my lens decision..

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I have been using my zeiss zf lenses (cinevised by duclos)
since 2008, when i got my camera...

I have the 28 35 50 85 set..
I paid 2800 bucks for the set (got a deal)

for a while ive been over those lenses for a variety of reasons...

first being they are not PL mount which is standard..

second I like zoom lenses ALOT, and I would have no problem living on a zoom if I didnt operate handheld a lot of the times..and obviously in low light situations I need that wide open 1.4 - 2 range that zooms cant give me...
but more importantly.. the zooms i want are PL.. and a lens mount switch wont cut it..

3rd... the ZFs have a "LOOK" to them which I personally dont know if I like or not... its a more crispy superspeed look.. if that makes sense...
the speeds still have that organic feel to them.. where as these are just balls sharp and consumer looking..
(although with good post correction.. they can shine)

so anyways..

After unloading 6k for my new sensor... the 5k im about to unload in a week for the epic res.. and then the remaining 15k in a couple months for the epic..

ive decided my dreams of rehoused panchros.. or standards are on hold...

obviously lenses are a better investment than a camera.. but I have a feeling more people will be wanting the camera than just a set of lenses.. I can always subrent glass from my friends here on reduser ;-)


so heres the question portion of my thread...

who has the 18mm ZF or 21MM?
3.5 is pretty gnarly for my widest aperture in the 18
21 might not be wide enough.. and 2.8 isnt all that great either...

so Im either looking to pull the trigger on the 18 and just deal with that thick wide open spot
or... if you guys know of a better wide lens that will match my zfs pretty good...
I can deal with 2.8 on a 18..

Right now I have a 17-35 zoom tameron lens...

which honestly doesnt "LOOK" bad.. it just feels like a McDonalds happy meal toy



also..
Does anyone know of a zoom which holds its focus through the range in nikon mounts?

I would love to have a shorty wide zoom
(manual focus a must)
as well as a long lens 80-200?

[OptiTek]

For zooms you can't do better than the Nikon trio 14-24, 24-70, 70-200
The image quality is absolutely stellar- consistent f2.8 stops, etc.
For primes I like sigmas 20 f1.8, 24f1.8, 30 f1.4, 50f1.4. I like the 30 a lot and bought one- now looking into the 20 and the 24- for my betacam(I'll spare you the labor of converting moderators)

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I just wish more lenses were built like the zf's...

ZF's are the most cine like feeling lenses out there..
they are strong and durable.. No issues with focusing..
where as the cheap plastic lens housings (with a cine gear on them)
still move around, or feel like I could break them if I accidentally pull focus too hard.

Jacek, Your mount is great.. its holds the lenses in place.. the lens mounts wont move one bit.. but like I said.. these plastic lenses will just fall apart I feel...:(

[OptiTek]

There are Zak:
Leicas, Cosinas, Hasselblatts, many others. Currently in production.
Just look around. You get what you pay for however. The traditional technology as nice as it is is way too expensive because it does not offer "economy of scales" advantage- at least not as much as the newer production technology.
The boutique style operations of Leicas and the likes will, if not already have fade into obscurity of snobbish rich collector items and will eventually disappear because there will be no market driven demand. The collectors welcome this because it will increase the collector value of these obsolete gems.
rant over!!!

[Evin Grant]

17-35 f2.8 Nikkor is a mainstay for a reason. Have Duclos lock the focus, declick the iris and gear it for you. You won't regret it. However I do find 20/21mm to be my favorite wide FL in a prime. I like the lower distortion compared to 16/18mm.

If I were you, I'd probably get the 21mm ZF and a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 in Nikon and have them both geared by Duclos. That would solve both problems :)

[Rob Castiglione]

Hi Zak,

That is in fact a really useful post for me, kind of cautionary, as this year I am going to make some lens purchases and was at least considering the compact primes or the ZFs. I dont want overly sharp lenses either - they would be drive me mad and I would regret buying them. I will definitely be trying them out before buying anything. The new Schneider Cine Xenars sound promising with a reputedly more organic look but they are very heavy given that the Epic X body weighs so little.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

In a perfect world primes on dollies, cranes, Steadi, etc are great. In the real world zooms can be a serious asset in a lot of situations. The RED 18-85 is the best bang for the buck I have seen but its large-ish for hand held. The Angie DP series zooms are awesome, lightweight, cine quality (drool rolling down); but they're $20K and the zoom ranges are 16-42 and 30-80 so you would probably want both which is $40K - too rich for most owner/ops.

