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 :)

Sigma 18-35mm & 50-100 T2.0 Cine Zoom Lenses

Josh Birch

Josh Birch

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
197
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
London
Hi Guys,

How are people finding the Sigma zoom lenses paired with the Scarlet-W? I have been considering purchasing these for a while and would love to hear some further feedback from others.

I currently have the Samyang Cine Zooms but I would like to take a step up in quality. When I purchased my Scarlet-W earlier in the year the plan was to sell my FS7, and although I still use it a little bit here and there I feel selling my FS7, Samyang Cine Lenses and Canon EF glass and purchasing the the two Sigma lenses in their place would be a better investment going forward.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts?

Josh
 
I used the Sigma zooms (18-35, 50-100) on multiple shoots. Great mechanics, usable at T2 and tack sharp at 5.6, the 50-100 is a heavy breather. Overall great glass if you know the limitations. I ended up buying the G.L optics versions because of the Sigmas not being parfocal and the longer focus throw on the G.L zooms.
 
The Sigma Cinema Zooms vignette at 6K with dragon and Monstro sensors. They vignette also on Alexa 3.2k ProsRes and 3.4k ARRIRAW. They're great run and gun zoom lenses. They are also much lighter from I remember compared to GL Optics. Though I know GL Optics can give you a longer focus throw. Compared to the Samyang Cine lenses or Xeens, it really depends on the lens. Some Samyang primes are much sharper wide open than the Sigma Zooms wide open and some Samyang primes are terrible. The Xeens are definitely sharper, cleaner, and have less chromatic aberrations than the cheaper lenses. Honestly, it's much better to rent lenses from rental houses. Nothing can really comapae to Cookes, Arris, Fujinons, HAWKs, etc. But if you need a set, you can always just buy the Samyang DS lenses as a back up. Hope that solves it!!!!
 
Since I dont have a Dragon anymore I can still say, that the 50-100 doesnt vignette on Helium at 8K.
Scarlet-W at 5K is no problem for the 18-35.
 
I use both lenses extensively. They are beautiful. The only downside for me, which might be an upside for other DP's is the very (over)controlled flaring. These lenses don't flare much. Now, the optics on these and the GL are exactly the same, so, if they are par focal or not, they both are it.
So, as I had it explained to me, they are "near" par focal. You would be extremely hard pressed to spot the focus change as you zoom in real life. They are in practical terms parfocal. Sigma, not wanting to over-promise, did not call them par focal. GL, after their own testing, decided to call them pa focal, which is fair enough. But they are both the same optically.

These were shot with the 18-35 on a Weapon Helium, with some diffusion added in from of the lens (can't recall which, probably different types):

IMG_2561.jpg

IMG_2563.jpg

IMG_2592.jpg


And this with the 50-100:

IMG_2034.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2561.jpg
    IMG_2561.jpg
    10.1 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_2563.jpg
    IMG_2563.jpg
    15.6 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_2592.jpg
    IMG_2592.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Alex Lubensky said:
Does the GL also breathe as much as Sigma?
Click to expand...

It's the same glass. Breathing should be exactly the same. Some of the GL lenses are closer to par focal. I had to audition three lenses to find the one that was acceptable as parfocal. As with the Sigma lenses it's a T2 even though they say they're 1.8. The 300 deg focus on the GL options is very nice.
 
Nick Vera said:
...They are also much lighter from I remember compared to GL Optics.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Sigmas are "much lighter" than the G.L versions, in fact, just based on handling them without knowing any weight specifications, I believe the 18-35 from G.L is almost identical in weight but felt smaller in overall size than the Sigma 18-35...
 
I use the photo version (ART version) of the 18-35 and the 50-100 on my cine cameras. If you don’t mind a shorter throw, you’ll have exactly the same glass for 1/3 the cost. Also the filter thread is smaller, so the filters you’ll need are much cheaper.

I actually prefer the Zeiss Milvus primes, if you are going to deal with the hassle of a photo lens. They are superior to the CP.2 and CP.3 optics, and they just announced a 25mm at 1.4. The Milvus is the undiscovered gem of the cine world. Far superior to the Sigma Art. Edge to edge sharp where the Sigma’s tend to drop off sharpness at the edges.
 
Thinking about doing Milvus Lenses in Nikon declicked, especially the new 25.
 
Jim Skinner said:
I use the photo version (ART version) of the 18-35 and the 50-100 on my cine cameras. If you don’t mind a shorter throw, you’ll have exactly the same glass for 1/3 the cost. Also the filter thread is smaller, so the filters you’ll need are much cheaper.

I actually prefer the Zeiss Milvus primes, if you are going to deal with the hassle of a photo lens. They are superior to the CP.2 and CP.3 optics, and they just announced a 25mm at 1.4. The Milvus is the undiscovered gem of the cine world. Far superior to the Sigma Art. Edge to edge sharp where the Sigma’s tend to drop off sharpness at the edges.
Click to expand...

Aren't several of the Milvuses the same ZF/ZE optics as the cp2/3s?
 
Noah Yuan-Vogel said:
Aren't several of the Milvuses the same ZF/ZE optics as the cp2/3s?
Click to expand...

I should have been more clear in my earlier comment. The Milvus lenses that feature a f1.4 aperture are of a newer optical design. I have the 25mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm focal lengths (all at f1.4). In my experience there is a huge difference between the Zeiss lenses rated at f2.8 versus the lenses they produce that achieve f1.4. They were kind enough to release this improved optic into a line that is priced for still shooters, allowing cinematographers on a budget to achieve a fantastic look.

You should know going in that they all have different thread mounts, so unless you are using a matte box you are going to buy a lot of duplicate ND glass (or, alternatively, you will be continually screwing on adapter rings to one large ND filter, which then makes your lens hoods non-functional, and also exposes you to the risk that your adapter ring melds to the ND filter at a shoot and you actually can’t use it on different lenses). Also, they have a kind of sticky/tactile substance on the focus ring, which gets a little mungy if you shoot in dusty conditions. But what you do get is something close to the look of an Otus for half the price.

I actually prefer the look of the Milvus 50mm to the Otus 55mm, as that extra reach on the Otus is noticeable to my eye and the Otus is a bit too razor sharp (too clinical). This is just my preference, many people prefer to turn in the sharpest image possible (less complaints in the editing suite later) but I don’t mind burning in a bit of a look into my footage.

If your budget has you shooting on a Scarlet W or Canon 300 then the Milvus lenses (the f1.4 variants) are essentially perfection. If you have a bigger budget then you have lots of other, far superior options.

To get a small taste of what the Milvus f1.4 lenses look like try out the Contax or ZE lenses at f1.4. There is a slow progression in terms of coatings and mechanics over the years. The Milvus is the culmination of all that still shooting goodness.
 
Jim Skinner said:
If your budget has you shooting on a Scarlet W or Canon 300 then the Milvus lenses (the f1.4 variants) are essentially perfection. If you have a bigger budget then you have lots of other, far superior options.
Click to expand...

I think the Zeiss Milvus and the Sigma Art FF primes (or the cine primes) are pretty close to each other and good enough to shoot 8k even at F1.4.
The Zeiss Otus lenses are a bit better overall. When you want better optical quality (and a larger range) than the otus you need very deep pockets (and even that might not help in the 28..85 mm range).
 
I own both the cine version and still version don't see any noticeable differences at all (supposedly they are same glass different coatings) and prefer using the still less as I shoot run and gun and solo/small team mostly and the cine versions are very heavy in comparison as well as it being easy to nock the aperture ring when adjusting focus and zoom handheld.

I guess for bigger productions where a full team and using follow focus etc there may be benefits but for me, I would suggest saving your self-thousands of dollars/pounds and invest in the stills version and the sigma 24-70 OS pretty beast set of lenses.
 
Looks like, on Gemini, the Sigma 18-35 T2 would be problematic. Gemini, at full 5K, is a tiny bit wider and taller than Helium at 8K.. so I'd expect some vignetting at the wide end.. too bad!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top