Thread: Inexpensive Zooms

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,529
    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?
    My copy is for all intents and purposes. Meaning if you set focus at 6 feet at 28mms, stuff at 6 feet away when the lens is at 6' is still in focus at 50 or 70mm. That being said, wide open if you zoom quickly through the range, there is a little focus wierdness if you are looking for it. I have no doubt it is sharper and different focal lengths and pehaps that is what I am seeing. In day to day use it has never been an issue, I don't shoot focus charts for a living ;-)

    Not like an optimo or any of the modern Ang. lenses at all. It has sort of normal distortion for a lens in that range, all the old good kind not the new bad kind like the ANg. EZ zooms. those are just awful.

    If you don't need it in PL, pick up the Tokina in whatever, and give it a shot. It's like free cheap. I did look at a lot of comparisons between the two before I picked the ANG, and I like it better. Just not sure I like it $1000 better ;-)

    Nick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,830
    Easy google search will point you the right version for the Angie design and give some history.
    Pros: Yes its parafocal. It’s very pretty, great look. Super bloomy/soft wide open, cleans up progressively at a stop down.
    Cons: Image shifts a bit when changing focus direction. Super bloomy soft wide open.
    JAKE WILGANOWSKI
    Director of Photography / Filmmaker
    CINE-AUTOMATIC.COM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,830
    I’m with you Nick, EZ zooms aren’t great. Speaking of the s35 back. Style series Angies are my current go to for zoom.
    JAKE WILGANOWSKI
    Director of Photography / Filmmaker
    CINE-AUTOMATIC.COM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Zack Birlew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California and Las Vegas
    Posts
    924
    Speaking from experience on my feature film, we used a bit of everything and several still lenses were used for various things. We primarily worked with our Rokinon Cine DS set and used a tiny Sigma 24mm 2.8 Macro II, Tokina 11-16, small Tokina 28mm 2.8, Laowa 15mm Macro, and a Tokina 60-300mm zoom for a parfocal shot. It all matches very well, although this film is quite a unique project so your mileage may vary. I've started getting some Canon FDs and I currently own a Tokina 28-70 2.6 that's Angenieux style so on those points I'll quickly say that I love the Tokina 28-70 2.6, it's almost prime-level sharp, and it would have matched well with whatever we were doing on the feature film but we wanted to stick with primes on the shoot unless we needed an effect or wide focal range. As for the Canon FDs, I'm still getting used to them but I can see that they are very good to red colors and have a certain shine to them that is a little different from my usual Nikon lenses but not better or worse and I would say that the Canon FD zooms I've acquired recently, a 35-70 and a 70-210, seem to fit along with them best but I could see the Tokina's not having much trouble blending in. I know it's not an ideal solution as you would juggle mounts and adapters but some of Minolta's MD zoom lenses would fit in quite nicely as well. I've only recently tried Pentax K lenses and those are colorful little things with a look all their own but definitely not along the same lines as Canon FD's look. Overall, I lean towards Tokina as that's what I've found and liked most from research and what's historically shown up in thrift stores and used camera shops for me but Tamron is supposed to have some kicking zoom lenses as well so research third parties as the only reason I picked up a dirt cheap Tokina 60-300 was because I read on a list of parfocal lenses somewhere (try Googling that as it wasn't that long ago) that it worked nicely and was otherwise an all-around good travel lens, even though I'm not a big fan of push-pull zooms. If you're working with Zeiss, Zeiss Contax is where it's at but that's a whole path that I haven't ventured down too deep into save for a mint 50mm 1.4 MMJ that I wanted to start with and it's nice but I have so many great lenses already and the pricing for those older Zeiss lenses is a little much at the moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,134
    Thanks, everyone. Too much information for me to reply to everyone who has been helpful with thanks, but hank you to all and a lot of good leads. The Tokina does seem like a good option, especially at the price.

    I am not going to bother with the 20-120mm Angenieux. I do like the look but worry the coverage will be too little and the size is a deal-breaker. Really wish the 20-60mm Cooke were still affordable.

