new Sigma Cine "Classic"

Run&Gun said:
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.
Click to expand...


And the person to operate the FIZ system? They come with it at no additional cost?
 
In a previous thread here, someone mentioned that Top Gun 2 was going to be shot on Sigma Primes.

Never heard or saw anything more about it. From the brs cockpit image, it looks like they had some stills primes, but i haven’t seen anything from the A cam setups. Assuming the production was pretty hush hush till release?

Idk, it would be pretty cool if they used Sigs for this level of production.
 
James0b57 said:
In a previous thread here, someone mentioned that Top Gun 2 was going to be shot on Sigma Primes.

Never heard or saw anything more about it. From the brs cockpit image, it looks like they had some stills primes, but i haven’t seen anything from the A cam setups. Assuming the production was pretty hush hush till release?

Idk, it would be pretty cool if they used Sigs for this level of production.
Click to expand...

The thing is, most new lenses that aren't in the discount category are good, and just about any should be able to produce a high dollar feature film in the right hands.

But as mentioned before, these single coated "vintage" style optics seem to be an odd fit. Let me ask a question of those that have done this:

What is the difference between a single coated lens, and using filters in front of a multicoated lens? In other words, what can these lenses give you that a filter (or two) can't give you? This of course assumes (a big assumption) that the optical design is the same between the two examples being tested. This may be a stretch as we think about the different optical designs from 1950 up to today. The amount of cemented groups, floating elements, rare earth formulations in the glass to change the index of refraction, etc., etc.
 
Greg_E said:
The thing is, most new lenses that aren't in the discount category are good, and just about any should be able to produce a high dollar feature film in the right hands.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Any surprise in them being used, would be more about how new the lenses are, rather than their price.


Greg_E said:
But as mentioned before, these single coated "vintage" style optics seem to be an odd fit. Let me ask a question of those that have done this:

What is the difference between a single coated lens, and using filters in front of a multicoated lens? In other words, what can these lenses give you that a filter (or two) can't give you? This of course assumes (a big assumption) that the optical design is the same between the two examples being tested. This may be a stretch as we think about the different optical designs from 1950 up to today. The amount of cemented groups, floating elements, rare earth formulations in the glass to change the index of refraction, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I was at a panel where several cinematographers talked filtration. By and large they seemed anti filtration. some of them only diffused in post, and one claimed to only used lighting. I was surprised by that. Had the panel been at Tiffen, I am sure it would have been a different panel.
Anyway, I was surprised by the lack of ubiquity of filtration.
 
Greg_E said:
What is the difference between a single coated lens, and using filters in front of a multicoated lens? In other words, what can these lenses give you that a filter (or two) can't give you?
Click to expand...

Not sure if this was a rhetorical question or not, but in my experience, when adding diffusion, you run the risk of specular highlights getting reflected or mirrored.
 
What's with the down votes in here? Is this a personal thing? I don't see the problem with the posts that I'm seeing a single down vote on, it's all pretty much a general discussion about why (or how) these "vintage" look lenses may fit a workflow. Even the side conversations do add to the discussion.

After that, it seems like no one has had their paws on these lenses to give them a try, and if that is the only point of this thread, then we might as well lock it until someone has a test or at least touches them at a show.
 
JPNola said:
And the person to operate the FIZ system? They come with it at no additional cost?
Click to expand...

Well, wouldn't that just be the same person who would've otherwise been cranking the handle or whip? (1AC/Focus Puller)

Unless you're talking about the camera-op pulling focus himself, in which case luminous markings are irrelevant because he/she will never look at them.
 
Greg_E said:
What is the difference between a single coated lens, and using filters in front of a multicoated lens? In other words, what can these lenses give you that a filter (or two) can't give you? This of course assumes (a big assumption) that the optical design is the same between the two examples being tested. This may be a stretch as we think about the different optical designs from 1950 up to today. The amount of cemented groups, floating elements, rare earth formulations in the glass to change the index of refraction, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I'd assume it is because of the coatings on the internal elements. For for your theory about adding filtration to be correct, you'd need to place a filter in front of each internal element that does not have the coating.

Unless I am misunderstanding your question?
 
Can also get that dappled or spotted bokeh with certain types of diffusion.
 
Here is a sign that maybe uncoated vintage is falling out of demand.

Alan Gordon is selling their set of 10 Zeiss standard speeds, uncoated:
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/133068090131

I am assuming it is just easier or cheaper to rent any number of available single coating modern lenses, or shoot anamorphic, or get some turbo’s lomos.

And a little off topic, but figured in case anyone read this thread and wants a Bartech and Mone moter kit for $800 in the next ten minutes...
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/283547674578
 
Last edited:
I should be at IBC. I’ll try to get hands on the Sigma Classics, and bring them to Panasonic for Mitch to try them on a Varicam or Eva.
 
James0b57 said:
Here is a sign that maybe uncoated vintage is falling out of demand.

Alan Gordon is selling their set of 10 Zeiss standard speeds, uncoated:
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/133068090131

I am assuming it is just easier or cheaper to rent any number of available single coating modern lenses, or shoot anamorphic, or get some turbo’s lomos.

And a little off topic, but figured in case anyone read this thread and wants a Bartech and Mone moter kit for $800 in the next ten minutes...
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/283547674578
Click to expand...

For whatever reasons, the Zeiss’ Standards T2.1 lenses have never caught on in the wintage lens popularity like Baltars or K35s. Maybe because they don’t have that vintage a look?their contrast was always better than the SuperSpeeds.
 
Mitch Gross said:
For whatever reasons, the Zeiss’ Standards T2.1 lenses have never caught on in the wintage lens popularity like Baltars or K35s. Maybe because they don’t have that vintage a look?their contrast was always better than the SuperSpeeds.
Click to expand...

AH, that makes sense. I've never used the Standards. Only the supers and B's and liked those, so I assumed they would be similar enough. I guess not being able to open up takes away that really vintage vibe.

The Sumire were similar in that aspect. They felt pretty normal above T2, but got a lot of character opened up. Still better performance wide open than the Supers from what I could tell.

It will be interesting to see how the Sigma Classics perform in wider apertures. Interesting their T stops are not as ambitious of numbers as others, but those f stops are still pretty crazy. Given how sharp the Cine Sigmas are wide open, I am curious how that translates with a less efficient coating.
 
Someone over on REDUser posted a test/shootout yesterday with a bunch of 'vintage' and modern lenses, including the Sumire's, regular Tokina's & Sigma's and Zeiss standard speeds, among (lots of) others. I didn't see an index as to when each lens is done, so you can skip around, but they are all fonted so you know which lens and at what aperture you're viewing at all times. I believe they are all listed in order, though, on the RED post. Grab a snack, the whole thing is over 2 hours.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?177346-The-Agony-Of-Choice-Vintage-Modern-Lens-Shootout

 
I’ll do that soon. I have a script to read, and this would be a rabbit hole. Haha.

Dvx is a quick distraction, and i can check in like instagram from anywhere. It is healthier than a smoke break. But a 2hr feast of infinite possibilities on lenses and their potential?! You already have ruined me. Haha.

Thanks for sharing.
 
I'll have to check that from home. It will be interesting to see how the Mamiya 645 lenses stack up against some of the others, I have almost a full set of those from my still camera, and they really are nice. Chucked a few in front of my XT1 to test with before I decided the moire from that camera was far to great. There are giant, but if using a little mirrorless camera, it will allow you follow focus to get out in front and not be tangled in the body's cage like I sometime have with my FD lenses.

What would be really neat would be a focal reducer for M645 down to s35 or even M43. The old M645 manual lenses are tanks and many down to f2.8 (about T 3.1).
 
Phil Holland was working on focal length reducer for medium format with Duclos, i believe.

Whitepoint Optics rehouses some classic lenses in very timeless looking design.
http://www.whitepointoptics.com

On s35, i see no advantage of the medium format lenses, but with a large format cinema camera and a focal length reducer, that could be something special.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top