stepping up to cine lenses without blowing the bank account

Rick Burnett said:
I don't think the original poster was asking for a discourse on still lenses versus cine lenses. I can also say that this topic has been beaten to death over and over again here and nothing being said is any different than the same arguments everyone has made on both sides of the fence. Everyone has different needs, everyone has different budgets, everyone has things they can or cannot live with.

I think we should try and stay on topic here. If the original poster wants cine lenses with all the good and/or bad (based on perspective) of what that comes with, then let's talk about those options and where they can get into some cine lenses without breaking the bank. If you want to contribute to talking about how to obtain these lenses, that I think that is where the discussion needs to go.
Click to expand...

OK so on topic:
old angies pre HR- total crap by today standards, also most likely worn out into oblivion in rentals. Same goes for Cookes- most rental 20-100 are so beat I dread opening them every time- it's just depressing...
Good 18-100 would probably fall into the " break the bank" category so no joy here.
Lomos, Baltars, Canon k-35s(little better on the canons but still)- total crap- use it only for appearance(on camera) or special period shots. Spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, field curvature, vignetting, you name it.
It's much like comparing the technology from 1960s car with todays. It's nice to look at, but that's about it. I know - I have two of them(vintage cars)
I get inquiries all the time, I even make a PL conversion for Canon K35- but facts are facts.
Still lens conversion- Century 17-35, 28-70,Expensive(break the bank) -no different than still zooms minus the PL and better markings/gears. I actually was the project manager for the 17-35 project at Century Optics so I am intimately familiar with the conversion process- no miracles there- trust me...
Anything else?
 
Last edited:
you dodged my question - I believe there is not answer or solution other than a cine zoom. But no matter, lets move on to stay on topic.
 
J Davis said:
no your not getting me, its not the image or parfocal, its the mechanics - they cannot move smoothly or have a gear to control the movement

@Rick, thanks I'm the original poster and I don't mind this discourse but after opitek answers me I agree we should wrap up this off topic soon
Click to expand...
As far as mechanics I would have the lenses serviced and relubed with different lubricant if necessary for smooth movement. With few exceptions poor maintenance is the reason for mechanical issues ( see my post on previous page). You should be able to get what you need from most lenses.
And no I didn't dodge your question- there is nothing to dodge- we are not in politics here....
I just didn't see it.....
 
Last edited:
optitek said:
As far as mechanics I would have the lenses serviced and relubed with different lubricant if necessary for smooth movement. With few exceptions poor maintenance is the reason for mechanical issues ( see my post on previous page). You should be able to get what you need from most lenses.
And no I didn't dodge your question- there is nothing to dodge- we are not in politics here....
I just didn't see it.....
Click to expand...
J Davis said:
you dodged my question - I believe there is not answer or solution other than a cine zoom. But no matter, lets move on to stay on topic.
Click to expand...



Perhaps you are using 'push-pull' zooms, and not 'two touch' zoom lenses? A 'two touch' zoom with an external zoom control (such as a microforce) is what I'd prefer every day of the week if I had to do a zoom within a shot, and were using photography lenses.
 
J Davis said:
and a lomo anamorphic

http://cgi.ebay.com/LOMO-ZOOM-25-25...ultDomain_0&hash=item1c1c3ecd28#ht_542wt_1141
Click to expand...

The lens is a standard zoom with a rear anamorphic adapter that you have to pay an extra $1000 for (which reduces the T-stop and makes it 50-500) - it's also not that fast at a T5.1 in standard zoom mode (so probably 6.5 maybe 7 is it's base when using the rear Ana).

IMO, this is not one of the better Lomo's zooms (and it's been on Ebay for quite a while - check re-lists)... not meaning this seller's item, but the lens itself (25-250) isn't one that many people use - most favour the OPF-18 20-120 (40-240 wth it's rear ana adapter).

Word of warning that, whilst lens coatings are great on this type of Lomo, you won't get the flares or Lomo 'organic' style from it... plus it's super heavy :)

Also it's in OCT-19 mount and would need to be remounted to PL then collimated - and collimated again to use the rear anamorphic adapter - so some expense there.
 
Old angies are known for the soft/low contrast look. For period piece it will work but not really usable for every day. The HP/ HR that came out about 1987 or so was a revelation.Waste of money...
 
J Davis said:
I only posted it because I couldn't jump !

@ madmonk thx for the intel
Click to expand...

@ J Davis - no problem, glad to be of help... as this is something I know a little about, it's wise to throw info out there to help anyone with purchasing choices... and this is a useful thread for people to get info from.

Lomos are an interest of mine - as with a few others on this forum :) But there are so many mount types and differences, that I think it's wise to share out info so potential buyers don't make a mistake. I have the 20-120/40-240 & a complete set of Squarefront primes, all grabbed whilst things were a bit cheaper, so I can prep for some projects I'm working on for later in the year.

It is interesting to note that PL/Cine zoom/prime interest goes in waves... the initial burst when the Red hit and then a resurge last year for the AF100 and now for the F3/FS100... soon the only options will be really beat up lenses and newer ones (like the Reds etc)!
 
optitek said:
Old angies are known for the soft/low contrast look. For period piece it will work but not really usable for every day. The HP/ HR that came out about 1987 or so was a revelation.Waste of money...
Click to expand...

Agreed on the soft/low con look - very applicable for period/drama etc.

I suppose this is the interesting point here, using antique lenses for a certain flavour & look. That's why I've chosen Lomo's for one project & an Angie for another. They're period drama, so give a 'look' straight out of the box (as it were - LOL!).

If an Op is after a general purpose - 'use on all occasions' style lense, the newer Red zooms or others (ie as you say Angie HR's or Primos etc) might be better - old style antique stuff isn't suited to everyday/all purpose shooting... (wouldn't want to shoot something with Lomo Squarefronts that was a TVC - but for music promo etc, then yes :)
 
So rehoused still glass is the only option if you want an everyday cine lens that isn't from the stone ages and won't blow your back account, as in under $4k? That is for a prime only not a zoom, except for the older Century or RPZs or the Ducros 11-17 or Canon project, which is $10K? And of these, is the CP.2 line the best way to go, in spite of the fact they have no zoom? I admit I am bummed that the 17-50 RPZ @ $5k is the bomb for an everyday cine zoom that isn't from the stone ages.... I guess that is a 'steal' but it sure feels like my bank account would be pretty blown if I was dropping $5K for every used zoom I picked up.... Then again, I'm not getting paid to shoot like the rest of you :-)
 
Still need a better rail with longer dovetail option but here is the Cooke 20-100 test mounted to the AF100.
Also a size comparison between the Cooke 20-100 and Tokina 16-50.
 

Attachments

  • AF100 Cooke 20-100.jpg
    AF100 Cooke 20-100.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Cooke vs Tokina.jpg
    Cooke vs Tokina.jpg
    89.2 KB · Views: 0
David W. Jones said:
Still need a better rail with longer dovetail option but here is the Cooke 20-100 test mounted to the AF100.
Also a size comparison between the Cooke 20-100 and Tokina 16-50.
Click to expand...

I bet you'll get nice pics from the AF100 with the Cooke :D

This is useful so people can understand the size difference between lenses. The other biggie is the actual front lens diam - 138mm on some of mine and larger on others I've used... hence the need for a larger mattebox. The advantage of the AF100 was/is the in-built ND's - meaning in a number of situations you can avoid MB's... but, with the lack of ND on the FS100, it means building up a sizeable rig.

When you get the FS100, it would be an interesting test to shoot some footage to see image/sensor differences. I don't mean in terms of M43 vs S35 etc, just simply the tone/range difference bewteen the AF & FS (especially with a vinatge Cooke as the test lens - rather than the normal modern/tack sharp enses everyone would normally test with).
 
Yes I will be shopping for a new matte box as the Cooke is just slightly bigger than the rear opening of my current matte box.
Also another base plate with 19mm rails and extended dovetail to balance the huge lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top