Jump to content




Photo

Lens Choice for BMPCC


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Berker Taşkıran

Berker Taşkıran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Student

Posted 28 April 2016 - 08:13 PM

New owner of a BMPCC here, I was on the verge of getting Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 but then saw that Canon 24mm 2.8 STM is quite cheap. Now when I get Lens Turbo 2 my crop factor will be 2.09 so I will only need an 18mm lens to compensate 17-50. I compared the 24mm to 17-50 @ 28mm, the 24mm is "much" sharper and kinda better in terms of color?

I can also get 50mm 1.8 STM since it's dirt cheap. 100mm isn't very useful but can still come in handy and make me feel good having multiple lenses and whatnot. Of course my first priority should be to find a decent 18mm but that seems a bit hard, at least if I aim to get a brand new one. So yeah why should I even bother with 17-50?

If I could get the Metabones for BMPCC my options would be amazing but unfortunately I cannot afford it. I can also carry the pancake with me, which is not very important but is very neat.

Thoughts? Other suggestions? Thanks.

Edited by Berker Taşkıran, 28 April 2016 - 08:14 PM.

  • 0




#2 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Director
  • OG from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 28 April 2016 - 09:49 PM

 

A 50mm Rokinon cine prime with an MFT mount would be a good place to start.


  • 0

#3 Shawn Sagady

Shawn Sagady
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 162 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Maryland

Posted 28 April 2016 - 10:07 PM

There are some old cinema lenses out there that are really beautiful on the BMPCC but they do take a little investment.  I am currently using a Zeiss 10-100 1.8 MK II cinema zoom which was designed for 16mm film cameras.  In oder to fully cover the sensor on the BMPCC (the lens was not designed for super16 just regular) I use an Olympus 0.4x MFT teleconverter and the Zeiss is converted to PL.  Its a bit of a jumble of parts which I hope to simplify at a later date by doing a permanent conversion of the lens, but all told the set up costs around 1500 to have a really amazing lens and everything you could want in a cinema package.

 

Barring that I have used the Rokinons quite a bit and love them, though my only experience has been using the EF versions with the Metabones adapter.


  • 0

#4 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 April 2016 - 01:59 AM

I'm also a fan of the rokinon glass. The DSLR glass isn't very good, it's just not made for shooting moving images, so the focus and zoom rings, don't have the right ratio from one direction to the next, making it overly difficult to get precise marks.

I use the Rokinon's with EF adaptor as well.
  • 0

#5 Berker Taşkıran

Berker Taşkıran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Student

Posted 29 April 2016 - 03:25 AM

I too would prefer a cine lens, but the 24mm Rokinon (which is sold as Samyang here) is about twice the price of Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Even if I somehow managed to buy it, I would be stuck with that. I don't see how I can get a 17 or 18mm. Also are there two different version of this lens? Because I see both T1.5 and f/1.4 for the 24mm. I know the difference between T stop and F stop but I don't know if there are two versions of this lens and if so which one is better.

 

How is the Samyang/Rokinon 21mm f1.4 ED AS UMC CS? Any comparisons with their 24mm? It is the same price of Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 where I live. I still won't be able to afford another lens unless it is dirt cheap, but it is at least affordable. With 21mm the resulting FOV would be a bit out of standart with 2.09 crop, but I guess I'll have to live with that.


  • 0

#6 Shawn Sagady

Shawn Sagady
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 162 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Maryland

Posted 29 April 2016 - 06:50 AM

Rokinon/Samyang have multiple versions of a lot of their lenses, some are APS-C and some are Full Frame, as well there are newer and older generations which have more consistent coatings and color rendition.  Just pay careful attention to the details of the lenses you are looking at.  Keep in mind you can probably pick up some Rokinon's used very cheap.


  • 0

#7 Berker Taşkıran

Berker Taşkıran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Student

Posted 29 April 2016 - 10:07 AM

Yeah I just realized that. They seem to have stills lenses, cine lenses, cine ds lenses, and now the most expensive xeen lenses. Do you recommend the stills lenses? They seem to have rubber rings instead of metal. But if I can get them half the price of the cine? Are there any comparisons, including with other similar stills lenses?


