Picking Decent Stop-gap Zoom Lenses - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony Digital Cinema Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM PMW-F3 CineAlta

Sony XDCAM PMW-F3 CineAlta
HD recording with a Super35 CMOS Sensor.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 12th, 2011, 04:44 AM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: melb.vic.au
Posts: 447
The HDx2 doesn't cover S35 I believe. Can't remember off the top of my head, but coverage is limited to centre crop modes on the RED and Phantom, so I doubt it suits the F3.

The AF100 must just squeeze into the HDx2's coverage.

Edit: Just looked at the HDx2. Converts the 11mm B4 to 22mm PL. AF100 is 20.1mm , an F3 27.1mm, so no go.
__________________
www.davidwilliams.com.au

Last edited by David C. Williams; February 12th, 2011 at 07:20 AM.
David C. Williams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2011, 08:32 AM   #17
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 4,957
Keep forgetting how much smaller the AF100 sensor is.

Oh well!
__________________
Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com
Alister Chapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2011, 09:15 AM   #18
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alister Chapman View Post
You could use a 2/3" B4 Broadcast lens with one of AbelCine's HDx2 PL adapters. It doubles the FL of the lens and expands the image to fit a 35mm sensor. I know Mitch has one working on an AF100, perhaps he'll get one on an F3 soon. It's $5,500 USD so not cheap, but could be worth it if you already have decent 2/3" glass. I'd love to see one of these in the flesh, can't help but think it's going to degrade the image a bit, but a 20x servo zoom (or more) is an attractive proposition.

Using 2/3″ Lenses on the Panasonic AF100 | CineTechnica
If this is anything in practice like a Century 2X PL converter, it's pretty soft. I have one for my Red, you only use it when you're really stuck. AFAIK, a tele convertor is basically doing the same thing.

I'd be surprised if you can take the the little image out of the back of a 2/3" lens, blow it up 4X, and not have it fall apart.

But yes, worth investigating if you have VERY expensive 2/3" lenses laying around.
__________________
My Work: nateweaver.net
Nate Weaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2011, 03:04 PM   #19
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Kalle View Post
Just a heads up: Canon, Leica and Zeiss are raising prices on still lenses by roughly 10%. This also means that Nikon is probably close behind but has not announced it yet.
Steve when is the price hike on Zeiss to take effect?
Andrew Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 07:59 AM   #20
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 99
Just noticed Red have some factory refurbished lenses on their site

If i had an F3, this zoom would tickle my fancy:

Product

$6000 dollars, so about £3,696 - seems good value for a PL mount zoom. I'm sure it's no angenieux optimo, but could be a good everyday kind of lens? T2.9, so not ultra fast, but not too slow either.

What are peoples opinions on Red lenses? [edit] - just re-read earlier posts. Still, seems like a lot of lens for the monies
Peter Ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 08:26 AM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tinton Falls, NJ
Posts: 749
At almost 10 lbs of weight, seems like quite a bit of mass for an 'everyday' lens, plus of course the weight of the rail/support system you'd need...
Dave Sperling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 08:38 AM   #22
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 99
hadn't spotted the weight- that is a wee bit beastly!

A similar coverage Optimo weighs in at 4.2lbs
Peter Ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 01:41 PM   #23
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ford View Post

$6000 dollars, so about £3,696 - seems good value for a PL mount zoom. I'm sure it's no angenieux optimo, but could be a good everyday kind of lens? T2.9, so not ultra fast, but not too slow either.

What are peoples opinions on Red lenses? [edit] - just re-read earlier posts. Still, seems like a lot of lens for the monies
I'm gonna make a bold, slightly obnoxious statement, and then I'm gonna backtrack, apologize, and explain.

The Red 18-85 is a better lens than you are cameraman, in all likelihood.

It's sharp throughout, solidly built, and 95% as good as an Optimo, ESPECIALLY if you've never used either, much less compared them critically on a projector.

Now for the apology. I don't really know anything about you, or your skills. But it is VERY much the sort of thing where, if you feel the need to ask, you haven't gotten to the point where you can tell the difference. So I apologize in advance if I misjudged where you're coming from experience-wise.

Now if you tell me you've used Ang Optimos, the 10-1HR, the 10-1HP, the OLD 10-1 coke bottle, the Zeiss Master zoom and tell me you like the Optimo because you like the way it flares when you shoot a 9-light down the barrel, then...maybe you have some perspective on where the Red lens is somewhat a lesser lens.

