Master Super Duper Cinema primes vs. Prosumer primes

[David Rasberry]

It is very difficult indeed to get broad zoom range and high speed in a compact lens that has to cover S35 or larger sensors.
I have sitting on the shelf an old Angenieux T1.8 18-180mm zoom built for 70's vintage 1" Plumbicon cameras, a bit smaller format than S35. The front element diameter is 6 inches and the lens weighs 21 lbs. Compact, lightweight, fast and wide range are mutually exclusive for S35 or larger formats. The Red 18-85 at T2.9 is about as reasonable a compromise as you will likely find. For some uses a 2/3"/16mm sized format is the superior choice.

 

[Shawn R]

Cine Lenses are built more robustly overall. :beatdeadhorse5:

On the other hand I don't think any cine lens is built tougher then the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L. Now before you run off and start typing I never said all L glass just the one I mentioned. I read a very good review where the review used not a new 70-200 but a used one from his journalist friend. Previous to this the lens had been dropped. I mean not just dropped from shoulder height but dropped off an elephant, (no it wasn't a baby elephant either). It tested out to be as sharp as can be with no problems with focus or aperture.

If all still lenses were made this tough I would be in heaven with my Birger......:rofl:

I also agree with the idea that there are different lenses for different budgets. More power to the people who want to shoot but could never afford it before.

If I had the cash, I would have a set of Cooke primes. I would also drive a Ferrari and live at the Playboy mansion......ok, I am starting to become sarcastic, ...........just a wee bit............

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Cine Lenses are built more robustly overall. :beatdeadhorse5:

On the other hand I don't think any cine lens is built tougher then the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L. Now before you run off and start typing I never said all L glass just the one I mentioned. I read a very good review where the review used not a new 70-200 but a used one from his journalist friend. Previous to this the lens had been dropped. I mean not just dropped from shoulder height but dropped off an elephant, (no it wasn't a baby elephant either).

If all still lenses were made this tough I would be in heaven with my Birger......:rofl:

Still we're comparing with lenses made for abuse and use in completely different way. We're not only talking about dropping them on the ground.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Shawn R]

2 cents is fine, but your a little short on the total

I am talking about 1 particular lens. But if you say cine lenses are made tougher in other ways who am I to argue with that logic.

Please explain, I think I missed the details?

 

[Shawn R]

Just google the lens and read about the build quality for yourself. I am tired and its the weekend. I'm check'n out.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Well I'm not arguing that it's a well built lens. Heck many Canon tele/zoom lenses are PL mount rebuilds used as Cine lenses. I think that the best "comparing" lenses could be against the Master Zoom - Where we're talking completely different beast - for many reasons... mainly because it's built to withstand wishes made for when you are shooting motion picture. Doesn't mean that people are using Canon with great result. Just means that if you want to zoom/focus without "breathing", with "low" T-stop ability etc, the lens is a different beast.

My 2 cents

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

honestly.. you can get really good if not matching results with a set of zeiss ZF lenses compared to higher end master primes.. BUT its all about mechanics and operation..

look at the compact primes.. they are just rehoused ZF lenses.. yet they cost 30k..
its because they have to design a nice housing, mechanics and all that just adds up..

(and im sure master primes, ultra primes, and cooke glass are even better so than the zeiss compact primes