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 :)

Your fav lighter mid price pl zoom

A

Anson Fogel

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
537
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Salt Lake City
Website
www.camp4collective.com
Man we have searched and searched, so we go to the big cloud brain here. What is your favorite lighter weight, moderately priced PL everyday zoom lens?

The new RED 18-85 has the right price and performance, but not the right weight, as you know - its a beast. The newer optimo and zeiss ltwt zooms are badass, but rental price only. Is there a lens out there, used pricing, that compares well to the red pro 18-85, 2.8 or thereabouts, but that does not weigh 10 lbs? My experience with the red 17-50 was mediocre, is there a better option for more a bit more $$? 5 lbs or less....? Anyone used a Nikon conversion in the range?

Yes, it needs to be PL, it needs the gearing and mechanics of PL glass - suggesting still glass is old hat, we use a Birger and Canon glass at times. And we rent primes often. But we need to own the right PL zoom for various reasons.
 
Yes..it's a very small market in terms of pl mount cinema zooms.
Personally hoping next generatiion of Red electronic zooms will fit the bill.
Seems they will be under 10k and smaller than 18-85...some mention of them here..

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48362&page=31

Other than that there is the Ruby from Focus Optics..and Duclos Lenses has
Nikon conversions..and people seem very happy with those options as well.
 
Its late but the only thing coming into my head is the Zeiss LWZ.
A verson 2 is coming out so some v1's will come up on the used market I assume.
 
thanks y'all, but lets keep them coming - the zeiss lwz1 is still in the 40K dollar range, lwz2 actually retails at 30K it appears, but I'm looking for used in the sub 10K range. The ruby is impressive, but its a wide zoom, only up to 24mm.

There's got to me something out there...even older...
 
I guess something like a Cooke 18-100 or 20-100 is too big and heavy?
How about the Angenieux 17-102?
 
David,

All as big and heavy or bigger than the red pro 18-85. Huge, actually. Massive. Really big. Did I mention big?

We're often shooting in remote locations, but somewhat cine style - an odd xover. I can't go back to shooting still glass for this type of work, but I can't work with 25 lb lenses, rent in these locations, or spend 30 grand.

Red is really the only option for this price range, broad PL zoom? Wow. Maybe I'll give the old(er) red 17-50 another chance...
 
I think that from what you've described, Anson, the 17-50 is the only game.

But I still like my Nikon 17-55 with GDX mount. And the 11-16 Tokina is the bomb, as the kids say.
 
I feel your pain

I feel your pain

For all the things the original RED 18-50 T3 zoom was not, its easy to lose sight of what it did well. Small, light, affordable and able to resolve 4K resolution - just sayin.

I am anxiously awaiting the RED electronic zooms and have quantified my desires many a time on this forum. PL mount, 20mm or less on the wide end, at least 7x ratio, T3 or faster, under 8 lbs. and under $10,000. Can it be made? Would the marketplace reward the maker enough to make it worth their time? ...

Cheers - #19
 
I don't know of any. And I think somebody here would've piped up if such a beast exists. I don't think there are any that cover 4K and have much range. There is a Cooke 20-60 that is not heavy-heavy. But hard to find. And short range. And not exactly light.

There are logical reasons for this. Primary among them is these zooms were made for narrative cinema in controlled situations, with full crews -- and breathing and focus pulling were central considerations in their design -- and the nature of building a lens like that requires a lot of glass and heavy mechanics to support its movements. They also needed reasonable speed. So while T3 or T 2.9 may seem "slow" -- it was pretty remarkable for the times for a zoom.

Also, we may not think so now, but when you were shooting 35mm film with a 10-12 pound zoom (the Cooke's are actually"light" for their range and other qualities) that 10-12 pounds of lens didn't seem that heavy when you considered the weight of the camera, the film magazines, etc. And how the camera was handled and moved and the pace of production, etc.

So it's sort of the nature of the beast to be on the heavy side, like the Red 18-85. Although in a sense, the zoom is lighter than the equal set of primes. Of course not quite as fast or sharp. There's always a trade-off.


There are some lighter old Angenieux's -- but I doubt you'd find most of them up to contemporary 4K standards for the most part. (I think the old Cooke zooms, do better).

I would say your best bet would be the Red 17-50 if that covers most of your style of shooting.

I have used the 17-55 Nikon and it produces great results. (about the same range and less than a third the cost, around half the weight, but of course there's a huge sacrifice because the Red is a true cine lens). While the Nikon is not a narrative cinema lens as far as focus throw, I use it a lot for doc work where my style does not require a lot of follow focus - although if need be it can be done.

The Nikon 17-55 focus throw is a mere 90 degrees -- with about 80 degrees of that being on the close end from 10ft to just over a foot. The lens is very well made, but the focus has the feel of exactly what it is -- a still lens with auto-focus motor. You will need iris control on your Nikon, like Doug's -- (or be willing to be very very mickey-mouse and pre-adjust and use ND).

The zoom has its "seat" (fully re-tracted) at about 35mm, expands about an 1.4" on the wide to 17mm -- and about .4" to 55. Nothing extreme. No vignetting. Holds focus well. But I rarely if ever zoom with it, although you could make some incremental widening disguised with following movement or panning if you had to and had good instincts. I use it 95 per cent as a light variable prime. Serves that purpose well if you're on a budget.

A lot of of whether you can make a lens like this work (it's certainly sharp enough) depends on your style and the demands of your shoot. The glass is good, the mechanics are still lens.
 
Anson Fogel said:
My experience with the red 17-50 was mediocre, is there a better option for more a bit more $$?
Click to expand...

Anson, what did you find mediocre about the 17-50?
Are you sure you don't mean the (older) red 18-50?
The Red 17-50 pro zoom just recently started shipping, and is supposed to be on the same level as the 18-85, optically and mechanically.
 
Nils J. Nesse said:
Anson, what did you find mediocre about the 17-50?
Are you sure you don't mean the (older) red 18-50?
The Red 17-50 pro zoom just recently started shipping, and is supposed to be on the same level as the 18-85, optically and mechanically.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, while I haven't used the 17-50 personally Ive only heard really good things. I also want to mention about the lack of smaller cheaper zooms from the 80s/90s that PL was not as popular then. Basically until Red came along and now others have followed there weren't many "affordable" PL mount cameras so there wasn't a large demand for reasonable priced/smaller zooms as PL was mainly used on larger productions. I'm guessing/hoping now that the demand for PL has gone way up in the recent years that more affordable options will be made available but yet still high quality due to economies of scale. Ha sorry for rambling, Just my two cents...:smilewinkgrin:
 
Anson Fogel said:
Nils,

Yes, I was referring to the old(er) 18-50, not the new 17-50. That lens is very promising, but I have yet to hear direct experiential data from users. Do you own one? Where have you seen user info?
Click to expand...

Ketch started a nice thread about the 17-50mm complete with some very helpful pictures comparing the 17-50mm to the older 18-50mm. Although not nearly as beneficial as hands of course but Ketch was very gracious to give us the next best thing.

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48544
 
There's the Cooke 18-100. I don't have the weight spec handy but it feels about the same as the RED Pro 18-85. Keep in mind that in the traditional cinema world, performance and durability trumped keeping the weight down.

IF I had to have a PL mount zoom sooner than later, needed to buy rather than rent and wanted it relatively lightweight for hand held; I would get the RED Pro 18-85 for $10K. For $20K the Angie DP zooms are fan-frakkin-tastic, excellent in every way, reasonably fast (T2.6 IIRC) and lightweight. The only reason I don't own them is that the focal length ranges are a bit limited (16-42mm and 30-80mm) so you kind of need both, which means $40K which gets us back to the rental house unless you have deep pockets.

If you can wait, I think RED will release a "kit" zoom that will end up in a lot of owner/operators packages, if you can't, maybe cut a deal on a long term rental...

Cheers - #19
 
I think there is a Russian 35-80 T2.8 that can be had for $5k or so, but rare. A few users here on this site have written about them and I think I saw one for sale in PL mount. There is the venerable Angeniuex 35-140 which I think is a T4 and has a nice retro look as opposed to the snappy, sterile look we get with most lenses today. Both of these are small and light.

My 17-55 Nikon is ultra sharp, being a modern aspheric and I love the range. It stays on my RED most of the time. But it doesn't have the greatest focus throw between 5 feet and inifinity - not nearly as much as it should. It's been workable, though, with a follow focus that has a smaller gear and thus expands the scale. I will probably look seriously at the 17-50 RED which has better marks and is PL. But my Nikon should work with Epic and it's touch focus (?) which could be a new way to work in some situations.
 
Douglas Underdahl said:
I think there is a Russian 35-80 T2.8 that can be had for $5k or so, but rare.
Click to expand...

There was a used Optar 25-80mm T3.3 for sale on this forum about a year ago. Optica Elite make a 24-82 T2.8, which I guess is a newer design. Price is 9900 Euros new.

The Red 17-50 probably performs better, has a more useful range (IMHO), and is about half the price.
 
I've had some good luck shooting outdoors footy with an old Angieniuex 25-250mm zoom - cheap piece of glass, has a few issues but better than you would expect for the price...doesn't weigh much either, for the focal length range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top