Jump to content

Stab

Members
  • Content Count

    300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stab

  • Rank
    Frequent member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Netherlands

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.cinematicwedding.nl

Recent Profile Visitors

3,296 profile views
  1. So, what happened exactly? Is it soft because of the autofocus? Or did the lens actually become less sharp when you manually focus at stuff? And how is that even possible? Is there dirt or damage on the elements? Did elements became misaligned?
  2. Hmm interesting. What could cause a lens to become softer over time? Especially in such a short period? And it is indeed sad thay they arent even trying to fix it. They are probably just throwing it in the bin and sending you a new one. Bleh.
  3. Ok so I just came accross a very good deal on the Samyang (Rokinon) 50mm t1.5 cine DS (or Mark II) on Amazon. Got it for only 320 euro's incl VAT (280 without VAT). It was the last one in stock. After I ordered the price went up again to € 550,- So, after the good reviews I want to give it a try. The specs are good, the weight and size are good for me as well. And the lastest versions of their 'cine' line all have new coatings for better performance and makes colors more even accross the various lenses. The other lenses that I would be interested in are also affordable. The 24mm f1.4 is apparently the 'worst' one, especially at wide apertures but they recently released a 20mm f1.8 which is supposedly very good. So I might go for that one in stead of the 24. Anyway, I think I will first wait for the 50mm to arrive to see if I like it. The only thing I'm thinking about now, is if I should have gone for the 'non cine' version. I am often shooting without a follow focus, especially on weddings, and I'm wondering if the focus gears would be harder to focus than a regular rubber focus ring when one is not using a follow focus. Also, probably more uncomfortable? You can always add focus gears to a photo lens but not the other way arround Anyone has any experience with those or other lenses without using a follow focus?
  4. Hmm, I just read a review of the Rokinon / Samyang 50mm t1.5 cine and it is actually a very, very good lens. The whole set can be had for about € 2500,- and the specs, looks, weight and size are actually pretty damn good. Maybe the 50mm is the best of the bunch, so I will do some more research but it's actually looking pretty good at the moment. Ok, and it doesn't have the 'pro-vibe' that other brands might have, but maybe I should let that go. It's not that I'm working on big feature films anyway.
  5. Will respond to some posts here. I cannot afford real 'cine lenses', except for maybe the Rokinons, so kind of looking for the 'next best thing'. Most importantly, I would like to have a set of primes which all have the same filter size, have a fairly long focus throw, similar optics and similar looking, both in terms of how the lenses look themselves as the image that they provide. The Nikkor Ai lenses actually fit the bill. They all have the same filter size (52mm), are made of metal and look similar, the images out of them are very similar and they are cheap. Basically, the only thing I don't like about them is their fiddly size. Focussing them isn't pleasant because of that. I find larger lenses more pleasant to work with and frankly, they look better and kind of 'inspire' me to go out and shoot. Another smaller issue is that nobody takes you seriously when you show up with a bunch of small Nikkors. Might be a non issue for some, but when you don't have a name in the 'industry' then those little details make a difference. So, at the moment I am quite intrigued by the Zeiss Contax primes. They are a tad too expensive for my taste (the fast versions), but I could get over that. But most of those lenses are still small, like the 50mm f1.4. It has a bigger focus ring but that's about it. I also doubt if they will be much of a difference in optical quality and rendering between the Nikkors and the Contax and if it's all worth it. Just for the slightly larger focus grip and the 'Zeiss' tag which of course, turns me into an instant pro. I'm open to other options but I think the budget is, naturally, the limiting factor. I could maybe start with just 3 lenses, an 28 - 50 - 85 or so to start with and that would broaden the horizons. I have a Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art. The image is nice, albeit a bit too 'clinical' for me, the weight is good, but I don't like the focus ring. It doesn't feel precise. Zeiss Milvus looks interesting. Will have a look at those. More ideas? Keep em coming
  6. Hey guys, I want to build a affordable set of 'cine lenses'. I don't mind if they are not actual cine lenses, but I would like it if they are at least of similar size and have similar color reproduction. They do have to cover a full frame sensor though as I am using a Panasonic S1. I have a few old nikkor AI lenses, which actually fit the bill. The individual lenses are going for between € 150 and €350 on ebay and they have a similar look to them. Also, they all have a filter thread of 52mm and a fairly long focus throw. And they are optically pretty good! The only thing I don't like about them is that they are very small and fiddly. I like larger lenses. It's not comfortable to focus with your hands just 5-10 cm from the camera's mount. At the moment I have the 28mm f2.8 / 35mm f2 / 50mm f1.8 / 105mm f2.5. I'm contemplating adding the 20mm f2.8 and the 85mm f2 to make the set 'complete'. But I would like to know if there are any alternatives What other options are there or what can you recommend? I would like to keep the total sum under € 2000,- to 2500,- for 5-6 lenses. Thanks!
  7. I had the Samyang 35 and 85 before, not the cine versions. They werent bad at all, but also didnt really blow me away. And then there is the 'label' that comes with it if you come on set with the cheapest modern primes on the market.
  8. Thanks. I find the Sigma's very sharp and clinical. They are nice for many applications, but dont really have a 'cinematic' look to me. The zeiss milvus could fit the bill. Do they posess the classic zeiss look?
