Parfocal Zoom Lenses under $4000?

N

Nityananda_SCSMath

Active member
For my situation changing out lenses and exposing the camera to dust will be a real big issue, so I am looking to buy 2-3 fast zoom lenses to cover my required focal length (and of course the m4/3 sensor size.)

I'm looking to stay under $4000 per lens, but ideally under $2500.

I have looked at a few lenses:

Olympus Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 ($2000) and Olympus Zuiko 35-100mm f/2.0 ($2000)
These fit the bill well but they are NOT parfocal I've been told.

The Duclos Modded Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 $3500
The Duclos Modded Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 Cine-Mod $2400
These also look like good lenses but I don't think they are parfocal?

The Panasonic Lumix 14-140 f/ 4-5.8 $800-ish
A pretty decent lens by all accounts and YES it's parfocal I'm told, but it's pretty darn slow.


So what bright-ish (roughly f/3.5 and below) zoom lenses that are parfocal and under $4000 are out there? Can be "cinema style" or "photo style." Cinema style is obviously unlikely in this price range..

Thanks for your help!
 
This to me is one of the issues with M4/3 as such a new format. Video/cine style fast zooms are not really available for it yet. The ones made for S35 motion cameras that can cover 4/3 are relatively large, heavy, and expensive. None have AF or OIS or auto iris functions. You might try to find a good buy on a used Cooke 18-100 or 20-100 or an Angenieux 17-102, all in the T2.5 range.

One of the reasons I am sticking with 2/3" format for now. I prefer not changing lenses too.
 
Last edited:
I hear what your saying, and I'm also looking forward to when there are more fast zooms that are native 4/3, since they can be made smaller+cheaper then unnecessarily large full frame lenses.

However I'm convinced that I want to use the AF100/GH2 so I'm looking for a high quality but not over-expensive solution.

I saw this thread which lists a number of Canon Lenses as being parfocal (compiled apparently from this list).

I would rather buy Olympus, Nikon, etc. then Canon but atleast there appear to be some options.

I would like to find out what Olympus, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina lenses are parfocal?

Many people are talking about the 14-35 and 35-100 f/2 Olympus Zuiko lenses, but I would think them being varifocal would be an issue? Why not a similar focal length Canon or Nikon zoom that will hold focus when you recompose?

Any thoughts folks?
 
If I were starting from scratch on my lens set, I would be tempted by the Red 17-50; it's got a very usable zoom range, isn't too slow, and, best of all, it's relatively compact and light-weight. Not too expensive at six grand. Second choice, and much less money is Red's 18-50; these can be had for four thousand. Add something on the longer side, and you could do most projects with these.

I don't know of other cine zooms in the low price arena; even used Cookes, etc, are more costly and certainly not light-weight.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
mcgeedigital said:
Double that and you can buy a decent 18-100mm Cooke Zoom.
Click to expand...
Used, if you can find someone to sell it to you for that cheap. Brand new, those lenses are $45,000, aren't they? I can't find 'em on ZGC's site, but last time I saw 'em listed I thought they were in that bracket.
 
I don't know how good they are, but you can buy a Red Pro 18-85 T2.9 PL zoom for about $6000 (refurbished - NOT NEW!). Just saw one on their online store yesterday. I had a quick flash in my head of my wife stabbing me repeatedly with her words and closed the browser window.

I tried some tests with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (EF mount) lens here and if the focus on a subject/object is obtained while telephoto, focus will remain through-out the zoom range even wide open. It doesn't work the other way around all the time because it depends where the subject is relative to the focus range (I don't know if that makes sense reading it back). I've heard that's the same way the 24-70L 2.8 Canon lens is - focus set at telephoto will remain throughout the range. Try it before quoting me on that.
 
Last edited:
I seem to have attracted the attention of some of the big shots. Excellent :)

I appreciate all the input so far. I'm thinking that the only real recommended zoom option are the Zuiko 14-35 and 35-100, which combined new is about $200+ $2300 = $4300.

So if I'm really considering spending $4300 on a 14-100 range, then buying a refurb RED or a used Angenieux, Cooke etc. starts to get more realistic.

I realize that the Zuiko's are F/2 though and great glass, but they don't lend so great to cine use as far as repeatable focus pulling + parfocal + etc. goes.

