Opinions/reviews on different cinema zooms on the AF100

M

metrospace

Active member
I'm looking to get a cinema zoom for my AF100, but not sure which way to go. I can't spend a whole lot of money, so a used lens would be the way to go. I'm thinking of an old Cooke 20-100mm, or a Red 18-85mm, or maybe an old Angenieux. These can be found used for $5-7K. However, they are big and heavy, so perhaps a Red 17-50mm, trading some zoom for weight. I shoot a wide variety of stuff, from spots to web promos to documentary, and do only limited handheld. However, time is always an issue, which is why I'd rather go zoom than prime, but weight and size does play into the time factor.

I'd sure appreciate any detailed opinions and reviews of experiences with these lenses (or other cinema zooms) on the AF100, including shooting workflow and the results you got from that lens. The more detailed your thoughts, the better.

Thanks!
 
Zooms are a bit of a challenge on this camera, because it's meant to be a small lightweight camera but cinema zooms are profoundly massive and ungainly. The Cooke 20-100 is a foot long and something like ten pounds. The Red 18-85 is the same size. They're just ... huge. And with that size means you need additional bulk -- you'll definitely need a PL adapter, and a rails support system, which means a baseplate, which means that the total rig is going to be in the ballpark of being as big and bulky as a Red One by the time you have it all configured.

Red 18-85 can be bought used, battle-refurbed, from the Red store for $6k. The Cooke 20-100 can be found for $5k+. It's a nice old zoom, Timur has reviewed his newer model, the 18-100. I had the 20-100. It was huge, its front element is massive and won't fit in many matteboxes, and it takes some rear-mounted filters but the actual filter tray pieces aren't usually included with the lens so you have to watch out for that. The older Angenieux lenses aren't usually well regarded, they're not all that sharp, but then again the AF100 doesn't really need the very sharpest glass in the world so ... I don't know, might be interesting to try one of the big Angie's, and they are definitely the least expensive of the bunch.

I've got a Zeiss 22-154, it's an ultra-rare cinema zoom, as I understand it there were fewer than 100 made. It has a funky 3-blade iris for a totally vintage bokeh look, and the iris can either be stepped or stepless. Haven't tested it for image quality yet, it's yet another project on my list of many things to eventually get to, sigh; but it's just as big as the Cooke and Red.

Super16 lenses don't cover the frame. Super16 lenses are a little maddening because size and weight wise they're a perfect match for the camera; I have a S16 17.5-70 lens which is just a perfect fit on the AF100, it's a true cinema zoom, it's f/2.2 so it's nearly a stop faster than the 35mm zooms of comparable focal length, it's inexpensive (got it for $800 as new old stock)... only problem is -- it doesn't cover the frame! It's kind of close, but there's a black circle around the edges that's just no good. I lobbied the major lens manufacturers at NAB to produce a lens like it but just a little more coverage; I think they would sell thousands of them if they would. Consider that Red stood the PL-mount lens world on its head with the Red One, and they sold 8,000 of those over the course of four years, and Panasonic has sold that many AF100's in four months! I think a custom-designed lens that would cover its sensor but be no bigger than necessary, and therefore priced inexpensively, would sell thousands and thousands of units. We'll see if any of the manufacturers listened...

Stills lenses are available by the truckload and a lot less expensive, but they're not really built for the job. I haven't found a satisfactory stills zoom yet.

The cheapest semi-cine-zoom, which probably makes the most sense, would be a used Red 18-50 or the DigiOptical version (available new for $3999). 18-50 is a pretty decent range for an AF100, it's about equivalent to a 22-70 on a 35mm cinema camera, and f/2.8 isn't too shabby for an f-stop. The glass is reported to be pretty darn good, but the mechanicals are not up to normal cinema standards. Then again, neither is the price. I think HeavyG has a couple of the DigiOptical lenses and uses them on his AF100, he might be able to give you a good review about how they perform.
 
Thanks Barry. I'd be curious about your thoughts concerning that Zeiss when you get a chance to work with it.

I have have the full gamut of fast nikons, 16mm to 105mm, but I'm just not that happy with them. I have a Kiron 24mm & 28mm 2.0, which I really like. But my understanding is these were only made in 24 & 28, and doesn't match the longer nikons. I would really prefer a zoom. I have the Oly 14-35mm 2.0, and its nice, but it really is a still lens, and that shows when in use.

Maybe the Red 18-50 is the way to go. Although that old Cooke look would be nice to have on hand; however its size may be too prohibitive. Is the DigiOptical inferior to the Red, or are they mechanically the exact same?
 
I hve both the RED 17-50mm which is much better than the 18-50mm It looks great on the af-100

I also hav ethe 50-150mm Red zoom and it looks great as well.
 
The Red 17-50 is definitely the better lens; the only appeal to the 18-50 is the lower cost.

As for whether the DigiOptical is inferior to the Red or not -- that's a matter of debate. Near as people have been able to figure out, we *think* that it's the exact same lens, and that when Red quit buying them (they discontinued the 18-50 when they introduced the "Red Pro" 17-50), then the manufacturer either started selling to this other company, "DigiOptical", or maybe DigiOptical was the manufacturer and they now started selling under their own name... nobody really knows. But I've heard several reports from people who have used both and they have said that the Red 18-50 and the DigiOptical 18-50 are identical.
 
Barry,
I would love some advice on getting a BNCR 20-100 Cooke to mount on my Af-100. I may have found a nicely priced one near by me.
 
metrospace said:
I'd sure appreciate any detailed opinions and reviews of experiences with these lenses (or other cinema zooms) on the AF100, including shooting workflow and the results you got from that lens. The more detailed your thoughts, the better.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I'd be looking at the RED zooms. They are excellent value for money. They are actually very good optically. Even the much dissed 18-50.

The main reasons there's a downside for them is their build quality. Well more their design. They arguably aren't true cinema lenses because they don't have a witnenn mark on the focus scale. So if you want to hit 20' then all you've got to hit is a printed number that says 20. Do you go for the top ? Middle or bottom ? There should be a line for each number but there isn't. Even the 18-85 has this problem.

I tested them all and found that they also don't tend to hold focus very well though the zoom range. There can be very small differences. Maybe not enough for most to notice, but not good for cinema.

They just aren't specced to the same degree as cinema lenses, BUT they are close. If you can put up with witness marks you can't really focus pull of then you'll be very happy with them.

The older lenses will be bigger and heavier, no doubt. I'm not totally sure the older glass will be what you like the look of. I'm shooting AF100's on a drama series and we often use my old Zeiss Contax mount lenses. You start to realize what modern lens making has brought us. They look great but are very prone to flare and chromatic aboration.

Go the RED zooms for optics and usability. More practical. Go the older zooms for a certain look, drama demands for focus and harder to work with utility.

And sorry Barry, that 3 blade bokeh isn't a feature in my books. It just looks like triangular mis-shapen blobs to me... and I can always pick them. They are the same as Zeiss MK1 Superspeeds.

jb
 
Last edited:
The difference between the DigiOptical 18-50 and the Red 17-50 is $2K. Not that much, but it does make the Red 50% more expensive. Are the new optics that much better? Or is just the design/mechanicals improved?

Dustlense - when you say you have a line on a good price on that Cooke with the BNCR - do you mind me asking what they're asking for it? I find that people are selling the 20-100 from $3500 to $9000. Big difference, especially when they are all claiming the glass is in great shape. MTF sells the mount to convert it for £350.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top