For... poor man's zoom lens? What do you recommend?

[Minu Park]

Sensor is getting bigger and bigger, over the time, investing lenses are really harder and harder.

Some how, cheapo still lenses are getting easier and easier to buy.

I ended up trying to buy some zoom lenses.

Most people own

Canon 24-70, 70-200, 16-35

Yet, I wonder what other lenses you guys own, and I wonder why do you own it.

Here are some lenses that I would discuss with you.

1. canon 24-105 vs Sigma 24-105

2. Tamron 15-30 vs Canon 16-35

3. Sigma 120-300mm vs Canon 70-200, Nikon 70-200

Due to electronical follow focus's development (Llike Latitude, Foolcontrol), Still lenses could be really useful more and more - it's generally lighter and compact as well.

Comparing 24-105 vs COOKE 18-100, the weight differences are really crucial when it comes to shooting...

I wonder how you think of these lenses.

 

[David W. Jones]

Really depends on your use.

Here are two different examples of low cost zooms side by side. A Tokina 16-50mm designed for still photo work, and a Cooke 20-100mm cine zoom.

 

[Christopher Mills]

I can compare the Cooke to the Canon 24-105
I like them both, but have not used them on the same sensors

The Cooke is much larger and heavier, but a well maintained one will be more parfocal than the Canon.

Canon covers more sensor area across its full range. Esp in this new world of FF size sensor area in RED ecosystem.

They have different looks.
Canon cuts well with modern extra sharp glass, tends to be a little blueish to my eye.
Cooke cuts well with vintage manual focus still lenses, tends to a "warm look" in skin tones. I feel that it doesn't actually resolve as highly as the current sensors could capture.

The Canon is not perfect, it is built to a price point, and many examples will have zoom creep as they age and are used more heavily.

The Cooke is easier to use with an external geared follow focus.
The Cooke can accept small internal filters. The filter holder is important to acquire with your lens, as it can be hard to find as a standalone accessory.

The Canon takes readily available smallish front of lens filters.

Both are relatively "slow" lenses.

Another lens to examine is the RED 18-85 good quality, modern sharpness and modern color rendition. Geared for manual FF. Price can be less than a Cooke, but will be more than the Canon.

I can not speak to electronic FF on Canon, as I have not ever used it.

I like to shoot scripted work, and prefer to plan and design my lighting to flatter my talent. For this reason, the Cooke is usually in my basic kit.

I do also love early Zeiss "standard speeds" for similar fashion/glamour look. They are not a perfect color match to the Cooke, but are not bad... they can be graded to intercut well. However, pulling focus with them is awkward, as the gear size/location is tough to work with.

However, I see a place in the owner/operator kit for a 24-105, esp as they are widely available at under $800 used. They cover a useful range of focal lengths, and are a nice size for handheld work.

I have used the Canon 16-35, and it has a useful range. It does have significant distortion in the corners. I have only used it on Canon DSLR shoots. It does not look like the Cooke.

 

[darren scott]

Have a look on GL optics 70-200 using the canon 70-200 as the base lens.

https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=...ved=0ahUKEwj86ImgxrHJAhVBKiYKHW5EDsIQ_AUIBigB

 

[Brandon Kelly]

I just got the Canon 70-300 L. I was going to go with the 70-200 f4 is, but considering identical price point, iq seems about the same but I need the 100mm reach for action sports.

I also just ordered the 24-70 f4, today actually. At $850 cdn for black friday, hard to pass that up being almost 600 off.

With the Sigma 18-35, the 24-70 and 70-300 canons I'm looking pretty set for the winter of filming skiing all over the world.