PL Lens Recommendation Sought

[Arnold Finkelstein]

I'm looking for a wide zoom in PL.  I'm trying to find a balance between image quality and size, and am hoping to avoid simply buying a manufacturer's rehousing of a still lens, unless the image quality is really outstanding.

I had been looking at the Sigma 18-35 and the Tokina ATX 11-20, but my understanding is that they are both just re-housed still lenses.

[Kevin Roy]

I don't think that the Tokinas are rehoused at least that has never been my impression when working with them. I can report that I'm extremely pleased with my Tokina 11-20 2.9 and it has all the features and build quality I would expect from a moderately priced cinema lens. 

[Arnold Finkelstein]

18 minutes ago, Kevin Roy said:

I don't think that the Tokinas are rehoused at least that has never been my impression when working with them. I can report that I'm extremely pleased with my Tokina 11-20 2.9 and it has all the features and build quality I would expect from a moderately priced cinema lens. 

 

All my research indicates that the Tokina 11-20 is a manufacturer rehoused lens, meaning it is optically the same as the still version.

[Daniel Klockenkemper]

As rehoused wide stills zoom lenses go, I think it'd be hard to find better mechanical quality than the Sigma or Tokina (without going to a bespoke rehousing service like TLS).  If either of those lenses meets your needs, I wouldn't necessarily hold their stills origins against them.

There aren't too many alternatives for sub-$10k wide cinema zooms... Duclos Lenses sells low-budget wide-angle zooms from Zunow and DZO, but I tend to think that you get what you pay for.

Have you considered the Canon CN-E 15.5-47mm?  On the used market they'll still stretch your budget a fair bit past the Sigma, but it's a proper cinema lens of excellent build and optical quality, and it might be the best overall value in that category.  Its range would also make useful as more than just a wide variable prime like the Tokina or Sigma tend to be.

[Kevin Roy]

38 minutes ago, Arnold Finkelstein said:

 

All my research indicates that the Tokina 11-20 is a manufacturer rehoused lens, meaning it is optically the same as the still version.

Ah yes, so it is. I thought this link was informative. 

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/06/11/tokina-cine-11-20mm-t2-9-review/

I use mine to shoot Super 16, and have never had issue with the sharpness. When I was looking to purchase, I opted for the Tokina given its shorter focal length. I also have the 50-135. It would be nice if the Tokinas were a stop faster though, like the Sigma. I'm shooting film though. With digital, perhaps its less of an issue. As the review article points out, I do agree that the 300° focus rotation on the Tokina can be a bit of a challenge.

[Arnold Finkelstein]

I have been looking at the Sigma 18-35 as well, but that is also a re-housed lens, and is almost the same price as the Tokina Vista 11-20, which is a "proper" cinema lens.

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Arnold Finkelstein

[Dom Jaeger]

5 hours ago, Arnold Finkelstein said:

 

All my research indicates that the Tokina 11-20 is a manufacturer rehoused lens, meaning it is optically the same as the still version.

The difference between cine and still lenses is not in the optics, it's in the mechanics and in matching the colour and look across a series. There's nothing inferior about the actual optics of still lenses.

The Tokina Cine version of the 11-20 is pretty good value for the price, and has decent cine mechanics. But you do get what you pay for, and no sub $5K cine zoom is going to be without compromises. I would recommend having any cheap wide angle zoom checked for accurate back-focus before using it on a serious project, since it needs to be very accurately set to be properly parfocal and quality control at this price range can be variable. 

[Arnold Finkelstein]

2 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

The difference between cine and still lenses is not in the optics, it's in the mechanics and in matching the colour and look across a series. There's nothing inferior about the actual optics of still lenses.

The Tokina Cine version of the 11-20 is pretty good value for the price, and has decent cine mechanics. But you do get what you pay for, and no sub $5K cine zoom is going to be without compromises. I would recommend having any cheap wide angle zoom checked for accurate back-focus before using it on a serious project, since it needs to be very accurately set to be properly parfocal and quality control at this price range can be variable. 

Thank you. 

The camera I'll be using it on, a C300M3, has a user-changeable lens mount.  Would this also possibly a source of back focus issues?  So, after I have a lens checked by someone, what about my camera's lens mount?

[Dom Jaeger]

9 minutes ago, Arnold Finkelstein said:

Thank you. 

The camera I'll be using it on, a C300M3, has a user-changeable lens mount.  Would this also possibly a source of back focus issues?  So, after I have a lens checked by someone, what about my camera's lens mount?

Sure it's possible. I'm a tech, so I'm always checking back-focus and flange depth just as a routine, but a lot of owner ops just wing it. I guess if your other lenses seem ok you can probably trust the camera. Back focus/flange depth errors tend to show up more on wider lenses but it can be hard to judge wide angle focus without a good monitor. 

[Arnold Finkelstein]

1 minute ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Sure it's possible. I'm a tech, so I'm always checking back-focus and flange depth just as a routine, but a lot of owner ops just wing it. I guess if your other lenses seem ok you can probably trust the camera. Back focus/flange depth errors tend to show up more on wider lenses but it can be hard to judge wide angle focus without a good monitor. 

I think it's fair to say I wing it.  I have been changing the mount to accomodate Canon EF still lenses, and my employer's Tokina Vista PL lenses, both primes and zooms.  I haven't noticed any issues, but I don't do anything special to make sure back focus is okay.  I typically use a 7" Atomos monitor.  

Is there something I should be doing to be more careful about back focus, or will I generally easily see a problem.?

[Kevin Roy]

48 minutes ago, Arnold Finkelstein said:

I think it's fair to say I wing it.  I have been changing the mount to accomodate Canon EF still lenses, and my employer's Tokina Vista PL lenses, both primes and zooms.  I haven't noticed any issues, but I don't do anything special to make sure back focus is okay.  I typically use a 7" Atomos monitor.  

Is there something I should be doing to be more careful about back focus, or will I generally easily see a problem.?

Flange depth is pretty easy to measure but I'm not sure what's required to make the adjustment on the Canon. Some sort of shimming I imagine. 

You'll see there is an issue if the image does not stay in focus when you zoom. The other issue is that the witness mark on the lens may not match the actual measured distance to the point you are trying to focus.  A focus puller will prefer pinpoint accuracy so they know the distance marked on the lens exactly matches their tape measurement, especially in low light situations working wide open. 

[Arnold Finkelstein]

1 minute ago, Kevin Roy said:

Flange depth is pretty easy to measure but I'm not sure what's required to make the adjustment on the Canon. Some sort of shimming I imagine. 

You'll see there is an issue if the image does not stay in focus when you zoom. The other issue is that the witness mark on the lens may not match the actual measured distance to the point you are trying to focus.  A focus puller will prefer pinpoint accuracy so they know the distance marked on the lens exactly matches their tape measurement, especially in low light situations working wide open. 

Yes, shims, which don't get changed between the PL and EF mounts.

[Dom Jaeger]

"Is there something I should be doing to be more careful about back focus, or will I generally easily see a problem.?"

The productions I deal with where I work need their lenses and cameras perfectly set up. They use focus marks, and the zooms all need to be parfocal. The end results often end up on large cinema screens or high resolution TVs. So I have to work to very high standards of accuracy. I have no idea what your client expectations are, but if you or your clients haven't noticed anything or complained, then I'm not about to tell you that you need to double check everything. Horses for courses. 

As I said, back-focus errors tend to show up in wider lens focal length marks being a bit off, or in zooms getting soft at the wide end (after focussing at the long end). A wide angle zoom ticks both those boxes. If you have a monitor that is at least as good as whatever the final viewing specs are for what you produce, then you should be able to see if you have any issues.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Dom Jaeger

[Arnold Finkelstein]

Just now, Dom Jaeger said:

The productions I deal with where I work need their lenses and cameras perfectly set up. They use focus marks, and the zooms all need to be parfocal. The end results often end up on large cinema screens or high resolution TVs. So I have to work to very high standards of accuracy. I have no idea what your client expectations are, but if you or your clients haven't noticed anything or complained, then I'm not about to tell you that you need to double check everything. Horses for courses. 

As I said, back-focus errors tend to show up in wider lens focal length marks being a bit off, or in zooms getting soft at the wide end (after focussing at the long end). A wide angle zoom ticks both those boxes. If you have a monitor that is at least as good as whatever the final viewing specs are for what you produce, then you should be able to see if you have any issues.

Unfortunately, no.  Virtually all of our shoots are on the road and this production company likes to travel light, so the largest monitor I have with me is a 7" Atomos.  The other camera uses only the C300 stock monitor.  That's his business, not mine.