Sigma re-housed their stills lenses into cine bodies

[JurijTurnsek]

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/cine-lenses/

Hopefully the lens breathing problem of 50-100mm f1.8 has been addressed?

[Timotheus]

Brilliant. Wonder If this was always the plan, or that they realized their 'cine potential' after the 18-35mm became such a hit.

These will be huge, if their pricing remains as competitie as it is in the photography world.

Nice to see a 85mm make it on the list. That means the much anticipated 'photographic' 85mm is on it's way too.

[jonpais]

Although I have absolutely no need for these, this is awesome! When I wrote about the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens, I said that for professional photographers and videographers, the lack of breathing, all-metal construction, longer focus throw (225 degrees vs. 90 degrees), greater edge sharpness and weather sealing of the Zeiss Milvus lens made it preferable to the Sigma. But I bought the Sigma anyway, because it cost several hundred dollars less. Now the tables are turned.

Given that the Rokinon Xeen lenses run around $2,000 or so, I'd expect the Sigmas to cost a tad more, so that would still make them affordable, at least compared to the Zeiss cine lenses, which start at around $4,000. 

[Geoff CB]

All comes down to price, it they are reasonable we'll see these everywhere.

[Cinegain]

Well, if Tokina Cinema ATX is any indication... http://www.tokinacinema.com

I've bought a new Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 for 544 USD, the Cinema ATX T3.0 version would set you back a whopping 4.499 USD. Roughly same image quality... are the tweaks made to one that mainly make it easier to use worth that much more? Depends on the user. For me absolutely not. But I get it, these are specialized items for the people that dó want it. And that's not that many. It's a supply and demand thing. Novelty item? Sell less... jack up the price.

[BrooklynDan]

Between these Sigmas and the new Angenieux EZ zooms, we finally have some very good, reasonably priced options for full frame cinematography. Weapon 8K owners will be all over these.

[The Chris]

Not the E-mount lenses many Sony shooters would like to see. Just bring the current lineup out in E-mount instead of the adapter. Hopefully they sell a bunch to make more E-mount options happen.

[JurijTurnsek]

7 minutes ago, The Chris said:

Not the E-mount lenses many Sony shooters would like to see. Just bring the current lineup out in E-mount instead of the adapter. Hopefully they sell a bunch to make more E-mount options happen.

There is not a lot of initiative for developing dedicated FF short-flange distance lenses (with AF), since they only make sense on FF E-mount bodies. APS-C short-flange lens designs can be used on a few more mounts and can make sense even on m43. If Canikon ever joins the FF short-flange party, then Sigma will follow.

[The Chris]

9 minutes ago, JurijTurnsek said:

There is not a lot of initiative for developing dedicated FF short-flange distance lenses (with AF), since they only make sense on FF E-mount bodies. APS-C short-flange lens designs can be used on a few more mounts and can make sense even on m43. If Canikon ever joins the FF short-flange party, then Sigma will follow.

Samyang is doing it, and the new 50/1.4 is very good. The 14/2.8 looks promising. It's only a matter of time before Canon gets serious about mirrorless, then yes, Sigma will get in the game. 

[Jonesy Jones]

Can you tell me how significant a difference 180 degree throw is from 300 degree? I'm not familiar enough with cinema lenses to know if this is a big omission or not. The rehoused Sigmas are 180, I guess the stills version is roughly 90?

I love the hard stops. I love that with an in service you can get your lens remounted. They look cool. But yes, it is going to come down to price. 

I didn't see anything about it being parfocal. 

[M Carter]

12 hours ago, JurijTurnsek said:

Hopefully the lens breathing problem of 50-100mm f1.8 has been addressed?

Not likely - that's a function of the optics, not of replacing the rubber ring with a gear. Even changing the ratio to get a longer throw won't affect how the image responds to focus changes. 

[JurijTurnsek]

Quote

He was able to confirm that all the lenses have the exactly the same optical design as their stills counterparts. The big difference is in the usability for filmmaking – they have all new metal housings with 180 degree focus rotation, 95mm lens fronts and cine gearings.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/09/09/ibc-2016-hands-on-with-the-new-sigma-cine-lenses/

[Brian Caldwell]

On 9/7/2016 at 0:52 PM, M Carter said:

Not likely - that's a function of the optics, not of replacing the rubber ring with a gear. Even changing the ratio to get a longer throw won't affect how the image responds to focus changes. 

In a zoom lens there is always the possibility of moving the variator during focusing to adjust the EFL and thus eliminate breathing.  Its easier to do this with an electronically controlled lens, but is still possible with a mechanical design.

[Jonesy Jones]

Word on the street is that the 18-35 cine won't cover the BM 4.6k sensor, even though the stills version does, which kind of doesn't make sense. Obviously we won't know until someone tries, but would be a bummer if true.

[Raafi Rivero]

On September 7, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Jonesy Jones said:

Can you tell me how significant a difference 180 degree throw is from 300 degree? I'm not familiar enough with cinema lenses to know if this is a big omission or not. The rehoused Sigmas are 180, I guess the stills version is roughly 90?

Longer focus throws tend to benefit cine-style shooting where an AC is pulling focus. They also help making micro adjustments on a wide aperture when shooting handheld where the distance between actor and camera is dynamic. Longer focus throws aren't as great for a single operator if you're pulling focus from, say, infinity to something in the foreground. I've had a hard time doing pulls like that without jostling the camera as a solo operator.

On the other hand, shorter throws like those on still, and autofocus lenses are difficult in other ways. It's almost impossible to stop pulling right at the actors eye - you almost always pull slightly past where you want to go and have to make a quick adjustment or two. Or in a handheld situation where the distance to subject is dynamic it is very difficult to maintain focus.

180º seems to be a kind of goldilocks solution, designed for the most-likely midsize productions that are coming up a weight class to cine-style lenses, but aren't crewed up like film or tv productions. Also, manufacturing-wise, my guess is that it is easier internally to re-gear mechanically using the same internals from 90-180º, than to go to 270 or 300º. We'll see how it works in practice.