Cinematic m43 lenses

stoney

@BurnetRhoades +1 except one thing. I'm not sure that the real investment is the lenses anymore. Affordable CINE like lenses just began appearing. Those are the first generation. Of course they will be improved over the time at affordable prices, and the resale values of the current lenses will be dropped over the time.

BurnetRhoades

@Riker the speed of the lenses gives you room to stop-down to a better place. Those 1.4, 1.2, etc. lenses are going to look much better at 2.8 than they do fully-wide. You can get a 24mm and 28mm Nikkor that performs decent at this stop but, the Lumix and Noktors (budget allowing) preclude full-coverage, which may not be a consideration for everyone but we shouldn't forget the real investment with any camera package is the lenses.

Stops below 2 are generally going to fall into the completely unlit, at night, just hoping to get something and shouldn't, in most circumstances, be a target stop to live in. It's nice knowing your lens could go there if necessary but it doesn't represent a solution for getting "cinematic" or how actual movies are generally shot.

kazuo

I used to own the Angenieux 35-70mm not too long ago. It is a retrofocus lens, about 1 stop brighter than the average zoom, but boasts quite a bit of purple fringing. I sold it cosof its rotating front, and variable f stop. i also had the Angenieux 45-90mm f2.8. A great lens in terms of sharpness, but its colour rendition is warmer than Leica's usual palette, and so makes it an awkward lens to match. I sold it as well, even though it is a rarity.

Now i only use Contax lenses. Amazing visceral quality

Riker

I don't want to get into the whole "crop factor" debate here, but looking at few Red Epic operators, pretty much all of them have these fast (under f 1.5) lenses in their arsenal;

24 / 35 / 50 / 85

Considering the AOV of S35 vs GH2 16:9 mode, would these be close enough?

14 / 24 / 35/ 50

Looking at the Nikkor lens list, I would say that for "cinematic" feel one should try to get the good framing / color grading with Lumix glass for the wide end, and use 35 1.4 and 50 1.2 or 1.4 for the tele end. I don't see any fast Nikkor primes under 35mm.

Correctamente? :D

stoney

Here's a set of my vintage lenses. Vivitar 55mm 2.8 macro, Hexanon 40mm 1.8, and Vivitar 28mm 2.0. All usable at 2.8.

I know CINE lenses... but WTH is "cinamatic" lenses? Are there some magical lenses that can turn so-so work to awesome cinamatic work? ORLY? Haha

BurnetRhoades

@kankala Don't get too focused on the "stills" aspect of what I was talking about. I was simply using that as an illustration that so many of the things that get discussed here and elsewhere about what it takes to get "cinematic" images out of their camera aren't actually the most relevant factors. If they become irrelevant looking at a pause of a motion picture, anywhere in the course of the film, then odds are they're not "the answer", they're at best a smaller piece of the puzzle, perhaps.

kankala

@BurnetRhoades So cinematic is about keeping technical stuff (e.g. shutter speed) in the proper range, but ultimately for the sake of taking "stills" that have the motion and storytelling feeling. Could it help to learn if I just go out and try to shoot stills that have a cinematic vibe?

I read your comment and then I started watching Cairo Time (it was on my watching list), and it makes sense what you say (Cairo Time has great "stills"), but in the end it means you need talent and/or hard work to be able to take stills like that. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" stands true once again, and then the beholder just needs to put the camera between himself and the beauty.

And it's easy to try to evade hard work by thinking stuff like "oh but those are anamorphic, now I need an anamorphic adapter" and so you fall back in the "I need that gear because otherwise I can't get cinematic" roller-coaster.

vicharris

Ah, if they are 28-70 and not 28-80, maybe they were just ones released abroad and not in Japan. Got it now.

LPowell

@vicharris

The Pro I and II actually are both 2.6-2.8, not just 2.8.

Yes, but there are also ATX Pro variants that are labeled just f2.8. I suspect they're simply relabeled releases of the original f2.6-2.8 that was based on the Angenieux design.

vicharris

The Pro I and II actually are both 2.6-2.8, not just 2.8. These are the Angenieux design. I was wrong about the first model though before these 2.6-2.8 models. So lets just all agree that the Pro I and II Japenese versions with a 77mm ring are the ones to buy. :) And this is what's stated in the article we are referencing. I have the II with the Bayonet hood and did a lot of research before I bought this lens.

LPowell

@vicharris The link above has the mug shots and vital details. I have a Tokina 28-70mm f2.8 with a 77mm thread that KEH positively ID'ed as an ATX Pro-2, apparently made for the Japanese market. The predated 72mm-thread 28-70mm is a completely different lens design. From what I've read online, the only model to avoid is the downgraded SV version.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

And I apologize for turning this into a damn Tokina 28-70 thread! No more from me :)

You can continue if you like, I'll split it later.

vicharris

And I apologize for turning this into a damn Tokina 28-70 thread! No more from me :)

vicharris

Am I? The old Pro 1 and 2 are the good ones. Pros have 77 thread, the rest 72. The rest bad. Yes? No? :)

LPowell

@vicharris

Yeah, the old 1 or 2 at 2.6-2.8, not the constant 2.8 one.

The newer ones have a 72mm threaded hood while the old ones have the more common 77mm with lenses of this size.

I believe you're mistaken on these distinctions. There were a couple versions of the Tokina ATX Pro-2 28-70mm f2.8 that appear to be the same design as the f2.6-2.8. And it was a non-Angenieux 28-70mm version that predated the ATX Pro-1 that had a 72mm filter thread; all ATX Pro versions have a 77mm thread. The later SV version was indeed a downgrade and should be avoided. Here's the most detailed reference I've found on this lens:

http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2009/11/tokina-at-x-pro-28-70mm-f26-28.html

HillTop1

Not trying to derail this thread but I was just about to buy the at-x-pro 1 (the one with the Angenieux design). Beside this at-x pro 1 f2.8 lens, which other lens in the 24/28-70/80mm F2.8 focal range can I get that's under $800 that's good?

Flaaandeeers

@vicharris Yes, mine is very easy to turn, but has very short throw compared to other lenses I have. I also found mine (Nikon mount) in perfect condition for $150 in a local store. I was offered double that price to sell it, but I think I will keep it for now. It's a nice and versatile lens.

vicharris

@Flaaandeeers Yeah, that's it! Good find. And that's right, I have the Pro II as well. Not a bad lens. Your focus is easy to turn? Mine is so tough. My lens needs to be locked down with a support to use a follow focus.

Flaaandeeers

Do you mean this one @Vitaliy_Kiselev?: http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2009/11/tokina-at-x-pro-28-70mm-f26-28.html

I have Pro II version, and is a pretty good all round performer. Focus ring is smooth btw, although it has very short throw.

vicharris

@Vitaliy_Kiselev I know what page you are talking about and can't find it either. It gave the history of this line of lenses and compared all the negative and positive features. It seems very unbiased but I can't find it anymore. I agree, any one from this line needs to be stopped down in order to render good pics. I think you need at least 5.6 to get away from soft corners of any kind but out of all of them, the Angenieux design one had the best overall reviews. I was able to pick one up from Adorama for $150 since the AF didn't work on it and yep, I shot something with it at 4 or below when I first bought it and it is horrible, I stopped it down a bit and it looked great. Here's a grab from the interview footage.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

@vicharris

I failed to find it, but I remember very good page about Tokina lenses covering all editions.
To be short, original one is not the best.
This lens is usually also fall short compared to modern F2.8 zooms.

vicharris

@Hilltop1 Yeah, the old 1 or 2 at 2.6-2.8, not the constant 2.8 one. The newer one is made from cheaper materials and the old one is designed after the Angenieux design and I believe it's just the 1. The newer ones have a 72mm threaded hood while the old ones have the more common 77mm with lenses of this size. Also, there's a newer version that has SV after the name and it's a piece of crap. By the way, the Ken Rockwell review of these lenses is funny. :)

itimjim

@HillTop1 @vicharris The 28-80/2.8 has a very light focus ring.

HillTop1

@vicharris, yah the atx pro 1 right? Really the focusing ring on it is too tight? I wonder how those Nikon D700 guys deal with it.

BurnetRhoades

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

Every talk ends up either about being cinematic, or F stop, or equivalent lens focal length, or sex.

Well I would imagine that's because simply paying the bills isn't really an ultimate goal one needs to "aspire" to. One certainly doesn't need more than a bone stock GH2 to shoot a wedding video or industrial or local public access show or web series. Not hardly. A stock GH2 is practically overkill for the aesthetic and technical realities of these clients, their own delusions of grandeur aside.

That's not to say the practical aspects of making motion pictures that only need to satisfy these industries aren't important or worth discussion. Trade tips and techniques help everyone at this most practical level. Paying your bills, continuing your education, putting food on your families table, these are all important subjects. But let's just be honest here, there's very little worthy of passionate discourse in the banal but still relevant.

I mean, the worldwide effect of Magic Lantern and your own contribution wasn't for the purpose of bringing the ultimate in image quality and utility to the guy shooting a bunch of drunk white people doing the "Chicken Dance"...was it?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters