Okay, which set choice?

[Zack Birlew]

Okay guys, what would be more useful?

Nikon Set:

17-35mm 2.8
35mm 1.4 AIS
50mm 1.2 AIS
85mm 1.4 AIS

or for about the same price

35mm PL Set:

Kinoptik 9.8mm T2 Tegea PL mount
Angenieux 25-250mm T3.9

As far as I can tell, if I wanted really wide angle, the PL option offers 9.8mm but for low light, the Nikons rule. I have a 70-300mm Nikon G lense already that I can lock the aperature on if I needed beyond 85mm, but I'm not sure I would need anything beyond 85mm or not.

What do you guys think?

I could mix and match or put out the little extra for the Kinoptik but that would involve swapping the Nikon mount out if I needed it. Anybody know if the Kinoptik is really a lense that's worth my time?

[ayarbro]

You could get the nikons and a lens doubler for your longer focal lengths.
Being from assistant land, I would sway you towards the PL mount lenses (more assistant friendly).

Also, you in low-budget, no lighting package land? That's gotta be a big consideration.

[Ernesto Lomeli]

what are you going to shoot indoors @ t4
in low budget land, thats an improbable situation.

-- ernesto

[C.J.Harvaraj]

try optar Illumina or optica elite lenses.
the looks are close to cooke and super speed i heard.

[Mark K.]

If you can get Cine-Lenses, I'd strongly suggest you do - they're geared for motion-picture imaging (focus and distance scales designed for ACs).

All of those Nikon lenses are lovely - and far lighter than their PL-mount equivalents would ever be, but there is a substantial difference between the operation of Cine and Still lenses for capturing motion-pictures - and that difference HEAVILY favours the Cine lenses.

[Matt Uhry]

I'd say get the Nikons.

The Old Angenieux 25-250 are a textbook example of every optical artifact known to man. This is fun and cool if you are doing a '70s Kung Fu parody or trying to imitate a lower end Bollywood film of 15 years ago, but it's not a good choice for day to day shooting.

You could probably put a Nikon mount on the Kinoptik 9.8 if you found one in it's original arri S mount. ( won't work on your still camera, Red-Nikon only ) It's a cool lens, not great at the edges. Mine seems to end up getting used much more often than I thought It would.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Zack Birlew]

Thanks guys! This is good stuff I'm hearing. Yes, the reason why I thought about the Nikons was for low light situations, especially the 50mm 1.2. Getting cine lense equivalents of those is way out of my budget range. The Angenieux just seemed like a really nice bang for your buck but the T3.9 has me worried. I've seen some good stuff at higher ISO ratings but I'm not sure if that was a viable option or not as far as overall image quality goes. The Kinoptik just seemed like a nice wide lense to have, especially for the price.

I just looked at the Optar and Optek lenses. Both looked pretty good as far as price and performance but at $4000+ per prime lense, that's too rich for my blood.

I guess unless a set of fast LOMO lenses pops up or something, I'll go for the Nikons for low light purposes.

[Florian Stadler]

From the 2 choices you present Nikon is the way to go. Your PL choice is not really workable. 25-250 tends to get used outdoors at 100mm plus (go for the Cooke instead) and you would have nothing in the normal range. Do not plan to change mounts in the field, that's just silly.

That said, I have a Century rehoused 9.8mm Kinoptik (much better than a Kinoptik with a S to PL mount adapter because without the rehousing it is a fixed focus lens) and find it very nice. It is not as contrasty as let's say a Zeiss 10mm but it matches very nicely into my Cooke S2/3 set while the 14mm T2.1 and the Peleng 8mm complement the wide end of my Zeiss Standard Speed set...

If you look really really hard and are willing to make phone calls into many foreign countries you could pick up a Cooke S2/3 set for a very reasonable price (18,25,32,40,50,75,100). Add Les Bosher's quick change Cooke PL mount adapter (only one that works for the Cookes) and maybe 80mm fronts and gears (if you have a MB and FF) and you'd be styling.

Check out results of the S2/3 set here:

[Florian Stadler]

From the 2 choices you present Nikon is the way to go. Your PL choice is not really workable. 25-250 tends to get used outdoors at 100mm plus (go for the Cooke instead) and you would have nothing in the normal range. Do not plan to change mounts in the field, that's just silly.

That said, I have a Century rehoused 9.8mm Kinoptik (much better than a Kinoptik with a S to PL mount adapter because without the rehousing it is a fixed focus lens) and find it very nice. It is not as contrasty as let's say a Zeiss 10mm but it matches very nicely into my Cooke S2/3 set while the 14mm T2.1 and the Peleng 8mm complement the wide end of my Zeiss Standard Speed set...

If you look really really hard and are willing to make phone calls into many foreign countries you could pick up a Cooke S2/3 set for a very reasonable price (18,25,32,40,50,75,100). Add Les Bosher's quick change Cooke PL mount adapter (only one that works for the Cookes) and maybe 80mm fronts and gears (if you have a MB and FF) and you'd be styling.

Check out results of the S2/3 set here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14464

[Giancarlo Bianchi]

try optar Illumina or optica elite lenses.
the looks are close to cooke and super speed i heard.

Hello, sorry for the question, but How does 16mm PL mount lenses Work on 4K, or 35mm enviroment? :detective2:
Does the compensation of let´s say a 8mm works like 16mm lens? Or in this case and with this lenses 8mm in 4k or (spuer35) is 8mm?

Has anyone used this lenses on the red? How to they seem to work out?

Thanks.