For instance, how would the Olympus 14-35, 35-100 compare to the RED Pro 18-85 T2.9? Similar focal range, similar f/stop, similar price, one lens. Because the Olympus was designed for 4/3 sensor maybe that means that they were able to make a high quality lens because that had less sensor to cover? Is the image quality of the RED going to be noticeably better or "more cinematic looking" then the Olympus?

Also I think certain used Angenieux lenses can be found if you get a good deal for around $5k..

Thanks for your input!
-Chris
 
The Olympus lenses aren't "similar" in f-stop, they're over twice as bright, letting in over twice as much light. And they're capable of autofocus and automatic iris operation, which the Red lens won't be. And the Red lens is 10 pounds and 2.5x as expensive as the Olympus lenses! And the Olympus pair would be wider and tighter.

So -- $10,000 for a 10-lb manual-only cine-style lens at a fixed T2.9, or
$4300 for two 1-lb manual-or-auto lenses that are twice as fast, substantially wider, and a little longer.

If you're only ever shooting for cinema-style use, the Red Pro would be a pretty good pick. But keep 'em in context, they're not directly comparable.
 
Ticheli said:
If I were starting from scratch on my lens set, I would be tempted by the Red 17-50; it's got a very usable zoom range, isn't too slow, and, best of all, it's relatively compact and light-weight. Not too expensive at six grand. Second choice, and much less money is Red's 18-50; these can be had for four thousand. Add something on the longer side, and you could do most projects with these.

I don't know of other cine zooms in the low price arena; even used Cookes, etc, are more costly and certainly not light-weight.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...

I am picking one of those and the RED 50-150mm up after the new year for my AF-100.
The 17-50 is a great bargain.
 
Barry_Green said:
The Olympus lenses aren't "similar" in f-stop, they're over twice as bright, letting in over twice as much light. And they're capable of autofocus and automatic iris operation, which the Red lens won't be. And the Red lens is 10 pounds and 2.5x as expensive as the Olympus lenses! And the Olympus pair would be wider and tighter.

So -- $10,000 for a 10-lb manual-only cine-style lens at a fixed T2.9, or
$4300 for two 1-lb manual-or-auto lenses that are twice as fast, substantially wider, and a little longer.

If you're only ever shooting for cinema-style use, the Red Pro would be a pretty good pick. But keep 'em in context, they're not directly comparable.
Click to expand...

Yes but RED lenses can be used on any cinema camer including the RED, Alexa and ~most~ film casmeras.
 
OK thanks for that Barry. Twice as bright is definitely a big deal, and I suppose that is one of the advantage of the 4/3 format is you can make a faster lens which still weighs less then standard cinema lens.

For the sake of this conversation could you help me with what are some of the pro's and con's of these lenses?

(I may be wrong about these pros and cons in my mind)->



Olympus Zuiko f/2 zooms vs Red Pro Zooms


Olympus Zuiko 14-34 f/2 + 35-100 f/2 lenses:

Pros:
- Can do some form of autofocus with AF100, GH2, etc.
- Can do some form of auto-iris with AF100, GH2, etc.
- Twice as fast as the Red Pro Zoom but still smaller, lighter, cheaper, greater focal length

Cons:
- Not Parfocal
- Don't have calibrated T stops and focus marks
- Can't set focus by distance
- Can only be used with 4/3 cameras

RED 18-85 T 2.9 Pro Lens (and other Red lenses like the 17-50)

Pros:
- Parfocal (I think?)
- Has calibrated T stops and focus marks
- Can set focus by distance
- Can be used with other PL mount cameras, increasing resell value.

Cons:
-Heavier, more expensive, bigger

I'm also really wondering if the actual image quality, (AKA sharpness / contrast / color / distortion / etc.) is better on the Olympus or Red?

-Chris

EDIT: I see we posted at the same time Barry, JINX you owe me a Cooke!
 
Last edited:
mcgeedigital said:
Yes but RED lenses can be used on any cinema camer including the RED, Alexa and ~most~ film casmeras.
Click to expand...

Granted. I thought about putting in something about resale value in there, but ... with all the billions of 4/3 and m4/3 users out there, I figure they'll be equally sellable for either one.
 
Nityananda_SCSMath said:
OK thanks for that Barry. Twice as bright is definitely a big deal, and I suppose that is one of the advantage of the 4/3 format is you can make a faster lens which still weighs less then standard cinema lens.

For the sake of this conversation could you help me with what are some of the pro's and con's of these lenses?

(I may be wrong about these pros and cons in my mind)->

Olympus Zuiko 14-34 f/2 + 35-100 f/2 lenses:

Pros:
- Can do some form of autofocus with AF100, GH2, etc.
- Can do some form of auto-iris with AF100, GH2, etc.
- Of course lighter, smaller, cheaper
Cons:
- Not Parfocal
- Don't have calibrated T stops and focus marks
- Can't set focus by distance
- Can only be used with 4/3 cameras

RED Pro Lens

Pros:
- Parfocal (I think?)
- Has calibrated T stops and focus marks
- Can set focus by distance
- Can be used with other PL mount cameras, increasing resell value.

Cons:
-Heavier, more expensive, bigger

I'm also really wondering if the actual image quality, (AKA sharpness / contrast / color / distortion / etc.) is better on the Olympus or Red?

-Chris
Click to expand...
You've summed it up pretty well (other than leaving the 1-stop faster bonus for the Olympus).

As for image quality, that's something that could only be known by testing it. If your purpose for wanting the lens is specifically for dedicated cinema use, I'd definitely advise getting cinema lenses. If you need all-around/all-purpose lenses, you're not going to want to be hanging a 10-lb, nearly-foot-long monstrosity off the front of an AF100 for general use! That lens is twice the length and 3x the weight of the camera itself. I've heard good reports about it, and it's pretty inexpensive for a real cinema lens. Just make sure that's what you need.
 
What I really want is the Zeiss ZF.2 prime set smooshed into a zoom lens or two for a similar price as the set.
The Olympus sound good image quality wise but I've heard that they don't have the subjective "cinema style" that the zeiss primes or other cinema zooms have. Also I would like to have focus marks etc.

I'm willing to pay some money for all of this, $6k, $8k, etc. But weight is however an issue. Why is it that 4/3 lenses are so much lighter then lenses designed for Super35 film? I thought the sensor sizes were pretty similar?
 
The sensor in 4/3 is similar to regular 35mm film. It isn't as big as S35 film.

The Zeiss LWZ is the only cinema zoom you're likely to see, but it's pricey and it's only a 14-45. They make some zooms in ZA mount, which would be like the ZF series; however, I've never used any of the ZA lenses. The most interesting one might be the 16-80 ZA, that basically covers almost the entire range of CP.2 primes (18 to 85) but it's (as with all zooms) slower, at f/3.5-f/4.5. Then again, that one zoom is only $700; I doubt it's really up to par with the other ZFs or CP's. I'm pretty sure there's a ZA->m43 mount adapter out there somewhere.

They have another zoom, the 24-70, which covers a pretty usable range and is a constant f/2.8. It's $1700 though; looks like it has manual focus, but no aperture ring. Might not be that easy to adapt.

You can buy an entire set of ZF primes for around $7k, but if you want it all in one zoom... that's not so easy to find. A used Cooke 20-100 or the Red 18-85 are probably the best bets, for cine-style usage. Just be aware that they're massive and heavy.
 
Barry_Green said:
Used, if you can find someone to sell it to you for that cheap. Brand new, those lenses are $45,000, aren't they? I can't find 'em on ZGC's site, but last time I saw 'em listed I thought they were in that bracket.
Click to expand...

Cooke made many zooms back in the day... they are great lenses, but tend to be very soft wide open and etc. They are old.


Cooke now makes mainly great modern primes... The only 'new/modern' zoom Cooke has (meaning it is matched for S4's, Panchro/i, or 5i's) is the 15-40mm CXX which is about $40,000. Other than that, all Cooke zooms are vintage. Those older Cooke's can be found for about 8,000- 12,000.

I wish Cooke made some new zooms, outside the CXX. I'd totally buy a newer cooke zoom that was aimed in the optimo DP or Alura spectrum. The 15-40mm CXX is a great lens, but what do you do for over 40mm? Use primes? Might as well just buy a prime set, like I did. Takes longer to change focal lengths, but I have a full range.

PS: I hope the newer Red lenses are better, because I absolutely hate the older Red zooms and Red Pro Primes. Great if you are considering photography lenses as the alternative, but an absolute headache when being compared to other PL mount prime sets such as angeniuex, cooke, or zeiss. Heavy, bulky, bad mechanics and no thrills. Again... I've never seen red lenses on anything but a red. They aren't really popular except for people who got them in a package deal. I'd actually rather have ZF or ZE lenses over the RPP's... apologies to my 1st if that were the case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top