so..I grew up directing commercials with panaflex's and arri 535s...ziess superspeeds, primos, etc. Now I'm old and pretty much retired, but just put an order in for the Ursa mini 4.6K so I can still "F" around for myself. I took my friends 4.6 Ursa out for a test run beforehand. Rented both the Sigma art 18-35MM and the Angenieux Optimo 16-40, and shot a bunch of "apples to apples" comparisons in raw with identical grading. Results: besides the slight "color" difference (easily corrected), both lenses were remarkably similar. Sure, the optimo was slightly sharper when i began to "push" pixels in post. But, subjectively, VERY equatable. Can anyone out there convince me to buy a $17K lens vs an $800 dollar lens??
PS If i buy the sigma, i'll have Duclos do the film convert.
