Planned lens set for Scarlet-W

[John Shofner]

Hello everyone

Ive been shooting now for about 5 years, and have always rented all my gear for every shoot with the exception of my T2i that I started on. Now im jumping in full tilt with the announcement of the Scarlet-W. Im looking for feedback on the lens set that I plan to purchase with the S-W as many of you have years on me and may be able to tell me if im making any mistakes. I shoot a lot of action sports/racing primarily but im making my way into some more corporate work as well. Heres my demo reel to get a feel for my work - https://vimeo.com/101828693

Lens Budget - $6000

Tokina 14-20 f/2 - $600
Sigma Art 24mm 1.4 - $849
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 - $899
Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 - $849
Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro - $800
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 ISII - $2000

Total - $5997

** Tokina 14-20 MSRP is an assumption based on Tokina's other wides as MSRP hasn't been released

Im pretty happy with the coverage that this set delivers and fits perfectly into my budget. I've never actually used the Sigma's, but from everything I've seen/read they are superior to the equivalent Canon L lenses, which are what I have used up to this point. I'm pretty excited to try them out. I need good zoom range at the race tracks which is why I'm going with the 70-200. I'm also pretty excited about fool control abilities on all these as well as 99.9999% of the time im a single operator. The macro is really important to me as its been such a phenomenal performer for me in the past, and I love macro shots in the pits at races not to mention its stellar sharpness and DoF, it should be splendid with fool control (I hope).

Thoughts? Thanks!

EDIT: Corrections made due to my own misunderstanding, cant thank the community enough for their patience!

 

[Mikael Lubtchansky]

According to this report the Canon 100 macro is to be avoided as far as electronic control :

RedLink-compatible-lenses-(EF-Nikon-mount-with-remote-control)

I have not tested it myself so it could be specific to the user's unit... I'll see if I can find one to test.

 

[Nathan DuMoulin]

APS-C Tokina 14-20 f/2 - $600 (14mm-20mm)
APS-C Sigma Art 18-35 f/1.8 - $799 (18mm-35mm)
FF Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 - $899 (56mm)
FF Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 - $849 (80mm)
FF Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro - $800 (160mm)
FF Canon 70-200 f/2.8 ISII - $2000 (112mm-320mm)

I'm curious why you've overlapped at 35mm? With the fast sigma zoom, the difference in speed to the Art prime is pretty marginal. I'd suggest holding off on the 35mm Art until you've had a chance to feel everything out. You may not need it.

Conversely, if you prefer the faster primes in that range, you could ditch the 18-35 and pick up a 24mm Art instead. That would have you covered at 14-20, 24, 35, 50, etc.

Either way you'd save about $900 and have the same range covered, with one less lens to carry around.

PS. Minus the macro and 35 Art, you will have the exact same lens config as I will, except that I also have the 24-70L II for photography work, which also comes in handy for video work when I don't need to get so shallow.

 

[Gene Sung]

There's a mix of too many different brands. Ideally, it should be from one manufacturer to keep a consistent look.

Personally, I would get a set of Zeiss Milvus lenses (relatively affordable). They have primes in the full range so all your lenses can be the same brand. You can get them in Nikon mount which has manual aperture (they come with a De-Click option) so no need for electronic adapters. I just get a Nikon to EF adapter for each lens and use it on the EF mount with my Canon zooms. I like to avoid electronic lens mounts when possible.

Plus, Zeiss look, color and optics are legendary.

Nikon mount does focus the opposite way, but for me it's not an issue. On Follow Focus, the Nikon direction actually makes more sense and you rotate away from camera for subjects further in the distance.

 

[John Shofner]

According to this report the Canon 100 macro is to be avoided as far as electronic control :

RedLink-compatible-lenses-(EF-Nikon-mount-with-remote-control)

I have not tested it myself so it could be specific to the user's unit... I'll see if I can find one to test.

Heres me hoping like a mad man that you guys find a way to make it work! Either way, I wouldn't be without it.

I'm curious why you've overlapped at 35mm? With the fast sigma zoom, the difference in speed to the Art prime is pretty marginal. I'd suggest holding off on the 35mm Art until you've had a chance to feel everything out. You may not need it.

Hey Nathan! Because the 18-35 is APS-C glass, where the 35 1.4 is FF glass, so the effective FoV of the 35mm 1.4 is more like 56mm on the S-W S35 sensor. Cheers!

 

[George Butterfield]

I would buy just one lens for now ....Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 50mm/T2.1 Cine Lens (PL Mount)make a movie with that lens then use the 'profits' to upgrade your system.

 

[jordan levy]

if you are using all EF glass why not get the Raven? and save more money…
my personal set will be the sigma 18-35 (unless canon announces a better version of their 16-35)
and the canon 70-200mm mk2 f2.8 IS (since i already own it), and either the 50mm milvus or sigma art.

 

[John Shofner]

There's a mix of too many different brands. Ideally, it should be from one manufacturer to keep a consistent look.

Personally, I would get a set of Zeiss Milvus lenses (relatively affordable). They have primes in the full range so all your lenses can be the same brand. You can get them in Nikon mount which has manual aperture (they come with a De-Click option) so no need for electronic adapters. I just get a Nikon to EF adapter for each lens and use it on the EF mount with my Canon zooms. I like to avoid electronic lens mounts when possible.

Plus, Zeiss look, color and optics are legendary.

Nikon mount does focus the opposite way, but for me it's not an issue. On Follow Focus, the Nikon direction actually makes more sense and you rotate away from camera for subjects further in the distance.

I would love to get a set of Milvus lenses, but considering my budget, and the necessary coverage I need, its just not really feasible.

Also looking at this comparo (I know this isnt concrete) the Sigma looks a little sharper no?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=998&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Nathan DuMoulin]

Hey Nathan! Because the 18-35 is APS-C glass, where the 35 1.4 is FF glass, so the effective FoV of the 35mm 1.4 is more like 56mm on the S-W S35 sensor. Cheers!

The FOV remains the same, regardless of sensor coverage.

Meaning, the 35mm APS-C and 35mm FF are both 35mm, and will act the same regardless of the sensor size. The only difference is the size of the glass, and thus how much they cover the sensor.

Point being, in FF equiv, they will both act as 56mm.

 

[Mike P.]

Hey Nathan! Because the 18-35 is APS-C glass, where the 35 1.4 is FF glass, so the effective FoV of the 35mm 1.4 is more like 56mm on the S-W S35 sensor. Cheers!

That's not how that works; the 18-35 (at 35) and 35mm will be the same FOV. "APS-C" and "FF35" refer to image circle size only.

 

[John Shofner]

if you are using all EF glass why not get the Raven? and save more money…
my personal set will be the sigma 18-35 (unless canon announces a better version of their 16-35)
and the canon 70-200mm mk2 f2.8 IS (since i already own it), and either the 50mm milvus or sigma art.

I want to be able to rent PL glass should the occasion arise. Also I already have customers that are asking for full frame 4k delivery, so the extra res is helpful if you know what I mean.

 

[John Shofner]

The FOV remains the same, regardless of sensor coverage.

Meaning, the 35mm APS-C and 35mm FF are both 35mm, and will act the same regardless of the sensor size. The only difference is the size of the glass, and thus how much they cover the sensor.

Point being, in FF equiv, they will both act as 56mm.

That's not how that works; the 18-35 (at 35) and 35mm will be the same FOV. "APS-C" and "FF35" refer to image circle size only.

Hey Mike/Nathan

Im terribly sorry to put you through this again as I've seen this discussed over and over again, I just assumed I understood it. I really did believe that I understood the characteristics at play here. After drawing it out on paper, I see exactly what you're saying. Ill look into making adjustments. Im rather embarrassed to have made this mistake...

Thanks for your patience!

 

[Nathan DuMoulin]

Thanks for your patience!

No need to apologize. It's a pretty understandable error, especially if you've come from an SLR or fixed lens camcorder background.

There's a mix of too many different brands. Ideally, it should be from one manufacturer to keep a consistent look.

Very true, but the dilemma is that for some shooting styles, zooms are a necessity. And unfortunately, the only fast UWA and WA zooms on the market are the new Tokina and Sigma.

Personally, I'd much rather have unmatched glass than compromise with slower matched glass. Tokina, Sigma and Canon all have a pretty clinical look, so it's not as much of an issue when doing non narrative work. Again, a compromise, but one that I feel is acceptable.

 

[John Shofner]

Personally, I'd much rather have unmatched glass than compromise with slower matched glass. Tokina, Sigma and Canon all have a pretty clinical look, so it's not as much of an issue when doing non narrative work. Again, a compromise, but one that I feel is acceptable.

Agreed. In an ideal world, and hopefully in the near future I can move to Zeiss CP2 SS glass and have the Zeiss CZ 70-200 and ill be in shape! Thats only $31,456 more than I have to spend at the moment! Haha.

 

[Daniel Porto]

I'm going for the SLR Magics cine 2x Anamorphics!

Ever since my PL Lomo square fronts got stolen I have been longing for some anamorphic glass... Let's hope they look as sexy and vintage as they claim!

 

[Adam Montville]

I'm going for the SLR Magics cine 2x Anamorphics!

Ever since my PL Lomo square fronts got stolen I have been longing for some anamorphic glass... Let's hope they look as sexy and vintage as they claim!

The 2x is only for M/43 mount, and PL will only have 1.33x. I think they said they are "looking into" 2x for PL, but nothing guaranteed.

 

[Daniel Porto]

The 2x is only for M/43 mount, and PL will only have 1.33x. I think they said they are "looking into" 2x for PL, but nothing guaranteed.

Shit your right... I may settle for the 1.3x lenses then but for now I'll just go crazy with my petzval lens

 

[Mark T Workman]

The 2x is only for M/43 mount, and PL will only have 1.33x. I think they said they are "looking into" 2x for PL, but nothing guaranteed.

Great idea except for the idiot who decided on marketing the M/43 mount first! I wouldn't be a bit surprised if ALL STAR comes up with an adapter if they haven't made one yet or if there is a Nikon adapter? If and when, LOL! That guy has a great reputation! Hmmm! Hopefully they would get smarter with a PL sooner than later too...

P.S. That new Wooden matte box looks GOOD, well studied! Looking into it further! Google it if you're in the market. For owning, I am very impressed so far!

 

[Patrick Grossien]

Agreed. In an ideal world, and hopefully in the near future I can move to Zeiss CP2 SS glass and have the Zeiss CZ 70-200 and ill be in shape! Thats only $31,456 more than I have to spend at the moment! Haha.

John, before going for the Zeiss, make sure to test them out and read the SALT tests here in the forum. I get quite some heat for that from a lot of people, but I don't care too much for the CP2s, because to me image wise they are a little all over the place. Of course they are by no means bad lenses, don't get me wrong! But to me there are better alternatives out there. But that depends on a lot of personal factors.
Make sure you also look at the Schneider lenses. If you go the Scarlet-W route, you're fine with S35 / APS-C glass and you don't really need FF (though it doesn't hurt either of course).

 

[Patrick Grossien]

BTW, the Sigmas are awesome still waiting for the RT Motion controller to use them "manually" with FoolControl. Already works great with the T.H.C. But I don't own one