Open note to lens manufacturers (starting with RED since they seem to understand the economies of scale):

Please build us an all purpose Zoom: PL mount, S35 coverage, electronic FIZ control built in, 15-150mm range, as fast as possible without breaking the 9 pound (4 kg) barrier, under $12K so it makes sense for owner/ops.

Cheers - #19

[Vance Colvig]

17-35mm Nikon if you need iris control on the lens, 11-16mm Tokina and 14-24mm Nikon if you have an Optitek Nikon mount for your Red. I do, and have all three. Very nice glass for the money.

[OptiTek]

In a perfect world primes on dollies, cranes, Steadi, etc are great. In the real world zooms can be a serious asset in a lot of situations. The RED 18-85 is the best bang for the buck I have seen but its large-ish for hand held. The Angie DP series zooms are awesome, lightweight, cine quality (drool rolling down); but they're $20K and the zoom ranges are 16-42 and 30-80 so you would probably want both which is $40K - too rich for most owner/ops.

Open note to lens manufacturers (starting with RED since they seem to understand the economies of scale):

Please build us an all purpose Zoom: PL mount, S35 coverage, electronic FIZ control built in, 15-150mm range, as fast as possible without breaking the 9 pound (4 kg) barrier, under $12K so it makes sense for owner/ops.

Cheers - #19
There are bunch of 18-200 out there-cheap. Decent quality, very low price- what's holding you? You can do what you want today, at your budget. Obviously they have limitations and such and you won't look the part, but hey-they seem to be good enough for 15+Mpix stills...
Sorry Blair- couldn't resist it...:devil:

[Ryan Hamblin]

Well hopefully the RED 17-50 will be at least a bit of game changer...got one on its way so it better be...ha

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Hi Zak,

That is in fact a really useful post for me, kind of cautionary, as this year I am going to make some lens purchases and was at least considering the compact primes or the ZFs. I dont want overly sharp lenses either - they would be drive me mad and I would regret buying them. I will definitely be trying them out before buying anything. The new Schneider Cine Xenars sound promising with a reputedly more organic look but they are very heavy given that the Epic X body weighs so little.

well.. couple things..

the new zeiss CP lenses.. are fine and dandy.. same glass as the ZF's
(you wont notice a single difference wether you have a ZF in nikon mount or a CP in pl mount..
the differences would be barrel and mechanics.. Not exactly worth the extra coin for me...

As of now.. i have no mechanical issues with my ZF's.. focus throw is decent.. if I want more of a throw I can always buy the mff-1 follow focus and set it to have a long distance turn.

so immediately.. the CP's in my book are out.. that pl mount is really not worth the 3.5k per lens.

the other new glass your talking about are also $$$..

so in my little world.. im good with the zf's.. Ill sub rent for the times when i need other glass..

looking into 14-24 to take care of my wide end/zoom needs
70-200 is next up

[Blair S. Paulsen]

There are bunch of 18-200 out there-cheap. Decent quality, very low price- what's holding you? You can do what you want today, at your budget. Obviously they have limitations and such and you won't look the part, but hey-they seem to be good enough for 15+Mpix stills...
Sorry Blair- couldn't resist it...:devil:

Tried it, even with brand new ones the zoom movement was so stiff a Microforce with Heden motor could not move it properly (chattered and walked off the gear). Not surprising since the term zoom on a stills lens is actually misleading - they are variable focal length lenses, not zooms - people just call them that out of habit.

Modded stills lenses can be an excellent alternative to the stratospheric price points of PL mount Cine style lenses, but the devil is often in the details. What I am looking for in a PL zoom lens is operational characteristics more similar to professional B4 mount video lenses.

Nice try :nono: hehe

Cheers - #19

[Shane Kelly]

Zak,
I use the nikon 17-35 2.8 to supplement the zf's and it works well. I'll probably buy some cine-xenars this year but the nikon zoom and zf's have served me well. (and the optitek prolock)

[Zakaree Sandberg]

is there a price on the cine-xenars ?

[Curran Giddens]

Well hopefully the RED 17-50 will be at least a bit of game changer...got one on its way so it better be...ha

I'm counting on it. Let us know when you get it....

[Rob Castiglione]

Price on cine xenars. I have heard that they will about $22,000 for the 25, 35, 50, 75 and 95.

[Shane Kelly]

Price on cine xenars. I have heard that they will about $22,000 for the 25, 35, 50, 75 and 95.

That's about right. I'm testing them on the 9th of next month so hopefully I can report back the results.
I'm also looking at the uniqoptics http://www.uniqoptics.net/signature.htm They are a little more pricey but also include an 18mm

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I like the Zeiss ZF's you are using.

I agree with your opinion of their look and deficiencies. For the record I'll take the crispiness and soften in post.

You definitely want to look at a good FF as you go to the wider lenses, especially the SLR zooms.

There are NO good zooms in the SLR price range. They are all varifocal designs ( I think) and don't hold focus through the zoom range. This is not an issue for their intended use- thanks to SLR autofocus.

I can only recommend them for use as variable primes, and as that they have shortcomings.

I use a 17-35 Nikon to complement a set of Zeiss ZFs (35, 50 & 85)

I freaking HATE the Nikon. Focus throws inside a mm? Seriously? Even a top notch remote FF has trouble getting a good follow. Not to mention that it looks soft compared to the Zeiss and it has a very different color cast, one I find unappealing. I can of course fix that in a RED workflow... but that means it costs me time and money.

I'd much prefer to have a full set of Zeiss ZF's. I'm often lighting to f/4 anyway, so having the slower lenses is not a huge deal.

You could consider the Compact Prime CP.2 with a Nikon mount on the wide end. It will match the Zeiss ZF very nicely and have some speed to offer. (t/2.1 I think even for the 18mm)

I've seriously considered both shifting to PL mount and biting the pricing bullet. I'd probably do the RED 17-50, Duclos Tokina 11-16 PL conversion, and compact primes. I am hoping for a Macro 50mm and a Macro 100mm, plus the existing CP.2 85mm. I'd be also very tempted by the RED primes

Another lens I find attractive is the Zeiss LWZ.2 Basically its the same LWZ 15.5-45 t/2.6 we all know and love, but with a mount like the CP.2 lenses that can switch between Canon, Nikon and PL mounts. Its priced about the same as the LWZ or wide Angeniuex zooms. ($27000 MSRP I think, I have not seen a street price.)

I think the LWZ.2 is almost ideal for owner operators on paper. What ever you are shooting, it works with that using a manufacturers mount- not a conversion or an adapter. Its a cine lens inside and out. Its great to mix with Zeiss ZF or ZE lenses on a RED or DSLR... and then you can shift to PL mount so you can use it with rentals, or when you buy into PL lenses. It seems like a good investment.

Alternatively I've considered shifting to a Canon mount on the RED, and using a Tokina 11-16, Canon 16-35, and a full set of Zeiss ZE lenses.

As a variant of that last option, I've considered getting the Compact Prime CP.2 instead of the Zeiss ZEs and using them as Canon mount. For me that has the advantage of letting me use the same lenses natively on my RED and my Canon DSLR. (Which I love-hate.)

Overall, if the budget is present I'd much prefer the PL mount route. It gives me much more flexibility to rent lenses as needed to mix and match with what I own during a shoot.

As a final thought... I probably wouldn't make any lens changes right now until you have your EPIC in hand and have a feel for how it works with your existing lenses.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

alexander..the cp2's are the same aperture as the ZF's

so your paying for the new housing.. and the mounts..

im ok with taping my zf's and staying on a nikon mount (i have the opitek, which is great)

[Andrew Walker]

Zakaree, if your looking for a cheap wide Nikon mount lens go with the Sigma 20mm f1.8. The lens is cheap and some really cool flare on it. Plus its super sharp...not sure if that's your thing after reading the beginning of the thread. I've used the lens on the RED MX and on my 5D2 for timelapse and it does a great job. Plus it way faster than the 18mm ZF.

I'm planning on going Canon mount on my Epic and getting adaptor rings for all my Zeiss ZFs. The main reason for this is so that I can use the "L" Canon primes on Epic. The 24mm f1.4L mk2 I have is awesome and is my main timelapse lens.

[JanneJansson]

I have zf 28, 50, 85, macro 50 and macro 100. I use them a lot. I think they look fantastic. The feel robust, the flare is beautiful and they always impress my clients.

I'm the only person in in my nitch using the ZF, and my work don't look like everybody else that rent MP, UP and that get me a lot new work.

