Jump to content


Photo

Rokinon Cine DS in PL mount?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 15 January 2017 - 04:40 AM

This might just be an eternal pet peeve with no answer.

 

So Rokinon XEEN is out with a PL mount but I've found minor differences between this new model and the previous Cine DS line. Videos like this illustrate the difference which do exist.

 

My curse is that I don't mind the quality blunders of Cine DS for the sub $1000 price, however there is no release of them in PL mount. Do you feel this is intentional by the company? Will we eventually see the cheapest new release PL primes to date?

 

Thanks.


  • 0

#2 Jack OGara

Jack OGara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Derby - UK

Posted 15 January 2017 - 05:48 AM

If you have a camera with PL mount, you are not going to be buying $800 lens for it...

That is why they don't do the Cine in PL. It is a Videographer's lens not a Cinematographer's lens.

 

Big difference between those two markets...


  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11645 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2017 - 08:34 AM

I dunno, you might for an Ursa Mini.

 

Honestly, with most people now shooting with radio remote focus, I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

 

P


  • 0

#4 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Australia/Wherever The Wind Takes Me

Posted 15 January 2017 - 08:38 AM

Yeah, I'm not really seeing the issue. If you're wanting to shoot on the Rokinon DS lenses, just pair them with an EF-mount camera (that's easy enough to do these days, and a few cameras now have positive-locking EF mounts anyway).

If you have a PL-mount camera, the Cine versions of the lenses are still stupidly cheap for proper, manual, cinema-style lenses.


  • 0

#5 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 15 January 2017 - 02:25 PM

I suppose my two issues after your points are

1. Essentially zero used market for the Xeen line (If you're selling please let me know lol)

2. PL can get adapted to every body, but far less adapters are from EF/Nikon/E mount to PL body. Suppose that has something to do with the distance from the back of the glass to the sensor itself?


  • 0

#6 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3067 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2017 - 02:53 PM

Here is the problem... it's called flange distance... which is very LONG on PL mount lenses, but very shallow on EF mount lenses.

This is the distance between the rear element of the lens and the focal plane. It's how the lens is designed to "focus" an image onto the focal plane of the camera.

It appears that most lens mount types, have different flange distances, which is the reason why there is an alternative mount.

So camera mounts like M4/3rd's are phenomenal because the mount itself is shallow, meaning you can mount a wide range of alternative lenses to it.. PL, Canon, Nikon, Arri B, even C mount.

PL mount cameras have a taller mount and unfortunately, it's the tallest mount of any other format. So it's impossible to put any other lens on a PL mount camera, other then PL mount.
  • 1

#7 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3067 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2017 - 03:15 PM

I've seen some video's about the Xeen and worked with one at a trade show recently. It's a solid lens, reminds me a lot of the CP2. They are the cheapest NEW PL mount primes you can buy and you can see how much better they are then the DS, which are already decent lenses.

Honestly, you can get a set of Zeiss CP2's for not much money used. They are kind of the "go to" PL mount lens today and they're excellent. I just did a shoot with my Rokinon DS lens vs the CP2 and the difference was night and day.
  • 0

#8 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 15 January 2017 - 03:29 PM

That .6 speed difference is very appealing. would you say that versatility holds more value than the Zeiss look?


  • 0

#9 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3067 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2017 - 03:59 PM

Tough question... the CP2's also have a HUGE problem which is close focus. Even the widest lenses have a minimal close focus of well over a foot. If I recall, it's more like 2 - 3 feet close focus on average, which is bad. I struggled to get shallow depth of field with them because I simply couldn't put the actors close enough to the camera. I resorted to using longer focal lengths, but that's a cop-out in the long run.

So yea, I mean is it nice to have an T1.5 lens? Yes... it's very nice. But it's also nice to have beautiful flares and bokeh, which is where the CP2's shine.
  • 0

#10 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 15 January 2017 - 04:53 PM

All the CP.2s under 50mm have a close focus of 10" or 12", 50mm is 1.5', which is pretty much the same as Rokinon DS lenses, and other budget cine lenses.
  • 0

#11 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3067 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2017 - 05:00 PM

Yep, I'm just use to having 10" or less. I just measured my Optars and they're between 6 - 8 inches close focus. That's a more "realistic" number.
  • 0

#12 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11645 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2017 - 09:27 PM

This is something that really winds me up on cinema lenses, too. I'm used to ENG zooms where macro is just a twist away.
  • 0

#13 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 15 January 2017 - 11:19 PM

.. the CP2's also have a HUGE problem which is close focus. Even the widest lenses have a minimal close focus of well over a foot. If I recall, it's more like 2 - 3 feet close focus on average, which is bad. I struggled to get shallow depth of field with them because I simply couldn't put the actors close enough to the camera. I resorted to using longer focal lengths, but that's a cop-out in the long run..


I don't see how a CP.2 with a 10" minimum is a HUGE problem - with a 2" PL flange depth and around 4" of lens, your subject is only 4" from the front element. If you want a shallow depth of field, use a faster lens or a larger format.


Yep, I'm just use to having 10" or less. I just measured my Optars and they're between 6 - 8 inches close focus. That's a more "realistic" number.


According to my data base Optars also have a close focus of 10" or more. You'll find few 35mm lenses that focus closer unless specifically optimised for macro. Sometimes the focus rotation of a lens allows for closer but the marks stop because image quality deteriorates or you get vignetting.
  • 0

#14 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1717 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 16 January 2017 - 12:45 AM

Tyler,  what is this.... never heard of it..."   flange distance.....This is the distance between the rear element of the lens and the focal plane...."

 

Do you mean "flange focal distance (FFD).."...?

 

Separately,  the close focus distance on a S16 vs 35mm format (or larger) lens is not a realistic direct comparison...when considering depth of field...( you introduced "Optars")


Edited by Gregg MacPherson, 16 January 2017 - 12:52 AM.

  • 0

#15 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3067 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 January 2017 - 03:07 AM

This is something that really winds me up on cinema lenses, too. I'm used to ENG zooms where macro is just a twist away.


It's a real problem. To me a lenses versatility includes close focus, especially on the mid lenses... 25, 35, 50.

I was doing a photoshoot with my old Bell and Howell 16mm projector a few weeks back on the Red Dragon with the CP2's. I wanted to get in nice and tight on the sprockets, on the gate, on the sound reader, etc...

I had done this same shoot with my Pocket camera a few months prior with the 24mm Rokinon DS prime, which has a close focus of around 8 inches. I didn't think the CP2's would have LESS range then the cheap-ass Rokinon's, so I was shocked I couldn't get a similar frame and close focus. I actually ditched the idea entirely because no matter which of the CP2's I put on the ol' Dragon, I couldn't get the framing I wanted IN FOCUS. The lenses simply wouldn't let me do it.

Now one could argue "ohh get special lenses for that special shot" but that's bullshit. I don't have $10,000 dollars to go out and buy some fancy set of lenses for a very limited application. I certainly don't have production insurance for a little shoot in my garage, so there goes renting. I just expect decent glass to have a decent feature set. The CP2's are also slow compared to the competition today.

If some old russian glass that cost me a few peanuts and a hand shake can do something some modern NEW mid-range european "expensive" glass can't do, it kinda irks me. Yes, I understand the CP2's are "budget" lenses, and yes I understand the limitations are almost put there specifically to make people go out and buy Superspeeds. It's just... really? The Rokinon Xeen's are far less expensive and don't have nearly the same issues. Do they "look" the same... that's a different story that needs to be talked about on a different day. I felt the CP2's looked pretty darn good, but I also feel that same way about my Optar's.
  • 0

#16 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 16 January 2017 - 04:29 AM

According to the spec sheet, the 24mm Rokinon DS has a close focus of 9.8", a fraction less than the 25mm Zeiss CP.2 which is 10", but not as close as the slower macro CP.2 25mm which focuses down to under 7". The Rokinon Xeen range has close focus specs almost identical to non-macro CP.2s.

No 35mm Optar has a spec close focus less than 10", even the 16mm ones don't get closer than 8".

Take a look at this generally reliable lens database (certainly more reliable than Tyler's memory) and compare close focus distances:
https://docs.google....hl=en_GB&gid=9#

In terms of minimum focus distances CP.2s actually compare pretty well to nearly all other 35mm primes. The more expensive lenses like Leikas or Cookes or Master Primes don't tend to focus as close. Which is not some conspiracy to make you buy Superspeeds (which don't focus any closer either), but simply the reality of optical design. Optimise a lens for high quality up to infinity and you can't maintain that quality all the way down to macro focussing distances. "Cheap-ass" lenses can often focus closer because the image degradation isn't as noticeable when you start with a lowered bar.

The macro function on certain zooms is created by shifting the whole rear optical group forward and focussing with the zoom ring, not something you can do with primes.The image is not easily focussed and not particularly good either.
  • 0

#17 aapo lettinen

aapo lettinen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 855 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 16 January 2017 - 06:20 AM

when adapting lenses, one of the biggest issues in addition with the ffd is the diameter of the mount. 

For example, the Canon EF mount is so physically large that you can't adapt it to PL, the mount just doesn't fit there (because of the shorter ffd the EF lens should go inside the 54mm PL mount but that is just not possible. 

some Nikon F or M42 lenses can be adapted but the physical sizes of the lens barrels usually limit the choices to only couple of low end models. Some Nikon AI-S lenses could for example be adapted to PL if the barrel near the iris ring would be a bit smaller (and the iris ring also smaller) . With longer FFD lenses like T2 mount lenses you can just use a screw on adapter and they will work just like that with a PL camera (though most T2 lenses are old low-end garbage not worth using with a PL camera...) . 

 

I got myself a small metal lathe and I have some spare AI-S lenses, I may try to adapt them to PL later this year. If it goes well I will share experiences with them but have to test it first... one needs to rebuild about half of the lens to adapt it so it might be actually easier to machine completely new barrels with focus mechanics and just use the iris and optical groups from the original design  <_<


  • 0

#18 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Australia/Wherever The Wind Takes Me

Posted 16 January 2017 - 08:52 AM

I was doing a photoshoot with my old Bell and Howell 16mm projector a few weeks back on the Red Dragon with the CP2's. I wanted to get in nice and tight on the sprockets, on the gate, on the sound reader, etc...

I had done this same shoot with my Pocket camera a few months prior with the 24mm Rokinon DS prime, which has a close focus of around 8 inches. I didn't think the CP2's would have LESS range then the cheap-ass Rokinon's, so I was shocked I couldn't get a similar frame and close focus. I actually ditched the idea entirely because no matter which of the CP2's I put on the ol' Dragon, I couldn't get the framing I wanted IN FOCUS. The lenses simply wouldn't let me do it.

 

To be fair Tyler, you're never going to get the same kind of magnification from a >S35mm sized sensor compared to a S16mm sensor with equivalent optics (9.8" vs 10"). That's just not going to happen.

I can't say I ever hurt for close-focus with the CP.2s, I don't think they do any worse than most conventional prime sets out there. If a shot requires macro, it requires macro.


  • 0

#19 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11645 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 January 2017 - 12:39 PM

I shoot a lot on the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro prime. Real-ale cinema people will, of course, snort derisively at such a low-cost piece of plastic-cased bullshit, but it does focus down to, well, millimetres.


  • 0

#20 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2762 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 January 2017 - 12:46 PM

 Real-ale cinema people will, of course, snort derisively at such a low-cost piece of plastic-cased bullshit

 

Not really. When you're shooting macro and the DoF is virtually non-existent, most of the optical deficiencies of cheap lenses just vanish into the blur.


  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

ZoomCrane

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Quantum Music Works

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Pro 8mm

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Quantum Music Works

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Pro 8mm

ZoomCrane

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets