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

Bob Gundu said:
I think they only pass data. So, Fool Control can't do much with these. Unless I'm reading this wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes the cine version has no motor (and only sending lens metadata in the EF version)
... that's why Ryan mentioned the "stills versions" and hoped they would have kept the motors in while doing the cine version...
 
Mikael Lubtchansky said:
Yes the cine version has no motor (and only sending lens metadata in the EF version)
... that's why Ryan mentioned the "stills versions" and hoped they would have kept the motors in while doing the cine version...
Click to expand...

Since new developers of cine lenses aren't digging into having this kind of dual idea of both gears and inner motors I think we are a long way before we see any cine-lenses of enough quality to use that tech. I really don't understand why the high end lens manufacturers aren't developing internal motors for their lenses? Just think about a totally waterproof lens that has remote focus motors internally that are smoother than external gearheaded remote FFs.
 
paul ross jones said:
I have been shooting with heavy lenses on canons ef mount for years, changing lenses a lot more often than a standard film shoot. The long canon lenses weigh a ton, and even the fast primes are pretty heavy. my ef 200mm f1.8 is 30 years old and the mount is still sweet and never needed repair. if you see how sports photographers treat their cameras with 800mm lenses hanging off them, i think you would be convinced in the strength of the mounts.
I agree the PL mount is far stronger, but I really think the EF mount is still extremely strong.

paul
Click to expand...

I know that they are strong since I was a still photographer a few years back, but PL is stronger and will withstand a whole feature film with fast changes and reliability when pulling focus. A still camera doesn't need to rely on continuous operation during a take, you need to get the image once or in a sequence. It doesn't really matter if there's a few hickups, but for cinema it's much more crucial that everything is working exactly right every given time. If you forget to tighten the EF mount screw on the Red EF mount the lens will "wiggle" while pulling focus.

Sports photographers actually treat their gear in a way no 1st AC would ever treat film equipment. Yes, it speaks for the sturdiness of EF mounts, but for cine lenses I would never use EF over PL. Only reason I have EF right now is because my CN-Es only comes with EF.
 
Mikael Lubtchansky said:
Yes the cine version has no motor (and only sending lens metadata in the EF version)
... that's why Ryan mentioned the "stills versions" and hoped they would have kept the motors in while doing the cine version...
Click to expand...

I hope the futur is cinema housing with still motors.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Since new developers of cine lenses aren't digging into having this kind of dual idea of both gears and inner motors I think we are a long way before we see any cine-lenses of enough quality to use that tech. I really don't understand why the high end lens manufacturers aren't developing internal motors for their lenses? Just think about a totally waterproof lens that has remote focus motors internally that are smoother than external gearheaded remote FFs.
Click to expand...

Speaking of internal focus, has anyone tried pulling focus with one of Sigma's Art Still lenses with foolcontrol?
Recently I rented a Canon 35 F2 lens for this purpose but wasn't happy, focus is not smooth enough for professional use. So I pulled the trigger and bought the GDU 24 and 40 because I have heard good things about them, and they are cheap too. Focus very smooth and silent. I was possitively surprised.

I have hoped the new Sigma Art Cine lenses would have had dual focus system, though. That would have been a killer feature.
 
Thai Christen said:
Speaking of internal focus, has anyone tried pulling focus with one of Sigma's Art Still lenses with foolcontrol?
Recently I rented a Canon 35 F2 lens for this purpose but wasn't happy, focus is not smooth enough for professional use. So I pulled the trigger and bought the GDU 24 and 40 because I have heard good things about them, and they are cheap too. Focus very smooth and silent. I was possitively surprised.

I have hoped the new Sigma Art Cine lenses would have had dual focus system, though. That would have been a killer feature.
Click to expand...

There are no still lenses with smooth internal motors for motion focus pulling. People argue that some lenses are better than others but I've tried many and there's no one that meets the standards on par with the quality of just a regular mechanical FFs. The Sigmas are no exception, always "stutters" when pulling focus. Might be good for handheld where you just need to be getting correct focus during chaotic movement, but putting it on a tripod or dolly and you get bad pulling every time.

As for the GDU, I think Jarred made them smooth to prioritize for motion work. He might chime in on this better, but developers of lenses need to focus on making actual internal motors for cinema lenses, just as they do with smooth aperture changes, they need to do with motors for focus pulling.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
There are no still lenses with smooth internal motors for motion focus pulling. People argue that some lenses are better than others but I've tried many and there's no one that meets the standards on par with the quality of just a regular mechanical FFs. The Sigmas are no exception, always "stutters" when pulling focus. Might be good for handheld where you just need to be getting correct focus during chaotic movement, but putting it on a tripod or dolly and you get bad pulling every time.

As for the GDU, I think Jarred made them smooth to prioritize for motion work. He might chime in on this better, but developers of lenses need to focus on making actual internal motors for cinema lenses, just as they do with smooth aperture changes, they need to do with motors for focus pulling.
Click to expand...

So the GDUs are our best guess at the moment.
I stick with my Leica-R cinemod lens set and Kowa Anamorphics :-)
 
Rick Lang said:
Regarding the image circle, the 18-35mm and 50-100mm are stamped with a 28.4mm diagonal. That likely covers nearly all Super 35 sensors, but not the Blackmagic URSA/Mini 4.6K sensor open gate which has a 29.08mm diagonal. They will cover all the windows but not full sensor. All the others lenses are stamped 43.3mm diagonal meaning certainly cover 135 film, 36x24mm. If the numbers are accurate, they do not cover the full Weapon with Dragon 8K sensor commonly referred to as VistaVision here. However the numbers may just be there for convenience so people can quickly sat 'full frame' is good to go and not reflect their actual image circles.
Click to expand...

Vic Harris has pointed out that my original assumptions about the stamped image circle values are correct. The values are accurate and Sigma itself has a graphic that illustrates slight vignetting on the URSA/Mini 4.6K sensor. So pay attention to the 28.4mm and 43.3mm values when considering your purchases.

http://www.sigma-global.com/common/...age_coverage_on_Blackmagic_Design_cameras.pdf
 
Pretty cool to see them coming from SIGMA. They really listened and turned ART into proper cinema glass.

Damn cool photos btw, SIGMA should buy them for advertisement purposes. :)
 
Kevin D'Haeze said:
Any word on estimated retail on these? Can't find info anywhere.
Click to expand...

I got my Art 18-35 for $800.
They'll use the same glass... remove the motors... add that pretty housing... charge $4000... and it'll be the best value buy in the market.
Welcome to the cinema.
 
Thai Christen said:
Speaking of internal focus, has anyone tried pulling focus with one of Sigma's Art Still lenses with foolcontrol?
Click to expand...

We pulled focus this past weekend with the Sigma ART 1835 with Foolcontrol and a droknob unit while doing gimbal work and the ramp seemed really smooth to me. Good enough that I'll likely invest in an RT motion latitude system and do all focus pulling from that. I'm small beans though (mid-budget corporate videos).
 
Ryan Sauve said:
We pulled focus this past weekend with the Sigma ART 1835 with Foolcontrol and a droknob unit while doing gimbal work and the ramp seemed really smooth to me. Good enough that I'll likely invest in an RT motion latitude system and do all focus pulling from that. I'm small beans though (mid-budget corporate videos).
Click to expand...

I have been doing the same for a while now, and it's smooth enough. You have to use an wifi expander though like the DIY on "accessories" or the wooden camera otherwise it will lag, also have a usb battery to be able to keep your iPhone unlocked and on all the time. Otherwise Foolcontrol will go nuts.

I mosty do TV commercials and nobody came back to me for the last 4 months, and the results are sharp.
That's why I'm turning to Latitude, and still lenses. I'm using all the Art primes available with a weapon.
 
spaulgal said:
I got my Art 18-35 for $800.
They'll use the same glass... remove the motors... add that pretty housing... charge $4000... and it'll be the best value buy in the market.
Welcome to the cinema.
Click to expand...

Ha. It does pose the question as to whether the glass is going to be any different than the current 18-35 or 50-100. It's the same question that came about with the Rokinon Cine DS line vs the Xeens. If it really is the same glass, but rehoused and at at $4000/ea (price speculation), I'd just forego the cinema featuers and stick with the still lens set and save $6,000. Is there any literature that points out any real differences in the glass on the new Cine lenses?
 
Breathing, focus pulling / gearing, physical location of rings, T stops, color matched sets, and being able to use & rent them out on a professional production are things I'd say would be worth the price increase.
 
Derek Means said:
Breathing, focus pulling / gearing, physical location of rings, T stops, color matched sets, and being able to use & rent them out on a professional production are things I'd say would be worth the price increase.
Click to expand...
Also the fact that they've got the weather sealing of Sigma's 150-600 sport lens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl714jImV-c

Do the non-cine ART lenses have this? I thought I read that they did not.
 
These lenses all have a 95m front. What matte boxes can natively clamp onto 95mm? I have a oconner o-box and its really too heavy.
I would like to do away with having a rail held matte box and just have a clamp on. I was going to get CN-E's and these have 114mm fronts, but these lenses look better for me.
I have looked at the atom by tangerine and I really don't like it. The rubber is all wonky and pointless.
Are there any other nice lightweight clamp ons? or will i have to use a lightweight matte box designed for 114mm with and adaptor?

cheers paul
 
paul ross jones said:
These lenses all have a 95m front. What matte boxes can natively clamp onto 95mm? I have a oconner o-box and its really too heavy.
I would like to do away with having a rail held matte box and just have a clamp on. I was going to get CN-E's and these have 114mm fronts, but these lenses look better for me.
I have looked at the atom by tangerine and I really don't like it. The rubber is all wonky and pointless.
Are there any other nice lightweight clamp ons? or will i have to use a lightweight matte box designed for 114mm with and adaptor?

cheers paul
Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

Perhaps these from Wooden Camera?
 
paul ross jones said:
These lenses all have a 95m front. What matte boxes can natively clamp onto 95mm? I have a oconner o-box and its really too heavy.
I would like to do away with having a rail held matte box and just have a clamp on. I was going to get CN-E's and these have 114mm fronts, but these lenses look better for me.
I have looked at the atom by tangerine and I really don't like it. The rubber is all wonky and pointless.
Are there any other nice lightweight clamp ons? or will i have to use a lightweight matte box designed for 114mm with and adaptor?

cheers paul
Click to expand...

If you want a light but more full-fledged matte box, check out the Misfit (non-Atom). 2 filter trays, expands to 3 if needed, I currently use it with their Black Hole universal donut (which also gives you a 138mm circular filter stage) and 15mm clamps. But if I want to go clamp on with the Sigmas, I'll just get one of these rings to have a clamp-on option.

I am also curious about Wooden Camera's new little Zip Box, might just grab one for the kit as a gimbal savior. It's almost too cheap to not buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top