    Anyone used the 70-210mm f3.5 Contax Zeiss? I think for now my priority will be getting some reach beyond the 85mm standard speed in the set I use. Again, it's a single-coated set I use most often more flares than you'd get out of T* and a bit slower, but similar look. Not uncoated, I was before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    Thanks, everyone. Too much information for me to reply to everyone who has been helpful with thanks, but hank you to all and a lot of good leads. The Tokina does seem like a good option, especially at the price.

    I am not going to bother with the 20-120mm Angenieux. I do like the look but worry the coverage will be too little and the size is a deal-breaker. Really wish the 20-60mm Cooke were still affordable.

    Anyone used the 70-210mm f3.5 Contax Zeiss? I think for now my priority will be getting some reach beyond the 85mm standard speed in the set I use. Again, it's a single-coated set I use most often more flares than you'd get out of T* and a bit slower, but similar look. Not uncoated, I was before.
    The Contax 70-210 is the predecessor to the 80-200 f4. Its certainly older, and will give you more low con flares.

    Something else to consider is the Contax 40-80. Its the predecessor to the 35-70, and will also have noticeably older coatings.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Morrison View Post
    The Contax 70-210 is the predecessor to the 80-200 f4. Its certainly older, and will give you more low con flares.

    Something else to consider is the Contax 40-80. Its the predecessor to the 35-70, and will also have noticeably older coatings.
    Thanks, that sounds perfect. Cheap, too. Apparently has tons of distortion but the good kind. (Barrel distortion, that is.) Oddly, the 70-210mm is pretty expensive. I'm hoping the added optical complexity will weigh against the newer coatings and they'll intercut well. I actually quite like the single coated standard speeds, they are well controlled until you catch a weird rainbow flare. Mostly bought them as they were less expensive and easier to adapt to EF mount but they have a nice look.

    And I'll be shooting through Classic Soft 80% of the time lol...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    Thanks, that sounds perfect. Cheap, too. Apparently has tons of distortion but the good kind. (Barrel distortion, that is.) Oddly, the 70-210mm is pretty expensive. I'm hoping the added optical complexity will weigh against the newer coatings and they'll intercut well. I actually quite like the single coated standard speeds, they are well controlled until you catch a weird rainbow flare. Mostly bought them as they were less expensive and easier to adapt to EF mount but they have a nice look.

    And I'll be shooting through Classic Soft 80% of the time lol...
    Haha, we use HBM on our Contax all the time. Works great.

    When you say single coated Standard Primes, you mean the MK I that were in Arri Mount, yeah? The tiny ones?

    We modded the 16 T2 to EOS mount! LOVE that lens!!!
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Morrison View Post
    Haha, we use HBM on our Contax all the time. Works great.

    When you say single coated Standard Primes, you mean the MK I that were in Arri Mount, yeah? The tiny ones?

    We modded the 16 T2 to EOS mount! LOVE that lens!!!
    That's the one! They are tiny, the 16mm is the biggest one by far, too. How'd you mod it to EF? I'm using a RAF adapter, but I can't get an EF lens cap to fit on it due to the recessed rear element and I was looking into other adapters, too. But the RAF one is pretty good.

    I got those and a few Schneider Cine-Xenons recently. I use screw on filters and just run around with them. The look is really good and they're really small. Also a Tegea 9.8mm t2.3. That one is just unusual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    That's the one! They are tiny, the 16mm is the biggest one by far, too. How'd you mod it to EF? I'm using a RAF adapter, but I can't get an EF lens cap to fit on it due to the recessed rear element and I was looking into other adapters, too. But the RAF one is pretty good.

    I got those and a few Schneider Cine-Xenons recently. I use screw on filters and just run around with them. The look is really good and they're really small. Also a Tegea 9.8mm t2.3. That one is just unusual.
    Haha I had RP lens mod the 16mm and 24mm. It was a really tough job for them, and they said they'd prob never do it again as it was lots of work.

    I found a trick for the rear lens cap! Here's what you do. Get a macro extension tube (that's EF), and stick the canon rear cap to that. This will give you the extra length to clear those rear elements. Those tubes are cheap:

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._tube_set.html
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    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