Which Lens?

I have a BMPCC 4K (without a lens).

I was considering the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 because it seems to be recommended by so many BMPCC users.

however, I ended up on Ken Rockwell's photography website where he reviews the lens and doesn't really rate it so highly, which has now made me hesitate to get one.
In Summary, he said it's too sharp and has plenty of issues.

I want a lens to film a few short movies outdoors at sunset to dusk and a few scenes indoors.
I wanted a soft feel, and not the ultra-crisp blue-ray feel.
Mostly its mid-shots and close-ups.
Can you recommend any other lenses I should look at ?

I'm looking at the lower budget lenses (perhaps $500 max)
I'm ok with 2nd hand.

Any suggestions?

I actually tried the sigma many years ago and it didn’t feel worth it to me.
We just had a long lens discussion here:
viewtopic.php?p=1087953#p1087953

…and I came down to choosing the Canon 17-55 IS 2.8 mostly because I want to do handheld with very little rig and so far the micro jitters have been way too much for me.

I ordered a used one from KEH because they’ve been a reliable source for decades and they have a 6 month guarantee. But on Reddit there are folks who used to swear by them and now say they’ve gone downhill.

Hopefully I’ll get a good copy.

I had both 18-35 1.8 sigma and 17-55 2.8 canon,
Different lenses for different use.
Sigma has less distortion at 18 focal length than 18 of canon, and it’s more open.

If you think that Sigma is too sharp you can add a low contrast, use more compressed recording (old tricks from red user), or later you can add a simple post filter.
Sigma not have stabilisation but with gyro stabilisation work fine

Canon is more flexible with stabiliser and longer focal length but is a bit less sharp, but good for every kind of shooting.

Last month I did shooting for two spot and a documentary where I mix both lenses and no one notice where I used one or other.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

If you think that Sigma is too sharp you can add a low contrast, use more compressed recording (old tricks from red user), or later you can add a simple post filter.

Sorry, Carlo, number two won't work. In the old days, it was a solution if a DoP forgot his/her ProMist at home. But at the time Red was using Wavelet, which actually gets softer when compressed harder. Now that they have 8K, they silently switched to DCT, which is rather getting rough than smooth when overcompressed. A colleague got bitten badly by using the old trick.

So, it's a diffuser or do it in post. Being too sharp should not be an important factor in choosing a lens, IMHO.

Regarding Ken Rockwell, he actually wrote: "If you don't mind the weight and don't worry about the future, the Sigma 18-35mm works fantastically well today. This 18-35mm f/1.8 is ultrasharp at every setting, even wide-open."
He is looking at things from a photographer's PoV. But who will build you a 18-35mm f1.8 for that price, with that size and weight, covering full-frame? Ask for the price of cine zooms by Fuji or Zeiss, which are also S-35. And then, he has a lot of praise for that lens, if you read all the details.

Funny citation: "Hoods are for sissies. Hoods haven't been needed since lenses became coated — in the 1950s!" C'mon Ken, hoods are protecting you from bumping your front lens into something. Or are you with the old school guys, always having a Skylight filter on it?

Of course, the Canon 17-55mm, as discussed in the other thread, would be a good alternative if you can find it in good condition. And if you don't need the speed.

... But who will build you a 18-35mm f1.8 for that price, with that size and weight, covering full-frame? Ask for the price of cine zooms by Fuji or Zeiss, which are also S-35...

I think the answer is “no one” can match the price and quality. As far as I know, the 18-35mm is not parfocal so it’s not appealing to me for cine work.

I certainly enjoy following the Fujinon options for parfocal Super 35 zooms, but they’re a struggle for me to aspire to purchase; I don’t think I’d ever be able to have a full-frame cine zoom on the Pyxis, so I’m resigned to full-frame primes and Super 35 zooms, probably from Tokina to pair with my 11-20mm.

I want a lens to film a few short movies outdoors at sunset to dusk and a few scenes indoors.
I wanted a soft feel, and not the ultra-crisp blue-ray feel.
Mostly its mid-shots and close-ups.
Can you recommend any other lenses I should look at ?

I'm looking at the lower budget lenses (perhaps $500 max)
I'm ok with 2nd hand.

If you can only afford one lens, and if you're not sure you'll have total control over where you can place the camera, a zoom makes the most sense. And if you're shooting at sunset to dusk and indoors using mostly available light, that zoom should ideally be fast (have a large minimum aperture). In that case, the Sigma probably is your best choice; as others have said it's easy enough to make it look softer, either by using a diffusion or ultracon filter on the lens, or in post in DaVinci Resolve. The Canon is also a great choice, although it's slower and you may not have much use for the longer end of the range unless you use a speedbooster.

Even though it's not my favorite lens in terms of look, I end up using the Sigma a lot because it's so versatile. It's true that it's not parfocal (if you do any zooms while shooting, you'll have to refocus), but you can treat the lens as if it was as a set of prime lenses and just avoid zooming. And depending on your aperture and the amount you're zooming, the change in focus might not be very noticeable on the Pocket 4K. The lens is very sharp but also very contrasty; the contrast only becomes an issue in bright, contrasty situations like a sunny day outdoors, where the footage looks nasty and harsh. An ultracon or diffusion filter can help with that. On overcast days, or at dawn/dusk, and indoors under controlled lighting, the lens can produce beautiful images and it even has nice though fairly subtle flares.

