A Tale of Two T2.0 Zooms (for A6300)

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Man that Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II is SHARP. Much sharper and higher contrast than the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 G and AF-S. testing them put me off buying the 28-70mm because I thought I'd wait and just go all in. It's sharper than the my 50mm zeiss stopped down to f/2.8 for god's sake.

Canon should really make ''video'' lenses from these version, not ''cinema'' since they'd go putting in the most expensive prices ever, just ''video-friendly' as in, this 24-70mm with a geared focus & zoom rings & and a step-less iris ring, so it'd work for all cameras.

They can even eliminate the stills features like all the electronic contacts and autofocus motors resulting in a lower-end cost.

Or that insane new 35mm F/1.4 L II with a geared ring & a step-less iris ring with no electronics or AF.

Or how about that new cheap 100-400mm, hell of a lens, just extraordinary optics and IS,

or a video friendly version of the insane 11-14mm F/4.

Or even a cheap rokinon-like lenses. The optics of the 250$ 10-18mm in a cheap video friendly body with IS is a s35 ultra wide beast, and even those new STM lenses. I was blown away by the optical performance of the cheap s35 55-250mm STM IS, which is just as sharp as the 70-200mm f/2.8 II with better IS and all STM lenses have zero breathing, which makes me wonder why aren't all their lenses without breathing since they could suddenly do it on their kit lenses! Didn't think it mattered? 

Canon's been making extraordinary lenses with bad Canon video bodies, that can't be used on other bodies as they're electronic. Such a shame. Only C100/300 users are taking the advantages of these optics.

[Andrew Reid]

12 minutes ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Man that Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II is SHARP. Much sharper and higher contrast than the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 G and AF-S. testing them put me off buying the 28-70mm because I thought I'd wait and just go all in. It's sharper than the my 50mm zeiss stopped down to f/2.8 for god's sake.

Canon should really make ''video'' lenses from these version, not ''cinema'' since they'd go putting in the most expensive prices ever, just ''video-friendly' as in, this 24-70mm with a geared focus & zoom rings & and a step-less iris ring, so it'd work for all cameras.

They can even eliminate the stills features like all the electronic contacts and autofocus motors resulting in a lower-end cost.

Or that insane new 35mm F/1.4 L II with a geared ring & a step-less iris ring with no electronics or AF.

Or how about that new cheap 100-400mm, hell of a lens, just extraordinary optics and IS,

or a video friendly version of the insane 11-14mm F/4.

Or even a cheap rokinon-like lenses. The optics of the 250$ 10-18mm in a cheap video friendly body with IS is a s35 ultra wide beast, and even those new STM lenses. I was blown away by the optical performance of the cheap s35 55-250mm STM IS, which is just as sharp as the 70-200mm f/2.8 II with better IS and all STM lenses have zero breathing, which makes me wonder why aren't all their lenses without breathing since they could suddenly do it on their kit lenses! Didn't think it mattered? 

Canon's been making extraordinary lenses with bad Canon video bodies, that can't be used on other bodies as they're electronic. Such a shame. Only C100/300 users are taking the advantages of these optics.

A rather interesting thread this has been so far. Thanks Brian for the idea.

I have owned the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L II and Tamron 24-70mm, to be honest there's not a lot between them aside from price. The Tamron is certainly very good indeed for the money especially on the Speed Boosters.

The Canon is a tad sharper.

The old Canon 24-70mm F2.8L is a LOT darker wide open than the Tamron and the newer lens, it behaves more like a F3.8

Very nice character though.

[Brian Caldwell]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

A rather interesting thread this has been so far. Thanks Brian for the idea.

I have owned the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L II and Tamron 24-70mm, to be honest there's not a lot between them aside from price. The Tamron is certainly very good indeed for the money especially on the Speed Boosters.

The Canon is a tad sharper.

The old Canon 24-70mm F2.8L is a LOT darker wide open than the Tamron and the newer lens, it behaves more like a F3.8

Very nice character though.

Thanks, Andrew.  

The Canon 24-70/2.8II is actually the one that I own, and I like it a lot.  However, I picked the Tamron as an example because it has optical stabilization, which would make up for the shortcoming in the A6300.

[andy lee]

talking of great cine zooms - I have been having talks with Tokina's distributors about the Tokina CINEMA ATX 50-135mm T3 cine zoom they make .

http://www.tokinacinema.com/50-135mmT3.html

this looks great as I'm a big fan of long lenses ,

Imagine this paired with Metbones XL making a T2/f1.8 zoom , I'm going to see if I can borrow one to test.

[mercer]

31 minutes ago, andy lee said:

talking of great cine zooms - I have been having talks with Tokina's distributors about the Tokina CINEMA ATX 50-135mm T3 cine zoom they make .

http://www.tokinacinema.com/50-135mmT3.html

this looks great as I'm a big fan of long lenses ,

Imagine this paired with Metbones XL making a T2/f1.8 zoom , I'm going to see if I can borrow one to test.

The Tokina Cine lenses look great. They're a touch overpriced, IMO, but the 11-16 isn't bad. I hope they come out with some Cine primes. 

[Cinegain]

I wish Sigma would do something like that... Sigma ART... meet Sigma CINE!

[andy lee]

exactly - Sigma do make some amazing lenses they could re house into propper cine lenses , the 30mm f1.4 Sigma is a stunning lens I do have a soft spot for it , especially on a metabones speedbooster - But I do use it at f2 alot

[The Chris]

On February 9, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Cinegain said:

Just had to read back a tiny bit where he said:

 

Oops, I did read that but after a couple days it was off the brain. Thanks.

[sam]

3 hours ago, Cinegain said:

I wish Sigma would do something like that... Sigma ART... meet Sigma CINE!

Probably already aware of these, but just in case. (about halfway down the page)

http://www.glcinemod.com/english.html

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

2 hours ago, sam said:

Probably already aware of these, but just in case. (about halfway down the page)

http://www.glcinemod.com/english.html

Price is just enormous for a Sigma. I don't think this is what people are talking about at all when they request cine ART line, 

I believe (just my assumption) people want just a modified version for friendly operation with the same superb optics, not custom-made super heavy-duty total cine rehouses that drive the price to multiple lens-costs. More like 50% increase in cost with corresponding mods.

[sam]

You could be right. Just gave a heads up as noted.  Currently though, these rehoused ART's are right in line with budget modern FF Pl mount glass, outside of Xeen.  Are you saying you think people want Rokinon style?

[IronFilm]

Tokina's issue is they have this *HUGE* gap between their cinema zooms of 28mm and 50mm!! And that gap is right across a popular range a lot of us use heaps.
So really need a 28-70mm T3 or 17-50mm T3 lens in there.

[mercer]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Tokina's issue is they have this *HUGE* gap between their cinema zooms of 28mm and 50mm!! And that gap is right across a popular range a lot of us use heaps.
So really need a 28-70mm T3 or 17-50mm T3 lens in there.

Tokina always needed a 50mm prime, IMO. A Tessar Cine Prime would be an excellent addition if you ask me. 

[Cinegain]

7 hours ago, sam said:

Probably already aware of these, but just in case. (about halfway down the page)

http://www.glcinemod.com/english.html

Yup. I know of G.L.Optics. Duclos... Cinematics/PCHood. I might've mentioned them a couple of times around here. But rehousing by third parties always ends up being super expensive (like 3500 USD expensive and it's still the same optics and coatings as the stills version, Tokina's own VDSLR/CINE versions are still based on the same optical formula, but they can optimize it for its new purpose from the ground up, which give them a great advantage over normal rehousing, making the up in price suddenly not so far fetched). Then I'd rather have the manufacturer come up with something... Like Samyang/Rokinon: VDSLR/CINE, CINE DS versions and XEEN.

[IronFilm]

I'd rather see first a 3 set of cine zooms from Tokina covering wide angle, mid range, and tele. You could then have just three lenses which cover entirely comfortably a production's entire needs.

[Timotheus]

12 hours ago, andy lee said:

talking of great cine zooms - I have been having talks with Tokina's distributors about the Tokina CINEMA ATX 50-135mm T3 cine zoom they make .

I'm primarily into photography, and in this focal range I greatly enjoy the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM (non-OS). A very nice recent find was the vintage Tokina AT-X 60-120mm f/2.8. I'vs seen some Youtube clips of both being used to great effect in video.

Really hope that the mysterious new Sigma lens offers something like the (discontinued) 50-150...great performance, range and size on APS-C, but I am guessing they will proceed with 'uniquely fast zooms' (a la 18-35 f/1.8, 24-35 f/2)...perhaps something complimentary to those two...35-70 f/2?

 

 

[sam]

4 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Tokina's own VDSLR/CINE versions are still based on the same optical formula, but they can optimize it for its new purpose from the ground up, which give them a great advantage over normal rehousing, making the up in price suddenly not so far fetched)

The 16-28 from GL had the same price as Tokina when I was looking to purchase. (About $500 cheaper now). When researching lenses for my F35, I learned both the 16-28 and 50-135 breathe fairly heavy, have roughly 120 degree throw which is on the low end, and are not parfocal with adapters. I wouldn't say they have any "great advantage" over a third party rehouse.   

[JazzBox]

On 07 febbraio 2016 at 5:21 PM, andy lee said:

The G7 really does hold it own against the RED and The Alexa , its a great clean camera - and you can stream 4k to an ATOMOS NINJA ASSASSIN and record 4K ProRes at 744 mb/s - amazing !!

Dear Andy, all those informations sound great to me!

I use a GH4: do you think G7 is better in some way for filming or may I have the same results with it?

I'm building my Contax Zeiss kit (I started with 25 f/2.8, 35 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.7, but right now I find a shop near home with new old stock lenses: I had for a super cheap price the 28 f/2.8 and the 28-70 f/3.5-4.5. They also have the 28-85 f/3.3-4, but I don't know if it worth... it is big and not so brighter then the light 28-70).
I use a baionette converter to EOS mount and an adapter EOS-m43... it is not the most stable thing, but it works. 

Do you think I should buy a Speedbooster EOS-m43 and use the Contax (with the baionette converter) with it? wich Speedbooster do you suggest?

On 09 febbraio 2016 at 10:58 PM, andy lee said:

The 28-70 and 80-200 Nikon's are better lenses optically then the newer 24-70 and 70-200 much less distortion and sharper too and the older lenses have aperture rings too , the new ones don't they are fly by wire lenses ....newer is not necessarily better in this case .....for me the Nikon 80-200 2.8 is Nikon's finest hour . their best lens in my book

Are they better then Contax Zeiss primes? In that case I could have the 80-200 from the same shop and search the 28-70 somewhere

Thank you very much and excuse me for all the questions

[andy lee]

The Nikon zooms and Zeiss primes are very similar in sharpness both makes are very very good the way they differ slightly is the zeiss are warmer have more saturation and more contrast -the classic Zeiss look with strong deep blacks , the Nikon's are less contrast not as solid crushed blacks and less saturation , so both do a great job just slightly different ways they  render light , now I don't think one is better than the other just use full tools to get the job done , the Nikon zooms on set are quicker to use as there is no changing lenses to change focal length , the Zeiss do have a 'pop' look  to them that I like , both are worth buying and will last forever what ever camera you use .   just adapt them

 

If you just want to buy Two lenses that cover a huge range of shots get the Nikon's , you will need to make rigs for them they are big heavy lenses that need supporting , if you like using small primes that don't need lens supports get the Zeiss

[Cinegain]

Hum, the 11-16mm f/2.8 is a widely adapted lens. Now... that Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 could be an interesting one to adapt as well. And with 1.5x crop (like the 11-16 meant for crop systems) it would result in something along the lines of the popular 70-200mm range. It has APO qualities too. Quite impressive actually. From what I've gathered it was selling up to 2010 or something, then just gone. Interesting to see they kept it alive for their cinema range zooms, must've been some lens, ey. Comes in at 3x the 11-16mm T3.0 too. Hidden gem? People who went and got the stills version seemed impressed with the image quality, just not so much the focusing system. But adapting it to shoot video with manual focus, that's no problem. Must be great on S35 E-mount or M43, but indeed then lacks an inbetweener like Nikon have with their 28-70mm. Hum...