Affordable Cine Zoom Lenses for Blackmagic Cameras

Which one would you prefer and why?

1. DZOFilm Pictor Cine Zoom 20-55mm and DZOFilm Pictor Cine Zoom 50-125mm T2.8 S35 (PL Mount and EF Mount), price 2300$ and 2490$
2. Venus Optics OOOM 25-100 T2.9 Cine Lens (PL Mount), price 5000$
3. Fujinon MK 18-55 T2.9 and Fujinon MK 50-135 T2.9 (E Mount, EF mount will be available soon), price 3300$ and 3500$
4. Tokina Cinema ATX 11-20mm T2.9 , Tokina 25-75mm T2.9 , Tokina 50-135mm T2.9 Mark II (PL Mount, EF Mount, ...), price 2200$, 5800$, 3500$
5. Sigma Cine Zoom 18-35mm T2 and Sigma Cine Zoom 50-100mm T2 (PL Mount, EF Mount, ...), price each cost 4000$
6. Rehoused by Cinematics Sigma Still lenses into Cine Zoom 18-35mm T2 S35 and 50-100mm T2 S35(PL Mount, EF Mount), price 1500$ and 1900$

I use the Fujinon MK 18-55mm with a Pocket 4K. I’m very happy with the lens. As I have no hands-on experience with the other lenses on your list, I can’t make a useful comparison.

You will find a lot of posts about the Fujinon in the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=105319&hilit=Miller+head

On page 6 of the thread, there are links to two useful videos:

1. a CVP video with Marc Cattrall, the U.K. head of Fujinon Ciné Products, and U.K. D.P. Jim Marks

2. a ProAV video with Marc Cattrall

I have the DZOFILM Pictor 20-55 & 50-125 bundle pre-ordered. Hopefully will get them soon. The first batch bundles were just shipped to resellers last week. So I think next week or the week after I’ll get them.

I’ll let you know my thoughts when I have them in hand. However, I’m already really excited to get them and shoot with them.

I have a feeling these will make the Sigma Cinema Zooms seem overpriced for not being parfocal and having the terrible focus breathing that they have. I can’t believe the DZOFILM Pictors are the affordable cost they are and are parfocal and have near zero focus breathing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anxious to hear your review. Will these give you auto focus or auto exposure on your G2?

I have the DZOFILM Pictor 20-55 & 50-125 bundle pre-ordered. Hopefully will get them soon. The first batch bundles were just shipped to resellers last week. So I think next week or the week after I’ll get them.

I’ll let you know my thoughts when I have them in hand. However, I’m already really excited to get them and shoot with them.

I have a feeling these will make the Sigma Cinema Zooms seem overpriced for not being parfocal and having the terrible focus breathing that they have. I can’t believe the DZOFILM Pictors are the affordable cost they are and are parfocal and have near zero focus breathing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do keep us posted, seriously thinking of the pictors for my UMP and the linlungs for my pocket 4ks to match.

These are the videos about the Fujinon MK lenses that I referred to in post #2. The specs, these videos and example footage on YouTube, etc. should answer most questions. The thread linked in post #2 also has lots of posts about them, as well as photos, especially on the practical issue of setting up a Pocket 4K and the Fujinon as a working package.

Which one would you prefer and why?
1. DZOFilm Pictor Cine Zoom 20-55mm and DZOFilm Pictor Cine Zoom 50-125mm T2.8 S35 (PL Mount and EF Mount), price 2300$ and 2490$
2. Venus Optics OOOM 25-100 T2.9 Cine Lens (PL Mount), price 5000$
3. Fujinon MK 18-55 T2.9 and Fujinon MK 50-135 T2.9 (E Mount, EF mount will be available soon), price 3300$ and 3500$
4. Tokina Cinema ATX 11-20mm T2.9 , Tokina 25-75mm T2.9 , Tokina 50-135mm T2.9 Mark II (PL Mount, EF Mount, ...), price 2200$, 5800$, 3500$
5. Sigma Cine Zoom 18-35mm T2 and Sigma Cine Zoom 50-100mm T2 (PL Mount, EF Mount, ...), price each cost 4000$
6. Rehoused by Cinematics Sigma Still lenses into Cine Zoom 18-35mm T2 S35 and 50-100mm T2 S35(PL Mount, EF Mount), price 1500$ and 1900$

So from your list above, I cannot attest to any one of them since I have not used it, or much of any one. I have used the Fujinon MK 18-55 on a Sony FS5 a couple of times and I like the IQ. But that's just one data point that's not on a BMD camera, although I will say that it is one of the lightest lenses I've held.

