Thread: Inexpensive Zooms

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1 Inexpensive Zooms 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,134
    Hi everyone, I'm looking for inexpensive zooms that will intercut with the following:

    Zeiss Standard speeds.

    Cooke S3s and similar.

    Canon FD Primes.

    Could be one zoom that's of a similar vintage to all those, could be a few.

    The look doesn't have to be the same, but it has to feel similar, if that makes any sense. Same vintage/similar contrast. I wouldn't be using these to intercut much unless there were a zoom during the shot. So that's the one requirement, that it be parfocal. And very cheap, these are to have on hand, not to rent.

    People seem to rave about the old 28-70mm Tokina that's rumored to be an Angenieux design. Is the V1 of this lens (72mm filters) the same design? Same number of elements and groups. Are they both/either of them parfocal?

    The Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f3.4 looks like another good option. It's multi-coated (I'd be using single coated older standard speeds mostly) and more modern, but I feel like it might still intercut well with the standard speeds? Is it parfocal? Just learned about the 40-120mm f2.8 Vario-Sonnar. Surprised that's not more popular for full frame cinema use.

    Is the Canon 35-105mm f3.5 parfocal?

    Lastly, how would the 18-50mm Sigma work out? The 18-35mm is too good for these vintage lenses, and not quite parfocal, but I might rent that in the future anyway.

    I'm also considering a Voigtlander Zoomar because it's available in Arri Standard mount. Anyone used this?

    The goal here is to have something reasonably fast and small for shots where there's a zoom in the shot. And maybe to run around with outside. (If I had the money, I'd want a Cooke 20-60mm.) And convertible to EF mount, but it seems almost anything is, even with PL mount you can swap for Bayonet and adapt that so long as it's for mirrorless. (Would hit mirror on a dSLR.) Thanks.

    Weird left field options highly encouraged.
    Last edited by Matt W.; 01-28-2020 at 11:38 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,134
    Thanks. I should retitle this thread though:

    "Dirt cheap" zooms.

    Those look like good rental options for me but outside my purchasing budget.

    Maybe this thread is a little lofi for the red community, but I had good luck with FDs and some recommended still lenses here.

    Or should I just not bother and stick to a more budget-oriented forum?
    Last edited by Matt W.; 01-28-2020 at 03:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,529
    Angenieux EZ-2
    Regardless of price, I really find the EZ zooms ugly. Their pincussion distortion is really weird. Particularly at focal lengths that you aren't used to seeing distortion at. I mean, they are great as long as you aren't shooting peoples faces, or architecture ;-)

    I have the kim camera Ang. 28-70, and I'm very happy with it. If I had it to do over I might go with the Tokina version. It's a little bit slower, and has different coatings, but it costs half as much. About $2500ish.

    Nick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    Hi everyone, I'm looking for inexpensive zooms that will intercut with the following:

    Zeiss Standard speeds.

    Cooke S3s and similar.

    Canon FD Primes.

    Could be one zoom that's of a similar vintage to all those, could be a few.

    The look doesn't have to be the same, but it has to feel similar, if that makes any sense. Same vintage/similar contrast. I wouldn't be using these to intercut much unless there were a zoom during the shot. So that's the one requirement, that it be parfocal. And very cheap, these are to have on hand, not to rent.

    People seem to rave about the old 28-70mm Tokina that's rumored to be an Angenieux design. Is the V1 of this lens (72mm filters) the same design? Same number of elements and groups. Are they both/either of them parfocal?

    The Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f3.4 looks like another good option. It's multi-coated (I'd be using single coated older standard speeds mostly) and more modern, but I feel like it might still intercut well with the standard speeds? Is it parfocal?

    Is the Canon 35-105mm f3.5 parfocal?
    The Contax 35-70 is great. Yes its parfocal. The coatings will intercut with Standards, we've done it. Only draw back is its push pull. But if you mod it with a gear it becomes a variable prime.

    The Canon 35-105 flares a lot and get too low con (our colorist rejected it) - just an FYI.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Morrison View Post
    The Contax 35-70 is great. Yes its parfocal. The coatings will intercut with Standards, we've done it. Only draw back is its push pull. But if you mod it with a gear it becomes a variable prime.

    The Canon 35-105 flares a lot and get too low con (our colorist rejected it) - just an FYI.
    Thanks. I wonder is it dust in the Canon? Almost all my FDs are dusty inside. I actually bought that zoom for $60 so I'm going to keep it anyway but might not use it much.

    Speaking of low contrast, I'm usually shooting with uncoated standard speeds. I don't mind flare. Think it will still be a good match? I guess there aren't a lot of alternatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
    Regardless of price, I really find the EZ zooms ugly. Their pincussion distortion is really weird. Particularly at focal lengths that you aren't used to seeing distortion at. I mean, they are great as long as you aren't shooting peoples faces, or architecture ;-)

    I have the kim camera Ang. 28-70, and I'm very happy with it. If I had it to do over I might go with the Tokina version. It's a little bit slower, and has different coatings, but it costs half as much. About $2500ish.

    Nick
    It's like $250 on eBay I think depending on mount. The Angenieux I suspect has better coatings though and the mechanics would be a world away rehoused...

    I haven't worked with the EZ lenses, but I like Optimos. I remember working with a really high end Fujinon zoom (not as DP so I don't remember the zoom) that had weird distortion at like 45mm. Not for me. I'll pass on the EZ zooms even as rentals then. Is the Angenieux/Tokina parfocal? I'd like to buy the V1 since it has 72mm threads to match my other lenses, but I take it it's a different design? Both are 16 elements in 10 groups.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,529
    Is the Angenieux/Tokina parfocal? I'd like to buy the V1 since it has 72mm threads to match my other lenses, but I take it it's a different design? Both are 16 elements in 10 groups.
    I only have experience with the rehoused lens, which is a totally different beast. I couldn't speak to either the Tokina or Ang. in their still forms. However in my research it seams very likely that Ang. sold the design for the 28-70 to Tokina (or Licensed it). If you google Ang. 28-70 vs tokina, there will be a ton of comparisons and discussions on the still forums.

    Nick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Blair Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    Thanks. I should retitle this thread though:

    "Dirt cheap" zooms.

    Those look like good rental options for me but outside my purchasing budget.

    Maybe this thread is a little lofi for the red community, but I had good luck with FDs and some recommended still lenses here.

    Or should I just not bother and stick to a more budget-oriented forum?
    Oh, dirt cheap: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...t2_9_with.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
    I only have experience with the rehoused lens, which is a totally different beast. I couldn't speak to either the Tokina or Ang. in their still forms. However in my research it seams very likely that Ang. sold the design for the 28-70 to Tokina (or Licensed it). If you google Ang. 28-70 vs tokina, there will be a ton of comparisons and discussions on the still forums.

    Nick
    Is the Angenieux parfocal? I've read conflicting things about the Tokina being parfocal and conflicting things about which generation has the "Angenieux design." How does the one you have compare with the Optimos? I'm assuming (hoping) it's a bit softer and less well-corrected but without any ugly distortion? I'm only familiar with the 15-40 t2.6 and the DP rouge models and 24-290mm. They're all more modern than I'd like, but the 15-40mm I remember liking a lot.

    Have you used the 20-120mm f2.6? It's is really inexpensive relative to the 20-100mm Cooke, but it has maybe too strong vintage look based on videos I've seen. But I kind of like it. Maybe I should just get that but I'm obviously constrained by my budget. I could get one for about $2000, I think. I wish the 20-60mm Cooke were affordable, I liked that a lot.

    I'm so morbidly curious about the Voigtlander Zoomar. All signs point to it being awful. It has 3% barrel distortion at 36mm and 8% pincushion distortion at 86mm and seems to flare like crazy. That's a special kind of ugly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver
    Posts
    3,906
    The Angie 20-120 is parfocal but coverage is shy of 5KHD on Dragon. It’s big, heavy, and the front telescopes and rotates while focusing (but that almost doesn’t matter because you need a 6x6 matte box to cover the front element anyway).

    If you get a later copy with the HEC coatings (1979~81) it is incredibly sharp even wide-open. That said, it does fringe quite a bit; I presume on film it was less noticeable, but 4k+ digital is far less forgiving with artifacts.

    All that being said, I still like the image it makes. It handles highs and lows so well...
    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