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 :)

Evin Grant's NAB 2011 lens roundup...

Jeff Kilgroe said:
Wha??? How...?

I've done this to myself two years in a row now where I try to crash through everything in a day or two and it just doesn't work out so well.
Click to expand...


Don't feel too bad Jeff. I must have walked past their booth three times before I noticed the loose lenses on thier table. It was a pretty low-key and small booth. But the form factor of the lenses caught my eye.
 
That Angienieux 45-120mm on the EPIC - an unreal combination. That lens is so unbelievably beautiful and compact.

Me want. Me can't afford. Me want, anyway....
 
Jason Diamond said:
I saw the Illuminas and even had them on an EPIC. They are actually a little larger but not longer than the Leica's. All the lenses are essentially the same size and they've been recertified to T1.2 at $33K for the set of 5 primes 18-85mm.

They seemed very nice in the brief bit we got to play with them. We did shoot some footage with them so need to look at it and analyze, however imperfect the "Testing" was ;)

Outside of the Leica's I'm really looking forward to getting these up on the projector and Camera for some reasonable testing.

Jason
Click to expand...

The specs I've seen quoted have them a little lighter and shorter than the Leicas while sharing the same 95mm fronts (so too Ultra Primes). Definitely nicely sized.

There was an early set up here that had some problems, which I hear have been fixed with the latest lenses. I know they've thickened the metal on the barrels and made some other tweaks (just as Leica has apparently altered the coating on their initial lenses).

Lomo/Illumina would do themselves a huge favor with RED people to simply send a set to Evin and hope he thinks they're good ... That's my 2c. If they could equal the quality of RED's lenses while offering much nicer size and one more stop of light I would see those virtues as being worth the extra $10k over a RED set ... provided they sell enough sets in N. America to not just be a novelty item.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
Here is a vote for Duclos skipping the normal zoom for now and starting the G-Primes after the 70-200mm. First up, 50mm. Then 35mm, 24mm and 75mm in that order. And hopefully by then there will be a new Nikkor normal zoom to crown the Duclos Nikkor rehouse set.
Click to expand...

Agree with this 1,000%. Given what Evin has posted about them ... the rehoused versions of the new Nikon primes could almost be like superior versions of the RPP's -- smaller, lighter and sharper wide open. And that is saying something because the RPP's are pretty darn good. Duclos should maybe conduct a survey and see how many people are interested in this. If he can keep the price in the RPP range or even $5k I think he would have quite a few buyers.

I guess the only drawback would be losing the AF ability, but perhaps a worthwhile tradeoff :)

Anthony
 
Oh my bad. I see where you're coming from; It claims 4K performance, but image format size is 24mmx13.5mms. What 4k camera's sensor would that cover?
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
The Optimo 45-120 is very sleek and light. It's very similar in size/weight compared to the Optimo 15-40. Just a bit longer and only 0.1 lbs heavier. Like I said, pure sex.

I also really liked what I saw from the 1.4X and 2X PL doublers. Sexy.
Click to expand...

Quick question for Evin and Jeff, given that the 45-120 is the film zoom model ... how do you think it will intercut with the 16-42 Rouge? I'm going to be getting the Rouge set, but because the 15-40 is so much pricier and doesn't even cover 5k without an adaptor, I don't think that's ever going to be an option for me.

So I'm curious if you think the look/performance of the 16-42 is close enough to the 15-40 to intercut perfectly with the new 45-120.

Like you guys, I saw it's small size and fantastic range and was pretty blown away.

Actually Evin, since you own the Rouge set ... if you were to do it all over again, would you just save the $20k from the 30-80 and put it toward the 45-120 instead?

I guess that depends on how it pairs with the 16-42.

Thanks again for the help :)

Anthony
 
I think it would intercut just fine. I have mixed footage shot with the 15-40 with stuff shot on the 30-80 Rouge. I asked the guys at the Angenieux booth if there were any plans for a longer DP series zoom in the near future. "No" was pretty much the answer, but they are always working on new things. I would expect one at some point, but I think they're going to ride the 45-120 train for a while. I would be very tempted to pair the 16-42 with the 45-120 if my budget allowed. And I would probably do a rental and make sure I was getting exactly what I wanted before spending that amount of money on a single lens.
 
And for what its worth, I'm pretty sure the 15-40 covers 5k without an adapter. I think its the 2 heavy lenses that vignette.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #73
Anthony, like Jeff I have never seen any matching issues with any of the Optimo line, they really are some of the most consistent lenses ever made. I really can't tell the difference between my Rouges at the the overlapping focal lengths. As to weather I would go 16-42 and 45-120? Well if I could afford it yes, but only if I could also get a 24-290. Otherwise 120mm is not long enough to cover all the tele I generally need (Although I do have a 200mm F2 Nikkor) but for me right now the
16-42/30-80/70-200 combo is pretty hard to beat both in price, performance and especially weight. Just to make your mouth water here are two grabs from a short I just shot with them...
Fe1.jpg

Fe2.jpg
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I think it would intercut just fine. I have mixed footage shot with the 15-40 with stuff shot on the 30-80 Rouge. I asked the guys at the Angenieux booth if there were any plans for a longer DP series zoom in the near future. "No" was pretty much the answer, but they are always working on new things. I would expect one at some point, but I think they're going to ride the 45-120 train for a while. I would be very tempted to pair the 16-42 with the 45-120 if my budget allowed. And I would probably do a rental and make sure I was getting exactly what I wanted before spending that amount of money on a single lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff, this helps. Yah as sexy as the 16-42 + 45-120 combo would be, it's $75k ... and I have a feeling Bandpro's 5 Leica set could land in the $100k neighborhood when you subtract the cost of the included Epic. Obviously, primes and zooms fill completely different needs but all things being equal -- taking a bit more money and throwing them at the Leicas might be hard to resist :)

Anthony
 
Evin Grant said:
Anthony, like Jeff I have never seen any matching issues with any of the Optimo line, they really are some of the most consistent lenses ever made. I really can't tell the difference between my Rouges at the the overlapping focal lengths. As to weather I would go 16-42 and 45-120? Well if I could afford it yes, but only if I could also get a 24-290. Otherwise 120mm is not long enough to cover all the tele I generally need (Although I do have a 200mm F2 Nikkor) but for me right now the
16-42/30-80/70-200 combo is pretty hard to beat both in price, performance and especially weight. Just to make your mouth water here are two grabs from a short I just shot with them...
Fe1.jpg

Fe2.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks for this Evin, they look great. I'm glad I stopped at their booth and darn, that 45-120 was nice. I still couldn't believe how compact it was.
I'm definitely eager to hear more of your impressions from the Duclos zooms as well, as they seem to be king on the budget vs performance continuum.

Thanks for this thread, I love it :)

Anthony
 
Anthony, though it pains me a little, I would probably get the 16-42mm and 45-120mm first. I would only go with the Leicas if you can get an early set, which might give you a speedier ROI due to their limited availability.

But this is a very important decision so you should ignore my suggestion and analyze your market carefully. What would your clients prefer? ...the best zooms, or the best primes? It is a tough call man. Best of luck with it.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
Anthony, though it pains me a little, I would probably get the 16-42mm and 45-120mm first. I would only go with the Leicas if you can get an early set, which might give you a speedier ROI due to their limited availability.

But this is a very important decision so you should ignore my suggestion and analyze your market carefully. What would your clients prefer? ...the best zooms, or the best primes? It is a tough call man. Best of luck with it.
Click to expand...

Yah I agree Robert, everyone seems to say that the Optimos ROI super fast -- they work well with the Epic and are used on so many sets. Also, you're right in the sense that for my coming projects (mostly marketing/commercial/informercial and docu type stuff) super duper primes like the Leicas are not absolutely 100% necessary. Optimo zooms are sharp enough and I don't even need much in the way of shallow DOF -- or much shot at night -- so 2.8 is fine as well.

The Leicas would just be a more emotional/passion decision than a financial one.

Still, does that make me so wrong to want them???

Maybe one of my projects will strike gold and then .... :)

Anthony
 
DP3

DP3

Here's to hoping Angie makes a 45-120 DP Rouge version of the new Optimo. At around $25K vs $53K it becomes a more viable owner/operator option and paired with the 16-42 DP you would have a brilliant set for under $50K. In the meantime, any lens that goes for $53K seems like a rental house only item to me. Pity.

Cheers - #19
 
Totally agree Anthony. Allow me to add that an early set of Leicas sounds like THE solid financial decision. 0.02

Blair S. Paulsen said:
Here's to hoping Angie makes a 45-120 DP Rouge version of the new Optimo. At around $25K vs $53K it becomes a more viable owner/operator option and paired with the 16-42 DP you would have a brilliant set for under $50K. In the meantime, any lens that goes for $53K seems like a rental house only item to me. Pity.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

But it should make the set much more active for rental. So I'd bet it would be worth the price difference.

If the 15-40mm and 16-42mm in fact do cover 5k with no added circular distortion, CA, etc, etc, blah, blah... If you combine T2.8 and Epic's clean ISO2000 (+!) for 2k, you are not really gonna be "concerned" about low-light, right? Even for a 4k finish, Epic has a bit of a "super-speed easy button". ;) You might have to rent a set of MP, 5/i, RPP, Ultras, or Leicas here and there --but only for special occasions. And for those who already own sets of RPPs already have up to T1.9 as a killer back-up. Shoot some inter-cutting tests (post them if you do please).

One also would have to consider that the f2.6 of the zooms provides plenty-shallow DoF for almost every need if you don't mind doing it on the long end of the 45-120mm. What you don't get is the shallower at wider focal length. Though again, f2.6 at 42mm is pretty darn shallow already, and you would have lots of separation all the way into the deep wide end. It all depends on the shot, of course.

I'd wager a full set of Leicas would work 365 days, 24hs, with no coffee breaks, for a minimum of 3 years straight. :) And while a five prime Red-Leica set should also work pretty much non-stop for ever, I would consider the more affordable and versatile "T2.8 15-120mm Optimo two-small-Zoom set" if I had to choose. Unless you are getting both, which might be the best combo ever to leave with from the rental house.

I think the Leicas are going to be the best yet. But thing is, the Angee zoom set should also rent like a total beast! And would be a bit more indie friendly, which is now about 90% of films or whatever. The 45-120mm's range will go beautifully with 15-40mm, or 16-42. It gives you a range equivalent of a "full standard" set of cine primes (~ from 16mm to 135mm IMO), all you need is long teles and the 8R.

The Optimo's 100mm vs. 120mm difference needs to be at least mentioned. The Leicas and the 16-42mm Angee Zoom are matched at the wide end, with the 15-40mm (T0.2 faster) zooms edging out the primes by 1mm --however in the future, it will be the Leica 16mm it will provide the widest FOV thanks to the larger coverage. Both options would require additional rentals for long telephoto, but knowing you will pretty much automatically match with the zooms with a 24-290 is also a plus.

I would also try to consider that the Optimos might come early enough to get a good head start. Maybe one can draw up some useful rental numbers based on that.

And just to be an annoying meticulous OCD (genius ;) bastard... I personally wouldn't consider it a "compromise" if what you are doing is getting the best of a different fruit. The Angies are zooms. Zooms that pass for top-shelf primes! :D They just aren't super-speed. :kicks some dirt: But they will look flippen' awesome.

0.002
 
Just in regard to the Nikon 70-200 nanocoat version, aka VRII. One of the first things stills shooters noticed about this highly anticipated lens was the pretty extreme breathing at maximum zoom. So at the minimum focus distance, the actual maximum focal length is about 135mm. I.e. as you focus from infinity to 1.4m with zoom set at 200mm, the focal length actually shrinks to 135mm. Refer to lens specifications here at Roland Vink's highly regarded peer-reviewed site. http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#70-xxPro Magnification is 1/8.3, which for the close-focus distance of 1.4m works out to about a 135 mm focal length.

This is one of the compromises of designing an internal focus lens, and of keeping the price down. Great lens - but potential users should know its limits so they're not disappointed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top