I am waiting to hear more about the DZOFilm Pictor zoom lenses. I'm told our rental shop will have a couple of copies around next month. It's worth checking out.

I like prime and soft lenses. Depending on the shot I want to convey for the story, the lens has been an influencer for me. Although not the zoom versions, I found the Sigma lenses are bit sharp. I have shot a lot with the Sigma Cine Primes (from the 14mm to the 85mm, T1.5) and I like them for certain genre. Shooting comedies for example, I went with the Sigma Cine primes like this one here where I'm using a 14mm.

IMG_20190629_212205_1.jpg (34.37 KiB) Viewed 13832 times

So most of the drama oriented genre I shot, I love the Schneider Xenon cine primes. They don't have it in zoom hence may not fall into your category but the price are not terrible. On the affordable side, I also like the Rokinon Xeen Cine lenses. They are soft lenses but can be artsy too, and affordable. I use them mostly on the UMP. The way more affordable Rokinon DS Cine lenses, which you can get a nice brand new set for the price of the most affordable cine zoom in your list. If you like soft, then this are nice and very affordable.

I know you're only asking about affordable cine zooms but let me just throw in some other options.

Here are some photos of the Fujinon MK 18-55mm with a Pocket 4K:

miller-level.jpg (364.26 KiB) Viewed 13813 times

miller-rear.jpg (616.07 KiB) Viewed 13813 times

More photos:

rrs-walkstool-miller.jpg (502.74 KiB) Viewed 13813 times

rrs-tallest-riser.jpg (523.2 KiB) Viewed 13813 times

rrs-legs-different-heights.jpg (542.1 KiB) Viewed 13806 times

What kind of a monopod/tripod/hi-hat combo is that (the one on the last post middle pic? Looks pretty decent.

Anxious to hear your review. Will these give you auto focus or auto exposure on your G2?

With the G2 the DZOFilm Pictor Zooms will not give auto focus or auto exposure. They're full manual lenses. I could get wireless lens control with FIZ Motors and a FIZ Hand Unit. I personally have the Tilta Nucleus M.

What kind of a monopod/tripod/hi-hat combo is that (the one on the last post middle pic? Looks pretty decent.

The base for all three photos is a Really Right Stuff TVC-32G ground tripod.

In the first photo, there's a Gitzo GM4542 monopod between the tripod and the Miller head. The Miller's bottom stud has been removed and the head has been screwed directly to the top of the monopod.

In the second photo, there's a Pro Media Gear 6" (15cm) riser between the tripod and the Miller head. The riser is just there to add height. The head can be mounted on the ground tripod without it, as in this photo:

0F5FF856-25F0-436B-9AD1-8AEBB490E65A.jpeg (521.4 KiB) Viewed 13741 times

In the third photo, the camera is mounted directly on the ground tripod, no fluid head.

There are more photos on the following page and the one after: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=105319&hilit=Miller+head&start=150#p596683

What kind of a monopod/tripod/hi-hat combo is that (the one on the last post middle pic? Looks pretty decent.

The base for all three photos is a Really Right Stuff TVC-32G ground tripod.

In the first photo, there's a Gitzo GM4542 monopod between the tripod and the Miller head. The Miller's bottom stud has been removed and the head has been screwed directly to the top of the monopod.

In the second photo, there's a Pro Media Gear 6" (15cm) riser between the tripod and the Miller head. The riser is just there to add height. The head can be mounted on the ground tripod without it, as in this photo:

0F5FF856-25F0-436B-9AD1-8AEBB490E65A.jpeg

In the third photo, the camera is mounted directly on the ground tripod, no fluid head.

Like it! Pretty versatile and looks light enough to carry around.

There are more photos on the following page and the one after: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=105319&hilit=Miller+head&start=150#p596683

As a future-proof option, Ooom should be a great lens as adding one element at the back (comes with the lens, if I understand properly) would make it into a full-frame lens. A bit pricey though, as compared to others but way below those Zeiss full-frame zooms. Ooom would also have an EF mount.
Also another great lens is Canon 70-200, cine modded by GL optics. It works like a charm. Costs about $5600. I have used this lens and can vouch that it's a great lens.

Like it! Pretty versatile and looks light enough to carry around.

The RRS tripod is very well made, but expensive. I purchased it second-hand. There are a few short tripods on the market that I think would work as well for less money.

I like using a monopod, and the option of screwing one to a short tripod is very handy, especially in a city. This setup is significantly more stable than monopods that come with miniature feet that can be extended. I also have no hesitation recommending the Walkstool in the photo. A Walkstool also works well if you want to get really low. It’s easy to balance yourself without the legs extended, although my preference when low is gardening/workman pads. The Walkstool is popular with still photographers, and I got this one from B&H.

Also another great lens is Canon 70-200, cine modded by GL optics. It works like a charm. Costs about $5600. I have used this lens and can vouch that it's a great lens.

If you're going with a Canon 70-200 cine mod and paying $5600 for it, I would just go with a true Canon CN-E zoom cine lens, cheaper and even comes with servo.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... s=pi&pim=Y

NOTE: Since you did specify the aperture, I assume you're referring to an f/4.

The DZOFILM Pictor Lenses have arrived!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The DZOFILM Pictor Lenses have arrived!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you screw the driver yet?

The DZOFILM Pictor Lenses have arrived!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Waiting from you to see sample footage.

Those prices all need to drop a trailing zero before I could consider them 'affordable'.

Those prices all need to drop a trailing zero before I could consider them 'affordable'.

Considering Angenieux Optimo zooms are $20K roughly. I’d say yes these are affordable by comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The DZOFILM Pictor Lenses have arrived!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Waiting from you to see sample footage.

Sample footage coming. I shot some yesterday. Trying to get a model for some tests tomorrow. Next week I’ll be meeting with a local studio to compare them against other lenses. We’ll compare to the Angenieux Optimos, Canon L Series, Sigma (still) lenses, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The DZOFILM Pictor Lenses have arrived!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Waiting from you to see sample footage.

Sample footage coming. I shot some yesterday. Trying to get a model for some tests tomorrow. Next week I’ll be meeting with a local studio to compare them against other lenses. We’ll compare to the Angenieux Optimos, Canon L Series, Sigma (still) lenses, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

first impressions though?

first impressions though?

So far my first impressions are very favorable. I really like the build quality. They feel very nice on the URSA Mini Pro in PL Mount. The focus throw is nice and long, which will be very helpful when it comes to an AC following a subject. The focal ranges between the two lenses are absolutely perfect. Including the nice quality of the zoom in and out on a subject.

So far the images I'm looking at in the computer are very nice. I had a little exposure issue on my end with a few shots due to not checking my false color, and I over exposed the sunlight on the water. But the pelican I shot looks very sharp. Shooting it at 120 FPS for some cool slow motion of it flying was a little bit of a downside. So I will be capturing more footage soon.

But, I am very happy with the lenses so far. I will be really testing them out to the fullest through the week as I stated above.

first impressions though?

So far my first impressions are very favorable. I really like the build quality. They feel very nice on the URSA Mini Pro in PL Mount. The focus throw is nice and long, which will be very helpful when it comes to an AC following a subject. The focal ranges between the two lenses are absolutely perfect. Including the nice quality of the zoom in and out on a subject.

So far the images I'm looking at in the computer are very nice. I had a little exposure issue on my end with a few shots due to not checking my false color, and I over exposed the sunlight on the water. But the pelican I shot looks very sharp. Shooting it at 120 FPS for some cool slow motion of it flying was a little bit of a downside. So I will be capturing more footage soon.

But, I am very happy with the lenses so far. I will be really testing them out to the fullest through the week as I stated above.

Im quite interested in getting them. I have the UM4K from years ago and the Pocket6k. I've never had a real cine lens though and I am very tempted to get the 20-55 to start with. I use a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS and I really like it especially for the IS. I can do such smooth handheld, and when I use stabilizer in resolve its like I was on a gimbal.

I am hoping that the size and the weight of the pictor will help me will handheld. That's where I am kind of on the fence about it.

first impressions though?

So far my first impressions are very favorable. I really like the build quality. They feel very nice on the URSA Mini Pro in PL Mount. The focus throw is nice and long, which will be very helpful when it comes to an AC following a subject. The focal ranges between the two lenses are absolutely perfect. Including the nice quality of the zoom in and out on a subject.

So far the images I'm looking at in the computer are very nice. I had a little exposure issue on my end with a few shots due to not checking my false color, and I over exposed the sunlight on the water. But the pelican I shot looks very sharp. Shooting it at 120 FPS for some cool slow motion of it flying was a little bit of a downside. So I will be capturing more footage soon.

But, I am very happy with the lenses so far. I will be really testing them out to the fullest through the week as I stated above.

Thanks for the update with your first impressions. Looking forward to seeing some of your shots down the line.

Here’s some frame grabs. Just base Extended Video LUT. Haven’t done any grading yet.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here’s some frame grabs. Just base Extended Video LUT. Haven’t done any grading yet.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice I especially like the shot of the bird over the water. looks really good.

Here’s some frame grabs. Just base Extended Video LUT. Haven’t done any grading yet.

Besides sharing graded version in nearest future, share your thoughts about sharpness of the lenses.

Two pair of zooms I'd add:
RED 17-50mm T2.9 & 50-150mm T2.9

They are lightweight and pretty sharp. They used to be cheap, but after being discontinued sometimes they are hard to find and sometimes are overpriced... but still, great pair.

Also, the EF Sigmas of exact same focal lengths and f2.8 description... which, rumour has it, is what the RED zooms are made of.
This pair, I have... and can attest to their IQ. Not the greatest focus rings, but I couldn't afford the RED pair at the time... You can get focus rings on followfocusrings.com made for them, and you're golden.

Besides sharing graded version in nearest future, share your thoughts about sharpness of the lenses.

I will definitely share all thoughts soon. I'm still forming an opinion to a degree. I will say that they do feel very sharp to me, but at the same time not as clinically sharp as the Sigmas. They have a sharpness that works well to make them feel a bit more film-like.

Today I spent the main duration of time examining the lenses on the aspect of switching the mounts. This was where I came to some important discoveries regarding retaining the parfocal nature, and that was how each lens should be shimmed for either configuration.

Out of factory my two lenses were shimmed by the manufacturer for the PL Mounted Lenses to arrive parfocal. I recorded down what those shims were and changed to EF with those shims remaining on. That's where I had to shim each lens differently and log that information for future mount changes. This is an important step for future tests.

I am shooting with both lenses on Saturday on two cameras. One UMPG2 and the other on the UM4.6K (EF). So I will now shoot some additional tests in between to ensure the EF mounted works the same as it did PL mount. And, to see if I can tell the difference between the mounts.

Next week will be the lens comparison shoot. Currently scheduled for Monday. I'm looking forward to that.

**POST EDIT**
I also would be curious now to see what another pair would have for shims to retain the parfocal nature in each mount. It would be interesting to see what consistency there is between various sets. I'll share my shim configurations for my lenses in the future.

I thought the OOOM looked better than the DZOFilm, but take a look at some comparisons...

Besides sharing graded version in nearest future, share your thoughts about sharpness of the lenses.

I will definitely share all thoughts soon. I'm still forming an opinion to a degree. I will say that they do feel very sharp to me, but at the same time not as clinically sharp as the Sigmas. They have a sharpness that works well to make them feel a bit more film-like.

Today I spent the main duration of time examining the lenses on the aspect of switching the mounts. This was where I came to some important discoveries regarding retaining the parfocal nature, and that was how each lens should be shimmed for either configuration.

Out of factory my two lenses were shimmed by the manufacturer for the PL Mounted Lenses to arrive parfocal. I recorded down what those shims were and changed to EF with those shims remaining on. That's where I had to shim each lens differently and log that information for future mount changes. This is an important step for future tests.

I am shooting with both lenses on Saturday on two cameras. One UMPG2 and the other on the UM4.6K (EF). So I will now shoot some additional tests in between to ensure the EF mounted works the same as it did PL mount. And, to see if I can tell the difference between the mounts.

Next week will be the lens comparison shoot. Currently scheduled for Monday. I'm looking forward to that.

**POST EDIT**
I also would be curious now to see what another pair would have for shims to retain the parfocal nature in each mount. It would be interesting to see what consistency there is between various sets. I'll share my shim configurations for my lenses in the future.

How did your shoot go?

That's the first video I've got for you. Tomorrow is the lens comparison shoot now since it got delayed.

But I will say I did some quick shoots recently with the lenses that I was very pleased with. One was a wedding (I don't normally shoot weddings, but it was last minute), and the lenses performed wonderfully. The other two shoots were a studio promotional e-book video of someone speaking into the camera. That went great! The third shoot was the same day as the e-book promotion video and it was the St. Pete Fashion Show. That went great as well. My biggest challenge was focus because the models on the runway were fast and it was just tough no matter what keeping up. But I'm very pleased with the footage.

Thanks for sharing with the group!

thanks for sharing, will wait for the updatees as well

Lens comparison on the way! Yesterday we compared the DZOFILM Pictor Zooms against the Angēnieux Optimo DP Zooms and Sigma Art Still Zooms. We didn’t have time for the Fujinon Cabrio sadly.

Might be two weeks out from hitting Film Jams YouTube. We need to shoot some extra B-Roll next week of changing the lens mounts on the DZOFILM Pictor Lenses. Should also grab some B-Roll of the nice case since apparently that was missed. Meanwhile they’re editing the footage while I prep for this weekend’s shoot. They have another episode to get out as well. So we’re getting the episode put together.

Here’s some of my BTS pics:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks, Tim! can't wait to see what you guys put together.

That's the first video I've got for you. Tomorrow is the lens comparison shoot now since it got delayed.

But I will say I did some quick shoots recently with the lenses that I was very pleased with. One was a wedding (I don't normally shoot weddings, but it was last minute), and the lenses performed wonderfully. The other two shoots were a studio promotional e-book video of someone speaking into the camera. That went great! The third shoot was the same day as the e-book promotion video and it was the St. Pete Fashion Show. That went great as well. My biggest challenge was focus because the models on the runway were fast and it was just tough no matter what keeping up. But I'm very pleased with the footage.

Wow, that's beautiful. If you had to choose between the 20-55 and the 50-125 which one would you pick. I can only fit one into my budget right now.

That's the first video I've got for you. Tomorrow is the lens comparison shoot now since it got delayed.

But I will say I did some quick shoots recently with the lenses that I was very pleased with. One was a wedding (I don't normally shoot weddings, but it was last minute), and the lenses performed wonderfully. The other two shoots were a studio promotional e-book video of someone speaking into the camera. That went great! The third shoot was the same day as the e-book promotion video and it was the St. Pete Fashion Show. That went great as well. My biggest challenge was focus because the models on the runway were fast and it was just tough no matter what keeping up. But I'm very pleased with the footage.

Wow, that's beautiful. If you had to choose between the 20-55 and the 50-125 which one would you pick. I can only fit one into my budget right now.

That's gonna depend on what you shoot I would think. For me the 20-55 suits my needs.

That's the first video I've got for you. Tomorrow is the lens comparison shoot now since it got delayed.

But I will say I did some quick shoots recently with the lenses that I was very pleased with. One was a wedding (I don't normally shoot weddings, but it was last minute), and the lenses performed wonderfully. The other two shoots were a studio promotional e-book video of someone speaking into the camera. That went great! The third shoot was the same day as the e-book promotion video and it was the St. Pete Fashion Show. That went great as well. My biggest challenge was focus because the models on the runway were fast and it was just tough no matter what keeping up. But I'm very pleased with the footage.

Wow, that's beautiful. If you had to choose between the 20-55 and the 50-125 which one would you pick. I can only fit one into my budget right now.

Thank you! Honestly, if you can wait and save for the bundle I would highly recommend it. Why? In the long run you save money. The two lenses by themselves will cost you 300 dollars more than the bundle, and you won't get the nice case. Buying the bundle not only saves you close to 300 bucks, but you also get a really nice case with it and that case is probably an additional 200. So buying the bundle you save 500 bucks. In the long run it's far more worth it.

That's the first video I've got for you. Tomorrow is the lens comparison shoot now since it got delayed.

But I will say I did some quick shoots recently with the lenses that I was very pleased with. One was a wedding (I don't normally shoot weddings, but it was last minute), and the lenses performed wonderfully. The other two shoots were a studio promotional e-book video of someone speaking into the camera. That went great! The third shoot was the same day as the e-book promotion video and it was the St. Pete Fashion Show. That went great as well. My biggest challenge was focus because the models on the runway were fast and it was just tough no matter what keeping up. But I'm very pleased with the footage.

Wow, that's beautiful. If you had to choose between the 20-55 and the 50-125 which one would you pick. I can only fit one into my budget right now.

Thank you! Honestly, if you can wait and save for the bundle I would highly recommend it. Why? In the long run you save money. The two lenses by themselves will cost you 300 dollars more than the bundle, and you won't get the nice case. Buying the bundle not only saves you close to 300 bucks, but you also get a really nice case with it and that case is probably an additional 200. So buying the bundle you save 500 bucks. In the long run it's far more worth it.

Lol, I see it a bit differently. By purchasing one lens, I save more like $2k by not buying both. I totally get what you are saying about the kit, but it would be nice to purchase one now while I save for the other. I do not purchase these items on credit since this is an expensive hobby for me where I will not recoup my expenses like a pro would. It will take a while for me to save the $4,499.00 vs the $2,289.00 or $2,489.00 which I can afford right now.

So again, for day to day use for say... music video or interview type shoots. If you could only pick one, which would it be?

Music video or interview type shoots 100% the 20-55.

So again, for day to day use for say... music video or interview type shoots. If you could only pick one [20-55 or 55-125], which would it be?

In the thread that you started on September 10, you say this:

"My G2 is the EF mount version. I will be shooting mostly music videos. Some live, but the majority will be scripted mini movies that tell a story (think short 2 - 5 minute MTV artsy style videos). I will also be using the camera to interview local musicians. I think initially this will all be done indoors, but most certainly there will be outdoor shots. The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens, was cheap enough and has very favorable reviews, but I am sure as I grow, it will have it's limitations."

You have a background in still photography and you have the Sigma. For what you want to do, what, if anything, is the Sigma missing in focal length range?

I will say that our lens comparison proved that the Sigma 18-35mm Art didn't compare. Sure it was sharp and made fine images. But it had no character and was way too clinical. Also the still photography nature of the lens made the focus pulling for the bokeh and breathing test more challenging to nail critical focus because it has way too short of a focus throw. That and if you rotate the lens past where there should be a hard stop then your focus markings on a follow focus disc is useless.

I understand the still photography lenses are a the most affordable because they're so low cost. However, for real cinema purposes they don't cut it. Believe me that when it came down to the lens comparisons the Sigma was ruled out in seconds and it was a matter of the DZOFilm Pictor or the Angēnieux Optimo DP. And for either it's a matter of taste for the character the lenses have. The Angēnieux Optimo DP does have the benefit of being wider at 16mm than the DZOFilm Pictor at 20mm, but then the Pictor can go up to 55 while the Optimo DP can go up to 42mm. Either way, both had better zoom ranges than the Sigma. Plus both were parfocal while the Sigma wasn't.

As to if you could only choose one lens at this time... go with the 20-55 because you'll shoot those focal lengths a lot more.

But I will leave you with this last thought: The Pictor 50-125 is far better than the Sigma 50-100 by a long shot. Better focal range, closer minimum focus distance, parfocal, near zero focus breathing, and finally... it's parfocal needs to be reiterated. The only advantage the Sigma 50-100 has is that it is one stop faster for its widest aperture. I'll take the other strengths of the Pictor lens over a one stop loss because I can always use more light.

I understand the still photography lenses are a the most affordable because they're so low cost. However, for real cinema purposes they don't cut it.

The Leica R lenses that Matteo Bertoli just used on this shoot cut it for a minor client in Germany called Mercedes-Benz:

As to if you could only choose one lens at this time... go with the 20-55 because you'll shoot those focal lengths a lot more.

I really don't get telling someone who has a background in still photography, and just got the Sigma 18mm-35mm, what focal lengths he'll "use a lot more" and should buy. Maybe he should take the lens he just bought for a spin or two and decide whether the focal range works for him or not

So again, for day to day use for say... music video or interview type shoots. If you could only pick one [20-55 or 55-125], which would it be?

