David W. Jones
Veteran
The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 is very sharp. Focus Optics has rehoused it as the Ruby 14-24.
stepping up to cine lenses without blowing the bank account
- Thread starter J Davis
- Start date
Likewise, that Duclos is just the $600 Tokina lens with casing, gears, and markings. I'd rather see how the standard lens works with the Birger adaptor, which gives you complete iris and focal control on a remote. The glass will be the same, and you get remote follow focus and iris all under $2300, with an adapter that works with other lenses.
If the Birger works with the Tokina, that makes the Duclos pretty hard to rationalize to me.
If the Birger works with the Tokina, that makes the Duclos pretty hard to rationalize to me.
David W. Jones
Veteran
Unless you are assembling a PL mount lens kit which can be used with any PL mount camera or PL adapter.
Unlike the Birger system which is not available.
Unlike the Birger system which is not available.
Fine. But this thread is in the FS100 section, and that camera needs an adapter regardless. My point is that you can buy the adapter *and* the lens for over a grand less than the Duclos - and get even greater capability. Since the thread is also about not breaking the bank, that seems worth bringing up.
David W. Jones
Veteran
It is also about Cine Zoom Lenses, which the Duclos 11-16mm and Ruby 12-14mm qualify as.
And "NO" you can't buy the Birger mount adapter for this camera and the Tokina 11-16 for over a grand less than the Duclos lens, because the Birger mount adapter for this camera does not exists at this time.
How about we keep the thread on target.
All the Best!
Dave
If you want to get semantic, the Duclos is "currently backordered" on their own site.
My original point was that a rebodied Tokina is not a cinema lens. It is not cinema quality glass. My further point was that if you're after the cinema *capabilities* - follow focus and iris control (which is what the gears and markings are ultimately about for most of us) those capabilities will be able to be had cheaper and better, with the exact same glass, in a month or so.
You're right though - if a cinema lens is just about having something in an aluminum case with gears and markings, then the Duclos qualifies. My expectation about cinema lenses is that they conform to a higher quality standard - and I think that is on topic. Jeepers.
My original point was that a rebodied Tokina is not a cinema lens. It is not cinema quality glass. My further point was that if you're after the cinema *capabilities* - follow focus and iris control (which is what the gears and markings are ultimately about for most of us) those capabilities will be able to be had cheaper and better, with the exact same glass, in a month or so.
You're right though - if a cinema lens is just about having something in an aluminum case with gears and markings, then the Duclos qualifies. My expectation about cinema lenses is that they conform to a higher quality standard - and I think that is on topic. Jeepers.
Example of a LOMO lens on a GH2: http://vimeo.com/18777597
And a brief article about the lenses: http://www.eoshd.com/content/458-Russia-s-answer-to-Cooke-LOMO-Konvas-cine-primes
And a brief article about the lenses: http://www.eoshd.com/content/458-Russia-s-answer-to-Cooke-LOMO-Konvas-cine-primes
David W. Jones
Veteran
What is your definition of cinema quality glass?
In my opinion most still lenses resolve just as high as Cine lenses.
It's the mechanics and engineering which make the difference most of the time.
Just my thoughts based on over 30 years of shooting professionally.
David W. Jones
Veteran
Also note, that the OP is looking for wide Cine Zooms not Primes.
I agree. Todays still lenses resolve for still images, much more than video 1080p. Zeiss Cp.2's are just rehoused Zeiss still lenses and everybody swears by those.
I was referring to what I think are the usual cinema lens price justifications:
- Color matching
- Lack of barrel distortion
- Resistance to flare
- Edge-to-edge sharpness
- Lack of chromatic aberration
- Bokeh quality
Here are a few quotes from a review of the Tokina (which is rightly regarded as a fantastic lens in its price range):
"Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens images readily show CA (Chromatic Aberration) in the corners at all focal lengths."
"The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens has a 9-blade rounded aperture, but the quality of that blur (bokeh), if even noticeable, is not especially great, showing a bright outline to OOF specular highlights. "
"The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens arguably trails this lens class by showing the most flare in this specific situation [with the sun in frame]."
"At 11mm, the tokina 11-16 has nearly 2 stops of vignetting in the extreme corners at f/2.8."
"Corners at f/2.8, especially at the wide end of the focal length range, are obviously softer than the center. This is not unusual and the image quality in the corners is not terrible."
I do think the lens is awesome at $700. I was actually planning on getting one at some point. However, I don't think the overall performance adds up to what I think of as a cinema quality glass worth $3500. You clearly think differently, which is fine with me. I just don't understand or appreciate the supercilious tone.
- Color matching
- Lack of barrel distortion
- Resistance to flare
- Edge-to-edge sharpness
- Lack of chromatic aberration
- Bokeh quality
Here are a few quotes from a review of the Tokina (which is rightly regarded as a fantastic lens in its price range):
"Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens images readily show CA (Chromatic Aberration) in the corners at all focal lengths."
"The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens has a 9-blade rounded aperture, but the quality of that blur (bokeh), if even noticeable, is not especially great, showing a bright outline to OOF specular highlights. "
"The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens arguably trails this lens class by showing the most flare in this specific situation [with the sun in frame]."
"At 11mm, the tokina 11-16 has nearly 2 stops of vignetting in the extreme corners at f/2.8."
"Corners at f/2.8, especially at the wide end of the focal length range, are obviously softer than the center. This is not unusual and the image quality in the corners is not terrible."
I do think the lens is awesome at $700. I was actually planning on getting one at some point. However, I don't think the overall performance adds up to what I think of as a cinema quality glass worth $3500. You clearly think differently, which is fine with me. I just don't understand or appreciate the supercilious tone.
David W. Jones
Veteran
These are qualities one would look for in any lens, not just cinema glass.
And I'm not sure where you pulled those reviews from, but my experience from shooting with both the Tokina 11-16 and the Duclos 11-16 was nothing like those reviews.
David W. Jones
Veteran
Sorry if you don't like my tone, but I feel strongly that gear recommendations should be made based on actual experience with a product. Not by what looks cool, or by repeating someone else's online review.
And my apologies to J.
I don't want his thread turned into a pissing match.
And my apologies to J.
I don't want his thread turned into a pissing match.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Sorry,
but you are so very wrong on the rehousing being a "scam"
The lens he is working on has no aperture ring, so he totally rebuilds the entire lens for cine use, including adding an aperture ring with gear, focus gear ring, and zoom gear ring.
In addition he reverses the way the focus gear turns (Nikons focus backwards in relation to cine glass) and makes the throw longer so that you have more than 2mm between 5' and 10'.
If you think you can do the same thing for less and maintain the standards to which Matt Duclos has become known for, go for it, but I highly doubt it.
but you are so very wrong on the rehousing being a "scam"
The lens he is working on has no aperture ring, so he totally rebuilds the entire lens for cine use, including adding an aperture ring with gear, focus gear ring, and zoom gear ring.
In addition he reverses the way the focus gear turns (Nikons focus backwards in relation to cine glass) and makes the throw longer so that you have more than 2mm between 5' and 10'.
If you think you can do the same thing for less and maintain the standards to which Matt Duclos has become known for, go for it, but I highly doubt it.
I know several people who's experience with trying to match various still lenses has caused a lot of problems in post. Zoom's less of a problem if you stick with one or two,
but either way, preperation is the key no matter what you choose. Why should I not believe them? Isn't that what forums are for?
And David, if Cinema lens are such a scam, why do you show a large brace onf Zeiss primes on your web site? For show? to charge your clients more? You've been doing business in LR for quite some time. I remember driving by your studio when I used to live there. Surprised at your snippy attitude when your own advertising says otherwise about quality lenses.
nyvz
Veteran
Yeah none of those are usually cine lens justifications, those are just good lens justifications. Cine lenses are worth it if you need a lens that is parfocal (for zooms), minimizes breathing, has accurate and precise focus marks, long focus throw, smooth t-stop calibrated aperture, internal focusing, internal zooming, real circular aperture or at least many blades, matched lens characteristics, matched for 3d, faster than f2.8 or longer range than 3x for zooms, faster than f1.4 for primes, etc. If you do not need or do not want any of those things, there may not be any reason to pay the large premium in price and size/weight for cinema lenses, but some of those features sure can come in handy for certain applications and are absolutely critical in other applications.
Precisely +1.
David W. Jones
Veteran
When did I ever say that Cine lenses were a scam???
Last edited: