I bought one of the Tokina 28-70mm ATX Pro MkII zooms this week - $322 on eBay. I was thinking of picking up a Tokina 11-16mm and a longer Nikon zoom. The two I'm looking at are the 70-200mm in VRI or VRII flavour, or the older 80-200 ED zoom.

The f/2.8 80-200 (non G Model) has manual aperture and no VR which suits me just fine for video. Assuming MTF ship the adaptor soon, is this a good range of cheap zooms for hum-drum F3 jobs that doen't require a PL hire?

Hello Peter,
A couple of comments...
I happen to use a Tokina 11-16 on my canon stills (dslr) camera, and I'm very happy with it. It's quite sharp and of course very wide. It's great for foreground/background perspectives, and at 2.8 and minimum focus the background does actually get soft. But remember, it has a minimal zoom range of only 1.5x.
Which brings up the point that I really wanted to mention -- that you might want to think about your needs for a zoom before trying to pick specific lenses. I know this was the problem I would have on film jobs if I used the Variable Primes - even though I was pretty much covering the spectrum of focal lengths that I needed, an individual lens might not have the full range that I needed for a shot.
I'm going through some of the same thinking as you regarding the F3, but one of my main potential clients for the camera does primarily corporate interviews - some greenscreen, some with cloth backdrops, and some in real offices. Probably 20-30 days a year will involve teleprompter. I know from experience that dealing with lens changes in a teleprompter setup while a CEO or Company President is waiting in the interview chair does not make for happy clients, so I know that I need to have in my kit a zoom that will cover the range of focal lengths needed for medium wide through closeup. Obviously I want a lens that looks good, but between the teleprompter glass and a little skin tone detail tweaking, I'm less worried about the 'amazingness' of the lens than its applicability for my needs. I have to figure out the range first (for me, I'm thinking around 40mm on the wide end and 135 0r 150 on the tight) before starting to shop.
I don't know what you shoot, but my suggestion is to really analyze your needs first, since there really are a lot of good stills lenses out there to choose from.
And of course I'm open to suggestions as well :)

I agree that the Tokina 11-16mm along with many other Nikon and Canon lenses are fine SLR lenses, but will you be happy with their ramping and breathing artifacts on a motion camera like the F3? Also, will you be OK about jerky non-electric zooms during shots?

Just curious

Thanks guys for the replies. We mainly do commercials, either on an EX1R/Letus Ultimate with Zeiss or Nikon primes, or we use a Varicam P2 2700 with EFP lenses. But there are also corporates and lower-budget TVC's where we have to move quickly and need the speed and flexibility of cheap zooms on the adptor system or Panasonic GH13. I want to put funds away for a set of Zeiss CP2 if possible, hence the search for a small range of economical zooms. I've love to get the $25K Alexa zoom that Jeff Regan just bought, but no go :(

As for zooming mid-shot with these lenses, that's usually something I don't do if I'm not using the EFP lenses. You just have to change you style. Sometimes we shoot in 1080 and post in 720 and I can apply small digital zooms later.

On our TVC's and music clips I use my large collection of fast Zeiss Contax primes, but I haven't found a way to reliably adapt them to Nikon mount.

So I guess I'll keep looking around while eyeing off the Arri zoom.

I should add that I'd love to hear any suggections at all from prospective F3 users. Cheers.

Nikon makes a 24-120 f4 that's supposed to be sharp. It's fairly new, and I've only played around with one in a store. As an interview lens, I think I'd be happy with the range, but I don't think f4 is going to cut it. Too much depth of field. When the camera finally gets here, I'll do some tests with the 35-70mm f2.8 Nikkor I already own. It's a sharp lens, but doesn't hold focus when you zoom.

That Sigma 17-55 f2.8 EX could be an interesting zoom on the wide end. It's an APS-C lens for nikon DX so that is a perfect match for the F3.
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom Lens for Nik 583306 B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=689623&is=REG)

Also, the Nikon DX 17-55 f2.8
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Lens 2147 B&H Photo Video (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=300490&is=USA)

Unfortunetely and unlike full frame sensor DSLRs, there is no such good offering for longer focal zooms for APS-C sensors. Everything I have seen is rated F4 and above.

