New Arri/fuji Zooms

[Jim Elias]

Forgot something. I was told the Fuginon comes in at 50 lbs!!

Fif-teen, not fif-ty

http://www.fujinon.com/DigitalCinema/Product.aspx?cat=1053&id=1200

 

[Michael Bravin]

ARRI made specified requests to the optical companies that were doing cine lens optical and mechanical design.

This is correct...made to spec

Btw, also you claimed a couple months ago that so called Mystery Primes can't be named Leica, etc...,

I SPECIFICALLY claimed that they were not made by Leica Camera, which of course they are not. They are made by CW-Sonderoptic and branded with your Avatar :banghead:

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

This is correct...made to spec



I SPECIFICALLY claimed that they were not made by Leica Camera, which of course they are not. They are made by CW-Sonderoptic and branded with your Avatar :banghead:

Michael,

as you know maybe even better than me that both companies CW-Sonderoptic and Leica Camera AG are owed at 96% by Dr.Andreas Kaufmann.

Also he mentioned once I think in this video that it costs him about 10 million dolars (or Euros) to develop and produce those lenses.

 

[Francis Demarco]

18-80 T2.6 vs 18-85 T2.0 ? I know they're priced very diffently

I tried to compare the two Fuji wide angle at the show. It may be not fare because one was on Alexa and the other on F35. They seem to be different optics. The 18-85 was more nutral and was very sharp on the F35. I would buy that lens right away if I had 85k$ in my pocket. The 18-80 was sharp but had more flare in the red. Arri was smart to have a model dressed in blue, so the red was not showing up first, but when I looked at the background I could see some red flare. Fuji may have use less glass in the Alura lenses. I would like to see how that lens matches with the Arri primes, they have a tendancy to be more blue then the Cooke primes.
The price/performance level of the 18-80 Alura is more comparable to the 18-85 Red zoom.

 

[Evin Grant]

I'm probably the only poster here to have actually used a prototype 18-85 fujinon on a Red. I can tell you it's an eye opening experience. I would almost say it's too sharp. As for 5K coverage, my personal opinion is that really won't be as big an issues as it's being made out to be. Once you factor in engineering space, look around and the crop factor for 16:9 or 2.40:1 you're pretty much back at S35 imaging circles. If you're a big 2:1 fan you might want to consider some wider coverage lenses but only time and a shipping Epic will be able to tell us for sure.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I'm probably the only poster here to have actually used a prototype 18-85 fujinon on a Red. I can tell you it's an eye opening experience. I would almost say it's too sharp. As for 5K coverage, my personal opinion is that really won't be as big an issues as it's being made out to be. Once you factor in engineering space, look around and the crop factor for 16:9 or 2.40:1 you're pretty much back at S35 imaging circles. If you're a big 2:1 fan you might want to consider some wider coverage lenses but only time and a shipping Epic will be able to tell us for sure.

But three are some relatively cheap photo zooms that can I pretty sure compete with a sharpness of those new Fujinons and also can cover 5K without any problem:

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM

Shot with Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG

See more huge and crisp blow-ups in this review>>>

Also I'm sure that Nikon version can be converted to PL mount very easy.

 

[Evin Grant]

Optically many photo lenses are up to the challenge, the 14-24, 24-70 and the new 70-200 Nikkor come to mind. But they are not cinema lenses are not suitable for professional production like the new Alura lenses. The mechanics of these lenses are really where the expense is, and the time saved in production is worth every penny.

Now before I get flamed as a Hollywood snob understand that with enough time for each setup you can use almost any lens, but when you've got 2-3 cameras working 50+ setups a day on a TV show or movie your camera assistants are not going to be able to use the abbreviated focus scales of still lenses, regardless of the optics. In serious film and TV production time is money and money is everything.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

So basicaly, those lenses won't cover 5k ??

 

[kevin N]

Optically many photo lenses are up to the challenge, the 14-24, 24-70 and the new 70-200 Nikkor come to mind. But they are not cinema lenses are not suitable for professional production like the new Alura lenses. The mechanics of these lenses are really where the expense is, and the time saved in production is worth every penny.

Now before I get flamed as a Hollywood snob understand that with enough time for each setup you can use almost any lens, but when you've got 2-3 cameras working 50+ setups a day on a TV show or movie your camera assistants are not going to be able to use the abbreviated focus scales of still lenses, regardless of the optics. In serious film and TV production time is money and money is everything.

great comments evin. it's painful watching some movies lately with 50 percent of the shots out of focus. this might sound harsh but if the dp is shooting at 1.3 all day long, he doesn't understand how to light. lenses don't perform well wide open and focus pullers are obviously not getting the shots. (by the way, i always thought primos were made by leica in ontario, canada.)

 

[Evin Grant]

(by the way, i always thought primos were made by leica in ontario, canada.)

The lens elements for Primos are fabricated by ELCAN, which stands for Ernst Leitz Canada and used to be a subsidiary of Leica that made many optics for Leica cameras, industrial instruments and the military. I believe they are now part of Raytheon.

However the design and assembly of Primos are done by Panavision themselves.

 

[Gary Ploj]

Optically many photo lenses are up to the challenge, the 14-24, 24-70 and the new 70-200 Nikkor come to mind. But they are not cinema lenses are not suitable for professional production like the new Alura lenses. The mechanics of these lenses are really where the expense is, and the time saved in production is worth every penny.

Now before I get flamed as a Hollywood snob understand that with enough time for each setup you can use almost any lens, but when you've got 2-3 cameras working 50+ setups a day on a TV show or movie your camera assistants are not going to be able to use the abbreviated focus scales of still lenses, regardless of the optics. In serious film and TV production time is money and money is everything.

Very good point...most don't understand this.