Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Angenieux Rouge

AnthonyFlores said:
This is a bit concerning John, and something I haven't heard before. I would like to be able to use them on the Epic, wide open ... are you saying the edges of the frame get distorted when you're using them on the wide end?

Anyone else have this issue? From everything others have posted, the lenses act in many ways like slightly slower primes -- extremely sharp and excellent overall across the full range of the zoom and apertures.
Click to expand...

1st time I am hearing this as well. I have heard that they ramp a little on the long end and a little distortion is expected on the wide. Will test soon.
 
AnthonyFlores said:
This is a bit concerning John, and something I haven't heard before. I would like to be able to use them on the Epic, wide open ... are you saying the edges of the frame get distorted when you're using them on the wide end?

Anyone else have this issue? From everything others have posted, the lenses act in many ways like slightly slower primes -- extremely sharp and excellent overall across the full range of the zoom and apertures.
Click to expand...

it really isn't THAT much to be concerned about. these are inherent problems with zoom lenses in general. that's why the rouge lenses are priced so well, the sacrifice had to be somewhere. great optics, little bit of ramping and falloff. you can't blame it for what you are paying. it's the best zoom for the price period. there is no arguing that, but they aren't perfect.
 
AnthonyFlores said:
This is a bit concerning John, and something I haven't heard before. I would like to be able to use them on the Epic, wide open ... are you saying the edges of the frame get distorted when you're using them on the wide end?

Anyone else have this issue? From everything others have posted, the lenses act in many ways like slightly slower primes -- extremely sharp and excellent overall across the full range of the zoom and apertures.
Click to expand...

It's very obvious once you put it on the camera and point it at a flat field. I'll try and take a screenshot today.

Most zooms have a similar issue. The 25-250HR is also very pronounced.

It's particularily pronounced though on the rouge, especially the wider 16-42.

I'm not knocking them. But the OP was asking about them and it's worth noting the downsides as well as the upsides.

jb
 
C.H.Haskell said:
1st time I am hearing this as well. I have heard that they ramp a little on the long end and a little distortion is expected on the wide. Will test soon.
Click to expand...

As I've said, it's very obvious when you use them. They even out by the time you're at T5.6. I've actually found that they do hold on to the very end of their zoom range really well, and better than most. There has to be a compromise somewhere. The lens is small, fast and cheap....all things considered, it's still a great lens.

jb
 
For what ever its worth they are in high demand around here...(NYC) and according to offhollywood they go out on every 3D shoot. A matched pair is something to consider if your going in that direction. Personally I am still stuck between a pair of these (16-42/30-80) or panchros. Waiting for NAB and will try and test and share more info soon.
 
C.H.Haskell said:
For what ever its worth they are in high demand around here...(NYC) and according to offhollywood they go out on every 3D shoot. A matched pair is something to consider if your going in that direction. Personally I am still stuck between a pair of these (16-42/30-80) or panchros. Waiting for NAB and will try and test and share more info soon.
Click to expand...

Me too dude, same dilemma here. Was also strongly considering getting some Leica S lenses as my mainstay but the fact that there's only 35, 70, 120, 180 is just a bit limiting right now. And I don't have much faith that Leica will quickly release the additional focal lengths anytime soon.

Anyways, I will still get them someday, but like Ketch I'm going to wait until Leica fills out the lens line a bit more. Also, rental value on these is kinda iffy since they are not true cine lenses.

I've kinda come to the conclusion that the best path for me is to get Optimos in the near future, with my Epic ... fantastic quality, high demand, fast ROI on rentals. This thread is literally the first knock I've ever heard on them. Besides, I trust Mark a TON and he recommended the Optimos over the Panchros, if he were to choose just one way to go.

In terms of primes, what I'll probably do is get on the deposit/waiting list for the Leica C's ... and work on coming up with the funding for them next year. In the meantime, I may get some RPP's to have primes on hand until the Leicas C's are ready in 2012. But as I said in another thread, the Optimos can handle 95% of my workload this year. So I will recoup that investment insanely fast.

Crossing my fingers, hoping I can make all of this happen (Especially the Leicas!). Lenses are one of the funnest parts of being in this business, I LOVE THEM :)

Anthony
 
C.H.Haskell said:
For what ever its worth they are in high demand around here...(NYC) and according to offhollywood they go out on every 3D shoot. A matched pair is something to consider if your going in that direction. Personally I am still stuck between a pair of these (16-42/30-80) or panchros. Waiting for NAB and will try and test and share more info soon.
Click to expand...

Please don't misunderstand.

I'm not knocking them. I described them as my workhorse lenses on the series I'm doing right now. They are incomparable for their size weigh and speed.

They're just not perfect.

jb
 
We love the Optimos and have no complaints. we have 20 of them so far with more coming. on the matched 3D sets we send out one red and one blue, which is nice for 3d stuff... But I like the black ones, they seem a little sharper.....

They both work great on the 5k Epic.
 

Attachments

  • f31.jpg
    f31.jpg
    89 KB · Views: 1
  • photo.JPG
    photo.JPG
    88.9 KB · Views: 1
  • Op3d1.jpg
    Op3d1.jpg
    48.3 KB · Views: 1
We got that one from Angenleux, the only thing I don't like about it is that it has wheels which might encourage someone to wheel it around.
 
Tom.Wong said:
it really isn't THAT much to be concerned about. these are inherent problems with zoom lenses in general. that's why the rouge lenses are priced so well, the sacrifice had to be somewhere. great optics, little bit of ramping and falloff. you can't blame it for what you are paying. it's the best zoom for the price period. there is no arguing that, but they aren't perfect.
Click to expand...

Tom, that's a total deal breaker for me. I shoot alot of 2:35 these days and frame way out to the ends. Significant fall off is not pretty for this kind of shooting. I think this thread put it in perspective:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=55089&page=6

Perhaps the problem lies with these zooms is that they were never conceived in their early design for 4.5 k plus like RPP's.
 
5470831886


http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/5470831886/

Taken today. 30-80 at T2.8

JB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John, how were you lighting that test? I don't doubt you but after trying many different techniques I found a piece of white plexi over the front element back-lit by a soft source seemed to give the most even field of illumination and really accurately displayed the falloff. Also the amount of falloff can be exaggerated by the curve in redspace, so you really need to open an R3D in redcine and check it out there. My guess is it's actually 2/3 to a 1/2 stop in the RAW.
 
If you could only afford 1 rouge dp, which would it be for starters, the 16-42 or 30-80mm? Thanks.
 
Can't you just use a prime for steadicam or handheld? I mean in terms of value wouldn't more value come from the 30-80mm as it covers more focal lengths, and just use a prime for wide?
 
Evin Grant said:
John, how were you lighting that test? I don't doubt you but after trying many different techniques I found a piece of white plexi over the front element back-lit by a soft source seemed to give the most even field of illumination and really accurately displayed the falloff. Also the amount of falloff can be exaggerated by the curve in redspace, so you really need to open an R3D in redcine and check it out there. My guess is it's actually 2/3 to a 1/2 stop in the RAW.
Click to expand...

HI Evin.

That shot was simply pointing at bounced diffuse daylight bouncing into the roof of the location I was at.

If it was video I could pan it and you'd see it moving across the roof.

I don't really have time to set up a test to show it.

I found that it was more like 1 -1.5 stops when I tested it last season.

I'm interested you would say that the "curve" would make flatness of field appear worse. How so ?

jb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top