Noah Kadner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,804
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.callboxlive.com
Yeah if you want cheap zoom options- you want Nikon or Canon mount.
Noah
Noah
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Why so many 18-50mm's for sale?
- Thread starter Andrew Patterson
- Start date
Blair S. Paulsen
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,503
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 48
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Website
- www.alacritymedia.com
If you want a small zoom and can't afford the Rouge.
If you want a small zoom and can't afford the Rouge.
Pros-
Peter makes a good point about the 18-50's value for macro work.
Others have pointed out what a nice lightweight zoom it is for hand held & Steadicam work.
Easy to switch out for other PL lenses without a mount change & back focus trim.
Optically capable of outresolving the sensor/OLPF combo on the RedOne with good geometry.
At $4,000 for a used one in good condition, its hard to go wrong.
Cons-
Mechanics are not as good as premium cinema lenses, I had mine tweaked up at Duclos Lenses and its noticeably improved - still not a Cooke, but hardly a deal killer.
Not highly thought of so can be hard to rent except to students and low budget indies.
For $4,000 you can get a Nikon or Canon mount and several used stills lenses, primes and zooms - rather than just having one lens.
T3 is slow for interiors unless you have budget for lighting in which case the client may be able to afford to rent familiar cinema glass anyway.
Note-
FWIW I ended up getting a partial set of SuperSpeeds that open up to T1.3 so I could get a decent exposure with available light or just a small kit on house power. Moreover, for interviews and intimate interiors the ability to use less light helped keep the right mood and kept temperatures down. Perhaps this is a small point but with the exception of experienced actors, I have often found the abundance of light typical in production (and hard to avoid with a T3 lens) can yield a "deer in the headlights" facial expression and make the talent nervous.
Summary- (based on a sub $10K budget for glass)
While the operational characteristics of the 18-50 are short of the best cinema glass they are noticeably better than any still lens I have used for pulling focus, riding iris or zooming - all daily activities for shooting motion content that stills lenses are not designed to handle gracefully. OTOH, if your typical production environment includes time for lens changes and limited lighting levels then fast lenses designed for still cams might serve you better.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers - #19
If you want a small zoom and can't afford the Rouge.
Pros-
Peter makes a good point about the 18-50's value for macro work.
Others have pointed out what a nice lightweight zoom it is for hand held & Steadicam work.
Easy to switch out for other PL lenses without a mount change & back focus trim.
Optically capable of outresolving the sensor/OLPF combo on the RedOne with good geometry.
At $4,000 for a used one in good condition, its hard to go wrong.
Cons-
Mechanics are not as good as premium cinema lenses, I had mine tweaked up at Duclos Lenses and its noticeably improved - still not a Cooke, but hardly a deal killer.
Not highly thought of so can be hard to rent except to students and low budget indies.
For $4,000 you can get a Nikon or Canon mount and several used stills lenses, primes and zooms - rather than just having one lens.
T3 is slow for interiors unless you have budget for lighting in which case the client may be able to afford to rent familiar cinema glass anyway.
Note-
FWIW I ended up getting a partial set of SuperSpeeds that open up to T1.3 so I could get a decent exposure with available light or just a small kit on house power. Moreover, for interviews and intimate interiors the ability to use less light helped keep the right mood and kept temperatures down. Perhaps this is a small point but with the exception of experienced actors, I have often found the abundance of light typical in production (and hard to avoid with a T3 lens) can yield a "deer in the headlights" facial expression and make the talent nervous.
Summary- (based on a sub $10K budget for glass)
While the operational characteristics of the 18-50 are short of the best cinema glass they are noticeably better than any still lens I have used for pulling focus, riding iris or zooming - all daily activities for shooting motion content that stills lenses are not designed to handle gracefully. OTOH, if your typical production environment includes time for lens changes and limited lighting levels then fast lenses designed for still cams might serve you better.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers - #19