Thread: Monstro's here, what do we do for a long & fast zoom?

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52
  1. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,966
    What Mr. Gleeson said.

    You could also add an “expander” to your 24-290

    Like the Tokina 1.6x expander.

    It’s great. I use it on an Angenieux EZ 30-90, wide open. Looks awesome.

    Losing illumination from the expander does not mean reduced “shallow depth of field” - I’m pretty sure this would be all directors care about - because that much of a drop in sharpness or illumination (from Tokina expander)is almost nil in the scheme of things today.

    I don’t think you’re gonna want to swap that Angenieux for a Zeiss Zoom there’s nothing like that 12:1 outside of Angenieux and maybe some of the newer Fujinon (or Alura ?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,673
    Dan's 100% right. If you need the range and have that investment in the Angie, it's hard to beat with an extender.

    I need to test it with that zoom, but the Tomina 1.6x is a pretty minimal hit wide open on my Schneider Cine-Xenar III primes, but my general advice on Expanders is ideally you stop down 1 stop when using them with most lenses to get the most out of them.

    And yeah, if you've got $25-$100K+ in a lens or lens set you like, it's probably wise to grab an expander.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Weapon 8K VV Monstro Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member steve green's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Thousand Oaks, Ca
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Kanes View Post
    What Mr. Gleeson said.

    You could also add an “expander” to your 24-290

    Like the Tokina 1.6x expander.

    It’s great. I use it on an Angenieux EZ 30-90, wide open. Looks awesome.

    Losing illumination from the expander does not mean reduced “shallow depth of field” - I’m pretty sure this would be all directors care about - because that much of a drop in sharpness or illumination (from Tokina expander)is almost nil in the scheme of things today.

    I don’t think you’re gonna want to swap that Angenieux for a Zeiss Zoom there’s nothing like that 12:1 outside of Angenieux and maybe some of the newer Fujinon (or Alura ?)
    Dan,
    This is something that might be the way to go for me. Is this Tokina Expander different then say my Optimo 1.4 extender? Do they accomplish the same thing? Tomorrow I'll put that up and test the extender, but would like to know if the expander does effect the image in a different/better way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member steve green's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Thousand Oaks, Ca
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    Dan's 100% right. If you need the range and have that investment in the Angie, it's hard to beat with an extender.

    I need to test it with that zoom, but the Tomina 1.6x is a pretty minimal hit wide open on my Schneider Cine-Xenar III primes, but my general advice on Expanders is ideally you stop down 1 stop when using them with most lenses to get the most out of them.

    And yeah, if you've got $25-$100K+ in a lens or lens set you like, it's probably wise to grab an expander.

    Phil, you're absolutely right.....I've got a big investment in that 12:1 and would love to keep it working. I need the range it offers and if a 2K investment in the expander keeps it relevant that's great.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member steve green's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Thousand Oaks, Ca
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Gleeson View Post
    Steve,

    My short experience with the Monstro is you kinda need to rethink how F stop affects DOF. It depends on your starting point but if you take 35mm academy to Monstro you need an extra 1.8 stops to match the DOF. So if you had previously been shooting f2.8 then a line under f5.6 will give you depth of focus equivalency. Long lenses get super shallow on VistaVision sensors. In the past shooting TVCs I would be mainly at f1.4 but now on the Monstro I am more likely at f2 or even f2.8. Not saying I wouldn’t love a fast zoom lens and I would use it WFO but with Monstro I am more likely to actually stop down.
    Tom, I have read about the difference in DOF between Super35 and VV....I just need to see it for myself and show it to my directors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member Zack Birlew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California and Las Vegas
    Posts
    856
    Rehoused still zoom lenses could work for full coverage, albeit juggling a few zoom lenses rather than one, but I don’t think anything other than the Zeiss lenses can get close to matching the Angenieux’s range.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member jake southard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    575
    Angenieux’s EZ's.
    Will be picking one up shortly.
    Alexa Mini
    Epic Dragon - SOLD
    Scarlet Dragon - SOLD
    Scarlet MX - SOLD
    RED One MX - SOLD

    DP // Director
    www.jakesouthardcinema.com
    https://vimeo.com/jakesouthardcinema/videos
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by steve green View Post
    Now that Monsto's here, the lens question takes center stage.

    I'm leaning towards the Sigma Cine Primes, that's the easy part. Where I'm having a problem is regarding a long zoom to replace the 24-290 Optimo T.2.8, which is a staple on every job. The 2.8 being the issue here. Looking at what the Angenieux FF options are for that zoom, the T.4.2 seems to be a deal breaker. Seems as though the directors I work with all want T.1.3 for primes (Sigma's work at 1.5) and don't want anything over the 2.8 for a long zoom. For them, and ultimately me, its all about the shallow DOF.

    I suspect, one option is to wait a bit, shoot 6K (or 5.5K) and limp along with the 24-290 if I knew something affordable and 2.8ish was coming soon. But I'd love to get the lens situation worked out and dive into the 8K world now. As always, any input would be appreciated.

    I should add that mainly my work is doing TV commercial spots.
    You could argue that the shallow dof remains on VV even though the lens gets slower. The lossof shallow depth of field is compensated of the size of the sensor.

    And mostro can work at far less exposure so even if the lenses are slower the overall result would be more or atlest the same depht falloff.
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se
    Flame / VFX / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,750
    Don't forget about the dulcos Leica 70-200. It's only $10k
    JAKE WILGANOWSKI
    Director of Photography / Filmmaker
    CINE-AUTOMATIC.COM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member Chris Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Wilganowski View Post
    Don't forget about the dulcos Leica 70-200. It's only $10k


    It’s $9.5k if you supply the base lens, $17.5k if Duclos provides it.
    Red Weapon Helium
    GL Optics Leica R
    Nikkor
    PresidentialFilmPhoto.com
    Cinematography & Fashion/Glamour Photography
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts