The missing lens - a standard cine zoom?

D

deltoidjohn

Veteran
Hi All,

Just wondering what people are currently using as a standard zoom for s35 sensors? It seems to be one section of the market that has had very little (or NO) development since the 7D came out.

I've been shooting on FF (or with speedboosters) for the past few years and have been using either 24-70 or 24-105's. But my next camera will likely be s35 in either EF mount of PL (think EVA1, USRA, C200, Kinifinity, or maybe a Red). I'd like to move beyond still lenses, but there doesn't seem to be a clear pathway.

Of the current options, none of them seem to fit the role properly;

Canon 17-55 f/2.8: Cheap stills lens, heavy vignetting on many s35 sensors which are slightly larger than Canons APS-C format.
Fujinon 18-55 T2.9: Mirrorless mounts only.
Canon 15.5-47 T2.9: Costs double or triple what the cameras I'm looking at do.
Sigma 18-35 T/2: Not enough zoom range or reach to be a true all-rounder.
Red 17-50 T2.9: Discontinued & rare, PL only.

The Red comes closest to what I want & need, and might steer me towards getting a PL mount camera, but they are hard to find, particularly here in Australia. Fujinon also seems perfect but won't fit on most of the cameras I'm looking at.

Does anybody else find it baffling that nobody has yet made a lens to clean up in this market? Something that suits the current range of <$10,000 cameras that use EF mount - fully manual with geared rings, ~3x zoom, internal zoom so we can use it with matte boxes, and under about $5000. The above examples show it can be done well enough at this price level, but still nobody has jumped in and really made a winner in this category.

Thoughts?
 
You were doing just fine with the wants until you hit the under $5K button. There's the Zeiss 21-100 zoom for $10K, the Fuji 20-120 for around $12K, and soon the Laowa 25-100 for who knows how much (I'm guessing $6-8K). After that you're SOL unless you're interested in the Canon 18-80 Compact Servo Lens, but that's a crossbreed between an ENG video lens and a stills lens, plus it's a T4.4.

It's difficult for a lens maker to do a cine style zoom for so low a cost, because the volume for cine zooms is tiny compared to stills. I suggested to a lens manufacturer a while ago that they take their already-existing 24-105 f4 full frame stills lens, stick an optical reducer on the back to turn it into a S35 18-85 T2.8, rehouse the whole thing as a basic cine type zoom in PL but available in EF with electronic iris control option for all those people who live by that and sell the thing for around $5K, which is something like 6x the price they sell their stills 24-105 source lens for. Hasn't happened yet.
 
I dont know why it has happened.. the lack of that lens.

I think it is the fault of customers, bloggers and manufactuers (of cameras and lenses). I guess overall the market does not 'need' the lens that I (and you) would consider to be 'the' thing missing from the camera market.

This is what I 'see' as the route

The lens needs to be 16-150 FOV.

To make that possible on a sensible budget of mass/price the lens would be like this..

16-100 T4 with swing in 1.5 converter, probably with an inch or so of 'tromboning' and maybe even some digital zoom built in to the camera. The lens is unlikely to be buildable with a long flange lens mount.

Lets go to some meetings..

EVA1 development..
Engineer department - we need a short flange
Market department - its got to be canon mount to sell to ex 5d owners

Zeiss development
Engineer - we can do you a 21-100 at this budget
Marketeer - fine 21 is close to 16

Zeiss development
Engineer - we can do you T4.4 at this budget
Marketeer - customers demand 2.8

Here customers are being stupid.. T4 is great on a 2000 ISO camera

Deltiod Production meeting.
'Im buying PL or EF'
Walk away from these cameras, tell the makers why you cant buy a deep flange camera.

I daily tell Mitch why Ill never buy his EVA1 - deep flange :)

(he probably hates it but im trying to help!)


Deltiod production meeting.
I need non tromboning for my matte box.
Get real - this lens will tombone, save your matte box for primes - buy a camera with ND.

Deltiod production meeting.
I need 2.8
Get real this lens will be T4
Make your movie with primes

Blogger on new 21-100 zoom..
Writes.. "exciting new lens"
Should write "just not wide enough for actual professional use"


Blogger on new T4.4 zoom
Writes 'not really fast enough"
Should write 'an excellent and realistic choice of Tstop for a light zoom, mass and cost are kept reasonable'

The truth is Canon and Sony have applied themselves to this problem and done the best they can, 18-110 and 18-80. Sony got more range cos of thier shorter flange depth. They are in the shops now.
 
Last edited:
Well, it's more than 5x what you wanna pay, but in my book, the Canon 17-120 is it. Covers at least s35. Manual everything AND servo everything. Internal focus. 17mm-91mm at constant T2.95, 92-120 ramps to T3.9. Huge(for cine) 7x zoom range. EF and PL mount(I have a user swappable mount system on mine). Great image quality.

I also wouldn't take the train of thought of just because you have a low priced camera that you can't spend a lot on glass. With the mount system the 17-120 cost me ~$8K-$9K more than what I paid for my F55 and roughly double what I paid for my C300.
 
Run&Gun said:
Well, it's more than 5x what you wanna pay, but in my book, the Canon 17-120 is it. Covers at least s35. Manual everything AND servo everything. Internal focus. 17mm-91mm at constant T2.95, 92-120 ramps to T3.9. Huge(for cine) 7x zoom range. EF and PL mount(I have a user swappable mount system on mine). Great image quality.

I also wouldn't take the train of thought of just because you have a low priced camera that you can't spend a lot on glass. With the mount system the 17-120 cost me ~$8K-$9K more than what I paid for my F55 and roughly double what I paid for my C300.
Click to expand...

That zoom is what it is - personally to me too big and heavy and costly. But I dont think canon add that mass or price for fun. I dont disrespect those with the muscle to haul it or wallet to buy it.

My expectations are realistic, to get it smaller cheaper and lighter I understand there will have to be compromises. Your average 'DPs' and 'bloggers' and 'marketeers' are too uneducated to realise this.
 
Last edited:
The other truth is that the 24-105 + speedbooster + FS7 give you 90% of this. And that is why 80% of productions use that combo.

Im going to zambia tomorrow.. with 24-105, booster and FS7.. Ill live.
 
morgan_moore said:
My expectations are realistic, to get it smaller cheaper and lighter I understand there will have to be compromises. Your average 'DPs' and 'bloggers' and 'marketeers' are too uneducated to realise this.
Click to expand...

I think my expectations are fairly realistic too. Red have pretty much already done it at the price level I'm talking about, but then they stopped making lenses. I'm not asking for something smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, wider, longer or sharper than what already exists. That's why it surprises me that nobody has done it in a way that makes it a functional, "must-have" lens.

Run&Gun said:
Well, it's more than 5x what you wanna pay, but in my book, the Canon 17-120 is it. Covers at least s35. Manual everything AND servo everything. Internal focus. 17mm-91mm at constant T2.95, 92-120 ramps to T3.9. Huge(for cine) 7x zoom range. EF and PL mount(I have a user swappable mount system on mine). Great image quality.

I also wouldn't take the train of thought of just because you have a low priced camera that you can't spend a lot on glass. With the mount system the 17-120 cost me ~$8K-$9K more than what I paid for my F55 and roughly double what I paid for my C300.
Click to expand...

This lens is the bees knees. But it is way out of my ballpark (and most ~$10,000 camera owners, too). People who have a "low priced camera" usually own it because they don't have a $100,000 budget. And I know you can put very nice glass on a low-priced camera, but that is what renting is for.
 
morgan_moore said:
The other truth is that the 24-105 + speedbooster + FS7 give you 90% of this. And that is why 80% of productions use that combo.
Click to expand...

+1 on the 24-105 plus Speed Booster. I often use use the Sigma ART 24-105 with SB on interviews. Not parfocal but very flexible and with the SB the f4.0 Sigma, or a Canon 24-105 for that matter comes close to f2.8. I find the Sigma doesn't ramp on the long end anywhere near the old Canon 24-105. I believe the current Canon 24-105 is a fair bit better than the first version when it comes to exposure ramping. As for the Red 17-50 it's getting a bit long in the tooth and a few versions I've seen had to be used at at least f4.0 to be acceptably sharp on the edges. The Red lenses are IMHO way, way overpriced for the performance they deliver in today's lens market.

I never though I would use it as much as I do but with an FS7 Sony's 18-110 f4.0 constant aperture, parfocal, servo zoom that even has reasonable stabilization offers amazing capability for the price. Sure it's not built like an Cabrio or Optimo but it's worth every cent for what it delivers. For on the move doco type work it has been a good buy.

Don't underestimate the Tokina Cine Zooms. For the money they deliver a solid working lens with some very good value for the $$$ performance. Check them out here:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

and here:

https://www.thehurlblog.com/zoom-lens-shootout-fujinon-vs-tokina-50-135mm-filmmaking/

Chris Young.
 
Guess it depends on what your job at hand is.
For example.... For a long time I used a zoom trifecta for more mobile type low budget shoots. 11-16mm, 16-50mm, 70-200mm.
You can cover a lot of ground with those 3 lenses.

More players on the crew or a little less mobile, and my favorite zoom would have been a Cooke 18-100mm.
 
I'm not sure the RED glass is a perfect example. Seems to me they were rebarrelling a still lens, a legit thing to do, and also largely priming the market for their RED cameras, also a legit thing to do. But were their lenses loss leaders? Jannard sure had the deep pockets and drive to look beyond the profitability of a couple ancillary products to make sure his cameras got out the door.

But you know, when I'm on jobs with a camera with a PL mount (and that's as a mixer or, more frequently now, producer/director), we're also using expensive glass. And when you get to the $10,000ish price point for cameras, there's a growing number of mounts, flange depths, and markets/needs to support.

I've met a bunch of lens designers and craftmen. They are a passionate bunch. And they want to stay profitable (at least, their bosses do). They've for sure thought of and continue to think of this problem. Every year, I think "this is the year we'll see exactly what I want." Every year I think, "closer, but..."
 
If you like the Red so much, just get a copy of the lens that sits inside their shoddy re-barrel - the Tamron 17-50 non-VC. I've been using this lens on personal projects for years and it's awesome for that, extremely underrated by most. When this copy dies, I'll buy another NOS from eBay or elsewhere. (note: this is the earlier non-VC version only - the newer VC/IS version is a completely different lens and is not nearly as good.)

Red's version of this lens is not great mechanically, I think you are buying into some unrealistic hype in thinking it is. The front element still moves, much of the internal structure is still plastic - and the Tamron hood still fits on it. It's really not changed much, rather just has a big metal shell on it.

I'm well aware that the Tamron version is not at all what you are after (although optically it's identical to the Red version) but you aren't going to get what you are looking for anywhere near your desired price range.
 
Last edited:
Jim Feeley said:
I've met a bunch of lens designers and craftmen. They are a passionate bunch. And they want to stay profitable (at least, their bosses do). They've for sure thought of and continue to think of this problem. Every year, I think "this is the year we'll see exactly what I want." Every year I think, "closer, but..."
Click to expand...

Making a good cinematic compromise probably involves a tie between camera and glass makers. 'Craftsmen' probably need to be dragged foreward outside of some boxes called analogue.

A decent reach will be probably a combination of yes, craft, but also digital punch in and wide lens distortion correction.

Yes we hate digital fixes but hasselblad for example, craving a win in the MF digital wide lens race, caved in to the digital boat a decade ago.