I use the tokina 11-16 for wide, also a lens to love.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

andrew.. does the sigma match the zf's pretty well?

[albert rudnicki]

in my book sigmas don 't look the same as zeiss zf. they are warmer, closer to nikon.
I am in love with the ZFs. All have canon adapter mount, so switching from Red to MKII is a breeze.
Thinking of getting CPII...

[Andrew Walker]

andrew.. does the sigma match the zf's pretty well?

The Sigma 20mm f1.8 is a little bit warmer than the ZFs. But for the price its still not bad. Footage of Selma Blair shot with my 20mm on my RED MX made it into the RED MX reel for the RED Event and it looked awesome. The flare on it is really cool. If you want to try it out hit my up and I'll let you take it for a spin.

[Markus Rave]

I shot a feature using the Zeiss CP and was very pleased with the look. The housing and handling is well worth the money. Scales are very accurate and it makes much sense to me having all lenses with the same dimensions on a filmset. There is no feeling that makes me feel the look is not organic. My director who shot 14 feature films until now and all on 35mm liked the look very much, too.
They do breathe though which does not really disturb me so much but it is there. I was shooting with Red´s normal sensor and with the latest software release find it ok to push as far as two stops rating the camera 200 ASA mostly. The lenses match very well and we shot one day with a 180mm Ultra. You won´t notice it except for focal length was my impression. Bokeh shows clean circles in highlights. Zak is right when he says T3.6 is almost blind. But the lens is sharp and shows almost no distortion. I compared them directly to my Mark I lenses. The Mark I has a filmic look right away but is not as sharp. Also distortion is not as clean. That does not really surprise me while the CPs are made for FF35 and though with S35 you always stay in the sweet spot.

[richard peterson]

any thoughts on nikon's new 24 f1.4
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/wideangle/af-s_24mmf_14g/index.htm


http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/24mm-f14.htm

[Maz Mawlawi]

I was lucky enough to be able to see that lens in action (a friend was testing what I believe may have been a grey market version) and let me tell you it's an amazing piece of glass. Even at 1.4 this lens is sharp with little CA... This is simply the best wide angle lens I have seen at that speed!...one draw back...no aperture ring.... :(

[Alexander Ibrahim]

alexander..the cp2's are the same aperture as the ZF's

so your paying for the new housing.. and the mounts..

im ok with taping my zf's and staying on a nikon mount (i have the opitek, which is great)

Oh, they aren't really the same lenses.

Zeiss did change the aperture on the 50 and 85 lenses to t/2.1 The reason I got when I asked was that users were getting unacceptable results with the t/1.5 due to extremely shallow DoF. (An "improvement" which I despise.)

Its the same glass, and the housing is different. They really are pretty different to use, mostly as a result of the improved housing.

Breathing is much better. I don't know how much you are bothered with the breathing on the Zeiss SLR lenses, but it makes me crazy sometimes, and other times I don't care.

The real selling point for me is the larger focus rotation, which matters a lot on the wide lenses I find. I work with a lot of directors that stage fairly two dimensionally, so a lot of pulls end up being inside a millimeter of rotation on the handwheel. Its tough

Is it worth the money? That's for you to decide.

For myself, I'm undecided on the longer lenses, constantly back and forth. But on the 35s and wider I'm quite interested in the CP.2 lenses for their operation characteristics and their ability to serve on a variety of camera mounts.

That last bit may not matter to you. I shoot with both a RED and a Canon Seven D. So interoperation has some value to me.

Likewise the Zeiss LWZ.2 gives me the same advantage, and its better glass at t/2.6 is a marked advantage over the ZE/ZF glass at wider focal lengths.

Its really the top runner to cover all, well most, of my wide angle needs. My one lens to take me through a few cameras.

Going wider, I'm stuck on the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Compared to everything else I'm considering, the EOS mount version is dirt cheap, so much so that I can afford to have one for the DSLR and a Nikon or PL mount version for the RED.

I don't know, I may be restating the same points here.

I would advise setting up a test for yourself so you can try following focus on some different set ups on the CP.2 and your ZF lenses. Regardless of the outcome, it will be time well spent.

