Zooms

nsoltz said:
And add to that list the Sigma 50-150, which is the basis of the Red. Also f/2.8 throughout.

Sigma has just released an update to that lens so I hope Red chooses to release a new PL version.
Click to expand...

Can someone explain to me why the Nikon Mount on the Sigma is around $1k and the PL mount of the RED 18-85 at a 2.9 is almost $10k? Is the image quality THAT much better? It seems like there are many great lenses out there that are considered SLR lenses that can be adapted to the F3 but as soon as a lens has a PL mount the price increases 10x.
 
For my solo doc work where I need to use my zooms, the Tokina 11-16, Nikkor 17-55 and Nikkor 80-200 cover the entire spectrum. I'll even use these on certain commercial jobs. If you search carefully the three of these lenses can be had for $3000.
 
WestView Digital said:
Can someone explain to me why the Nikon Mount on the Sigma is around $1k and the PL mount of the RED 18-85 at a 2.9 is almost $10k? Is the image quality THAT much better? It seems like there are many great lenses out there that are considered SLR lenses that can be adapted to the F3 but as soon as a lens has a PL mount the price increases 10x.
Click to expand...

The still version of the lens needs to be disassembled and essentially rebuilt in a new housing with gears, longer focus throw, mount, etc etc. It is a tremendously labor and skill-intensive task. And not exactly a high-volume project.
 
nsoltz said:
The still version of the lens needs to be disassembled and essentially rebuilt in a new housing with gears, longer focus throw, mount, etc etc. It is a tremendously labor and skill-intensive task. And not exactly a high-volume project.
Click to expand...

I get that but what about the lenses that aren't "still lenses" (RED, Angie, etc..) and are standard PL mount. What is it about those lenses that make them that much better? The RED lens is almost 10 pounds and the Sigma is only like 2 pounds. With PL adapters for the Sigma - is the difference really that pronounced? Is it sharper? Better Color? Better in low light? Why would someone pay over $20k for an Angie Optimo Zoom when you can get the same focal length and speed in a still lens with an adapter? Is that cost justified?
 
Glass is the same in the still-lens rehousing. Glass and precision construction in dedicated PL lenses is better by many factors. Good glass outlasts many generations of cameras.
 
Is that cost justified?
Click to expand...
It was, because of the very low volumes compared to the stills photography market. But things hopefully will start changing now.
If you don't use a focus puller. if you are on a budget and if you can live with some of the clumsiness still lenses have . You can make great footage with them. And they are small! that's really important if you are on your own.
 
" Why would someone pay over $20k for an Angie Optimo Zoom when you can get the same focal length and speed in a still lens with an adapter? Is that cost justified?"

The answer is focus mechanics. The amount of glass and engineering in a PL lens compared to a still lens is huge. That's just it, its a "still" lens, so smooth focusing is a non issue.

In the PL world the focus needs to track smooth with no "breathing". Also the focus throws are much longer meaning more room, more glass and gearing. Try to roll focus on your still lens without the image frame changing. That can not happen in the PL work flow. It is too distracting.
Also the lens is one giant prism, taking light and the bands of color associated with that light and trying to have all the colors filtered perfectly so that they all hit the sensor at the same time. This is where lens coatings come in slowing up one color and speeding up another. Having all of them line up exactly together on top of one another, creating "white" light. When you see bands of color around an object of detail, that is where the lens is failing.It is called chromatic aberration.

To do all of this correct without these problems is a expensive task.
 
JD is right about Chromatic aberration. I have the Zeiss ZF primes and the Nikon zooms and they all have some amount of Chromatic aberration around the focus point. i've tested old Zeiss standard speed PL primes though and even though they weren't as sharp there was no aberration.
 
Once you throw a Bartek follow focus on there you can map your focus throw (barrel rotation) over 300º.
Nikon still lenses are an excellent option.
 
Kind of like asking... Why would someone use a very expensive Arri Alexa to shoot a movie when I can shoot video with a Canon T2i.
 
Jason's answer is exactly what I was looking for. I like the technical answers, those make more sense to me. I wanted to know that if started outfitting my F3 with various still camera lenses - what would the trade off be as opposed to going with various Zeiss primes. There are definitely times that I would like a zoom on there for run and gun but that's why I also carry my EX-1 on every shoot also. Funny you should mention the T2i - I have one of those too but wouldn't dream of using it for a professional shoot.

The F3 is my first removable-lens camera (okay, so I'm not really counting my XL-1) so all this discussion about the differences between lenses helps a lot. In the still frame world, most lenses cost the same between whether it's a canon or Nikon mount. Then I started looking at PL mounts and thought "Wow.. there MUST be something to a PL mount other that just the mechanics of how it goes on there."

I bought an FD adapter just for fun to be able to use my *very* old AE-1 lenses and honestly haven't played with it yet. I'm curious to hook up my fast FD 50mm and compare that to the Sony 50mm kit lens. Depending on how it looks, I might get myself an old Canon FD L series zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top