Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

"Modern cine lenses are all that size, mostly due to the internal gearing as you guessed. Honestly I find it a little amusing that you were aesthetically repelled!! That's a new one."


Guess I'm showing my age and how long its been since I worked with top gear. Used to shoot film and run a rental department but that was when Superspeeds were cool.

What do you gain with those big housings that you don't get with slimmer lenses? I looked at a set of Zeiss superspeeds yesterday and they were nowhere near that size. Am thinking about a set of ZF.2 primes and they are of course much slimmer. Is it all about focusing mechanism and longer throws?

On a strictly practical note it will mean larger and/or more cases to carry.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

The Speeds were always the most compact lenses. Even they got bigger over time--the later generations were larger than the early ones.

Most of the current lenses have larger elements as well as the gearing factor. Master Primes are pretty colossal. Listen, nobody is more particular about lens weights than a Steadicam operator! (no longer my problem, thankfully). On Panavision jobs, when the 50mm Primo or 29mm Speed (the heaviest of each set) was called for, I'd sigh (on the inside of course, only smiling on the outside).

More and larger cases, sure. But only when compared to smaller cameras/smaller sensors! I still think of this stuff as traveling light because I am comparing it to 35mm.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

I feel like Super Speeds have elves inside them. They are tiny, fast sharp and look great.

They were however some of the more expensive lenses of the day. I think part of the Size of lenses nowadays are just to have room to work on them for remote work. Like a remote follow focus and a remote Iris motor... Lining up several motor drives can take up a lot of space. The real estate is valuable near the lens. ITs tough getting alot of crap attached to a 50mm SS. the Iris and Focus ring are pretty close to each other on an already small lens.

http://www.pure4c.de/mm/mm001/zeiss_highspeed_50.jpg

where as:

http://www.actionaudioandvisual.com/...prime_65mm.jpg

the rings are further apart. Just seems like a small light lens is worthless if its too small to work on a modern motorized camera.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Interesting theory Timur, although I don't really think the manufacturers take remote motors that much into consideration (not to the point where they would make the lens housings larger for that reason). Motors have gotten easier to configure than they used to be when I started--the analog Hedens with the bodies that ran parallel to the lens were really hard to mount with shorter lenses than their later digital versions, Preston, Scorpio etc. I know that one of the selling points for modern lenses is that the focus and iris gears are positioned the same on every lens in the series to avoid having to reset the hard follow focus (or remote motors) each time.

Speeds definitely present a challenge for motor mounting! I deal with that one now with my ZE's--the 50mm is exceptionally short and the space between mattebox and camera body is minute, especially with the handgrip bulge on the right side of the DSLR bodies.

The worst I ever had was on a small broadcast lens that had focus, iris and zoom half an inch apart from each other, and I had to work from one side as the zoom housing wouldn't come off. It took a full supply of dogbones and small iris rods to offset the motors from each other on that one. Always sorry I didn't take a picture. It looked insane.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Seems to me that they would take into consideration ergonomincs. A slightly bigger lens is easier to deal with than a tiny old school panchro. But what do i know...


BTW charles, i dig your reel.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

I've done some recent comparative tests. You might want to read this: www.kamrat.tv

(Sorry for double posting. I realised that this was relevant in this thread just after starting a new one.)

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Ola,

Excellent article and thanks for the time you put into this. Although I ordered my F3 with the set of Sony primes, I will mostly use the camera for doco and news magazine and for that purpose, I need lenses that are lighter and more versatile than PLs so, your paper is of great interest to me. Also, one thing that really bothers me with PLs is that options for super wide or long focal lengths are very few and the cost of either owning or renting a PL lens in the 300mm range is quite prohibitive. On top of this, I could not really picture myself use a 25lbs lens in my workflow.

Best,

Thierry.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Ola,
A stunning piece of work and extremely useful, thank you!

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

FYI, from all the tests I have seen, Tokina usually has the highest CA.

Over at lensrentals.com, they usually publish their repair data, and there are always a several very expensive 'Pro' lenses that suffer some sort of mechanical problem.

Look at the most recent data report. Here is the original link LensRentals.com - Lens Repair Data 4.0

After seeing the data on my favorite Sony Zeiss lens, 24-70 2.8 and another great Sony lens, the 70-200 2.8, I am rethinking my plan on using mostly Sony Alpha lenses with a F3. In addition, they reportedly cost wayyy more to repair than CaNikon.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Has anyone used NOVOFLEX adapters? They make Nikon G and Sony Alpha manual aperture adapters and look to be a bit easier to use than MTF because they have a ribbed ring.

Re: Nikon/Sony SLR vs Zeiss SLR vs Cine Lenses
 

Thierry, Most rental house's 300mm are Canon & Nikon mods anyway and in the long end, compromising on a smaller max. aperture will get you a lighter lens. On the Nikkor camp, 300mm F4D ED-IF is still available in manual aperture and is reasonable sized, while the F2.8 is quite a bit larger and requires cradle and rod support (time & hassle), and the F2 is huge. I just bought a manual Nikkor 180 and can't wait to try it on the F3 if and when my MTF adaptor arrives . Maybe a good doubler on that lens will get you close to 300mm with minimum added weight.

The Canon camp is tough because they went all electronic aperture and that leaves only used markets for manual aperture lens. (At least until the Birger adaptor appears that's suppose to allow electronic aperture control) When that happens, my 2 cents worth to shoot fast would be just 3 zooms - the ultrasharp low distortion 16-35 L series II, the 24-70L, and the sharp but flattering (women's faces) 70-200 L series. Add Canon's much improved 1.4x doubler and you're closer to 300mm.

On the wide side, I'm still researching and you probably have better insights. Love the Canon 14mm so much I'm planning to shoot without aperture control on the current MTF adaptor, and just pile a ton of ND filters and use the ISO and shutter speed to control exposure.