Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Monstro's here, what do we do for a long & fast zoom?

steve green

steve green

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
Thousand Oaks, Ca
Now that Monsto's here, the lens question takes center stage.

I'm leaning towards the Sigma Cine Primes, that's the easy part. Where I'm having a problem is regarding a long zoom to replace the 24-290 Optimo T.2.8, which is a staple on every job. The 2.8 being the issue here. Looking at what the Angenieux FF options are for that zoom, the T.4.2 seems to be a deal breaker. Seems as though the directors I work with all want T.1.3 for primes (Sigma's work at 1.5) and don't want anything over the 2.8 for a long zoom. For them, and ultimately me, its all about the shallow DOF.

I suspect, one option is to wait a bit, shoot 6K (or 5.5K) and limp along with the 24-290 if I knew something affordable and 2.8ish was coming soon. But I'd love to get the lens situation worked out and dive into the 8K world now. As always, any input would be appreciated.

I should add that mainly my work is doing TV commercial spots.
 
Take a look at the Zeiss Compact zooms. There are (3) in the series and are all 2.9.
15-30mm, 28-80mm, 70-200mm

I think the wide zoom doesn't cover all the way to 8k full frame but does cover 8k HD.

Zeiss quality.... all super sharp, way under used and under appreciated, very reasonably priced.
 
Erich Roland said:
Take a look at the Zeiss Compact zooms. There are (3) in the series and are all 2.9.
15-30mm, 28-80mm, 70-200mm

I think the wide zoom doesn't cover all the way to 8k full frame but does cover 8k HD.

Zeiss quality.... all super sharp, way under used and under appreciated, very reasonably priced.
Click to expand...

Erich,
Great suggestion. Looks like a good way to go. Checking them out now. Do you know of anything with longer focal range? I know I want it all.
 
I will also recommend the Zeiss CZs. Been using them with the VV for 2 years + and they are still the best option overall.
 
Phil Holland said:
I will also recommend the Zeiss CZs. Been using them with the VV for 2 years + and they are still the best option overall.
Click to expand...

Seems like a good cross between size, quality, and price. I was hoping for a bigger range, but I guess that doesn't exsist in the 2.8 range. Are you needing supports with these?
 
steve green said:
Seems like a good cross between size, quality, and price. I was hoping for a bigger range, but I guess that doesn't exsist in the 2.8 range. Are you needing supports with these?
Click to expand...

Depends. The 15-30 and 28-80 I use often without support, but if I'm on the lens all day I'll rig it. The 70-200 I'd recommend it on the long side. Either RED's or Bright Tangerines are what I use with 19mm CF rods.
 
+1 for the CZ's. For the price and FF coverage they are unbeatable. I use the 28-80 on nearly every shoot.
 
Would love to see Canon make a VV friendly version of their 30-300 zoom. Current model vignetted on 6K Dragon up to about 45mm, no idea where it would lose the corners with a 41mm x 21.6mm target.

With larger formats, making reasonably fast, high resolving AND compact zooms with magnification factors greater than 3X is challenging to say the least. The first one of the big dogs to bring to market an 8X workhorse with at least a 40mm wide end, VV coverage and T3.2 or better will sell some glass - as long as they can get it under 22" in length, 18 lbs or less and under $35K.

Cheers - #19
 
How about the 17-80 angie with a 1.4x . That would make it 24-112 T3.1 possibly with FF coverage ;-)
 
Steve,

My short experience with the Monstro is you kinda need to rethink how F stop affects DOF. It depends on your starting point but if you take 35mm academy to Monstro you need an extra 1.8 stops to match the DOF. So if you had previously been shooting f2.8 then a line under f5.6 will give you depth of focus equivalency. Long lenses get super shallow on VistaVision sensors. In the past shooting TVCs I would be mainly at f1.4 but now on the Monstro I am more likely at f2 or even f2.8. Not saying I wouldn’t love a fast zoom lens and I would use it WFO but with Monstro I am more likely to actually stop down.
 
What Mr. Gleeson said.

You could also add an “expander” to your 24-290

Like the Tokina 1.6x expander.

It’s great. I use it on an Angenieux EZ 30-90, wide open. Looks awesome.

Losing illumination from the expander does not mean reduced “shallow depth of field” - I’m pretty sure this would be all directors care about - because that much of a drop in sharpness or illumination (from Tokina expander)is almost nil in the scheme of things today.

I don’t think you’re gonna want to swap that Angenieux for a Zeiss Zoom there’s nothing like that 12:1 outside of Angenieux and maybe some of the newer Fujinon (or Alura ?)
 
Dan's 100% right. If you need the range and have that investment in the Angie, it's hard to beat with an extender.

I need to test it with that zoom, but the Tomina 1.6x is a pretty minimal hit wide open on my Schneider Cine-Xenar III primes, but my general advice on Expanders is ideally you stop down 1 stop when using them with most lenses to get the most out of them.

And yeah, if you've got $25-$100K+ in a lens or lens set you like, it's probably wise to grab an expander.
 
Dan Kanes said:
What Mr. Gleeson said.

You could also add an “expander” to your 24-290

Like the Tokina 1.6x expander.

It’s great. I use it on an Angenieux EZ 30-90, wide open. Looks awesome.

Losing illumination from the expander does not mean reduced “shallow depth of field” - I’m pretty sure this would be all directors care about - because that much of a drop in sharpness or illumination (from Tokina expander)is almost nil in the scheme of things today.

I don’t think you’re gonna want to swap that Angenieux for a Zeiss Zoom there’s nothing like that 12:1 outside of Angenieux and maybe some of the newer Fujinon (or Alura ?)
Click to expand...

Dan,
This is something that might be the way to go for me. Is this Tokina Expander different then say my Optimo 1.4 extender? Do they accomplish the same thing? Tomorrow I'll put that up and test the extender, but would like to know if the expander does effect the image in a different/better way.
 
Phil Holland said:
Dan's 100% right. If you need the range and have that investment in the Angie, it's hard to beat with an extender.

I need to test it with that zoom, but the Tomina 1.6x is a pretty minimal hit wide open on my Schneider Cine-Xenar III primes, but my general advice on Expanders is ideally you stop down 1 stop when using them with most lenses to get the most out of them.

And yeah, if you've got $25-$100K+ in a lens or lens set you like, it's probably wise to grab an expander.
Click to expand...


Phil, you're absolutely right.....I've got a big investment in that 12:1 and would love to keep it working. I need the range it offers and if a 2K investment in the expander keeps it relevant that's great.
 
Tom Gleeson said:
Steve,

My short experience with the Monstro is you kinda need to rethink how F stop affects DOF. It depends on your starting point but if you take 35mm academy to Monstro you need an extra 1.8 stops to match the DOF. So if you had previously been shooting f2.8 then a line under f5.6 will give you depth of focus equivalency. Long lenses get super shallow on VistaVision sensors. In the past shooting TVCs I would be mainly at f1.4 but now on the Monstro I am more likely at f2 or even f2.8. Not saying I wouldn’t love a fast zoom lens and I would use it WFO but with Monstro I am more likely to actually stop down.
Click to expand...

Tom, I have read about the difference in DOF between Super35 and VV....I just need to see it for myself and show it to my directors.
 
Rehoused still zoom lenses could work for full coverage, albeit juggling a few zoom lenses rather than one, but I don’t think anything other than the Zeiss lenses can get close to matching the Angenieux’s range.
 
steve green said:
Now that Monsto's here, the lens question takes center stage.

I'm leaning towards the Sigma Cine Primes, that's the easy part. Where I'm having a problem is regarding a long zoom to replace the 24-290 Optimo T.2.8, which is a staple on every job. The 2.8 being the issue here. Looking at what the Angenieux FF options are for that zoom, the T.4.2 seems to be a deal breaker. Seems as though the directors I work with all want T.1.3 for primes (Sigma's work at 1.5) and don't want anything over the 2.8 for a long zoom. For them, and ultimately me, its all about the shallow DOF.

I suspect, one option is to wait a bit, shoot 6K (or 5.5K) and limp along with the 24-290 if I knew something affordable and 2.8ish was coming soon. But I'd love to get the lens situation worked out and dive into the 8K world now. As always, any input would be appreciated.

I should add that mainly my work is doing TV commercial spots.
Click to expand...

You could argue that the shallow dof remains on VV even though the lens gets slower. The lossof shallow depth of field is compensated of the size of the sensor.

And mostro can work at far less exposure so even if the lenses are slower the overall result would be more or atlest the same depht falloff.
 
Don't forget about the dulcos Leica 70-200. It's only $10k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top