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 :)

Full Frame Medium Zoom

Jiri Vrozina

Jiri Vrozina

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apart from buying new Zeiss cz 28-80mm T2.9 is there anybody making affordable rehouse (parfocal) of 24/8-70mm still zoom lenses.? Please let me know, it is a nightmare operating still zooms.
It must be FULL FRAME ;-)
Thanks..
 
The Zeiss CZ 28-80mm T2.9 from what I've been able to observe is a beast.

The larger issues for folks like Duclos and rehousing a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L MKII is that you're starting out with a $2500-ish lens and then going through the whole rehousing which could land you a lens in the $8,000-$13,000 range. Which is a good price range to land in, but a high risk investment for anybody really.

Tokina has recently shown off their 16-28mm T2.9 cinema zoom which is coming in at a lower entry level price point. However, their medium zoom is at the moment a ghost town. I have heard a whisper that a medium zoom is on the way from them. Likely somewhere in the $5,000-$7,000 range I'd imagine. They themselves are just figuring out this market.

At the moment I'm sitting on some cash awaiting Epic Dragon to land on my ledge. After that I'll take a really hard look at full frame zoom offerings. I have a feeling there will be more offerings soon.
 
If they weren't "push pull", the Contax 28-85 and 35-70 would be great candidates. They are superb optically. There's also the Nikon 24-70 2.8. Isn't that a fan favorite on these boards? Looking at Ken Rockwell's tests, that Nikon has WAY TOO MUCH distortion for my tastes...but that's just me. The Contax's zooms are better corrected than that.
 
Nick Morrison said:
If they weren't "push pull", the Contax 28-85 and 35-70 would be great candidates. They are superb optically. There's also the Nikon 24-70 2.8. Isn't that a fan favorite on these boards? Looking at Ken Rockwell's tests, that Nikon has WAY TOO MUCH distortion for my tastes...but that's just me. The Contax's zooms are better corrected than that.
Click to expand...

I own Nikon 28-70 which is better then Nikon 24-70 but Focusing Drives me insane.
I wish somebody came up with $7-8,000 solution. I am not ready to spend $20,000 in this "funny" time we live in..
 
Phil Holland said:
Well this:

http://www.pchood.com/%E7%94%B5%E5%BD%B1%E9%95%9C%E5%A4%B4/zoom%20film%20lens

Might be something to look at for $2500.
Click to expand...

Wow! I have to admit, these guys have so far the best cine-modified Samyangs I have yet seen...:

35-01-SY.JPG


Check out their full range. I might need to dig into this a bit deeper...

:sifone: Peter
 
I do not understand all of this. If you puts spoilers and new hubcaps on a Honda Accord, it's still a Honda Accord.
These people (pix above) are not changing the focus throw or the mechanics in any way. There is still the same amount of breathing, number of aperture blades and the lengths continue to vary from one lens to the next. You might as well throw on a duclos ring and an 80mm front on these lenses and you have pretty much the same thing. Oh and by the way, I guarantee you that those witness marks will be off. So really the only thing going for this mod is that the lens will extend internally rather than externally. So are you really willing to pay $825 so that you don't have to put a nun's knickers on a mattebox?

The OP has complained that he hates still lenses. But he hasn't specifically said why.
Personally, I would also think about another alternative than buying an expensive cinema Zoom if I were in his position. (I have CP.2's and still lensees) I would go with something like the Redrock Remote (in fact I did), which extends the throw of a lens to 270 degress and equalizes any inconsistencies. Could be a heck of a lot cheaper with a parfocal still's zoom than the alternative.
 
Wow, that looks pretty solid for a Canon 24-70mm L Mk II conversion!

Has anyone actually used PCHood before?

Also, any idea where you would actually send in your lenses for cine-modding?
 
Proper rehouse of still lenses is very very hard because almost none of Still Zooms are parfocal. Tokina short zoom is an exception and so is Canon,Nikon 80-200 zooms. Current still zooms are not parfocal.
One might just spend $20,000 and be done with it.
Was told Zeiss are working on super wide Full Frame zoom(16-35). So lets see. There is no cheap way out.
 
Jiri Vrozina said:
Proper rehouse of still lenses is very very hard because almost none of Still Zooms are parfocal. Tokina short zoom is an exception and so is Canon,Nikon 80-200 zooms. Current still zooms are not parfocal.
One might just spend $20,000 and be done with it.
Was told Zeiss are working on super wide Full Frame zoom(16-35). So lets see. There is no cheap way out.
Click to expand...

Not true at all.

Here is a list of parfocal lenses from Canon:

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6

Discontinued lenses:

EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 20-35mm f/2.8L
EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM
EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5
EF 70-210mm f/4
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6
EF 80-200mm f/2.8L
EF 100-300mm f/5.6L
EF 100-300mm f/5.6
 
Nonsense. The go out of focus during zooming. Owned some of them. Just use chart and do some tests.
 
Jiri Vrozina said:
Nonsense. The go out of focus during zooming. Owned some of them. Just use chart and do some tests.
Click to expand...

Maybe something wrong with your mount or back-focus?
Also - the locking mechanism on the RED Canon mount "pushes" the lenses tiny amount away from the sensor. More then enough to justify BF adjustment. You need to check on your own lenses and calibrate with the lock activated. As each lens has a little different amount of "play" - it might not be possible to match it to all your lenses. In my case I was able to match the 24-70 with the 70-200 perfectly, only the 16-35 was tiny tiny bit off. But negligible at the wide angle FOVs anyway. Ultimately I do not remember last time I was actually zooming during a shot on the 16-35. If I ever do so - it is usually on the 70-200, but even then this is a rare occurrence for me...

:sifone: Peter
 
Jiri Vrozina said:
Nonsense. The go out of focus during zooming. Owned some of them. Just use chart and do some tests.
Click to expand...

Nonsense nothing.
Worked with a bunch of them too and they are as Canon describes them - parfocal.
Do you seriously think all of those sports photographer's at Wimbledon and the US Open would be using them if they weren't? No way the autofocus could keep up otherwise.
 
Sure. Photographers need parfocal lenses ;-).
Almost all of them will go out and in focus during zooming. (sometimes ever so slightly especially fully open).
I wish you guys were right - but use charts and you will see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top