Thier top end cameras are a mix of decent glass designed hand in hand with 'Focus' software that knows about the lens. Simply they got better performance by de-fishing thier wide lens in post!

'The integral Digital Lens Correction perfects the raw image by digitally removing any colour aberration, vignetting, and distortion, resulting in perfect pixel definition. '

(HC28 lens FYI https://www.wexphotovideo.com/hasse...Sj7SHou503aW0s45BQONnc5rq9rsk_nQaAnTJEALw_wcB)

An engineering team glass-camera-post needs to sit down, design the spec then do it.

S
 
I often work with the Canon 17-55 and 24-105 (with/without speedbooster) and they both work well do run around doing corporate stuff. Neither is perfect but as they cost next to nothing I just continue to use them. I wont get more pay with an expensive cine zoom so why pursue that? I know another FS7 shooter who uses the Fuji 18-55 cine zoom but it really shows on his footage the lens lacks IS and IS on the 17-55/24-105 is something I'd never would want to be without. So in fairness there are next to no IS cine zoom lenses. Canon being the T4.4 exception.
 
I haven't used the Canon one but Sonys 18-110 I really don't like the few times I've used it. It can cover a good range but it's large, expensive (as the 18-105 does about the same thing) and the footage I get out of it doesn't look good to me. Especially when I compare what I get out of the 24-105 with booster.

Just as Mitch says someone should make a cine version out of the 24-105 without breaking the bank. I guess the thing that can't be solved is that it's not even near anything called parfocal. And even if someone did do such a version people would still use Canons 24-105 because it's so cheap. I even have both the first version and the second but optically they perform about the same so Canon didn't improve anything but handling which is nicer on the V2.
 
I dont know much about lens design but the 24-105 would be come huge if you built a case to stop tromboning?

My chum has an 18-55 fuji - we are going to try a side by side vs my nikkor manual 28-85/booster when we have a moment.
 
I really searched for a decent zoom during the years but in recent years I've always come back to the 24-105.
 
I totally get where you are coming from. For the S35 imager for my C200, I was really liking the Canon EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 STM IS for outdoor shooting where the slow speed wasn't too much of a hindrance. But that 1.5x/1.6x crop factor was terrible and I have since stopped using it and replaced with with the 24-105 USM IS II, which is a pretty good lens and it's FF so no vignetting and no discernable aperture ramping that I see in the field although I am sure that if I shoot against a white or gray wall it's there. The FS7 + SB + this lens does seem like the perfect setup. My production partner did a recent corporate shoot where he rented the FS7 + Sony 18-110 f/4.0 and he LOVED it. Unfortunately I am not crazy for the FS7 color science so that rules it out for me although I occasionally rent it.

I just bought the Fujifilm XT-3 and if I was in your position, I would buy it with the two Fujifilm Cine zooms in X-mount, the FUJIFILM MKX18-55mm T2.9 and the FUJIFILM MKX50-135mm T2.9 Lens. The money saved on the camera would be put into the glass, which is never a bad way to go. I did a shoot yesterday, just b-roll outdoor using the "kit" Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 OIS but I have to say, I was looking side by side last night at the C200 XF-AVC (didn't shoot this RAW as our workflow won't accomodate RAW) and the Fujifilm footage to me, actually looks better than the C200 footage. It's an amazing camera for the money. I think shooting RAW, the C200 is still better but not by that much. Fuji really has something special with this latest X-Trans sensor and I am quickly becoming a Fuji convert. If they come out with a real video camera using this imager or better with all of the camcorder features we want, Canon, Panasonic and Sony had better be scared because it will be the best sub-$10k camera on the market I am convinced. Give it internal RAW and good ergonomics and wow, I would buy it in a heartbeat. Love the XT-3 but still shooting with a mirrorless, in some ways, sucks compared to a video camera. But back to lenses, those two Fujis are on sale on Amazon right now, $3,799.00 for the 18-55 and $3,899.00 for the 50-135. But a two lens solution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top