![]() This is generally not a big deal for stills lenses which don't have distance markings, or which don't have markings which are intended to be very precise. Conversely, in, say, Canon's EF mount, the entire mount and flanges are effectively ground against the inside of the mount as they're twisted, which will eventually affect their precision. This avoids causing mechanical wear on the parts of the mount which control the precision positioning of the lens. A bayonet (insert and twist the lens) mount is not as stable as a breech locking mount (insert the lens and twist the locking ring.) A PL lens mount allows you to place the rear of the lens flange against the front of the mount and then clamp the lens in place by rotating the locking ring over the front of the flanges. ![]() The only real technical issue is that stills lens mounts are generally not built to do the same job as motion picture mounts. Other issues include things like consistent sizing with the iris and focus gearing in the same place on each lens, and for more convenient changes and internal focus so that certain types of round, screw-on filter are easier to use. ![]() Some stills lenses breathe appallingly - often zooms at one end of their range are particularly bad. Also, breathing, which causes the image to change size when focusing, is not often a major consideration in stills lenses because there is intrinsically no pulling of focus in a still image. Some manufacturers like to pursue matching more than others. Stills lenses, even members of a "set" such as the Sigma Art series, are not always built to match in the same way that cinema lenses are. The two other concerns are matching and breathing. Probably what you're considering has proper manual focus, in which case the ergonomics may be better. If that isn't an issue on the lenses you're considering, well, it isn't an issue. To be completely fair, many modern stills lenses have absolutely microscopic focus rotation and horrible ergonomics, simply because modern stills photographers will invariably use them with electronic, servoactuated autofocus. The long focus rotation of cinema lenses is not always a good thing in fact, it is only a good thing in the sole circumstance that you are working with a focus puller in a conventional single-camera configuration. Often, full blown cinema lenses can be a bit tricky if you aren't working with a focus puller, because their rotation can be excessive and make it difficult to achieve long pulls without shifting your grip on the barrel. It depends what you're trying to do, and under what circumstances. So for somebody who simply can't buy a set of cine lenses at $ 3000 per lens, if I'm going to spend less than $ 1000 per lens I simply can't justify to by a Veydra or a Rokinon after discovering how amazing the Sigmas are! Sure, they don't have a focus system that allow the hook up of a follow focus system,but at my level in my game and finance I must go for the better image quality and just adapt as far as focus.ĭo you agree with me that the quality of the image is much more important that how the lenses focus? I must say that it's very easy to manually focus with the two Sigmas, you just have to do it by hand and it doesn't look professional but I simply can't give up the quality I've seen in the Sigma 20 mm 1.4 for a lesser lens that would have a more "cine" look. ![]() But unfortunately after an intensive 3 day testing, I can testify that the two Sigmas are superior in image quality, in any aspect of image quality, to the Veydra and the Rokinon. I understand the point of cine lenses, such as the veydra and the rokinon as far as follow focus is concerned. Rokinon 24 mm cine lens, Nikon mount used on Speedbooster on GH4 Sigma 18-35 1.8 Nikon mount used on speedbooster on my GH4 Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG Nikon mount used on speedbooster on my GH4 I have a GH4 and I've recently rented several lenses
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |