Blackmagic Forum

What I currently have is

Canon 24mm L

Canon 50mm 1.4

(sold my other long lenses...)

Currently thinking about getting

Rokinon 14mm T3.1 Cine

Tokina AT-X PRO 11-16mm

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

i want 2 of the 3 lenses question is do i need the Tokina?? would i need as wide as 11mm? what i plan on shooting are, music videos, the occasional wedding, and eventually short movies and documentaries..

all of the above, and yes the Tokina 11-16mm is a must have with the EF BMCC

For your first two, or three lenses, I'd cover the basic 3 first. A Wide angle lens, a medium telephoto and a telephoto/portrait lens.

The Tokina 11-16
Canon 24
Canon 35

That would be roughly... (in 35mm equivalents)

-25-36mm
-55mm
-80mm

Cognizantphotos wrote:What I currently have is

Canon 24mm L

Canon 50mm 1.4

(sold my other long lenses...)

Currently thinking about getting

Rokinon 14mm T3.1 Cine

Tokina AT-X PRO 11-16mm

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

i want 2 of the 3 lenses question is do i need the Tokina?? would i need as wide as 11mm? what i plan on shooting are, music videos, the occasional wedding, and eventually short movies and documentaries..

Tokina and Canon would be my choice of those 3. but really I'd throw the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 into the ring. if you want bang for your buck. the Tokina and Sigma get you 11-50mm at f/2.8 (wonder how close their T values are to one another though) which with the crop factor is ≈ (H: 71.4˚- 18˚) x (V: 44˚ - 10.2˚)

I would pass on the rokinon 14mm. has a bit of weird complex distortion in the center. rokinon's other lenses are alright, 35mm is pretty good, and their 85mm... no info on the 24 / 8. but I know I wouldn't touch the 14mm.

You also might want to take a look at the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Im quite happy with mine, just a word for the wise, the non vc version seems to be a tad sharper. I have the Tokina 11-16 as well and love it. I was considering getting a Rokinon 8mm just due to how cheap it is, and keep it in the bag for locked down landscapes, where the barrel distortion wont drive me too nuts.

I don't notice too many mentions of the Canon EF-S 10-22/f3.5-4.5 lens. It seems like a reasonable compromise between the slow Sigma 8-16/f4.5-5.5, and the slightly longer but faster Tokina 11-16/f2.8.
Would be interested to know people's thoughts.

maybe its just personal preference and others make it work but its always nice having consistent f-stops throughout the whole range of the lens. So lenses like the tokina and the tamron or sigma(2.8) are always more appealing to me.

Serkie wrote:maybe its just personal preference and others make it work but its always nice having consistent f-stops throughout the whole range of the lens. So lenses like the tokina and the tamron or sigma(2.8) are always more appealing to me.

plus having such a fast lens, lends itself to more situations. like low light.

i def want to stay with lenses that have a constant aperture, would make the whole shooting experience more pleasant.

has the focus issue been solved for the Tokina 11-16 lens ?

I have the Canon 10-22 lens, but it's so slow, I'm really thinking about getting the Tokina 11-16 and also the Rokinon 8 mm..

I think the Canon 10-22mm still doesn't have aperture control with the current firmware too.

Merticgoren wrote:has the focus issue been solved for the Tokina 11-16 lens ?

I have the Canon 10-22 lens, but it's so slow, I'm really thinking about getting the Tokina 11-16 and also the Rokinon 8 mm..

yeah has anyone tried this lens after the flange "fix"?

Merticgoren wrote:has the focus issue been solved for the Tokina 11-16 lens ?

I have the Canon 10-22 lens, but it's so slow, I'm really thinking about getting the Tokina 11-16 and also the Rokinon 8 mm..

Yes - f2.8 is very attractive.
Marco Solario did a review of the Rokinon Cine lenses and generally liked them EXCEPT
for the 8mm Fisheye. A close look at his comparison photos does reveal a bit of softness.

Cognizantphotos wrote:i def want to stay with lenses that have a constant aperture, would make the whole shooting experience more pleasant.

I agree, I have the EF version of the BMCC and I purchased the Sigma 17-50mm for it's IS/OS and constant aperture, and still waiting for my camera back before I get the Tokina 11-16mm,
The rest I have are all Zeiss, and a canon 70-200mm f/4 IS.
My fastest Zeiss is my 85mm f/1.4, And My Zeiss 50mm is the Makro f/2.0, I may sell it and get the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 again, either way I'm still going to need a few faster lenses, I have a few choices staying wide as possible, but I'm undecided.

Darryl Gregory wrote:

Cognizantphotos wrote:i def want to stay with lenses that have a constant aperture, would make the whole shooting experience more pleasant.

I agree, I have the EF version of the BMCC and I purchased the Sigma 17-50mm for it's IS/OS and constant aperture, and still waiting for my camera back before I get the Tokina 11-16mm,
The rest I have are all Zeiss, and a canon 70-200mm f/4 IS.
My fastest Zeiss is my 85mm f/1.4, I'm still going to need a few faster lenses, I have a few choices staying wide as possible, but I'm undecided.

You pretty happy with your Sigma?

For the quick test I did before the camera was sent back for the "FIX" yes it produced a nice sharp image, But nothing like the Zeiss colors though, but shooting raw this is not a problem.

The Sigma will likely be my go to lens for run and gun due to the zoom range and IS/OS
perfect for a shoulder rig.

with the new firmware 1.2, I can see the f-stops on the Canon 10-22, but I don't like the fact that it's a very slow lens.

I'm thinking about buying Tokina 11-16, since that looks like a good lens to get for BMCC..

Looked at the reviews and sample footage for 8 mm, but couldn't find any sample videos shot with BMCC, and the others look too soft and the barrel distortion seems pretty bad..

Darryl Gregory wrote:My fastest Zeiss is my 85mm f/1.4, And My Zeiss 50mm is the Makro f/2.0, I may sell it and get the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 again

Darryl, by "again", I take it to mean that you once had the 50mm 1.4. If so, you'll recall the CA it had at anything below f/2.0 (and perhaps up to 2.4 or 2.8). Just an unsolicited reminder from someone who loves his ZE 50mm 1.4 (aside from the CA wide open). But, I see your point that it is nice to have the 1.4 (and deal with the CA in post, if necessary).

Jason Greene wrote:

Darryl Gregory wrote:My fastest Zeiss is my 85mm f/1.4, And My Zeiss 50mm is the Makro f/2.0, I may sell it and get the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 again

Darryl, by "again", I take it to mean that you once had the 50mm 1.4. If so, you'll recall the CA it had at anything below f/2.0 (and perhaps up to 2.4 or 2.8). Just an unsolicited reminder from someone who loves his ZE 50mm 1.4 (aside from the CA wide open). But, I see your point that it is nice to have the 1.4 (and deal with the CA in post, if necessary).

I can only barely recall one instance of CA being bad enough to cause me worry, But I don't remember the circumstance of the shoot, but I have decided to keep my Ziess 50mm f/2 Makro since it is much sharper than the Ziess 50mm f/1.4,
I'm now looking at the Sigma 35mm, this lens is getting great reviews it is constant Aperture.

Update sorry the Sigma is constant aperture.
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/18/dxoma ... ance.aspx/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... &A=details

Hmm.. I am stuck between Zeiss 25mm 2.0 and Canon 24mm 1.4
I tend to go to zeiss as I have a lot of zeiss: 35 50 85 all 1.4

It is probably one of the more important lenses and not a good point to save with a Rokinon 24mm 1.4.
Hope to find it somewhere to try it out though.

So i've decided on at least one of these, and thats purchasing the Canon 16-35mm. With that being said, would i still need to keep the Canon 24mm L?

Bump

John Waldorff wrote:Hmm.. I am stuck between Zeiss 25mm 2.0 and Canon 24mm 1.4
I tend to go to zeiss as I have a lot of zeiss: 35 50 85 all 1.4

It is probably one of the more important lenses and not a good point to save with a Rokinon 24mm 1.4.
Hope to find it somewhere to try it out though.

I had exactly the same dilemma a few months ago and went with the Zeiss. I just love that lens.
I saw a few comparisons and they all ended up saying that the Zeiss was sharper but had a more pronounced light falloff on the edges of the frame. I haven't noticed it at all and i´m super happy with my fully manual, heavy, perfectly damp focus ring Zeiss.

John Waldorff wrote:It is probably one of the more important lenses and not a good point to save with a Rokinon 24mm 1.4.
Hope to find it somewhere to try it out though.

I shot a bit with the Rokinon/Samyang 24, and just was not thrilled with the results at all. Ive got an old Nikkor 24mm 2.4 that KIILS it

There was a rumor, for what it's worth, a few years ago, that early panavision lenses used some nikon glass. Whether or not it's true, I can say, I am constantly reminded why I have held onto my Nikon FM, F4, and FM10 for so long!

Cognizantphotos wrote:So i've decided on at least one of these, and thats purchasing the Canon 16-35mm. With that being said, would i still need to keep the Canon 24mm L?

Why the EF16-35mm/2.8L? Surely the EF-S17-55mm/2.8IS would be a better option on the BMCC? Better range and come with IS. Glass is of the same standard as L glass. It's just not gonna cover a Full Frame sensor.