But I guess this Sigma 70-200 F2.8 could work pretty well (would equal a 100-270 in APS-C world) on the long end for a fast zoom.
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens 579-306 B&H


Thierry.

BTW, does anyone knows if Sigmas focus rings works in a normal fashion or is do they rotate backwards like the Nikons?

T.

[QUOTE=Jim Tittle;1612058]Nikon makes a 24-120 f4 that's supposed to be sharp.

I own a Nikon 24-120 and find it a bit of a dog for sharpness unless it's stopped down past 5.6.
paparazzi love it for the range, but they usually shoot with strobe. The 24-70 2.8 on the other hand is razor sharp and very neutral. Then again it's more than twice the price.

That's interesting. The older $600 lens, f3.5-5.6, is supposed to be a real dog. But I've only heard good things about the new $1200, f4 version.

I've owned both the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-f2.8 and 80 -200 f2.8 and they are the best of the "second tier" cheap zooms. But the modern Nikon f2.8 zooms in the same range are very sharp - excellent lenses and I think well worth the modest additional expense ($800-$1500) when ponying up for a $14K camera. I have the ED 80-200 and its as good or better than primes. Then there are also the Canon's ( which you'll need a Birger adapter for). They are also very good.

Is anyone considering using the Red 18-50 or the newer 17-50? I read very mixed reports on them. Some users think they are quite sharp, yet most general lens rental companies seem to avoid them. There doesn't seem to be an economical solution for a reasonable native PL-mount standard zoom. You get what you pay for I guess.

Is anyone considering using the Red 18-50 or the newer 17-50? I read very mixed reports on them. Some users think they are quite sharp, yet most general lens rental companies seem to avoid them. There doesn't seem to be an economical solution for a reasonable native PL-mount standard zoom. You get what you pay for I guess.

I know you've heard me say this before, but...

They avoid them because they got a well-deserved bad name early on for their inconsistent mechanics. Some are loose, some are tight. But they're all rehoused Sigmas, and sharp. Rental houses avoid them because there is no demand for them...there is no shortage of them out in the wild. That and they don't hold up to the daily bash and grind of rentals so well. Rental 35mm optics get thrashed, ask any owner of a set of Zeiss Standards or Speeds.

You'll never get a solid consensus online except to avoid. I suggest you find one locally, shoot some with it, and make your own decision. For the $2800 they are going for used, they're a bargain. You can spend a lot more on a worse lens, and a lot of people did in the first year the Red was out...people were paying $4K for old coke bottles from 1962 that said Angeniuex on them.

Just a heads up: Canon, Leica and Zeiss are raising prices on still lenses by roughly 10%. This also means that Nikon is probably close behind but has not announced it yet.

You could use a 2/3" B4 Broadcast lens with one of AbelCine's HDx2 PL adapters. It doubles the FL of the lens and expands the image to fit a 35mm sensor. I know Mitch has one working on an AF100, perhaps he'll get one on an F3 soon. It's $5,500 USD so not cheap, but could be worth it if you already have decent 2/3" glass. I'd love to see one of these in the flesh, can't help but think it's going to degrade the image a bit, but a 20x servo zoom (or more) is an attractive proposition.

Using 2/3″ Lenses on the Panasonic AF100 | CineTechnica (http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/02/11/using-23-lenses-on-the-panasonic-af100/)

The HDx2 doesn't cover S35 I believe. Can't remember off the top of my head, but coverage is limited to centre crop modes on the RED and Phantom, so I doubt it suits the F3.

The AF100 must just squeeze into the HDx2's coverage.

Edit: Just looked at the HDx2. Converts the 11mm B4 to 22mm PL. AF100 is 20.1mm , an F3 27.1mm, so no go.

Keep forgetting how much smaller the AF100 sensor is.

Oh well!

You could use a 2/3" B4 Broadcast lens with one of AbelCine's HDx2 PL adapters. It doubles the FL of the lens and expands the image to fit a 35mm sensor. I know Mitch has one working on an AF100, perhaps he'll get one on an F3 soon. It's $5,500 USD so not cheap, but could be worth it if you already have decent 2/3" glass. I'd love to see one of these in the flesh, can't help but think it's going to degrade the image a bit, but a 20x servo zoom (or more) is an attractive proposition.

Using 2/3″ Lenses on the Panasonic AF100 | CineTechnica (http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/02/11/using-23-lenses-on-the-panasonic-af100/)

If this is anything in practice like a Century 2X PL converter, it's pretty soft. I have one for my Red, you only use it when you're really stuck. AFAIK, a tele convertor is basically doing the same thing.

I'd be surprised if you can take the the little image out of the back of a 2/3" lens, blow it up 4X, and not have it fall apart.

But yes, worth investigating if you have VERY expensive 2/3" lenses laying around.

Just a heads up: Canon, Leica and Zeiss are raising prices on still lenses by roughly 10%. This also means that Nikon is probably close behind but has not announced it yet.

Steve when is the price hike on Zeiss to take effect?

Just noticed Red have some factory refurbished lenses on their site

If i had an F3, this zoom would tickle my fancy:

Product (http://www.red.com/store/battle-tested/product/red-pro-zoom-18-85mm-t29-i-bt)

$6000 dollars, so about £3,696 - seems good value for a PL mount zoom. I'm sure it's no angenieux optimo, but could be a good everyday kind of lens? T2.9, so not ultra fast, but not too slow either.

What are peoples opinions on Red lenses? [edit] - just re-read earlier posts. Still, seems like a lot of lens for the monies

At almost 10 lbs of weight, seems like quite a bit of mass for an 'everyday' lens, plus of course the weight of the rail/support system you'd need...

hadn't spotted the weight- that is a wee bit beastly!

A similar coverage Optimo weighs in at 4.2lbs

$6000 dollars, so about £3,696 - seems good value for a PL mount zoom. I'm sure it's no angenieux optimo, but could be a good everyday kind of lens? T2.9, so not ultra fast, but not too slow either.

What are peoples opinions on Red lenses? [edit] - just re-read earlier posts. Still, seems like a lot of lens for the monies

I'm gonna make a bold, slightly obnoxious statement, and then I'm gonna backtrack, apologize, and explain.

The Red 18-85 is a better lens than you are cameraman, in all likelihood.

It's sharp throughout, solidly built, and 95% as good as an Optimo, ESPECIALLY if you've never used either, much less compared them critically on a projector.

Now for the apology. I don't really know anything about you, or your skills. But it is VERY much the sort of thing where, if you feel the need to ask, you haven't gotten to the point where you can tell the difference. So I apologize in advance if I misjudged where you're coming from experience-wise.

Now if you tell me you've used Ang Optimos, the 10-1HR, the 10-1HP, the OLD 10-1 coke bottle, the Zeiss Master zoom and tell me you like the Optimo because you like the way it flares when you shoot a 9-light down the barrel, then...maybe you have some perspective on where the Red lens is somewhat a lesser lens.

But I just made all that up, I don't REALLY know directly how it compares to those lenses, other than I know that it is pretty much just as sharp, except maybe on the edges at 2.8 and 18mm (I have used this Red lens AND Optimos, incidentally). That's it. It's a brand new design, made by a big Japanese lens company you've heard of (I won't say who, lest they come find me and beat me), and it's razor sharp.

The only shortcomings I can think of is that the front element is so big, some popular follow-focus units won't fit underneath the barrel (Arri FF4 comes to mind), so you need some less popular units (Willytec, O'Connor CF1) to make it work. Also, you would need a big honkin mattebox if you ever want to filter. Also, the focus marks are less than stellar. This would be an issue if you have a $600/day assistant cameraman who pulls focus THAT good while racecars zoom at you at 120mph as you shoot this years Pennzoil Indy car commercial. If it's just you twiddling a knob to make the image sharp, chances are you will never notice that there are no specific foot marks on the lens, just numbers.

One more thing. This is not a small lens. It's longer than the F3, weighs twice as much, would need 19mm or 15mm studio spaced rods (not the lightweight 15mm most small cameras use), and the built rig would weigh about 23 pounds (at least), upon which you might need a much bigger tripod head.

