Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Lenses for beginners

What do you think about this set (i think they should match well in terms of look):

8-16mm Sigma
24-70mm Canon Mk1 (since I already have that one and the 24mm choices seem to be weak - 25mm old Nikkor has a different look then these lenses I think)
35mm Rokinon
50mm Zeiss 1.4
85mm Rokinon


I think the Tokina 11-16mm would be better in low light and also it is a proven choice, but with the sigma when going crop you have more room.
Also it is very sharp and I already own it.

Cheers
 
John, curious about your question too. A lot of us seem to be in a similar boat, looking at these lenses. I own the 50mm Zeiss and Tokina 11 - 16. Both great lenses. To me the 35mm and 85mm Rokinons are a no brainer considering price, though my major concern is whether or not the look will be vastly different from my 50mm Zeiss. I'm looking to shoot a no budget feature on these early next year.

Could anyone chime in?
 
I've got the samyang 35mm & 85mm (they are fantastic), the canon 70-200mm f4 (perfect), and the tamron 17-50mm non VC which is rumored to have been rehoused by red to make the RPZ 17-50mm, I don't really know if it's true, but it's so good that i don't see why it would not be.
 
jorge krausch said:
HI Juan, yes you're right.. didnt look at the F-stop :) then again, would i want a faster lens if it meant being that much blurier?
Click to expand...

Generally the softness / smeariness starts to clear up at around f2 on most DSLR prime lenses, a full stop more light than at f2.8 - the largest aperture of most zooms.

f1.4 is still useful in low contrast situations where the softness is less apparent. Or if its you're only option to get you out of trouble. So it can be handy to have.
 
I have a shot at an older Canon 24-70mm USM, how much better is the new version?
And how about the Sigma at same spec?
Were talking a third off the new price of a Canon here.
 
Eric Santiago said:
I have a shot at an older Canon 24-70mm USM, how much better is the new version?
And how about the Sigma at same spec?
Were talking a third off the new price of a Canon here.
Click to expand...

The new 24-70 is an entirely new lens, completely different and far superior to the old one.
 
Mark Andersen said:
The new 24-70 is an entirely new lens, completely different and far superior to the old one.
Click to expand...


Thanks but is it worth three times more.
I'm just wondering if its worth picking up the older one for $800.
I mean it must have been a decent lens back then.
 
Honestly, as a beginner (which I am), just buy the cheaper glass because a 5 to 10k lens will be wasted on us. Are you really that sensitive to color shifts and all the little things associated with the optics? Just shoot the stuff, hate it later on and graduate to the higher end lenses. I'm just pleased as punch that we can use still lenses on the Epic/Scarlet and get to know the glass. Buy the Rokinon. Use the hell out of it, see it's flaws and when the time comes to buy High End glass, you know what you are looking for.
 
hi max... you actually made a lot of sense to me.. I rhink my last worry now is with low light. im trying to find out if I can do much available light camerawork with the 24-70 L 2 lens..
 
jorge krausch said:
hi max... you actually made a lot of sense to me.. I rhink my last worry now is with low light. im trying to find out if I can do much available light camerawork with the 24-70 L 2 lens..
Click to expand...


I am finding this to be problematic. Using a 24-105 f4 is brutal indoors with practicals.

Have to slap on a Tokina 11-16 so I can at least get some light in the lense.

I hope the Rokinon Cine 35 helps with this.
 
Yet, 24-70 L 2 is also 2.8
24-105 is a fantastic lens for outdoors. We have it sometimes and love it.

--

Hmm, still what would be the perfect set. Matching color and style throughout the range?
I like also Sams Input.

--

So here goes a new list:

8-16mm Sigma (owned)
17-35 Nikkor 2.8 OR Tamron 17-50mm non VC since supercheap
35mm Rokinon
50mm Zeiss 2.0 makro
85mm Rokinon
70-200mm canon f4

And sell the 24-70mm 2.8 (owned) for 800
If 11mm is sufficient switch to Tamron 11-16mm 2.8 from the Sigma.. I think now at 2.5 crop Sigma is still relevant.
 
Last edited:
So.. this means the Canon 24-70 L II (T2.8) is no good for low light? Then again a prime lens is soft at 1.4 anyway, isnt it?
 
If anybody has some Canon 24-70 L II Epic footage would be very greatful to see some of the footage...
 
jorge krausch said:
So.. this means the Canon 24-70 L II (T2.8) is no good for low light? Then again a prime lens is soft at 1.4 anyway, isnt it?
Click to expand...

