-70 T3).

Meanwhile everyone I know who owns their own gear is either using the same photo zooms they bought for their 5DmkII/7D nearly ten years ago, or cursing their 18-35 for not being just a tiny bit longer.
 
deltoidjohn said:
I keep seeing all of these lens makers releasing similar sets of prime lenses and while it's great to have more options and more competition, I'm blown away that nobody has yet made a roughly 17-50mm T3 standard zoom (or, with more and more cameras going full frame, a 24-70 T3).

Meanwhile everyone I know who owns their own gear is either using the same photo zooms they bought for their 5DmkII/7D nearly ten years ago, or cursing their 18-35 for not being just a tiny bit longer.
Click to expand...

With modern lens design and sensitive sensors, a zoom is more compelling then they’ve ever been.
 
Run&Gun said:
Now you know how it works around here. We can't allow that...
Click to expand...


I said I was wanting to get back on topic and then I made another post regarding the fully luminous debate!

Personally, with the sort of work I do, lens markings don't matter to me. Never look at them. I'm pulling focus by hand and finding focus. I'm not pulling to marks on the lens or on a follow focus or wireless focus controller. A lens could be absent any markings and it wouldn't matter to me in the type of shooting I do.

I only started this topic because someone was complaining about lack of activity here and I noticed that no one was yet discussing a newly announced line of cinema primes. I love that we are being provided so many options now for cinema lenses, even if some of the offerings seem a bit silly or overpriced for what they are. The number of new cinema-style prime lenses that have come out in the past 10 years is more than came on the market for the entire prior history of filmmaking. And speaking of filmmaking history, I recently got to use a lens that was used in making Gone With the Wind. For a cinema lens geek like me that was a bit like getting to hold the Holy Grail in hand.
 
James0b57 said:
Remote focus and goose neck led lights are cheaper than luminous paint these days.
Click to expand...

You are not wrong. If you bought the full set, that'd be an extra $10,000. Which is at least two of the "non-fully luminous primes" or would easily cover a nice FIZ system, today.
 
JPNola said:
There is also the possibility that having the option makes your set of Sigmas more desirable as a rental. If one owner has the luminous versions and the other owner has the standards versions and both are renting for the same rate the owner of the luminous set might be the one to get the rental because his set offers more for the same rate. One owner only has the "base" model but the other owner has the "luxury" model or "upgraded" model.
Click to expand...

Surely that money would be better spent on another piece of gear that could net a separate rental? I mean, in the race to the bottom anything goes, but...oy vey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top