ALL that said, for the beginning S35mm shooter, this is a STELLAR lens, and a STELLAR value. Just don't go shooting million dollar commercials on it and you'll be fine. Frankly, I had no idea they were going for $6K from Red. I might pick one up eventually.

This is the set I will begin piecing together in a few months while I use some inexpensive Nikon glass:

FYI, I have used all of these lenses when I shot with a Sony A900.

Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 ($1600) - amazingly sharp wide open

Sony G 70-200 f2.8 ($1800)

Sony Zeiss 16-35 f2.8 ($1800)

Sony Zeiss 135 f1.8 ($1400) - 2nd most favorite lens and 2nd best Bokeh

Sony 135 STF f2.8 / t4.5 - ($1400) 'Smooth Transition Focus', the best Bokeh of any lens I have ever seen. Uses 10 aperture blades in manual aperture mode and is tack sharp wide open. Favorite lens of all time.

Sony 50 f1.4 (cheap)

Sony Zeiss 85 f1.4 ($1300) - very much like the Zeiss 135

According to what I have read at photozone.de and slrgear.com, these Sony Zeiss lenses are the best Zeiss makes for the SLR market.

I doubt many here will be using Sony Alpha lenses but just in case, there is one lens to stay away from: Sony G 35 f/1.4. The worst $1200 lens ever made.

Nate you bring up a lot of good points some of which may not be obvious to some. One of the most important ones is the cost of the camera support stuff that is implied with a purchase like a heavy lens. You haven't given prices for the items you mention and some may be bowled over at the pricing on some of these items like a big mattebox or the OConnor FF (I believe it is the CFF-1 you are referencing). Studio rod systems aren't cheap either and are not that plentiful.

Just doing a rough estimate a big mattebox, that OConnor FF and a studio rails setup is going to set you back over 10 grand. So do your homework and think through all the camera support gak you are going to need if you go down a particular path.

It is worth going to the RED website as they have obviously just fleshed out their product offering of lenses again in anticipation of the rollout of their new camera heads. There is quite an array of PL mount lenses at the lower end of the price spectrum.

Hi Steve, just throwing this out there as I notice that many of the zooms you are talking about are the same range as the higher end Nikons that are in the same price range. One thing you should check out before you buy these lenses is vignetting issues. These lenses are designed for APS-C sensor sizes which are a couple of millimeters smaller (on width) than the F3 sensor.

I understand these are Sony/Zeiss lenses which probably have the same coatings as the Zeiss ZF.2 and CP.2 lenses which could make them a cheaper & more convenient alternative to the Zeiss ZF.2 primes but if some vignette then there is a problem.

It's worth noting that these lenses that you like have Nikon counterparts that are highly lauded as well.

The Nikon 17-35 2.8 is a rectilinear lens throughout it's range and the housing doesn't pump and the lens doesn't breath. It is a spectacular stills lens. Haven't used it on video camera. Nikon also has a 24-70 2.8 and a 135 2.8 with an adjustable bokeh ring. Anyway, all of these lenses are designed for full frame SLR cameras and may be worth your consideration if you find issues with these Sony/Zeiss lenses when you try them out on an F3.

I am bit confused about the actual angle of view of Sony's PL 35/50/85 mm T2set for the F3. Is the angle of view of a 35mm PL comparable to a 35mm for full frame DSLR of do I have to apply a crop factor to figure it out? In other word, Sony's 35mm for the F3, does it give me the same angle of view as a 35mm on a full frame DSLR or is that more like a 50mm on a full frame DSLR.

Sorry to ask but I am confused.

Thierry.

All of these Sony lenses are Full-frame so vignetting is a non-issue with APS-C. Sony has only a few lenses made for APS-C and most of them are almost brand new.

The only lens I might switch to is the Nikon 14-24; however, that lens has serious flare issues which is a problem for video because we can't always choose the best angle/composition.

The main reason I want Sony lenses is so I can get the A900 (or replacement) because I really miss still photography. Unless you have shot with an A900 and Sony Zeiss, its hard to understand the non-quantitative quality of the images. OR I will get the A700 replacement which is supposed to blow away the DSLR market according to Sony exec's.

Plus, there are at least 3 more Sony/Zeiss Alpha lenses slated for this year including a 200mm f2.0. Plus, a Zeiss 24mm f1.7 for the E (NEX) system.

I haven't done a complete comparison of prices, but what I have seen is that the Sony lenses are much cheaper than Canon and Nikon versions, ie the 70-200 is $1800 Sony, $2400 Canon and $2200 Nikon.

I am bit confused about the actual angle of view of Sony's PL 35/50/85 mm T2set for the F3. Is the angle of view of a 35mm PL comparable to a 35mm for full frame DSLR of do I have to apply a crop factor to figure it out? In other word, Sony's 35mm for the F3, does it give me the same angle of view as a 35mm on a full frame DSLR or is that more like a 50mm on a full frame DSLR.



Thierry,

Sensor size of any camera that talks about it having a "super 35" sized sensor means it's awful close to any of the "crop" sensored DSLRs. Canon 7D, etc, which is a factor of 1.6x.

So, a 35mm on the F3 is going to be tighter than a 35mm on a full frame DSLR. This has nothing to do with the PL mount, or the design of the lens. It's a function of the size of the sensor behind the lens. I make this point because the way you stated your question suggests you think a Sony 35mm prime is different than a Canon 35mm prime. They are not. 35mm is 35mm is 35mm. Apologies if you already knew this.

I think the temptation to do MM "translations" in your head is a little confusing and leads to really wacky online discussions. In the end, it's just better to start remembering 50mm means different things in different formats rather than do direct comparisons.

50mm in 4x6 view camera is a wide angle
50mm in full frame DSLR is on the wide end of normal
50mm in motion picture 35mm is tight end of normal
50mm Panasonic GH2 4/3rds is tighter still
50mm in motion picture 16mm is approaching telephoto
50mm in 2/3" broadcast is downright telephoto

and etc etc.

See what I mean? If you want to start really getting a feel for what the numbers mean, go borrow a Canon Rebel, 50D or 7D for a few days and do a bunch of zooming. AbelCine also has a field of view simulator somewhere on their website that helps visualize a lot.

Steve, good. I did a quick search on B&H to look at your lenses and I guess pulled up the new lenses designed for the APS-C cameras.

If anyone is looking for the excellent FOV or "Field of View" calculator by the Abel Cine Tech people you can find it here:

AbelCineTech - Field of View Calculator (http://www.abelcine.com/fov/)

Don't forget the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 ED which is an excellent lens and can be found for less than $900.

Thanks for the clarification Nate. So, that Sony PL set is does not reach much on the wide end basically. Good to know.

Thierry.

With all this prime lens use that could be happening again, it could be time to take the old 'Director's Viewfinder' out of the closet and dust it off!

Thanks for the clarification Nate. So, that Sony PL set is does not reach much on the wide end basically. Good to know.

Thierry.

Nope. That set should have been more like 28, 50, 85. If you're only going to have 3 lenses, 35 and 50 look too much alike if you ask me.

I know I'm a broken record, but people should be looking to the Red 18-50 and 17-50 for this camera. I've gone entire days of shooting without taking that lens off my Red/7D/GH2. And it's dirt effing cheap.

Nate

I've been looking at the Digioptical version (18-50) from B&H, which I hear is the same. How is it mechanically, optically, etc...

thx

For the money and a similar range, the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 for $1360 is a great alternative to that Red. Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Lens 2147 B&H Photo Video

I ordered the F3 with the prime set for production work but since I am planning to use it mostly for doco and news mag, the most appealing lenses offering I have found is from Sigma using MTF Nikon F3 adaptor. I need to keep my F3 super light and keep extra gear to a minimal.

Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM Autofocus Zoom Lens For 202306 B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=633618&is=REG)
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM Autofocus Lens for Nik 300306 B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=381616&is=REG)
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom Lens for Nik 583306 B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=689623&is=REG)
Sigma 50-200mm f/4-5.6 DC OS HSM High Performance 686306 B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=622385&is=USA)

Thierry

All those lenses look great. I also picked up the Tokina 28-70 used (thank you Alister for mentioning it) and the Tokina 11-16 2.8. MTF's adapter works great, and Mike's simple solution to control aperture on the G type lenses is brilliant. Works like a charm.

