Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 or TOKINA

paulcurtis said:
C7 adapters do PL to EF mount and they work great with the Hyperprimes, the adapters are priced so you can buy 3 and leave them on the lenses. The SLR home grown is quite expensive.

I don't find them more contrasty than the contax (i have a full set of those too) but they can work nicely together.

I don't think i've seen any issues with the 25 on the helium 8k (Monster obviously different ball game).

I'm aware of that 32mm and talk of 135 and also an 18. They would be nice additions so long as that 18 was full frame...

cheers
Paul
Click to expand...

Yes the 25 is fine on S35 Helium, not FF Monstro- hard vignette in corners. Good to hear about the C7, as it seems the SLR adapters only work with SLR APO's and are expensive, though it is very well built- easy to leave on the camera during lens change.
 
For documentaries I would just get the GL sigma high speed zooms. To me they look really nice on helium and just the hassle of dealing with fixed lenses when doing a documentary things. How do you do it, carry multiple of fixed lenses around and tell everyone to halt as you need to swing a lens...

These are fast and sharp enough to get the feel and speed of most primes and you only need to cary two to cover for more range then the set you mentioned.

http://nofilmschool.com/2016/09/review-gl-optics-sigma-cinema-lenses-18-35mm-f20-50-100mm-f18
 
Björn Benckert said:
For documentaries I would just get the GL sigma high speed zooms. To me they look really nice on helium and just the hassle of dealing with fixed lenses when doing a documentary things. How do you do it, carry multiple of fixed lenses around and tell everyone to halt as you need to swing a lens...

These are fast and sharp enough to get the feel and speed of most primes and you only need to cary two to cover for more range then the set you mentioned.

http://nofilmschool.com/2016/09/review-gl-optics-sigma-cinema-lenses-18-35mm-f20-50-100mm-f18
Click to expand...

Sigma now has both of those in cinema versions w/ PL mounts.

These are the same lenses designed to cover APS-C/S35.
 
The Sigmas are not “clinical” at all in my opinion. Canon I would call clinical. I’ve heard Master Primes called clinical, but I think they’re beautiful lenses.

Sigma in my opinion have a nice look to them while still being sharp. For me it’s a toss up between Sigma and Zeiss Otus as for what I’d invest in if I were buying a set. Problem with Otus is nothing wider than 28.

Personally I think it’s silly to buy an 8K camera and slap a soft lens on it, but that’s just me.
 
We shot a bunch of narrative stuff in April and May on the sigma zooms. I love the way they look. I understand the longer one 50-100 breathes considerably but it did not bother me. I'm not a big fan of breathing for what that is worh. I am a big fan of good zoom lenses though.
 
David Kudell said:
The Sigmas are not “clinical” at all in my opinion. Canon I would call clinical. I’ve heard Master Primes called clinical, but I think they’re beautiful lenses.

Sigma in my opinion have a nice look to them while still being sharp. For me it’s a toss up between Sigma and Zeiss Otus as for what I’d invest in if I were buying a set. Problem with Otus is nothing wider than 28.

Personally I think it’s silly to buy an 8K camera and slap a soft lens on it, but that’s just me.
Click to expand...

Clinical is a highly moving target in my opinion, one that changeds as glass technology evolves.

When the Arri/Zeiss Master Primes were released about 12 years ago they were pretty much state of the art glass and very clean, especially at typical shooting T Stops. Particularly though they were/are significantly "cleaner and more controlled" that previous T1.3 speeds.

Fast forward to some extremely interesting manufacturing process advancements, ingenuity in complicated aspherical designs, improved coatings, as well as rare earth glass being thoughtfully utilized; in 2011 the Leica Summilux-C became the most "clinical and clean" high speed glass at T1.4 when wide open.

I'll pause there and say, much of the bread and butter of both of those prime sets is their out of focus bokeh, accutance, and general center through field resolving power. They are gorgeous glass.

Moving into the more modern and affordable FF35/VV capable glass it's clear to see we've come a long, long way in manufacturing and lens design. Look to all of those SALT tests and you get a general idea of the graph.

I have no problem saying the f/1.4 Zeiss Otus Primes and High Speed Sigma Cine Primes land in that "clinical and clean" realm, specifically similar to the Leica Summilux-C as they share a bit of a similar flavor of design when it comes down to it. Same can be said for the Tokina Cinema Vistas in that category, but with a smidge "more character" found wide open. All three are in a pretty similar wheelhouse on a technical merit. Then it comes down the the nuance of lens character in the flare, vignette, contrast levels, etc.... I should also mention the general build quality and mechanics.

I've famously said at least once at every SALT test I've been involved with as well as lens tests that are off the air that if a lens produces images I like I don't care if it looks like a watermelon with gears gaffed onto it, as long as the images are something I like. While that's a bit tongue in cheek as mechanics are still truly important on a day to day filming basis, image quality and character are first for me. As you can tell by the broad range of "weird glass" I still mod, rehouse, and shoot with. General features like close focus, build quality, etc. are next.

But, when it comes to glass, the look is everything. However, which look you prefer and prefer on specific shoots even is up to each shooter (for better or worse - *snicker*).

Clinical, controlled, and clean aren't bad things. It mostly just relates to controlled aberrations, a very corrected optic, and well wrangled flare characteristics. Can a lens be too clinical? Yes, I've seen that. Are any of what we're chatting about that way? No. Not at all.
 
Ben Scott said:
Has anyone shot anything outside tests on the Sigmas yet? Would love to see some narrative, doc or promo work done on them.
Click to expand...

The 50-100mm has too much breathing to be of any interest to me unfortunately, but I added the 18-35mm in PL to my kit to compliment my Zeiss CZ.2s (because it has a 95mm front, where the wide Zeiss 15-30mm CZ.2, as wonderful as the glass is, has a 114mm front) and it's probably been my most used lens since I got it.

Fantastic piece of glass. Sharp, fast, good mechanics and lightweight. It focusses close, and flares nicely. I've shot a bunch of narrative work on it over the past few months and have been very satisfied with the results.

Here are a few preliminary grades from some of them:

3wmibOC.jpg


l6SjrLC.jpg


jl4BrJv.jpg


86LlXCu.jpg


Bkg0rZ2.jpg


Wq2tyn4.jpg


kzb7gQ8.jpg


fgjIXmg.jpg


SIZ81tR.jpg


7Di5n65.jpg


wGRSac7.jpg


w9MErg4.jpg


SaCxwmg.jpg
 
Björn Benckert said:
For documentaries I would just get the GL sigma high speed zooms. To me they look really nice on helium and just the hassle of dealing with fixed lenses when doing a documentary things. How do you do it, carry multiple of fixed lenses around and tell everyone to halt as you need to swing a lens...

These are fast and sharp enough to get the feel and speed of most primes and you only need to cary two to cover for more range then the set you mentioned.

http://nofilmschool.com/2016/09/review-gl-optics-sigma-cinema-lenses-18-35mm-f20-50-100mm-f18
Click to expand...

+1 That’s exactly why I bought both zooms.

I went for the GL version over the Sigmas due to their ”parfocal claim” and for documentary work they’re just great if you can live with some limitations (the 50-100’s heavy breathing and overall weight)
 
The 18-35 is a great lens and somehow it almost always comes out to play on my shoots, regardless of the main lens set in play. I have the GL (for three years now) and it's just great. Works well as a variable prime.
 
I really love my Sigma 18-35 cine, just an awesome lens that I can get many "looks" from in post
or even nice out of camera.

If Sigma could get the focus breathing under control in the 50-100 they would have an unbeatable set of zooms in my opinion.

I like the fact that I can take smaller / lighter stills versions on travel projects and have the same glass.

Curtis
 
Last edited:
Andrew R Lewis said:
Great info, thanks Mark. My big question is how the Schneider Xenon FF set hold up to these three. Any experience there? Phil Holland has a lot to say about them, your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Ive shot with them, So cannot answer. They are not T1.5 So they don't pop on my radar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top