  • 0

#8 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 April 2016 - 01:31 PM

Don't skimp out of lenses, cheap lenses are ALWAYS going to be lower quality then more expensive ones.

Zooms are very tricky to make, so if you can imagine how your cheap zoom is made compared to the Rokinon primes. There is no way it will get even close to the quality of the Rokinon's.

Xeen lenses are WAY more money then Rokinon's.
  • 0

#9 Berker Taşkıran

Berker Taşkıran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Student

Posted 29 April 2016 - 04:38 PM

Okay but which one?


Samyang  8mm f/3.5 UMC Fisheye                1079
Samyang 10mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS                1577
Samyang 12mm f2.8 ED AS NCS Fisheye            1691
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC                1317
Samyang 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC CS                1462
Samyang 21mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC CS                1269
Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC                2449

Samyang  8mm T3.8 UMC Fisheye                1265
Samyang 10mm T3.1 ED AS NCS CS                1733
Samyang 12mm T3.1 ED AS NCS Fisheye            1899
Samyang 14mm T3.1 ED AS IF UMC                1442
Samyang 16mm T2.2 ED AS UMC CS                1577
Samyang 24mm T1.5 ED AS IF UMC                2210
Samyang 35mm T1.5 AS IF UMC                    1815

 

These are the prices in where I live. BMPCC is sold for 2400 as a comparison, which is slightly cheaper than US/EU. On the contrary some lenses are more expensive. Bolded ones are the most viable options for me. Is the 16mm cine any good? I can get that one and use with and without focal reducer so I can get nearly 35mm and 50mm equivelent ranges in one lens (Of course at ~50mm I would have less light). But it's still a bit too much for my budget. I need to see some comparisons. I really want a cine lens but it's just too much. With focal reducer and SD card I will already catch up to my camera price. I know that's usually natural, usually lens is even more expensive than the camera, but... I'm still a student. Anyway right now the most logical choice seems to be the 16mm cine, unless it isn't good, but I "really" wonder if it would worth the price image-quality wise? I read somewhere that said these cine lenses only get sharp after f/3 or 4, if that's true that's not very good. I need the low light.

 

Here is a non-cine Rokinon/Samyang 24mm comparison with Sigma 17-50's 21mm, the Rokinon/Samyang is simply awful. It's hard to believe the cine's are much better without seeing it.


  • 0

#10 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 April 2016 - 09:49 PM

The GOOD Rokinon's for the pocket are; 21mm 1.5, 24mm 1.5, 35mm 1.5, 50mm 1.5, 85mm 1.5. 

 

Then use a speed booster to get the focal lengths back to where they belong. 

 

http://www.rokinon.c...ses/cine-lenses


  • 0

#11 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 29 April 2016 - 10:05 PM

How about a Sigma Art 18-35 f1.8? Not too pricy, very clean, sharp, and fast. Supplement with a cheap 50mm f2 prime. Maybe someone else can suggest good wider lens options for Micro 4/3.
  • 0

#12 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 April 2016 - 10:35 PM

Well the issue with the DSLR zooms are the zoom/focus ratio's, they just don't work well for cinema. Also, the lack of a mechanical iris adjustment is a real downer. You're then stuck to specific stops in the camera, instead of infinitely variable on the lens.

I will admit, the higher-end Sigma glass is pretty good. I was handed a camera with a set of Sigma zooms for a wedding shoot not long ago, client wanted me to use their camera. I was more then impressed with the results, no real difference between the Canon L series I normally use and the Sigma. Maybe the focus was a bit slower, but that was the only thing to complain about.
  • 0

#13 Berker Taşkıran

Berker Taşkıran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Student

Posted 30 April 2016 - 04:33 AM

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 has been my first choice, but it's nearly 3 times the price of a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 here.

 

This is a comparison of these two, and two other fast zooms. While the 18-35 is better than all, the 17-50 isn't really bad. I will try to find the 18-35 cheaper and maybe try to find a used one but I'm not sure how will that turn out.

 

Here is Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 at f/2.8 and here is Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 at 17mm f/2.8, Rokinon is just awful. And here is the 18-35mm f/1.8 at 18mm f/1.8, better than Sigma 17-50 but not as much of a difference as the prior.

 

Where I live the Sigma 17-50 is cheaper than the Rokinon. I can't find any comparisons with the cine Rokinons but I REALLY doubt it's any better, in terms of sharpness.

 

I really don't think it's a good idea to pay more to an inferior lens and get fixed focal lenght. Sure the advantages of a cine lens is nice and cool but if I'm buying a prime cine I expect better optics. Rokinon is just awful in that department.

 

The only consolation is that these are still picture comparisons so the video performance might not be this bad, but there isn't a comparison for video that I can see it with my own eyes. So I can't just "believe" that it "shouldn't be that bad". Logical thing is to think that the difference will scale in the same proportion to the video as well. This might or might not be true, but until seeing it, it's the best thing to assume.

 

TL;DR: Do you think the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 would be a bad choice in terms of optics performance to use on BMPCC, leaving the build quality/cine features out? That's what I want to know.

 

I might even regret buying this just because it lacks cine features, but that must come later. Right now my only luxury is to compare optics quality. If it is better than Rokinons, which the overwhelming evidence says so, then I must choose the better optics. If I'll regret it, I'll have to regret it. Pretty sure I will also regret getting Rokinons with THAT optics performance. With the Sigma I will only regret that I don't have enough cash for decent cines, NOT Rokinon cines.


  • 0

#14 Berker Taşkıran

Berker Taşkıran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Student

Posted 30 April 2016 - 08:01 AM

Will probably buy the Sigma 17-50 in an hour. Any last words? :)

Hope I won't regret it...
  • 0

#15 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 April 2016 - 11:18 AM

You have to remember, "tests" don't mean squat in real world. Plus, the pocket camera uses the center of the glass due to it's smaller imager. So you will be trying to make a lower-end piece of glass work in a situation it was never designed to work in. Unless you've seen material shot with the pocket using that glass, you won't know how it will look.

Earlier you asked me which Rokinon's I recommended and I listed them for you. There is a good reason why I omitted the 17mm. Any of the F2.2 or greater lenses have very small elements in them, which is why they suffer in quality optically. I've talked to a few people who know lenses well and they've explained the problem in detail.

Having attempted to use standard, lower-end still camera zooms on the pocket numerous times, I have always been dismayed with the results. Canon, Sigma, Vivitar, Nikon and Tamaron, doesn't matter. The lenses aren't designed for critical focus pulling and the zoom/focus ratio's aren't conducive to smooth operation. Plus, element shifting is a huge problem in the lower end lenses, where you go to grab focus and the element shifts when you touch it. I had a set of Canon L series zoom's that suffered that problem and none of the other brands were much better. I have used the higher end canon zooms on my Pocket before and optically they were great but the other problems were deal killers for me.

I know you're trying to save money, but with glass you can't skimp.
  • 0

#16 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 April 2016 - 11:24 AM

Ohh and for some examples...

This was shot with the pocket and Rokinon 24mm almost entirely. There are a few cutaways with the 12mm, but you can't tell the difference. I use the 24mm as my main lens and it works great.



Here is another one shot mostly 24mm. If you look at the interview however, that appears to be shot with the 12. Notice how soft it is around the edges. It's a more "filmic" look that works for the piece.


  • 0

#17 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 30 April 2016 - 12:28 PM

Don't know what to say except that the old adage 'you get what you pay for' is very true when it comes to optics and to film accessories in general.

I think you should buy the best that you can afford and use that to the best of your abilities. At least until you can afford something better.
  • 0


Pro 8mm

Abel Cine

CineTape

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Visual Products

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Zylight

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Zylight

Abel Cine

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Pro 8mm

Glidecam

CineLab

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Tai Audio

Technodolly