You will need an adapter for it, and you need to choose between EF mount and Nikon F/G mount for that lens. I would go with the Nikon because those adapters have a clickless aperture/iris ring that allows you to control aperture smoothly and manually. However, if you ever think you might switch to a Pocket 6K in the future, the EF is the way to go (Sigma can also change the mount for you, for a fee).

Most people use that lens with a speedbooster on the Pocket 4K, because 18-35 translates to an angle of view equivalent to that of a 36-70mm lens, and 36mm is often not wide enough. But with your budget you won't be able to afford the lens plus a speedbooster (it's very important to get the speedbooster specifically designed for the Pocket 4K).

I wouldn't base your decision on lens reviews, especially from Ken Rockwell (if you did you never would have bought the Pocket 4K, as he refers to Micro Four Thirds as a "junk" format). Instead, go to YouTube and Vimeo and do some searches to see what other people have achieved with this lens on the camera you own.

I've become very fond of the Meike cine prime lenses recently. And their in your price range.

Check 'em out on YouTube, see if you like.

I completely agree with Uli on the lenses mentioned.
If you want a soft lens, the other options are primes from Mieke and Rokinon cine lenses.
I don’t think you can find a parfocal lens in the price range you’re looking.

This Tokina lens maybe what you’re looking for. It’s not as sharp as the Sigma and it is versatile. I used it on the URSA MPG2 and had some amazing results. If you can afford it and catch it in th next 22 hours, they have a great deal going on B&H now.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... _8_cf.html

On the BMPCC4K with crop, which I think is a 1.7x, you’re looking at about an 18-30mm focal zoom. With a speed booster, you’ll get a good wide angle zoom. Check it out.

I actually tried the sigma many years ago and it didn’t feel worth it to me.
I came down to choosing the Canon 17-55 IS 2.8 mostly because I want to do handheld with very little rig and so far the micro jitters have been way too much for me.

Sorry I was absent for 2 weeks.
Thank you for your reply
Did you mean that the Canon has been bad with 'jitters'? or were you referring to the Sigma?

Out of entertainment, I asked ChatGPT which budget lens could be good for the BMPCC 4K for outdoors and indoors, mostly mid-shots of people... (not for landscape or buildings).

It recommended: Panasonic Lumix G 25mm f/1.7 ASPH

Would you agree or disagree that this is a suitable lens?

The Canon is excellent for jitter. The sigma is definitely not.
I think the Panasonic lenses are too clinical. Someone else said as much about the 12-35 zoom which I happen to have. Haven’t used the 25 so can’t say from experience.

And most MFT lenses need in-camera corrections, which your camera doesn't have.

The Canon is excellent for jitter. The sigma is definitely not.
I think the Panasonic lenses are too clinical. Someone else said as much about the 12-35 zoom which I happen to have. Haven’t used the 25 so can’t say from experience.

What did you mean exactly when you said the Panasonic lenses are too clinical?
(ps: sorry for the delayed reply.. i'm so busy with my family at the moment).

And most MFT lenses need in-camera corrections, which your camera doesn't have.

Apologies for my late reply (been so busy with my family recently)... but determined to get a lens.
I got a bit confused by what you said.
I was under the impression that the "BMPCC 4K" was an MFT camera.
And, you said that most MFT lenses need in-camera corrections.
So, why would Blackmagic make an MFT camera that can't correct the problems with MFT lenses?

Are you kind of saying that (for the Bmpcc 4K) I should avoid an MFT lens?
I was hoping to avoid having to buy a lens adapter (to keep my costs down).

As I believe has been explained, Panasonic makes lenses that cost less because the lenses have faults, but Panasonic makes the camera that offers corrections in-camera so the lens looks good. Olympus Pro lenses are designed to work well on any mFT camera without the need for lens corrections in-camera.

Personally I mostly shoot spherical prime PL full-frame lenses on the BMPCC4K. If I wanted a budget photography zoom designed for the BMPCC4K mFT sensor, I’d be looking at the Olympus Pro 12-100mm f/4 as the only budget native mFt lens I’d need. However the cinema zooms I own are Super35 or B4 and I bought them because they’re parfocal.

Buying lenses is very difficult. Cameras are easy. It’s all like a marriage, easy to do but hard to make it work, but you do it because that’s what you value. The lenses are what makes the camera work in the way you value. Just decide what matters most and go for it. In cameras and lenses; in life.

+1 to Rick’s recommendation of the Olympus 12 - 100mm f4. If I had to pick only one lens to put on the 4K Pocket, that would be it.

I’d be looking at the Olympus Pro 12-100mm f/4 as the only budget native mFt lens I’d need.

Thank you for your advice
I searched the Olympus Pro 12-100mm f/4 on ebay, and (in the UK) it seems to be about £850 to £1000 (2nd hand).
For me, a 'budget' lens would have been £300 to £500;
However, the Olympus M.Zuiko range, seems to be an excellent choice

I'm wondering if I got the 12-45mm, (rather than the 12-100mm) ?
its about £250 to £400, on ebay.
I'm assuming that the 12-45 will be exactly the same quality as the 12-100, except for the extra focal length.

My son does acting and he will be using the bmpcc 4k for his self-taped auditions (indoors), and also for some short scenes which he will do outside, (mid-shots, close-ups, with a few longer shots... but no extreme long-shots).

With this in mind, are there any disadvantages to getting the Olympus 12-45? (rather than the 12-100)

* By the way:
Am I correct to assume that an Olympus 12-45 would equate to a 24-90 on the bmpcc 4k ?
And, am I correct to say that 50mm is a nice setting to get a natural face image (without distortions)?
- So this would mean that setting the Olympus lens to 25mm would be the same as 50mm (which is my sweet-spot for a natural-looking face) ?


Kind regards, and thank you.

PS: I just realised there are different levels in the M.Zuiko range:
- PRO
- PRO II
is it a big difference?
Basically, Can I get almost anything from the M.Zuiko range and be good?
Your opinion is really valuable to me, so I appreciate it

You could look at a variety of reviews and the 12-45mm f4 Pro may suit you although it doesn’t use in-lens image stabilization nor the manual focus clutch available on the 12-100 Pro. But you should also look at the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 mark II Pro; it also lacks image stabilization but includes the manual focus clutch and arguably better flare protection than the 12-45mm. The 12-45mm is tiny and therefore very lightweight, but the 12-40mm isn’t much heavier and gives you that extra stop of light which can be important. These three lenses are quality lenses that you should enjoy, however I’d go with the 12-40mm f2.8 on the mFT mount rather than the 12-45mm f4 if you decide not to go with the 12-100mm.

The thing that I like about the 12-100mm is that it’s the only lens you may ever need. The 12-40mm is a very good choice as your first lens but in the future you may want to get a longer lens. Both the 12-45 and 12-40 would make a good portrait lens with the 12-40 producing the better result due to the wider aperture.

Thank you for the advice you have given me.
I'll forget the 12-45.
I will search for a 12-40, or, if I can really stretch the bank, I will get the 12-100

* By the way:
Am I correct in assuming that the focal length on the MFT behaves as double the focal length on an MFT camera?

ie: the Olympus 12-100 on the bmpcc 4k will behave as 24-200 ?

I have read that a focal length of 50mm gives a 'natural' look on a persons face.
So, this would be 25mm on the olympus lens, right ?


Kind regards

… Am I correct in assuming that the focal length on the MFT behaves as double the focal length on an MFT camera?

ie: the Olympus 12-100 on the bmpcc 4k will behave as 24-200 ?

Generally speaking that is true. It’s common to view a mirrorless lens as effectively behaving as a lens with twice the focal length on a full-frame camera. After a while you forget about that and just adapt to the look of a lens.

I have read that a focal length of 50mm gives a 'natural' look on a persons face.
So, this would be 25mm on the olympus lens, right ?

You are correct that the 25mm lens on mirrorless behaves like a 50mm on a full-frame sensor. The lens is close to how your eyes see a scene. So generally you might like to use the 25mm on mirrorless. But it’s good you’re looking at a zoom because if the face is most important in your frame, then you might like to use the 40mm focal length on the 12-40mm zoom.

On a full-frame camera the 85mm focal length is often used as a portrait lens. Even longer can be appealing say up to 100mm.

There’s another way to judge what lens focal length to use. When people (who are not intimately involved or whispering sweet nothings to each other but) are conversing together normally, people often will be about 5’ or 1.5m apart to feel comfortable without their personal space being invaded. Over the millennia we have become accustomed to the perspectives that that comfortable distance provides. A telephoto makes us look to flat, a very wide lens is in danger of giving us big noses and tiny ears—just doesn’t look right (but perfect if we want that look for our purposes). So stand about 5’ from your subject and use the focal length that gives you a ‘headshot’ composition. So it’s not an exact focal length every time, but whatever looks good in your frame as you’re roughly 5’ away from the subject. This isn’t a rule, just a guideline. It’s your taste that counts, not mine. You can stand further away or get closer, but if you’re quite close, have the subject turn their head so their nose doesn’t look unreal.

That was such a helpful answer
Thank you again Rick.

I think I've asked everything I need to know. You have given me a complete understanding of what to buy, and also some extra good tips on videography

again, thanks for your responses

Thought i'd let you know..
Someone posted a new advert on ebay (UK) today for a mint condition 12-100 for £595
This was way more affordable than the previous ones I saw on ebay, so I bought it
he seems like a good (private) seller and has 100% feedback score.

Thank you again for all your advice.
So now I finally will have the 12-100 lens which you recommended for me

Wishing you all the best, and I appreciate your time

All’s well that ends well!