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 :)

Inexpensive Zooms

M

Matt W.

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Hi everyone, I'm looking for inexpensive zooms that will intercut with the following:

Zeiss Standard speeds.

Cooke S3s and similar.

Canon FD Primes.

Could be one zoom that's of a similar vintage to all those, could be a few.

The look doesn't have to be the same, but it has to feel similar, if that makes any sense. Same vintage/similar contrast. I wouldn't be using these to intercut much unless there were a zoom during the shot. So that's the one requirement, that it be parfocal. And very cheap, these are to have on hand, not to rent.

People seem to rave about the old 28-70mm Tokina that's rumored to be an Angenieux design. Is the V1 of this lens (72mm filters) the same design? Same number of elements and groups. Are they both/either of them parfocal?

The Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f3.4 looks like another good option. It's multi-coated (I'd be using single coated older standard speeds mostly) and more modern, but I feel like it might still intercut well with the standard speeds? Is it parfocal? Just learned about the 40-120mm f2.8 Vario-Sonnar. Surprised that's not more popular for full frame cinema use.

Is the Canon 35-105mm f3.5 parfocal?

Lastly, how would the 18-50mm Sigma work out? The 18-35mm is too good for these vintage lenses, and not quite parfocal, but I might rent that in the future anyway.

I'm also considering a Voigtlander Zoomar because it's available in Arri Standard mount. Anyone used this?

The goal here is to have something reasonably fast and small for shots where there's a zoom in the shot. And maybe to run around with outside. (If I had the money, I'd want a Cooke 20-60mm.) And convertible to EF mount, but it seems almost anything is, even with PL mount you can swap for Bayonet and adapt that so long as it's for mirrorless. (Would hit mirror on a dSLR.) Thanks.

Weird left field options highly encouraged.
 
Last edited:
Blair Thornton said:
Angenieux EZ-2 15-40mm S35 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1292132-REG/angenieux_ez_2_s35pl_ez_2_15_40mm_s35_cinema.html

and https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._ez_1_30_90mm_s35_cinema.html?sts=pi-ps&pim=Y

and Optimo Zoom https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...eux_48_130_optimo_optimo_dp_series_rouge.html
Click to expand...

Thanks. I should retitle this thread though:

"Dirt cheap" zooms.

Those look like good rental options for me but outside my purchasing budget.

Maybe this thread is a little lofi for the red community, but I had good luck with FDs and some recommended still lenses here.

Or should I just not bother and stick to a more budget-oriented forum?
 
Last edited:
Angenieux EZ-2
Click to expand...

Regardless of price, I really find the EZ zooms ugly. Their pincussion distortion is really weird. Particularly at focal lengths that you aren't used to seeing distortion at. I mean, they are great as long as you aren't shooting peoples faces, or architecture ;-)

I have the kim camera Ang. 28-70, and I'm very happy with it. If I had it to do over I might go with the Tokina version. It's a little bit slower, and has different coatings, but it costs half as much. About $2500ish.

Nick
 
Matt W. said:
Hi everyone, I'm looking for inexpensive zooms that will intercut with the following:

Zeiss Standard speeds.

Cooke S3s and similar.

Canon FD Primes.

Could be one zoom that's of a similar vintage to all those, could be a few.

The look doesn't have to be the same, but it has to feel similar, if that makes any sense. Same vintage/similar contrast. I wouldn't be using these to intercut much unless there were a zoom during the shot. So that's the one requirement, that it be parfocal. And very cheap, these are to have on hand, not to rent.

People seem to rave about the old 28-70mm Tokina that's rumored to be an Angenieux design. Is the V1 of this lens (72mm filters) the same design? Same number of elements and groups. Are they both/either of them parfocal?

The Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f3.4 looks like another good option. It's multi-coated (I'd be using single coated older standard speeds mostly) and more modern, but I feel like it might still intercut well with the standard speeds? Is it parfocal?

Is the Canon 35-105mm f3.5 parfocal?
Click to expand...

The Contax 35-70 is great. Yes its parfocal. The coatings will intercut with Standards, we've done it. Only draw back is its push pull. But if you mod it with a gear it becomes a variable prime.

The Canon 35-105 flares a lot and get too low con (our colorist rejected it) - just an FYI.
 
Nick Morrison said:
The Contax 35-70 is great. Yes its parfocal. The coatings will intercut with Standards, we've done it. Only draw back is its push pull. But if you mod it with a gear it becomes a variable prime.

The Canon 35-105 flares a lot and get too low con (our colorist rejected it) - just an FYI.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I wonder is it dust in the Canon? Almost all my FDs are dusty inside. I actually bought that zoom for $60 so I'm going to keep it anyway but might not use it much.

Speaking of low contrast, I'm usually shooting with uncoated standard speeds. I don't mind flare. Think it will still be a good match? I guess there aren't a lot of alternatives.

Nick Gardner said:
Regardless of price, I really find the EZ zooms ugly. Their pincussion distortion is really weird. Particularly at focal lengths that you aren't used to seeing distortion at. I mean, they are great as long as you aren't shooting peoples faces, or architecture ;-)

I have the kim camera Ang. 28-70, and I'm very happy with it. If I had it to do over I might go with the Tokina version. It's a little bit slower, and has different coatings, but it costs half as much. About $2500ish.

Nick
Click to expand...

It's like $250 on eBay I think depending on mount. The Angenieux I suspect has better coatings though and the mechanics would be a world away rehoused...

I haven't worked with the EZ lenses, but I like Optimos. I remember working with a really high end Fujinon zoom (not as DP so I don't remember the zoom) that had weird distortion at like 45mm. Not for me. I'll pass on the EZ zooms even as rentals then. Is the Angenieux/Tokina parfocal? I'd like to buy the V1 since it has 72mm threads to match my other lenses, but I take it it's a different design? Both are 16 elements in 10 groups.
 
Is the Angenieux/Tokina parfocal? I'd like to buy the V1 since it has 72mm threads to match my other lenses, but I take it it's a different design? Both are 16 elements in 10 groups.
Click to expand...

I only have experience with the rehoused lens, which is a totally different beast. I couldn't speak to either the Tokina or Ang. in their still forms. However in my research it seams very likely that Ang. sold the design for the 28-70 to Tokina (or Licensed it). If you google Ang. 28-70 vs tokina, there will be a ton of comparisons and discussions on the still forums.

Nick
 
Nick Gardner said:
I only have experience with the rehoused lens, which is a totally different beast. I couldn't speak to either the Tokina or Ang. in their still forms. However in my research it seams very likely that Ang. sold the design for the 28-70 to Tokina (or Licensed it). If you google Ang. 28-70 vs tokina, there will be a ton of comparisons and discussions on the still forums.

Nick
Click to expand...

Is the Angenieux parfocal? I've read conflicting things about the Tokina being parfocal and conflicting things about which generation has the "Angenieux design." How does the one you have compare with the Optimos? I'm assuming (hoping) it's a bit softer and less well-corrected but without any ugly distortion? I'm only familiar with the 15-40 t2.6 and the DP rouge models and 24-290mm. They're all more modern than I'd like, but the 15-40mm I remember liking a lot.

Have you used the 20-120mm f2.6? It's is really inexpensive relative to the 20-100mm Cooke, but it has maybe too strong vintage look based on videos I've seen. But I kind of like it. Maybe I should just get that but I'm obviously constrained by my budget. I could get one for about $2000, I think. I wish the 20-60mm Cooke were affordable, I liked that a lot.

I'm so morbidly curious about the Voigtlander Zoomar. All signs point to it being awful. It has 3% barrel distortion at 36mm and 8% pincushion distortion at 86mm and seems to flare like crazy. That's a special kind of ugly.
 
The Angie 20-120 is parfocal but coverage is shy of 5KHD on Dragon. It’s big, heavy, and the front telescopes and rotates while focusing (but that almost doesn’t matter because you need a 6x6 matte box to cover the front element anyway).

If you get a later copy with the HEC coatings (1979~81) it is incredibly sharp even wide-open. That said, it does fringe quite a bit; I presume on film it was less noticeable, but 4k+ digital is far less forgiving with artifacts.

All that being said, I still like the image it makes. It handles highs and lows so well...
 
Is the Angenieux parfocal? I've read conflicting things about the Tokina being parfocal and conflicting things about which generation has the "Angenieux design." How does the one you have compare with the Optimos? I'm assuming (hoping) it's a bit softer and less well-corrected but without any ugly distortion?
Click to expand...

My copy is for all intents and purposes. Meaning if you set focus at 6 feet at 28mms, stuff at 6 feet away when the lens is at 6' is still in focus at 50 or 70mm. That being said, wide open if you zoom quickly through the range, there is a little focus wierdness if you are looking for it. I have no doubt it is sharper and different focal lengths and pehaps that is what I am seeing. In day to day use it has never been an issue, I don't shoot focus charts for a living ;-)

Not like an optimo or any of the modern Ang. lenses at all. It has sort of normal distortion for a lens in that range, all the old good kind not the new bad kind like the ANg. EZ zooms. those are just awful.

If you don't need it in PL, pick up the Tokina in whatever, and give it a shot. It's like free cheap. I did look at a lot of comparisons between the two before I picked the ANG, and I like it better. Just not sure I like it $1000 better ;-)

Nick
 
Easy google search will point you the right version for the Angie design and give some history.
Pros: Yes its parafocal. It’s very pretty, great look. Super bloomy/soft wide open, cleans up progressively at a stop down.
Cons: Image shifts a bit when changing focus direction. Super bloomy soft wide open.
 
I’m with you Nick, EZ zooms aren’t great. Speaking of the s35 back. Style series Angies are my current go to for zoom.
 
Speaking from experience on my feature film, we used a bit of everything and several still lenses were used for various things. We primarily worked with our Rokinon Cine DS set and used a tiny Sigma 24mm 2.8 Macro II, Tokina 11-16, small Tokina 28mm 2.8, Laowa 15mm Macro, and a Tokina 60-300mm zoom for a parfocal shot. It all matches very well, although this film is quite a unique project so your mileage may vary. I've started getting some Canon FDs and I currently own a Tokina 28-70 2.6 that's Angenieux style so on those points I'll quickly say that I love the Tokina 28-70 2.6, it's almost prime-level sharp, and it would have matched well with whatever we were doing on the feature film but we wanted to stick with primes on the shoot unless we needed an effect or wide focal range. As for the Canon FDs, I'm still getting used to them but I can see that they are very good to red colors and have a certain shine to them that is a little different from my usual Nikon lenses but not better or worse and I would say that the Canon FD zooms I've acquired recently, a 35-70 and a 70-210, seem to fit along with them best but I could see the Tokina's not having much trouble blending in. I know it's not an ideal solution as you would juggle mounts and adapters but some of Minolta's MD zoom lenses would fit in quite nicely as well. I've only recently tried Pentax K lenses and those are colorful little things with a look all their own but definitely not along the same lines as Canon FD's look. Overall, I lean towards Tokina as that's what I've found and liked most from research and what's historically shown up in thrift stores and used camera shops for me but Tamron is supposed to have some kicking zoom lenses as well so research third parties as the only reason I picked up a dirt cheap Tokina 60-300 was because I read on a list of parfocal lenses somewhere (try Googling that as it wasn't that long ago) that it worked nicely and was otherwise an all-around good travel lens, even though I'm not a big fan of push-pull zooms. If you're working with Zeiss, Zeiss Contax is where it's at but that's a whole path that I haven't ventured down too deep into save for a mint 50mm 1.4 MMJ that I wanted to start with and it's nice but I have so many great lenses already and the pricing for those older Zeiss lenses is a little much at the moment.
 
Thanks, everyone. Too much information for me to reply to everyone who has been helpful with thanks, but hank you to all and a lot of good leads. The Tokina does seem like a good option, especially at the price.

I am not going to bother with the 20-120mm Angenieux. I do like the look but worry the coverage will be too little and the size is a deal-breaker. Really wish the 20-60mm Cooke were still affordable.

Anyone used the 70-210mm f3.5 Contax Zeiss? I think for now my priority will be getting some reach beyond the 85mm standard speed in the set I use. Again, it's a single-coated set I use most often more flares than you'd get out of T* and a bit slower, but similar look. Not uncoated, I was before.
 
Matt W. said:
Thanks, everyone. Too much information for me to reply to everyone who has been helpful with thanks, but hank you to all and a lot of good leads. The Tokina does seem like a good option, especially at the price.

I am not going to bother with the 20-120mm Angenieux. I do like the look but worry the coverage will be too little and the size is a deal-breaker. Really wish the 20-60mm Cooke were still affordable.

Anyone used the 70-210mm f3.5 Contax Zeiss? I think for now my priority will be getting some reach beyond the 85mm standard speed in the set I use. Again, it's a single-coated set I use most often more flares than you'd get out of T* and a bit slower, but similar look. Not uncoated, I was before.
Click to expand...

The Contax 70-210 is the predecessor to the 80-200 f4. Its certainly older, and will give you more low con flares.

Something else to consider is the Contax 40-80. Its the predecessor to the 35-70, and will also have noticeably older coatings.
 
Nick Morrison said:
The Contax 70-210 is the predecessor to the 80-200 f4. Its certainly older, and will give you more low con flares.

Something else to consider is the Contax 40-80. Its the predecessor to the 35-70, and will also have noticeably older coatings.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that sounds perfect. Cheap, too. Apparently has tons of distortion but the good kind. (Barrel distortion, that is.) Oddly, the 70-210mm is pretty expensive. I'm hoping the added optical complexity will weigh against the newer coatings and they'll intercut well. I actually quite like the single coated standard speeds, they are well controlled until you catch a weird rainbow flare. Mostly bought them as they were less expensive and easier to adapt to EF mount but they have a nice look.

And I'll be shooting through Classic Soft 80% of the time lol...
 
Matt W. said:
Thanks, that sounds perfect. Cheap, too. Apparently has tons of distortion but the good kind. (Barrel distortion, that is.) Oddly, the 70-210mm is pretty expensive. I'm hoping the added optical complexity will weigh against the newer coatings and they'll intercut well. I actually quite like the single coated standard speeds, they are well controlled until you catch a weird rainbow flare. Mostly bought them as they were less expensive and easier to adapt to EF mount but they have a nice look.

And I'll be shooting through Classic Soft 80% of the time lol...
Click to expand...

Haha, we use HBM on our Contax all the time. Works great.

When you say single coated Standard Primes, you mean the MK I that were in Arri Mount, yeah? The tiny ones?

We modded the 16 T2 to EOS mount! LOVE that lens!!!
 
Nick Morrison said:
Haha, we use HBM on our Contax all the time. Works great.

When you say single coated Standard Primes, you mean the MK I that were in Arri Mount, yeah? The tiny ones?

We modded the 16 T2 to EOS mount! LOVE that lens!!!
Click to expand...

That's the one! They are tiny, the 16mm is the biggest one by far, too. How'd you mod it to EF? I'm using a RAF adapter, but I can't get an EF lens cap to fit on it due to the recessed rear element and I was looking into other adapters, too. But the RAF one is pretty good.

I got those and a few Schneider Cine-Xenons recently. I use screw on filters and just run around with them. The look is really good and they're really small. Also a Tegea 9.8mm t2.3. That one is just unusual.
 
Matt W. said:
That's the one! They are tiny, the 16mm is the biggest one by far, too. How'd you mod it to EF? I'm using a RAF adapter, but I can't get an EF lens cap to fit on it due to the recessed rear element and I was looking into other adapters, too. But the RAF one is pretty good.

I got those and a few Schneider Cine-Xenons recently. I use screw on filters and just run around with them. The look is really good and they're really small. Also a Tegea 9.8mm t2.3. That one is just unusual.
Click to expand...

Haha I had RP lens mod the 16mm and 24mm. It was a really tough job for them, and they said they'd prob never do it again as it was lots of work.

I found a trick for the rear lens cap! Here's what you do. Get a macro extension tube (that's EF), and stick the canon rear cap to that. This will give you the extra length to clear those rear elements. Those tubes are cheap:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._macro_tube_eos_macro_extension_tube_set.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top