In the thread that you started on September 10, you say this:

"My G2 is the EF mount version. I will be shooting mostly music videos. Some live, but the majority will be scripted mini movies that tell a story (think short 2 - 5 minute MTV artsy style videos). I will also be using the camera to interview local musicians. I think initially this will all be done indoors, but most certainly there will be outdoor shots. The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens, was cheap enough and has very favorable reviews, but I am sure as I grow, it will have it's limitations."

You have a background in still photography and you have the Sigma. For what you want to do, what, if anything, is the Sigma missing in focal length range?

Please see timbutt2's post in response to my question. He gets what I am looking for in terms of that "Cinema" look. I agree that the Sigma is a nice lens, but as a photography lens, it looks more like home move than it does a cinema type video. I guess I just want to take it up a notch from the Sigma art lens.

So again, for day to day use for say... music video or interview type shoots. If you could only pick one [20-55 or 55-125], which would it be?

In the thread that you started on September 10, you say this:

"My G2 is the EF mount version. I will be shooting mostly music videos. Some live, but the majority will be scripted mini movies that tell a story (think short 2 - 5 minute MTV artsy style videos). I will also be using the camera to interview local musicians. I think initially this will all be done indoors, but most certainly there will be outdoor shots. The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens, was cheap enough and has very favorable reviews, but I am sure as I grow, it will have it's limitations."

You have a background in still photography and you have the Sigma. For what you want to do, what, if anything, is the Sigma missing in focal length range?

Please see timbutt2's post in response to my question. He gets what I am looking for in terms of that "Cinema" look. I agree that the Sigma is a nice lens, but as a photography lens, it looks more like home move than it does a cinema type video. I guess I just want to take it up a notch from the Sigma art lens.

.

There are two distinct questions going on here that are getting confused.

The first question is what you asked, which has to do with focal length range in a zoom lens. Given your background, and the fact that you already have the Sigma to experiment with, I think that it's ridiculous that people are telling you what additional lenses, in what focal lengths, to buy. This is something that you should be deciding for yourself after working with the Sigma lens.

The second question is about lens mechanics and look. I happen to use both a Fujinon MK 18mm-55mm ciné lens and Leica prime lenses. I even use a 50 year old Nikkor. They all have their place. It is simply a fact that Matteo Bertoli, who did the above shoot for Mercedes-Benz in Germany, prefers in many cases to use Leica R photo lenses. He's not exactly the only person with that view, either. Now at least one person here is effectively saying that Bertoli either doesn't know what he's doing or is incompetent.

You are just starting out with video, and I think that you are getting some very bad advice. Bluntly, my suggestion is that you ignore a lot of the "advice" you're getting in this thread, because some of it is complete rubbish that is going to wind up, if you follow it, costing a lot of money.

Quite a few folks at reduser.net are discussing the use of Leica-R and Zeiss Contax C/Y lenses for serious cine use.
Of course, they have their lenses 'cinefied' for better handling, but there are very renowned cinematographers among them.
Optically, these are very fine glass (and not exactly cheap). There are only two drawbacks with stills lenses: some breathe considerably more than cine glass and they may not always be centered as precisely, resulting in a minor image shift when zooming.
BTW, one of the early zooms, the 35-70mm (nice range IMHO) was constructed for Leica by Minolta.

There’s some confusion here I believe. 1) I was asked which of the two DZOFILM Pictor lenses I would suggest buying if you could only buy one. I answered that question with my previous post because the post before I was stating that buying the bundle was better. I was pushed to say which one go buy first and I answered that.

Next, Matteo’s Leica R lenses have been cine moded and they helps improve upon some of the still photography lens issues. However, those are also primes and as a result optically are going to be a lot better for modifying to cinema lenses than still zooms. As I said still zooms are not parfocal by nature and with cinema lenses you expect that.

The main topic for this thread is affordable cinema zoom lenses. That is what I’m trying to address. And, in my comparison of the DZOFilm Pictor against the Sigma Art I pointed out the strengths and reasons for the Pictor lens being better for cinema purposes. Especially for an AC on a wireless focus. And, then I stated what I stated and stand by that the lens comparison shoot proved why the Sigma Art doesn’t hold up. The DZOFilm Pictor held up against an $18K lens from Angēnieux. That’s an impressive feat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk