Looking for a budget cinematic zoom lens

[Chrille]

Hello everyone,

i am looking for a manual zoom lens that help to take the digital edge of the A74.

Something in the 24- 70 or 35-70 range preferably with a constant aputure. Don't care about the mount as long as it is convertable to e mount.

I remember i saw some comments in som thread years ago that pointed in the right direction, but i cannot find them any more...

I hope it is okay to put such a random question in a singular topic. If not please just delete.

Thanks a lot!

[MrSMW]

I went with the Carl Zeiss 40-80mm f3.5 for this very purpose.

I made a wedding film with it you can see here: https://firehorsephotographyfrance.com/2023-weddings/jenniedan

Day 01 and Day 02 anyway, ie, up to evening stuff on the wedding day. Not the drone obviously...

Quite a nice 'vintage' rendering without being 'too vintage', average contrast which gets very low if shooting into the sun/direct light sources and it flares quite a bit then also due to the lack of modern coatings. Has a bit of a glow to the result also.

I used it wide open at f3.5 exclusively and with the Fotodiox VND L-E Mount adapter plus a plate adapter that converted the lens to E Mount in the first place.

Tricky to stabilise handheld, even with Lumix which is regarded as one of there best so unless you wanted the more handheld look, on a gimbal, mono or tripod might work better.

I've decided the more vintage look is not for me so selling it if anyone EU is interested either at 100 euros with adapter, or 200 euros with adapter and L-E Mount VND. 

[bjohn]

The Tokina ATX Pro 28-70 2.6-2.8 in Nikon or EF mount could be a good choice here; the earlier model (which I have) has more primitive coatings and is very susceptible to veiling and ghosting flare. It's quite affordable on the used market; it was made in the 1990s. I used one myself recently with a Sony A7iii. It's not very sharp wide open and is pretty soft at 70mm but I like the look; the lens is based on an Angénieux design but you have to be sure to get the early model; the later ones had a different design; there's some good history and guidance here: https://cameragx.com/2018/04/11/the-truth-about-the-angenieux-28-70-af-zoom/

[bjohn]

Another option is to use any modern zoom and put a diffusion filter on it. This will "take off the digital edge," although depending on the type of diffusion filter it may have unwanted side effects such as speckled out-of-focus highlights in the bokeh. But it's an easy solution, one used by many.

[MrSMW]

I use a modern Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 as my principal workhorse for that very reason, to take off that digital edge (along with the OLPF my S1H has) and also for the subtle halation effect that a 1/8th causes (I’m a fan of subtle) but due to modern coatings, you get far less ‘vintage effect’ than an old lens, ie, contrast is reduced, but not massively and there is better sharpness towards the edges.

I appreciate sharpness is not something all desire but personally I prefer a more modern rendering so am not a fan of the soft look. Each to their own and all that…

[kye]

15 hours ago, Chrille said:

Hello everyone,

i am looking for a manual zoom lens that help to take the digital edge of the A74.

Something in the 24- 70 or 35-70 range preferably with a constant aputure. Don't care about the mount as long as it is convertable to e mount.

I remember i saw some comments in som thread years ago that pointed in the right direction, but i cannot find them any more...

I hope it is okay to put such a random question in a singular topic. If not please just delete.

Thanks a lot!

A few thoughts...

If you are using the IBIS on the camera, an electronic lens that tells the camera the current focal length is hugely useful - this is one of the reasons I'm swapping to electronic lenses from manual zooms.

Cheap zoom lenses tend to have similar optical aberrations to classic vintage lenses, especially if you add some filters as has been suggested above and I definitely agree with.  Cheap often means variable aperture, but if you don't need the speed then stopping down to F4 or F5.6 will make most zooms a constant aperture.  Try the deeper DoF look if you aren't used to shooting with it, most feature films have deeper DoF most of the time but internet people seem to be both blind and in denial about this for some reason which completely eludes me.

Also, remember you can distress the image in post.  This gives the advantage that you can adjust the amount per shot.  If you shoot with anything even hinting at vintage then you'll be amazed at how variable the look can be - one shot looks completely clean and the next moment the sun comes out or you change the composition slightly and the image is a wash of flare.
If you're not sure about what is possible in post, just think of all those action blockbuster films that have a super-heavy anamorphic look to them and then realise that all the VFX work starts out being infinitely sharp and they were able to degrade to perfectly match everything else on a huge cinema screen.  Adding a bit of glow, blurring and vignette in post is super-simple and gets the job done.

[MrSMW]

5 hours ago, kye said:

If you are using the IBIS on the camera, an electronic lens that tells the camera the current focal length is hugely useful

This. Old zoom lenses on modern IBIS equipped cameras are a PITA to use if stability is a thing. And it is…was for me.

5 hours ago, kye said:

Cheap often means variable aperture, but if you don't need the speed then stopping down to F4 or F5.6 will make most zooms a constant aperture.  Try the deeper DoF look if you aren't used to shooting with it, most feature films have deeper DoF most of the time but internet people seem to be both blind and in denial about this for some reason which completely eludes me.

Yup. Can’t stand variable aperture lenses so first thing l do is go to the first constant and use that.

5 hours ago, kye said:

Also, remember you can distress the image in post.  This gives the advantage that you can adjust the amount per shot.  If you shoot with anything even hinting at vintage then you'll be amazed at how variable the look can be - one shot looks completely clean and the next moment the sun comes out or you change the composition slightly and the image is a wash of flare.

Another yup. There is something to be said for ‘getting it right in camera’, but this is one of those areas where it’s easy to get it so wrong and it can be difficult as a result to recover from. I’ll take a decent starting point and consistency every time.

[IronFilm]

23 hours ago, Chrille said:

Something in the 24- 70 or 35-70 range preferably with a constant aputure. Don't care about the mount as long as it is convertable to e mount.

 

There has been an EXPLOSION in recent years of super affordable cine lenses. 

However most are prime lenses. But there are a few zoom options out there, DZOFilm perhaps is the most famous low / no budget option. 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1701864-REG/dzofilm_dzo_ff3580e_blk_catta_35_80mm_t2_9_e_mount.html

Some other options:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1684620-REG/chiopt_xtreme_zoom_28_85mm_t3_2_e_xtreme_zoom_28_85mm_t3_2.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1708655-REG/sirui_jupiter_zm_pl_jupiter_28_85mm_t2_full.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1772955-REG/venus_optics_ran2875plef_laowa_ranger_28_75mm_t2_9.html

Otherwise, the next cheapest options is pushing up into the lower end of professional priced lenses:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1292121-REG/angenieux_ez_1_pack_ez_1_30_90mm_cinema_lens.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/895001-REG/zeiss_2008_990_28_80mm_t2_9_compact_zoom.html 

  

17 hours ago, bjohn said:

Another option is to use any modern zoom and put a diffusion filter on it. This will "take off the digital edge," although depending on the type of diffusion filter it may have unwanted side effects such as speckled out-of-focus highlights in the bokeh. But it's an easy solution, one used by many.

Yup, something like say a black pro mist quarter filter would be a popular choice for many 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/55639-REG/Tiffen_44BPM14_4x4_Black_Pro_Mist_F_X.html

[Chrille]

Thanks everyone for the feedback!

21 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I went with the Carl Zeiss 40-80mm f3.5 for this very purpose.

I made a wedding film with it you can see here: https://firehorsephotographyfrance.com/2023-weddings/jenniedan

This looks absolutely beautiful! Really fantastic Skintones! Of course the whole film is great.

After reading your feedback i will first invest some time in improving my knowldge of Davinci Resolve. I also have some apsc lenses lying around - will try those.

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

If you are using the IBIS on the camera, an electronic lens that tells the camera the current focal length is hugely useful - this is one of the reasons I'm swapping to electronic lenses from manual zooms.

Yeah, IBIS and AF are of course pretty cool on modern lenses. Not sure i want to miss those... An i will look more into the blackpromist filter world.

Also i will just add the zeiss and the tokina lens to my ebay search , maybe i will find a bargain and can just try it out one time.

Thanks everyone for the feedback!

[MrSMW]

38 minutes ago, Chrille said:

This looks absolutely beautiful! Really fantastic Skintones! Of course the whole film is great.

Phantom LUT burned into V-log pretty much SOOC and using Premiere.

Davinci is on my Winter ‘to do’ list.

Paid about 140 euros for that lens shipped from Italy to France where I live.

 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

However most are prime lenses. But there are a few zoom options out there, DZOFilm perhaps is the most famous low / no budget option. 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1701864-REG/dzofilm_dzo_ff3580e_blk_catta_35_80mm_t2_9_e_mount.html

Came close to pushing the button on that one myself but then I reasoned that whilst it ultimately might have a marginal image quality edge over my Sigma 28-70mm f2.8…

Would anyone, most importantly my paying clients notice and be prepared to pay more for that? Almost certainly not.

Size & weight. One of them is fucking enormous.

Cost. 

Stabilisation. The Sigma at least talks to my Lumix cameras. Does the DZO have that same conversation? I don’t know…

AF. One does. One doesn’t. If you never need AF, then one of them is fine, but one of the principal reasons I use Sigma Contemporary lenses is not only for all of the above reasons, but because they have an aperture ring (yay) but most importantly a well positioned AF-manual switch which allows quick and accurate focus acquisition and then immediate lock.

I am very much in the camp these days that cine lenses DO have a place, but that place is probably not wedding or event capture and vintage glass can be fun, but I think it’s a bit of a fad (and a faff) just like film photography is in our digital world.

Re. the latter, if I come back from a job with 3600 shots to cull, that would have been 100x rolls of film to have purchased, changed, waited to see the results and whether I’d fluffed key unrepeatable moments and then either have printed or at the very least scanned.

Call it 25 euros a pop for the latter, ie, shoot & scan. That’s 2500 euros cost vs 0 euros cost for the digital equivalent.

Financial suicide unless the client was happy to have +2500 added to their bill for the gamble.

But I digress with my film rant… 🤪

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

Came close to pushing the button on that one myself but then I reasoned that whilst it ultimately might have a marginal image quality edge over my Sigma 28-70mm f2.8…

Would anyone, most importantly my paying clients notice and be prepared to pay more for that? Almost certainly not.

 Exactly, it's the same reason I don't own an Aaton Cantar X3, even though I really really really want one. (just maybe, I might commit financial suicide one day and just buy a Cantar X3 anyway!) But I'd never earn another extra penny for having a Cantar. 

Ditto why I don't own Schoeps or DPA shotguns. My 2x MKH60/MKH50 + 2xCS3e / 2x CS1e / CSM1 can do the job just fine enough. 

[MrSMW]

58 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

it's the same reason I don't own an Aaton Cantar

In my case, Porsche 911.

I could probably just about stretch to a 10 year old (or however old it is now) base spec 997 Carrera, but…

…but I bought a motorhome instead that is: transport, a bedroom, a bathroom, a kitchen, an office, for work, for family and actually in this instance, saves money over a 10 year lifespan compared with just board & lodging on the work side alone.

But then, not all purchases have to be rational or cost-effective. I may very well still switch to Nikon over the coming Winter even though in pure financial terms, it does not make sense 🤔😉

[bjohn]

4 hours ago, Chrille said:

Also i will just add the zeiss and the tokina lens to my ebay search , maybe i will find a bargain and can just try it out one time.

The first-generation Tokina has some pretty unworldly flares; I posted this in another thread, but here are some recent clips that I shot with it where I was deliberately trying to provoke flare. I don't like the veiling flare but the ghosts are kind of cool...a matter of taste though. I shot this on a sony A7iii without an external monitor and it was really dark so I was having a lot of trouble with focus.

 

[kye]

5 hours ago, Chrille said:

After reading your feedback i will first invest some time in improving my knowldge of Davinci Resolve.

If you can learn it, colour grading will set you free.

The reason that folks get so caught up in the colour science of one camera or another is because they are trying to buy good colour rather than creating it themselves.

Did you know that the Alexa RAW files are very high quality light measurements?  All the beauty in the camera comes from having a very accurate sensor, and then applying very pleasing results in post.

If you're curious to learn more then just ask.  I can give you more links than you could possibly be interested in!

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Davinci is on my Winter ‘to do’ list.

Learning Resolve is like making art by attaching a paint brush to the space shuttle and then flying it around.  Learning all the controls is a gargantuan task, and then once you can do it you still have to work out what makes a nice picture....

Learning it in a winter would only be possible if the winter was nuclear!

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I am very much in the camp these days that cine lenses DO have a place, but that place is probably not wedding or event capture and vintage glass can be fun, but I think it’s a bit of a fad (and a faff) just like film photography is in our digital world.

You obviously don't mix with the folks who make movies or shoot high-end TV series.  There has always been a desire for lenses with less optical perfection than the current state-of-the-art.  

Lots of modern cinema lens announcements are lens manufacturers re-issuing classic lenses from their history with a modern physical design and electronics that talk to the camera, but promise the same classic look as the original lenses.  The Panchro/i Classic FF lenses are an example of this, with Cooke saying this as the first text on their product page:

"The famous Speed Panchro lens, re-invented for Full Frame"

then....

"In 1935, the Director of Photography of Metro-Goldwyn Mayer studios said, “… at least 50% of our productions are made with Speed Panchros.” A true icon, which first established the optical characteristics that would one day become known as the Cooke Look. Panchro/i Classic FF evolves this further with modern opto-mechanical design."

and later...

"The same coveted Cooke Look aesthetic as the now legendary Cooke Speed Panchro. Cinematographers talk about Panchro/i Classic as having qualities which enable to convey more emotion in their work, particularly with faces."

If everyone wanted the cleanest lenses then this would be a terrible product page!  This is typical, and is why there are so many lens tests from cinematographers online - they're choosing a look based on the various imperfections in the lens.

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

In my case, Porsche 911.

I could probably just about stretch to a 10 year old (or however old it is now) base spec 997 Carrera, but…

There is NO SUCH THING as a cheap Porsche.

Repeat it back to me:

There is NO SUCH THING as a cheap Porsche!  You pay for it when you buy it, or you pay afterwards.......  ask me how I know 😂😂😂

[bjohn]

43 minutes ago, kye said:

Learning Resolve is like making art by attaching a paint brush to the space shuttle and then flying it around.  Learning all the controls is a gargantuan task, and then once you can do it you still have to work out what makes a nice picture....

Learning it in a winter would only be possible if the winter was nuclear!

I started learning Resolve in 2016 and still consider myself an intermediate beginner after hundreds of hours of training and practice. But it's worth it.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Learning Resolve is like making art by attaching a paint brush to the space shuttle and then flying it around.  Learning all the controls is a gargantuan task, and then once you can do it you still have to work out what makes a nice picture....

I am now less interested than I was…

I operate very much on the KISS principle as A. You can operate much more simply the less complicated anything is. B. If it ain’t broke and Premiere is not broke for me. C. I know someone who can do me 90% off the entire Adobe suite. D. I is a bit thick when it comes to techy stuff and to be honest, it bores me to tears.

I suspect I’ll manage half a day with Davinci and then chuck it out the window…

1 hour ago, kye said:

You obviously don't mix with the folks who make movies or shoot high-end TV series.

I don’t get out much at all to be honest…

1 hour ago, kye said:

There is NO SUCH THING as a cheap Porsche

And that is why my road car is a 12 year old 200,000 mile Skoda 😉

[kye]

6 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I am now less interested than I was…

I operate very much on the KISS principle as A. You can operate much more simply the less complicated anything is. B. If it ain’t broke and Premiere is not broke for me. C. I know someone who can do me 90% off the entire Adobe suite. D. I is a bit thick when it comes to techy stuff and to be honest, it bores me to tears.

I suspect I’ll manage half a day with Davinci and then chuck it out the window…

I don’t get out much at all to be honest…

And that is why my road car is a 12 year old 200,000 mile Skoda 😉

It depends on what you want to do with it.

I think you can use it in basically three ways:

1. Use the more basic tools it provides to manipulate the image
2. Start playing with other colour spaces / gammas, and then use the tools it provides to do things they were never designed to do
3. Program your own custom plugins and adjustments

There is also a level "2.5" where you're using the built-in things to basically "build" a module in Resolve.

But it's an 80/20 thing - you can go a long way with just the simple tools.  It just depends on what you want to accomplish.

[MrSMW]

6 hours ago, kye said:

you can go a long way with just the simple tools.  It just depends on what you want to accomplish.

A consistent look that is the look I am looking for…

It’s that combo of simple workflow plus law of diminishing returns, ie, with 50% effort, I get 90% of the result I am looking for so can I be bothered to spend another 50% of my time and effort on something nobody would notice but me?

Nope. Life is too short.

YouTube is full of side by side comparisons of camera looks and audio mics and they all look and sound basically the same to me or close enough it makes no difference.

It’s the same with my seemingly never-ending camera/kit quest… The image quality has been there for years, stills and video. It’s more a case of how the stuff works in reality re. minimising or eliminating lens swaps, do the logistics of set up etc take too long to the detriment of coverage etc…

After another full on season I will still be editing for some time, I made a checklist of what worked, what didn’t, what has to change, what I’d like to change if possible, and I will be working my way through that over my off season.