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 Cinema lenses vs GL optics Sigma Cinema Lenses

D

darren scott

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kingston, Jamaica
I'm just curious how these 2 compare in build quality. For those who have had hands on both and used both please share. I'm considering between the two (and other lenses) and GL optics works better for me because of the 300 degree focus option and interchangeable mount option. I know optically the are the same as the sigma art line. Breathing and coating and 9 blade iris is the same ect on both cinema lenses as with the art series. So that's a non issue and i am interested in the feel of the lenses. Hows the smoothness of the focus and iris rings feel. How sturdy do they feel in comparison ect.
 
Last edited:
Haven't used the GL Optics re-housings. But I do have the 18-35mm Sigma Cine in PL-mount, and can't say the focus rotation has been problematic at all (none of my ACs have mentioned it).

I'd be more concerned about parts and servicing for the rehoused option, especially since the Sigma version is so well made - it seems an unnecessary risk to go with the re-housed unit.

That said, the first two copies of the 18-35mm I received were not parfocal. I had to take mine into Panavision and have a lens tech adjust the shimming in order to bring the backfocus to where it needed to be.
 
Mark K. said:
That said, the first two copies of the 18-35mm I received were not parfocal. I had to take mine into Panavision and have a lens tech adjust the shimming in order to bring the backfocus to where it needed to be.
Click to expand...
You mean the back focus was off. If they weren't parfocal the shimming would not help.
Terminology ppl ;-)
 
I don’t have the GL Optics Sigmas-but do have their Leica Rs. It’s a solid rehouse job, I just worry about future maintenance though. Anyway the focus and aperture are pretty smooth compared to the Sigma Cine lenses
 
I have the Sigma FF Cine lenses (14mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm & 85mm)
Built well, better than most rehousings I've seen out there.
Optical performance is excellent too.
 
I own the GL Optics 18-35 Sigma rehousing (shorter throw version). Love it. Solid.

I haven't used the other so I can compare them. If I were buying today, I'd probably lean toward the Sigma versions but only if they proved to be as solid as my GL Optics.
 
darren scott said:
Thanks Chris, appreciate it. I see you are in Fort Launderdale. I visit that side sometimes (from Jamaica). If I'm around it would be cool to check out those Leicas in person if you're cool with that. If not, no worries at all.
Click to expand...

Sure!
 
Used the GL version on helium alot. A great lens. Nothing bad to say about it. Have not tested the sigma version. I guess GL cost less and I assume the sigma version will hold better value.

Saw Toia had it with flat fronts and filter threads. Somthing i would opt for if buying one.
But this one was without.

https://flic.kr/p/GkBALN
 
Thanks for all the info guys. So it seems the GL optics is pretty solid. As I said before the most appealing thing for me with GL sigmas over the sigma (originals) were the interchangeable mount (since I shoot on a variety of cameras) and 300 degrees focus. I'm also considering the SLR Magics for this same reason... But they don't have a full line as yet.
 
Last edited:
the sigmas are beautifully built. Its not a "rehouse" in the traditional sense. Its an all new Cine lens chassis with Art series optics in it.
 
I think you better look at how much useful rotation they have in comparison. The GL optics might have 300 degrees but from what I can tell most of the rotation happens at the close end (where you won't use it much) while the Sigma seems to have a more evenly spaced distance scale.
 
I have used both on several occasions but ended up buying the 300 degree G.L Optics due to the longer focus rotation and being parfocal. Both lenses have great mechanics and I didn’t feel any major differences on the focus, zoom and iris rings. (I believe the Sigma Cine has a little bit wider teeth)

The G.L version is a great lens and it’s probably the lens I use the most. (It’s well suited for documentary work and pairs well with the G.L 50-100 for interviews and the RED 50-150 for general run ’n gun.)
 
sander kamp said:
I think you better look at how much useful rotation they have in comparison. The GL optics might have 300 degrees but from what I can tell most of the rotation happens at the close end (where you won't use it much) while the Sigma seems to have a more evenly spaced distance scale.
Click to expand...

You want it at the close end. You hit hyper focus at like 5 meters on this lens if you stop it down to like 5.6 So the accuracy is way more needed on the close end than opposite.
 
The SigmaCINE lens set uses a cam driven focus system that provides virtually the same amount of precise control at 180° as a linear focus system does at 300°. My analogy would be 10bit log vs 16 bit linear color. Yes, the 10bit log throws away some values - but testing shows that it retains 98%+ of the granularity of 16bit linear with a huge reduction in data load.

It's also worth noting that the cammed 180° throw makes pulling on the barrel much easier, especially compared to trying to twist your wrist for a big rack on a 300° throw. Bottom line - there's more to the story than 180 vs 300.

Cheers - #19
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
The SigmaCINE lens set uses a cam driven focus system that provides virtually the same amount of precise control at 180° as a linear focus system does at 300°. My analogy would be 10bit log vs 16 bit linear color. Yes, the 10bit log throws away some values - but testing shows that it retains 98%+ of the granularity of 16bit linear with a huge reduction in data load.

It's also worth noting that the cammed 180° throw makes pulling on the barrel much easier, especially compared to trying to twist your wrist for a big rack on a 300° throw. Bottom line - there's more to the story than 180 vs 300.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Great information. Thanks Blair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top