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 :)

Lightweight S35 PL zooms for epic

Jeffrey Wright

Jeffrey Wright

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
Squaw Valley, California
Hello,
I'm looking at purchasing a Super 35 zoom in PL mount. I shoot snowboarding so weight (we must carry what we use), zoom range, and resolution are more important than speed. Ideally it would be nice to find something under $10,000 but I can go up to $15,000 and something in the $5000 to $7000 range would be even better.

So far I've been looking at the older Angenieux 25-250's (newer serials) and older Cooke 25-250's.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Jeff
 
The Angenieux 25-250 is a hair over 10lbs and the Cooke 25-250's are upwards of that. If you're set on a PL mount zoom and need light weight, I'm afraid you're stuck with either a fairly small zoom range (like the Red Pro Zoom 17-50) or spending about $20K for a Zeiss light weight zoom. Have you considered using a Canon or Nikon zoom? The lens plus a mount would cost you less than a PL zoom, weigh less and give you better image quality than an older Angenieux or Cooke.
 
Careful with the Red Zooms. My 18-50 went "out" making it lose sharpness (ie:soft) I sent it back and they fixed it (for a fee) and then, shortly after that, it went "out" again. Been in it's case ever since. Maybe I got a bad one but.....
 
Don't judge the RZ 17-50 from experience with the 18-50. They are completely different products.
 
Uli Plank said:
Don't judge the RZ 17-50 from experience with the 18-50. They are completely different products.
Click to expand...

agreed, very different. The 17-50 is great for the price.
In the op's case, I would probably go nikon or canon for weight reasons and the fact that he can get super wide and super long for a lot cheaper then in pl mount.
I f you want to stay PL, the get the red 17-50 and a rehoused tokina 11-16. You may be able to fine a longer rehoused nikon or canon in PL for the long end. I have a rehoused nikon 200/4 which is tiny and great for traveling.
 
Thanks for the info guys! I'm not sure if 17-50 is enough range for us. We were spoiled back in the day with lightweight 16mm and S16mm lenses with huge ranges in a little package.

Since then we have been shooting primarily with HPX's with fixed lenses and more recently with the canon and nikon glass on FS100's, we have been very happy with the quality and weight but the problem is it is almost impossible to do a smooth reliable zoom (something that is very important in the shooting we are doing).

So I guess I should maybe set the baseline at the Angie 25-250 as being ok weight wise and ask if there are options that are in that ballpark with weight and zoom range.

I know it is crippling much of what the epic does best but I guess their is always the option of buying a nice super 16 lens and using that (we output in 2k) when we need to zoom and my C/y or canon stuff for everything else.

again, thank you so much for the advice!
 
If you go for the Angie, make sure you get to see some sample images at 100% crop or try it out beforehand - the older 25-250's are pretty bad in terms of image quality, and won't give you footage that you'll want to output above 2K anyway.

Nikon, Tamron and Canon all make 28-300 zooms that are significantly lighter (under a pound for the Tamron, under 2lbs for the Nikon and under 4lbs for the Canon) and cheaper but are not parfocal and will leave you with distortion to correct at the short and long ends. Sharpness is unfavorable compared to many of the L-series or Nikon G zooms with shorter ranges as well. If you can stand changing lenses occasionally, having a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 in your bag is probably your best bet for image quality and weight in the price range you're looking at.
 
I haven't seen any RED 17-50 zooms available at the RED Store for awhile now. FYI
 
For the kind of thing I imagine you're doing (but don't know, of course), I think the only thing that will come close to what you expect in a zoom range and lightness, are going to be Nikon or Canon or other photo lenses.

It doesn't sound like you generally need a fast lens, or are doing refined follow focus moves often used in scripted narrative, so there's no reason why even something like the Nikon 18-200 wouldn't work. (I use as a "doc" lense, and it covers the sensor even at 5K.)

Of course you could use a FF lens but then your FOV goes on the wide end, and there's really no need. Granted, the 18-200 is a compromised still photo "walkaround" zoom -- but it works, can make great images, and if you're in daylight with a screw on ND or IRND, at f5.6-8 it doesn't ramp and it's a pretty remarkable 10x zoom for under a grand and under 1.5 pounds. Works great on the Optitek mount and the Red Nikon electronic mount either giving iris control. The Red mount doing it in a very refined way. It even gives metadata on the Red mount. Borrow or rent one -- or even buy one for $850 and try it. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the quality and the ease and speed of use.
 
rod bradley said:
For the kind of thing I imagine you're doing (but don't know, of course), I think the only thing that will come close to what you expect in a zoom range and lightness, are going to be Nikon or Canon or other photo lenses.

It doesn't sound like you generally need a fast lens, or are doing refined follow focus moves often used in scripted narrative, so there's no reason why even something like the Nikon 18-200 wouldn't work. (I use as a "doc" lense, and it covers the sensor even at 5K.)

Of course you could use a FF lens but then your FOV goes on the wide end, and there's really no need. Granted, the 18-200 is a compromised still photo "walkaround" zoom -- but it works, can make great images, and if you're in daylight with a screw on ND or IRND, at f5.6-8 it doesn't ramp and it's a pretty remarkable 10x zoom for under a grand and under 1.5 pounds. Works great on the Optitek mount and the Red Nikon electronic mount either giving iris control. The Red mount doing it in a very refined way. It even gives metadata on the Red mount. Borrow or rent one -- or even buy one for $850 and try it. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the quality and the ease and speed of use.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of using the still lenses for the weight quality and price but we constantly run into the same problem. We really need lenses that we can perform smooth zooming during our shots and I may be wrong but I really haven't found a still lens that can offerer a consistant repeatable zoom shot in and shot out not to mention the parafocal issues. Often we are in Alaska on opposing peaks where we start with a wide shot to set the scene, zoom into the shot to show the snowboarder at the crux of his line, and then pull all the way back out to show the entire run again. From my experience this is nearly impossible to do well with a still zoom and to match the on screen smoothness of a true cine zoom lens. If somebody has found a magic bullet still lens that is as smooth as a cine lens (maybe the nikon is) please please let me know.
 
Russ Fill said:
I own and use the 17-50 and with a good 2X extender it is a work horse, I know you loose 2 stops but wow I get a lot out of a great lens for less than 8K
Click to expand...

very interesting, the doubler might be a really good call for us, I hadn't thought of that. Any ideas on models or brands?
 
Ekran/optar/elite 25-80 is the best range for the size. That, or go 12-240 with a doubler. 24-480mm at abut an T8.

Nick
 
Fujinon cabrio....19-90 t2.8. Little more expensive, but will have resale value for future. Once they come out with the matching 85-300 you are set.

John DeBoer
SimDigital
 
John DeBoer said:
Fujinon cabrio....19-90 t2.8. Little more expensive, but will have resale value for future. Once they come out with the matching 85-300 you are set.

John DeBoer
SimDigital
Click to expand...

At $38K I'd say it's more than a little past the OP's budget.
 
here's another "rent before you buy" suggestion..
ENG HD lens in sony b4 with MTF or Abel Cine B4-PL adapter.. this would cover a 4k image and let you use the huge zoom range of ENG lenses..
different than the RED b4 to pl, in that it won't restrict you to a 2k image size..
Yes, you will lose some stop..
contact frequent poster Mitch Gross to see pros and cons of this..

OR>>>
LOMO 37-140 zoom, and get it serivced..
while it needs to be used around f8 to get sharp.. in my experience daytime in snow and sand makes that easy!
they are cheap enough to try out.. have more telephoto, and seem reasonably parfocal... weight about 2 lbs, if I remember right..
very compact... about size of an old 12-120.
The angenieux 25-250 zooms you describe and the cookes are HUGE for backpacking in and hand held use. you will also need a beefy cradle for them..
The 3.7 HP does look nice, though..
other stuff I would think about includes doublers on a 17.5 to 70 Angeniuex (Derek at Whitehouse can confirm if this covers 35mm)..
some of the super 16 zooms will cover with a doubler, some won't.. test shots needed to confirm adequate sharpness.. andin the cold, you may be risking collimation issues if you stack too many optical pieces...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top