But I just made all that up, I don't REALLY know directly how it compares to those lenses, other than I know that it is pretty much just as sharp, except maybe on the edges at 2.8 and 18mm (I have used this Red lens AND Optimos, incidentally). That's it. It's a brand new design, made by a big Japanese lens company you've heard of (I won't say who, lest they come find me and beat me), and it's razor sharp.

The only shortcomings I can think of is that the front element is so big, some popular follow-focus units won't fit underneath the barrel (Arri FF4 comes to mind), so you need some less popular units (Willytec, O'Connor CF1) to make it work. Also, you would need a big honkin mattebox if you ever want to filter. Also, the focus marks are less than stellar. This would be an issue if you have a $600/day assistant cameraman who pulls focus THAT good while racecars zoom at you at 120mph as you shoot this years Pennzoil Indy car commercial. If it's just you twiddling a knob to make the image sharp, chances are you will never notice that there are no specific foot marks on the lens, just numbers.

One more thing. This is not a small lens. It's longer than the F3, weighs twice as much, would need 19mm or 15mm studio spaced rods (not the lightweight 15mm most small cameras use), and the built rig would weigh about 23 pounds (at least), upon which you might need a much bigger tripod head.

ALL that said, for the beginning S35mm shooter, this is a STELLAR lens, and a STELLAR value. Just don't go shooting million dollar commercials on it and you'll be fine. Frankly, I had no idea they were going for $6K from Red. I might pick one up eventually.
__________________
My Work: nateweaver.net
Nate Weaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 02:10 PM   #24
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,554
This is the set I will begin piecing together in a few months while I use some inexpensive Nikon glass:

FYI, I have used all of these lenses when I shot with a Sony A900.

Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 ($1600) - amazingly sharp wide open

Sony G 70-200 f2.8 ($1800)

Sony Zeiss 16-35 f2.8 ($1800)

Sony Zeiss 135 f1.8 ($1400) - 2nd most favorite lens and 2nd best Bokeh

Sony 135 STF f2.8 / t4.5 - ($1400) 'Smooth Transition Focus', the best Bokeh of any lens I have ever seen. Uses 10 aperture blades in manual aperture mode and is tack sharp wide open. Favorite lens of all time.

Sony 50 f1.4 (cheap)

Sony Zeiss 85 f1.4 ($1300) - very much like the Zeiss 135

According to what I have read at photozone.de and slrgear.com, these Sony Zeiss lenses are the best Zeiss makes for the SLR market.

I doubt many here will be using Sony Alpha lenses but just in case, there is one lens to stay away from: Sony G 35 f/1.4. The worst $1200 lens ever made.
Steve Kalle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 07:34 PM   #25
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 975
Nate you bring up a lot of good points some of which may not be obvious to some. One of the most important ones is the cost of the camera support stuff that is implied with a purchase like a heavy lens. You haven't given prices for the items you mention and some may be bowled over at the pricing on some of these items like a big mattebox or the OConnor FF (I believe it is the CFF-1 you are referencing). Studio rod systems aren't cheap either and are not that plentiful.

Just doing a rough estimate a big mattebox, that OConnor FF and a studio rails setup is going to set you back over 10 grand. So do your homework and think through all the camera support gak you are going to need if you go down a particular path.

It is worth going to the RED website as they have obviously just fleshed out their product offering of lenses again in anticipation of the rollout of their new camera heads. There is quite an array of PL mount lenses at the lower end of the price spectrum.
Andrew Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 07:49 PM   #26
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 975
Hi Steve, just throwing this out there as I notice that many of the zooms you are talking about are the same range as the higher end Nikons that are in the same price range. One thing you should check out before you buy these lenses is vignetting issues. These lenses are designed for APS-C sensor sizes which are a couple of millimeters smaller (on width) than the F3 sensor.

I understand these are Sony/Zeiss lenses which probably have the same coatings as the Zeiss ZF.2 and CP.2 lenses which could make them a cheaper & more convenient alternative to the Zeiss ZF.2 primes but if some vignette then there is a problem.

It's worth noting that these lenses that you like have Nikon counterparts that are highly lauded as well.

The Nikon 17-35 2.8 is a rectilinear lens throughout it's range and the housing doesn't pump and the lens doesn't breath. It is a spectacular stills lens. Haven't used it on video camera. Nikon also has a 24-70 2.8 and a 135 2.8 with an adjustable bokeh ring. Anyway, all of these lenses are designed for full frame SLR cameras and may be worth your consideration if you find issues with these Sony/Zeiss lenses when you try them out on an F3.
Andrew Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 09:24 PM   #27
Telecam Films
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 723
Sony's PLs for F3

I am bit confused about the actual angle of view of Sony's PL 35/50/85 mm T2set for the F3. Is the angle of view of a 35mm PL comparable to a 35mm for full frame DSLR of do I have to apply a crop factor to figure it out? In other word, Sony's 35mm for the F3, does it give me the same angle of view as a 35mm on a full frame DSLR or is that more like a 50mm on a full frame DSLR.

Sorry to ask but I am confused.

Thierry.
__________________
Thierry Humeau, DoP
Télécam Films
www.telecamfilms.com
Thierry Humeau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 09:50 PM   #28
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,554
All of these Sony lenses are Full-frame so vignetting is a non-issue with APS-C. Sony has only a few lenses made for APS-C and most of them are almost brand new.

The only lens I might switch to is the Nikon 14-24; however, that lens has serious flare issues which is a problem for video because we can't always choose the best angle/composition.

The main reason I want Sony lenses is so I can get the A900 (or replacement) because I really miss still photography. Unless you have shot with an A900 and Sony Zeiss, its hard to understand the non-quantitative quality of the images. OR I will get the A700 replacement which is supposed to blow away the DSLR market according to Sony exec's.

Plus, there are at least 3 more Sony/Zeiss Alpha lenses slated for this year including a 200mm f2.0. Plus, a Zeiss 24mm f1.7 for the E (NEX) system.

I haven't done a complete comparison of prices, but what I have seen is that the Sony lenses are much cheaper than Canon and Nikon versions, ie the 70-200 is $1800 Sony, $2400 Canon and $2200 Nikon.
Steve Kalle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 10:19 PM   #29
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thierry Humeau View Post
I am bit confused about the actual angle of view of Sony's PL 35/50/85 mm T2set for the F3. Is the angle of view of a 35mm PL comparable to a 35mm for full frame DSLR of do I have to apply a crop factor to figure it out? In other word, Sony's 35mm for the F3, does it give me the same angle of view as a 35mm on a full frame DSLR or is that more like a 50mm on a full frame DSLR.
Thierry,

Sensor size of any camera that talks about it having a "super 35" sized sensor means it's awful close to any of the "crop" sensored DSLRs. Canon 7D, etc, which is a factor of 1.6x.

So, a 35mm on the F3 is going to be tighter than a 35mm on a full frame DSLR. This has nothing to do with the PL mount, or the design of the lens. It's a function of the size of the sensor behind the lens. I make this point because the way you stated your question suggests you think a Sony 35mm prime is different than a Canon 35mm prime. They are not. 35mm is 35mm is 35mm. Apologies if you already knew this.

I think the temptation to do MM "translations" in your head is a little confusing and leads to really wacky online discussions. In the end, it's just better to start remembering 50mm means different things in different formats rather than do direct comparisons.

50mm in 4x6 view camera is a wide angle
50mm in full frame DSLR is on the wide end of normal
50mm in motion picture 35mm is tight end of normal
50mm Panasonic GH2 4/3rds is tighter still
50mm in motion picture 16mm is approaching telephoto
50mm in 2/3" broadcast is downright telephoto

and etc etc.

See what I mean? If you want to start really getting a feel for what the numbers mean, go borrow a Canon Rebel, 50D or 7D for a few days and do a bunch of zooming. AbelCine also has a field of view simulator somewhere on their website that helps visualize a lot.
__________________
My Work: nateweaver.net
Nate Weaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2011, 11:13 PM   #30
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 975
Steve, good. I did a quick search on B&H to look at your lenses and I guess pulled up the new lenses designed for the APS-C cameras.

If anyone is looking for the excellent FOV or "Field of View" calculator by the Abel Cine Tech people you can find it here:

AbelCineTech - Field of View Calculator
Andrew Stone is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony Digital Cinema Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM PMW-F3 CineAlta

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:56 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network