I was worried about the 11-16 not covering the F3 since the F3 sensor is slighter bigger, but it does not seem to vignette on the edges especially at 11mm in the minor tests I've done around the house.

I'm thinking the same way for the smaller projects, to use these and my Zeiss ZF primes, which look amazing on the F3.

Still waiting to see what the new crop of Cine lenses and zooms around NAB

Nate

I've been looking at the Digioptical version (18-50) from B&H, which I hear is the same. How is it mechanically, optically, etc...

thx

I've rattled on about it ad nauseum on here already because I think it's such a solid choice for this camera and budget range, I'll just link to that:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/1601467-post16.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/1615095-post13.html

Short story, mechanics are inconsistent, optics are sharp. Better than anything else in price range if you buy used.

Thanks Nate

RE: digioptical 18-50

Nigel,

I tried to pick up both the 18-50, and the 50-150 when B and H had the kit, as Nate mentioned on that previous post, I thought I would take a gamble.

Literally 3 days after I bought the kit, they "discontiuned" the 50-150 lens.. so I got the email stating the 50-150 was no longer avail.

Long story short, as Nate said great price range, haven't had any "big" tests with the lens, but playing around home with it, looks nice and sharp.

fwiw, the red 18-50 is $5 bux cheaper =)

There is actually one on eBay right now, incase somone is interested:


http://cgi.ebay.com/RED-18-50mm-T3-ZOOM-LENS-PL-Mount-for-film-digital_W0QQitemZ230587875938QQcategoryZ3323QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp5197.m7QQ_trkparmsZalgo%3DLVI%2 6itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D4%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D7212446397433632442

Thanks Ryan

Sigma just announced a stabilized version of the 50-150/2.8 in APS-C format. Aprox. 70-200 in full frame.

Sigma stabilizes 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC APO OS HSM: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020814sigma50-150.asp)

I think its good complimentary choice to the standard 17-55/2.8 zoom. I have the Canon 17-55/2.8 and I'm very satisfied with its performance on a 7D (not to mention that makes the camera water resistant).
Funny the angenieux version of this zoom costs $20 000 and the zeiss $30000. Better ergonomics, better optics but still they are 20X...

BTW does anybody know, when the canon EF adapter for the F3 is due?

Sorry I missed this if it was cover...

With the MTS adaptor, should I assume that zoom lenses will work as vari-focal only, as there is no back-focus control, or do the lenses sit relative to the film plane (sensor) as on a Nikon?

Yesterday I shot with my MTF adapter for the first time. All lenses used are in the end credits. More details here: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-f3-cinealta/492027-video-first-shoot-mtf-adaptor-cheap-lenses.html#post1620215

As I understand it there is back focus adjustment on the F3 itself , but that won't make a varifocal still photography lens track focus through the zoom.

Question about the MTF Nikon adapter: When using old Nikon manual lenses with click f-stop settings, Does the mechanism for setting f-stops by-pass the clicks so you can get smooth iris changes. I think the fotodiox 4/3's adapter does that. If so it would be cool.

Lenny

Yes, it does. You can choose to use the aperture ring on the lens itself or the adapter if you need smooth exposure changes. OR you can declick you Nikon lenses. I did it at an authorised Nikon service center for €30 per lens incl. cleaning.

I've not seen anyone talk about the older Cooke 20-100 or Angenieux 17-102 zooms and where they fit into the pecking order. I understand the Angenieux is a superior glass to the Cooke.

How would either one stack-up against the Red 18-85? Nate, I'm conceding to your earlier notion that they are likely more glass than operator! ;-)

Thanks.

They are both solid choices

The 17-102 is a newer design (late 80s, early 90s), so it's slightly better in my opinion.

I still see 20-100s on shoots that could get anything they want! Same with 17-102, maybe to a lesser degree

That is good to know...thanks. How would they compare to the Red 18-85?
It bends one's mind wading through all these choices! ;-)