  9. Yes, video is very hard. The difference between, for instance, wedding video and photography is almost ridicilous. I have seen photographers literally just burst firing away at the wedding cake whilst moving the camera. One of those 30 pics should be alright, not? And if not, you just crop and enhance the 30 MP 14-bit raw image until it looks good, with a bunch of downloaded Lightroom presets. Also, the shooting is done on auto iso, auto focus, auto shutter speed, etc. The difference couldnt be greater. No audio, no capturing complete stories or scenes, no camera movement, no keeping the focus, no 'shit people might move in front of my camera soon', just recompose and burst away. And yet they earn the same or more. And girls drool over them. The last one was a joke. But not really. But then, lets talk about actual film making. I just finished my first feature film script. Jesus christ, i have a lot of respect for writers now. What a task, to do it properly. And it's never finished. There is always room for improvement. Of course I wrote something that needs a big production budget and a lot of visual effects... Impossible to pull of without major funding or a production company. But then, i will probably not be given the chance to direct. Difficult. But working on proper film productions is the only way forward. No more messing around with cheap and soap like short films. Or test video's. Cat video's. Travel video's. They were interesting when i started out, but also because camera's were just getting better and content was interesting just because it was shot with a certain camera. Those days are over. Every modern camera looks good. Its a done deal. Also, there a literally millions and millions of video's online now who do the same thing. Everyone seems to do the same. Billions of GB's of test video's, flowers with shallow dof, their girlfriend in slowmo in the park, their last holiday with a cheese voice over to make it look like there is a narrative, city shots without meaning, etc. I cannot look at it anymore. It's the 'easy' version of film making. You point your expensive big sensor camera at random stuff and expect that people will want to watch your 'film'. There is no story, no narrative. Also not when you add a voice over in post. Or music you ripped from another youtube video. Yes i am very harsh. Also on myself. I want to make real films. I am talented, but i'm not sure i have enough of it. And i will ever make the high end narrative stuff that i appreciate from selective other people. And... If i will ever fully enjoy it. Because film making is indeed hard. Long, exhausting days on the set. The stress. The constant 'will this even work'. But, when you finally do create something which has story, performance and production value and it all comes together and actually does work, it is the most beatiful form of art that exists. When you blow the audience or your clients away, in retrospect it was all worth it. Or was it?
  10. Hey guys, I want to build a affordable set of 'cine lenses'. I don't mind if they are not actual cine lenses, but I would like it if they are at least of similar size and have similar color reproduction. They do have to cover a full frame sensor though as I am using a Panasonic S1. I have a few old nikkor AI lenses, which actually fit the bill. The individual lenses are going for between € 150 and €350 on ebay and they have a similar look to them. Also, they all have a filter thread of 52mm and a fairly long focus throw. And they are optically pretty good! The only thing I don't like about them is that they are very small and fiddly. I like larger lenses. It's not comfortable to focus with your hands just 5-10 cm from the camera's mount. At the moment I have the 28mm f2.8 / 35mm f2 / 50mm f1.8 / 105mm f2.5. I'm contemplating adding the 20mm f2.8 and the 85mm f2 to make the set 'complete'. But I would like to know if there are any alternatives What other options are there or what can you recommend? I would like to keep the total sum under € 2000,- to 2500,- for 5-6 lenses. Thanks!
  11. Right. If Sigma can produce a 18-35 f1.8 for 700 euro's and make profit, there is no way that it can't be done again with slightly longer reach lenses for much, much cheaper than those cinema lenses andrgl mentioned. I mean that Fujinon 14-45 t2 is 141x more expensive than the Sigma. Sure, it might be parfocal and have no focus breathing but fuck that. Sigma could probably make a lens of 2% of that price and make it non-parfocal and breathing as fuck. And I would instabuy and many others would too.
  12. I would think so too. But then, the Sigma 50-100 f1.8 is pretty big as well.
  13. Yea that last thing you said could be great. And I guess size and weight are relative. I mean, a Sigma 18-35 isn't heavy or big by any means if you compare it to really big and heavy lenses. The Sigma 24-35 is about the same size and weight, maybe 10% heavier. The Canon 28-70 f2 is indeed pretty big but still easily managable. It's about 1.5 kg. A constant f2 zoom of about 22-45 shouldn't be bigger than that, I think. I'm not sure what makes that lens so big. Is it the the wide range or the long reach which is responsible for that? Anyway, I just find it interesting that '3rd party' manufacturers come up with stuff which the big ones don't. And they don't even try to compete. Like Sirui now with the anamorphic 50mm f1.8. Supposedly it is very sharp. So, apparently, it was possible all this time to produce a sharp and affordable anamorphic lens. Why didn't anyone bother? I'm sure it will sell like hot cakes.
  14. Ok agreed, I got carried away. Maybe 'affordable, high image quality and constant f1.8' are less subjective and explain why the lens is so succesful. I mean, it must be. I'm on several camera forums / groups and have seen so many video's shot with it and it always gets recommended for people with an aps-c or mft camera.
  15. I doubt that the market is too small. And like I said, the lens is great, but could be improved upon with a slightly wider and longer reach. But, I agree that recently a lot of manufacturers seem to switch to or offer more full frame camera's. But why are we still sticking to f2.8 zooms? Canon has made a brilliant 28-70 f2, but that's about it. Yes, it is big and heavy. Sigma had a 24-35 f2 which was awesome but a little limited in range. I would be all over a sharp zoom with a constant f1.8 aperture in the let's say 22-45mm (full frame) range. Which should be doable without becoming too large and heavy.
×
×
  • Create New...