[Ryan Hamblin]

Just got my 17-50 in today. RED has hit a home with this one. it wen up against the new cooke panchro's and the 18-100 cooke. More than holds its own. Footage to follow soon.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip)
I'm planning on going Canon mount on my Epic and getting adaptor rings for all my Zeiss ZFs. The main reason for this is so that I can use the "L" Canon primes on Epic. The 24mm f1.4L mk2 I have is awesome and is my main timelapse lens.

The Canon 24mm f1.4L is my personal favorite lens. That said, some of the top lens people I know are adamant that for the rigors of Cine use the PL mount is far superior to EF or F mounts just in terms of maintaining proper FFD. YMMV.

Cheers - #19

[Markus Rave]

Oh, they aren't really the same lenses.

Breathing is much better. I don't know how much you are bothered with the breathing on the Zeiss SLR lenses, but it makes me crazy sometimes, and other times I don't care.



Did you mean that breathing is much better compared to the photo lenses or comparing CF1 and CF2?

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Did you mean that breathing is much better compared to the photo lenses or comparing CF1 and CF2?

I think the breathing is better than the photo lenses.

I am specifically comparing the Zeiss ZF with the Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2.

I've never seen the original "CP.1", nor have I worked with the Zeiss ZF.2

I have to admit its possible the ZF.2 also exhibit improved breathing characteristics

[Alexander Ibrahim]

andrew.. does the sigma match the zf's pretty well?

Zakaree,

I just was shopping for Sigma & Tamron lenses.

I don't think they are a great match for the Zeiss ZF. Its a good looking lens, but it doesn't look like a Zeiss. Its a bit softer, and the color is less punchy.

From handling different models, and different units of the same model, I can also say Sigma's build quality is quite variable. More good units by far... but there are some bad surprises.

On a side note, not precisely relevant to Zakaree's needs

I am also thinking of picking up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 EF-S lens to hold me over on my DSLR until I make a decision on my lens kit. Its a great value, and not a bad looking lens. My limited testing indicates that it holds focus through zooming better than the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8

I was surprised to see how variable Tamron's build quality was as well. At least it seems to be between different products. Within the same product quality seems to be fairly consistent. Still one model Tamron lens can be jangly junk, the next model can be solid.

That's the price we pay for low priced lenses though. Do your research and handle them in person before buying.

[Andrew Walker]

The Canon 24mm f1.4L is my personal favorite lens. That said, some of the top lens people I know are adamant that for the rigors of Cine use the PL mount is far superior to EF or F mounts just in terms of maintaining proper FFD. YMMV.

Cheers - #19

Oh I know how many people that work with high end PL glass look down upon still glass. But I don't care what they think. If you can deliver the amazing images using Canon, Nikon or Sigma glass then what does it matter really. Of course the key is finding a DP that's cool working with that glass and a focus puller that won't complain too much:laugh:.

[Andrew Walker]

Zakaree,

I just was shopping for Sigma & Tamron lenses.

I don't think they are a great match for the Zeiss ZF. Its a good looking lens, but it doesn't look like a Zeiss. Its a bit softer, and the color is less punchy.

From handling different models, and different units of the same model, I can also say Sigma's build quality is quite variable. More good units by far... but there are some bad surprises.

On a side note, not precisely relevant to Zakaree's needs

I am also thinking of picking up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 EF-S lens to hold me over on my DSLR until I make a decision on my lens kit. Its a great value, and not a bad looking lens. My limited testing indicates that it holds focus through zooming better than the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8

I was surprised to see how variable Tamron's build quality was as well. At least it seems to be between different products. Within the same product quality seems to be fairly consistent. Still one model Tamron lens can be jangly junk, the next model can be solid.

That's the price we pay for low priced lenses though. Do your research and handle them in person before buying.

I remember hearing bad reviews about the Sigma 20mm 1.8 before I was going to buy it. But it sounds like those people did get a bad lens. Every lens I buy I check out to make sure its good to go. If not it gets sent back until I get a good one. I find the footage from the lens to be amazing but it does have a focus motor in there that does make some noise when you rack the focus. Its slight but its there. I guess I could have Duclos remove the motor if its possible.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Oh I know how many people that work with high end PL glass look down upon still glass. But I don't care what they think. If you can deliver the amazing images using Canon, Nikon or Sigma glass then what does it matter really. Of course the key is finding a DP that's cool working with that glass and a focus puller that won't complain too much:laugh:.

It isn't a matter of looking down on SLR glass. I like SLR glass, and I REALLY like the price... and they do deliver great pictures. Sometimes its being penny-wise and pound foolish to bring them onto working film sets.

SLR glass is defective by design for the cine application.

This is all most easily summed up as a result of the overriding factors in SLR lens design: low cost and auto operation via built in servo motors.

There are also issues that, while important for cine use, have no bearing in still photography. Breathing is an example. In still photography who cares if the focal length changes during a focus change?

Its not that you can't do the work, its that you are making your job harder than it needs to be, and compromising the results. If you've ever changed camera movement because a pull was too small, or because the lighting change was too extreme, you've already fallen victim to this.

I can say from an expensive experience as a 1st AC that pulling a 1mm rotation on the handwheel smoothly and on cue is a lot harder, and leaves fewer creative options than making the same pull on a cine lens where I have 2-3cm of rotation on the handwheel.

I can do both, but I promise I can pull the cine lens with less practice and more repeatability on any set up. I can also give you more choices in how that pull looks. It adds up to fewer blown takes, which can mean more set ups in a given amount of time. It could mean that I can take those extra takes and give you different performances on the lens, a slow roll, a snap roll, maybe chase the focus a bit. That means more work finished in the work day, or getting to rest the crew earlier after you've made your day.

For example, to compare the Zeiss ZF 21mm f/2 vs Arri Zeiss LWZ 15-45 t/2.6 , both On RED One, both at the same frame size and distance. The Zeiss was actually at 20mm or so, but it was also at t/2.8 not f/3.5.

We were shooting Nikon mount primes all day, but on that shot we weren't getting satisfaction after a half dozen takes. The director was pissed, and called lunch. I had the ARRI lens delivered, and converted the RED to PL over lunch.

We got the shot in one take after lunch. We shot out the day with that lens and worked much faster- even got ahead. The producer was so happy with improved performance/speed he let me fill out the kit with a few, then brand new, Arri MPs. I'd have been happy with ultra primes, or a Cooke S4 set but the house didn't have any in stock.)

That's looking at just one aspect of the difference in cinema lenses versus SLR lenses as a 1AC. I'm not even going to consider the DP and directors legitimate concern over the lens.

A producer must decide what the value of all that is. If labor costs me $500/day, including unlimited overtime, then I'd rather stick with SLR lenses and work the crew to death. If labor costs me $5 per minute, which is easy on a professional non-union set, then it makes perfect sense to give the crew every tool they need to work faster and get them off the clock as early as possible.

So, while SLR lenses can deliver the shot most of the time, sometimes they slow you down, or force you to alter your plans. In those cases cine glass can save you both money & time.

You get what you pay for... and beware of false economies.

[Nic Spencer]

What I am looking for in a PL zoom lens is operational characteristics more similar to professional B4 mount video lenses.


Me too, dream result if someone brings it out under $12k...

[Kim Frank]

Great Thread, thanks!
One question:
Can I use the Zeiss ZE on Red one with a Canon mount?
How do I control the apeture?

[Dan Kanes]

Might be outside the budget range, but you could get an All Star A- Mount, A-mount your ZF's, and then get one PL adapter and an RPP 18mm?

[Zakaree Sandberg]

not outside my budget.. but outside of what i want...

not super into the rpp's.. great bang for buck.. but way too heavy.
I like to throw the camera up on my shoulder alot, which is mostly wider lenses...

and an 18 would need to be light for me..

im going for the 21mm zf.. wide enough.. same family of lenses.. same size

[Dan Kanes]

ahhh - that 21 is a nice lens!

[Peter Moretti]

At the latest LA Red user group gathering, I saw a cine converted Nikon zoom lens that was AWESOME. It's called a Ruby. It was tack sharp and had very nice movement.

Can't remember the name of mod company. But I have to think doing some searching around should turn up who they are. I believe I've even seen it advertised in one of the banner ads here on Reduser.

HTH.

[David W. Jones]

At the latest LA Red user group gathering, I saw a cine converted Nikon zoom lens that was AWESOME. It's called a Ruby. It was tack sharp and had very nice movement.

Can't remember the name of mod company. But I have to think doing some searching around should turn up who they are. I believe I've even seen it advertised in one of the banner ads here on Reduser.

HTH.

That would be Focus Optics.
Stuart is Tops!

[jonnycom]

Yea the Ruby is amazing.... We will show some 3d footage at the next Reduser that was shot on our new 3d rig with 2 Ruby's.