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

Aaron Lochert said:
"The technician told me that this breathing was amongst the worst that he had ever seen on a cine lens."

Yikes.
Click to expand...

Let's hope the primes perform better. Still haven't heard anything about the primes pricing.
 
jordan levy said:
thats why i returned mine after 2 days, unusable.
Click to expand...

This is so weird. The whole point of making a cine-version out of still lenses is to remove breathing and increase short throw. With heavy breathing a cine-lens will never sell, regardless of price since it's the same as using a still lens really.
I sincerely hope the primes are better than this.
 
Let's take a deep breath and look at the reality here.

The 18-35 zoom doesn't breath very much.

It's a f***ing amazing lens hands down.

The 50-100 is an amazing optical innovation - but it just breathes too much for most motion picture work. Period.

Some will still get great shots with it as is.

Personal opinion these are priced way wrong so far, but they are beautiful nonetheless.

The primes are going to focus just like the existing primes.

None of them have CRAZY breathing like the 50-100.

They are really good.

I badly want a set of their PL mount primes, as the EF ones just kick ass.
 
Dan Kanes said:
Let's take a deep breath and look at the reality here.

The 18-35 zoom doesn't breath very much.

It's a f***ing amazing lens hands down.

The 50-100 is an amazing optical innovation - but it just breathes too much for most motion picture work. Period.

Some will still get great shots with it as is.

Personal opinion these are priced way wrong so far, but they are beautiful nonetheless.

The primes are going to focus just like the existing primes.

None of them have CRAZY breathing like the 50-100.

They are really good.

I badly want a set of their PL mount primes, as the EF ones just kick ass.
Click to expand...
REALITY is right ...;-)
I can't see how anyone with quality in mind can make these lenses and sell them for less......
Wishfull thinking is not in any way related to manufacturing costs, never has been, never will.....
And for those crying wolf about pricing....you can always make your own lenses cheaper if you think these are overpriced...;-)
 
Just to try and quantify the breathing, I did a down and dirty test. At 50mm, the lens zooms in as you go from infinity focus (widest FOV at 50mm) to minimum focus (more narrow FOV).

That's this picture, 50mm at minimum focus:
KzMa+


Then I focused to infinity (widening the FOV back to where it should be...) then I slowly zoomed in until my FOV matched the min. focus 50mm FOV:
5IWc+


73mm! That's absolutely bonkers. Not that you'll often be racking from infinity to minimum but it effectively means that if you're focusing closer than like 10 feet away, this isn't a 50mm lens anymore.
 
The 50-100 will be good for interviews or shows not needing significant racks. I don't think that will work for my uses but I'm looking forward to seeing how the primes turn out. I really like my 18-35 GL. It's just a solid lens.
 
We have the P+S 18-35mm PL version of this lens.... If the Sigma version is as good (albiet I understand it will be heavier) they will sell loads of them!

What would be interesting to know is...

Are the Sigma lenses Cam based or Helical?

What is the Weight of the PL versions? (of the 18-35 and the primes)

Anyone know?
 
Michael Lindsay said:
If you want the 18-35 in the EU now in PL it may be worth contacting P+S for their version of the rehouse... it is Cam based, lighter and from a brand with a cine history/knowledge?

just a thought?

M
Click to expand...
I've evaluated a set of 3 months old Panchros converted by PS for a customer. They were falling apart after three months.
PS is not what it used to be....
 
I saw the short film they shot with these new lenses and I was disappointed. Still shot was sharp but when they moved around and the sun light hit the actor his leg blinded with the dirt in one scene or maybe its me but they are not sharp and as clear for what I need. The housing is outstanding but the performance isn't great for me. Unless there is a better use of this glass to show me different a thumb down from me. Can someone use them and make a youtube video from reduser. We get the truth, real test and direction trust on Red user.
 
wheres this short? shot on primes or zooms?
 
Curtis boggs said:
looking at this lens test the 18-35 didn't rate very well in sharpness.
https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/bran...Options=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo
Click to expand...

FWIW, many of the lenses in their database had pretty low sharpness numbers, including many of the Zeiss primes often considered wicked sharp. I'm fine with leaving plenty of headroom in lens metrics to allow for future improvements, but in this case their scaling may be misleading. Having seen Sigma's new CINE versions of the Art lenses/short zooms on a lens projector, the idea that they lack sharpness (or acutance) doesn't compute.

My 2 cents - if you think the 18-35 might be a good option for you, I'd take it for a test drive before assuming it's not sharp enough.

Cheers - #19
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top