Your assuming a zoom wide open is sharp too....I'm sure the 24-70 is great, but even wide open it's not going to be perfect. There are always sacrifices, unless your willing to get a Master Prime...
 
jorge krausch said:
If you had to chose either between: 3 Rokinon lenses (24, 35 and 85mm T1.5 Cine lenses) OR 1 Canon 24-70 LII lens

1) Which would it be?
2) Do the Rokinon primes give better definition/detail than the Canon 24-70 LII ?
3) Is the T1.5 and T2.8 diference very huge for low light?
Click to expand...

I think T1.5 is a huge difference from T2.8 for low light situations, but you have to remember the super shallow depth of field you are gonna get from the T1.5. Lovely, but unusable for some applications.

jorge krausch said:
Also, is 35mm on the Epic the equivalent of a 50mm on a normal DSLR?
Click to expand...

Depends on what DSLR you are talking about. 5d? 7d? Other people here are better equipped to tell you than me. Use this tool: http://www.red.com/tools/crop-factor.
 
Thanks Max.. But with a T1.5 prime id probably have it maximum open at 2.8 anyway, as the T1.5 at 1.5 seems very unsharp.. might as well push the 2.8 of a T2.8 in post..
better grain than blur.. no?
 
the key to all these is available "light" not available "gloom"
the lenses are part of your tool kit, but so is light..
even consumer lanterns with diffusion on them are affordable ways to help yourself..
Try to shoot where you have the choice of being open or stopped down.. consider some IRNDs for when you want to shoot open in a brighter natural light.
And.. rentals of still lenses are widely available all over the world, even when you can't get cine lenses..

also... no matter how low budget you are.. there is always something you can do to modify or enhance your lighting...

Now.. to original question..Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a lens I own for my dslr package.. It is my most used general purpose zoom on that kit for BTS video.
I tested it on a Scarlet a few months ago and liked it.. even at 2.8 the corners were entirely usable wide open.. by 4.0 to 5.6 the were totally even.
However, the focus throw is very short. making it tricky to pull focus while operating.
probably will not cover 5k or ff well at wide apertures *might* cover at 5.6 or 8


In my still lens kit, I also use a tokina 11-16... a LOT... have used it with DSLRs, Epics, R1 and SOny F3... its a great problem solver.. and the distortion is not too bad..
It's so wide that focus pulling is not difficult.


I have also used the Canon 24-105 canon on dslr shoots.. I do find that even a little lighting helps this lens.. but at its core.. the color rendition and fidelity makes it still useful. It's kind of a bargain for range, color fidelity, etc.. would not hesitate to do a bunch of sit down interviews and lighting controlled drama with it alone.
covers ff

Sigma lenses *tend* to have good glass and inconsistent mechanicals.. would probably avoid them

Canon 70-200 2.8 w or w/o IS are both reliable lenses that you will use a lot... cover ff as well

the 24-70 and earlier 28-70 Canon f2.8 lenses are workhorses of still and DSLR BTS... the camera data is supported...

I do not personally recommend using the Canon IS feature on a tripod mounted shoot, nor really on an video/motion picture shoot. I find it is designed for stills, and will make your lens constantly be trying to settle on focus, and thus fight your ability to get sharp pictures.

If you are willing to branch out brand to brand, and consider still lenses.. there are a lot of notes on this forum about Nikon, Contax, Leica, and other MF lenses for use on Red cameras.. I play with a lot of these, and like many of them..

If you want to buy new.. then yeah.. I like the Tokina, Tamron, and Canon glass I have mentioned above.

I will be buying the bower/rokinons as cine primes, but have not decided which mount to get... because a Canon mount is an issue on an R1, but I am not wild about reversing the gears on my FF all the day long as I swap lenses..

And finally.. my personal favorite lens kit is a 70s set of Zeiss 35mm standard speed primes.. they are all t 2.1 to 2.3.. but give lovely results..
I do see similar sets on ebay from time to time.. prices all over the place.. my set is in high end condition and color matched since orig purchased for a production company.. so would be expensive to match.. if you gradually put your own together.. probably would cost around $7500-$15000 with cine gears and service and PL mount
 
Last edited:
Just an additional factor here. You will have no problem mounting all types of follow focuses to the 24-70 as the ring is well away from the camera. Once you switch to the primes your choice of follow focus becomes more specific. Make sure you get one that can meet up with the focus ring as they are pretty close to the camera. Would love to write more but have to run right now.

If you shoot mostly cinema I would vote for the three Rokinon Primes over the 24-70 zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top