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 :)

building a set

Peter Osinski

Peter Osinski

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
370
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New York
Ok, so it would seem that with the death of the 2/3" cinema scarlet, my dreams of a digital cinema camera with above HD resolution and a sensor similar to super 16mm film are dead as well. Now I will have to move away from my 16mm zooms (although I will be keeping them of course) and move towards 35mm glass.

Now, where to go? I prefer to work with zoom lenses and would like to put together a set of manual lenses that give me the most range possible. I am looking for suggestions and opinions. For example is full frame important or is super35mm ok?

For right now I was thinking

Duclos 11-16mm t2.8

Red 17-50mm zoom t2.9

Duclos 70-200mm t3

Let me know what you think
 
thanks for the info.

My other question is it worth investing in full frame glass? I could substitute the ruby 14-24mm for the duclos 11-16 but I would be pays 12,000 vs 3500 for that.

The duclos 70-200 will cover full frame when it comes out.

I would need to find a mid range zoom (24-70mm) that covers full frame
 
Peter Osinski said:
thanks for the info.

My other question is it worth investing in full frame glass? I could substitute the ruby 14-24mm for the duclos 11-16 but I would be pays 12,000 vs 3500 for that.

The duclos 70-200 will cover full frame when it comes out.

I would need to find a mid range zoom (24-70mm) that covers full frame
Click to expand...

For the price of a Ruby, you could get a whole set of cinemodded ZF's. Or Leica R's. Or Contax primes. I personally think primes are more uncompromising than zooms, even great ones such as these, and even if the primes are still glass. I think no zoom is a substitute for what an amazing 35 1.4 can do. But that's just me.
 
Nick Morrison said:
For the price of a Ruby, you could get a whole set of cinemodded ZF's. Or Leica R's. Or Contax primes. I personally think primes are more uncompromising than zooms, even great ones such as these, and even if the primes are still glass. I think no zoom is a substitute for what an amazing 35 1.4 can do. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly, zfs are totally worth it...and at a fraction of the cost of one good zoom lens.

And ++1 on the primes, I'm a wide aperture guy, so they're the way to go for me (and most haha), depending on what the shooting situations are of course....not to deter you from what you want though man! There are amazing zooms out there delivering what primes can...the duclo wide zoom is solidly built and priced, so you seem to be on the right track!

-CDJ
 
Last edited:
Casey David Johnson said:
Yeah exactly, zfs are totally worth it...and at a fraction of the cost of one good zoom lens.

And ++1 on the primes, they're the way to go, depending on what the shooting situations are of course.
Click to expand...

Yeah how can a zoom do what an 85 1.4 do? Such an amazing portrait prime.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Yeah how can a zoom do what an 85 1.4 do? Such an amazing portrait prime.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it all depends on the shooting situations...what one lens does better here does worse there and vice versa. It won't do what the 85 1.4 can do in a portrait set-up, but it'll shine while out shooting nature.
 
This is a forum for and about Red cameras, but it would be wrong to say there is no digital S16mm camera. Since Red is no longer planning on making one we should be able to mention the one that exists...

http://www.ikonoskop.com/

16mm uncompressed Raw, same price as Scarlet, horrible SDI monitoring issues but brilliant for run and gun, film-like shooting with 16mm lenses and since that's what you seem to be into *and own the glass for*, it would be a shame not to mention. I almost bought one but went with the Scarlet because client monitors have to look fantastic, and the Ikonoskop is not there yet. Hopefully the Scarlet rentals will pay for that camera.

As for lenses, if you'll be well-lit or outside much of the time, the Zeiss Contax 28-85 f.3.3-4 is an incredible lens that can be had for under $500. Sharp as the primes with the same Zeiss magic, just not as fast. Thought it doesn't have the exact brilliance of a 35 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.4, it's consistently amazing.

A lot of Canon glass is pinkish, soft and boring looking to my eye. Others love it, it's all about aesthetic. The 70-200 has the same CanonTint but a bit more interesting. For a fast, affordable, good looking mid range zoom, the Tokina 28-70 was converted from an Angenieux design, it's a f/2,6, autofocuses and can be had for $300 or so... not super contrasty but lovely color and flare characteristics.

The cheapest set of good looking lenses has to be old Nikkor primes... though you won't find a fast zoom there...
 
i have looked at the ikonoskop but it is not my cup of tea, mainly due to lack of availability.

the other reason I am moving away from 16mm glass is I want a set that I can use with whatever camera the production needs or prefers to use...these days that is going to be something in the super35mm range,
 
Some thoughts:

1. Lenses for moving pictures are either not cheap or a makeshift. A cheap solution will annoy you sooner than later.

2. Good lenses keep their value quite well. The better the brand the better the resale value. Zeiss, Cook and Angenieux lenses are a good investment. If maintained properly they will last long, deliver good results and keep their high resale value over a long period (10+ years). And even after 20 years most lenses from these manufacturers are not considered as "old crap from yesterday", on the contrary. Not so with re-housed still zooms/primes. While they might be a good fit for many projects they are hardly comparable to the above mentioned manufacturers.

3. Red is a new brand. Their primes are "pro", no question. Many seasoned cinematographers use them, rental houses rent them. They are considered to be close to Zeiss Master Primes which I can fully affirm. Not so their small zooms. The early small zooms (the 18-50 and its larger brother) were a disappointment for many. The fairly new RedPro 17-50 however is still comparable cheap but much better build. The moving front element (same construction as the 18-50), however, is kinda akward and not "pro" in a cinema lens context.

4. If you have some money to spent there are two options, IMHO: the Angenieux 16-42 and the Zeiss LWZ.2. Both will hold value very well, both deliver outstanding results and supreme build-quality. The Zeiss has an edge over the Angenieux with it's slight broader range and wider aperture (15.4 - 45, T 2.6). Both lenses are very sharp and breath (almost) zero. The Angenieux exhibits excellent flares. I cannot comment on the Zeiss in this regard.


Hans
 
well option 4 is out of my range for sure.

I will skip the RED zoom because I want an internal focus lens

I am ok with Duclos Lenses for the wide and telephoto, can anyone reccomend a mid range zoom to fill at least part of the gap between 16mm and 70mm?

I am hoping to keep it between 4-10k
 
Ryan De Franco said:
As for lenses, if you'll be well-lit or outside much of the time, the Zeiss Contax 28-85 f.3.3-4 is an incredible lens that can be had for under $500. Sharp as the primes with the same Zeiss magic, just not as fast. Thought it doesn't have the exact brilliance of a 35 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.4, it's consistently amazing. A lot of Canon glass is pinkish, soft and boring looking to my eye. Others love it, it's all about aesthetic. The 70-200 has the same CanonTint but a bit more interesting. For a fast, affordable, good looking mid range zoom, the Tokina 28-70 was converted from an Angenieux design, it's a f/2,6, autofocuses and can be had for $300 or so... not super contrasty but lovely color and flare characteristics.
Click to expand...

I will back Ryan up on how dope the Contax 28-85 is. It is revered in the still lens world, considered one of the best zooms ever made, especially amongst Zeiss-ophiles. You may also want to consider it's smaller cousin, the 35-70 3.3, which some like even better, but its range is a little small for video work.

I own the 30-70, and though it lives up to its reputation, and I love it, I'm kinda itching for the 28-85 myself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top