Tokina Cinema Lenses

[Dave Allen]

You are implying that it gives you more throw. Do you know what focus throw is? It does not give you more throw.

Setting up a straw argument then attacking it does not help your position. I will make one last attempt to help you understand.

If you have a fixed small diameter drive gear meshed to a larger diameter drive gear, the small one will have to turn more than one revolution to make the much larger gear make one revolution. Are you still with me here? The greater the disparity between the smaller drive gear and the larger slave or driven gear, the more movement the smaller gear must make relative to the other. If you can't comprehend that, then here is a picture how it works:

File:Gears animation.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Craig Chartier]

Well these Tokina Cine lenses are very nice. I know because I've handled all of the versions just released. I've also shot with the original version glass and the newer version glass in both stills housings. Ive also used the Duclos REHOUSED version. and I've played with this cosmetic attachment that is bolted onto the stills version of the stills lens.

If you want the 11-16 in PL you pay almost 4k for the Duclos version. It is very good. If you want EF or M4/3 then you should just get the Tokina version ( newer glass ) and two year warranty. at just over $1,800 it is the best wide super 35mm variable prime you can get.

[Dylan Couper]

Gary, Dave, as much as I got a chuckle out of the rhetoric, let's turn it down to simmer. :)

I've had one major dealing dealings with Cinematics and after that would never give them another dollar of my money. Long story short, but almost a complete failure off every item I ordered, and that was most of their catalogue. However, I did look at their "rehoused" lenses closely at NAB this year and they look quite good... for a mostly cosmetic alteration. While they do give a few advantages over stock lenses, built in gears, matching front ring sizes, markings, and I think they will de-click your lenses as well... nothing internally is changed (save declicking) so many wouldn't consider them actual rehoused lenses. More like, cloaked lenses. For some people, this is plenty, for others, it isn't.

Personally, for the $600ea and my past dealings with them, I'd spend $50 on front ring size adapters, a good gear ring and a screw driver to declick my own lenses and have them just look like boring old lenses.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I'd spend $50 on front ring size adapters, a good gear ring and a screw driver to declick my own lenses and have them just look like boring old lenses.

That's exactly what I do with mine, though I am looking at the Tokina Cine and the GL Optics Sigma 18-35 for the conversion that gives manual aperture control.

[Charles Papert]

It may have been put to bed (hint: never ignore a warning from D. Couper or the second one will come in the form of a beer bottle/hockey stick to the side of the head) but I'll add a footnote to the focus throw "discussion" above.

That was something of a disagreement on semantics--probably the most accurate phrase to use would be "effective focus throw" when an external solution is required. In other words, as far as the focus puller is concerned, the throw is effectively increased with an oversized idler gear, even though the lens remains unmodified. One additional way to achieve this is with a remote focus control, which are slowly making their way into the lower-budget production world. Whether a given lens has a 50 degree or 300 degree throw on the barrel, on the remote handset it will remap to the full rotation of the knob. This is obviously very handy with still lenses. I have a set of ZE's that, from the AC's perspective, were transformed into CP2's (obviously there are a few other differences as detailed above) because I always use them with in conjunction with my Preston FIZ system. An added bonus of that particular controller is that it can be programmed to learn the marks on each lens for later recall, which means that you can use one marked ring with every lens in your set--6 feet will always be at the same place on the knob, which makes it much easier for the AC.

Another great feature is that you can simply expand the scale as desired, mapping the physical ends of the knob to any two points on the lens. This is very helpful if you are shooting a macro closeup or something similarly delicate and have to pull in minute increments, say, 9" of range spread out across 300 degrees of knob rotation.

The FIZ system is out of reach for most but there are low cost alternatives out there and the feature sets continue to evolve. If lens throw is a big concern, a $4K investment in a tool that can erase that regardless of the lens in use (as well as allowing for focus control with remote, Steadicam or jib mounted cameras) may be a worthwhile investment.

[Brian Drysdale]

Although I would add when stretching the scale on a remote or with a gear on a follow focus, this can involve making your own focusing scale for each lens. Less of problem if you've got a set of discs marked in advance, but it takes a bit longer if you have to recalibrate the markings after each lens change.

[Charles Papert]

Indeed, Brian. In this day and age, the usual MO with AC's when stretching a scale is for focus so critical that they will generally be pulling off the monitor anyway, so they don't bother remarking the lens for that. And to be very honest, only a tiny percentage of the AC's I know (including "bigshots"!) ever even think of or remember to expand the scale.

Getting "back to normal" depends on the system--on the simple one you would need to recalibrate the lens, on the FIZ it's just a cancel button to get back to standard scale.

[Phil Goetz]

There will NOT be a 11-16 PL cinema lens from Tokina. It is NOT in the road map. Speaking of number of blades, remember the SLR MAGIC MFT lens? I think they had 4 blades and the ended up in sort of a rectangle and if you closed down too hard they would hit together and flex / bow. About Cinematics, they rehouse YOUR lens so they don't have to maintain inventory and worry about prices of lenses falling.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

That was something of a disagreement on semantics--probably the most accurate phrase to use would be "effective focus throw" when an external solution is required. In other words, as far as the focus puller is concerned, the throw is effectively increased with an oversized idler gear, even though the lens remains unmodified.

I just checked this out for myself, a Redrock Micro Lens gear versus a Wide Open Camera gear that basically sits flush with the lens, and the throw was definitely improved with the Redrock gear on the follow focus, so good to know!

[Phil Goetz]

We now have all these lenses in stock now:

Tokina Cinema ATX 11-16mm T3.0 EF Mount
Tokina Cinema ATX 11-16mm T3.0 Micro 4/3 Mount
Tokina Cinema AT-X 16-28mm T3.0 for EF Mount

We are waiting for this one:

Tokina Cinema AT-X 16-28mm T3.0 for PL Mount

[J. David Pope]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

That's exactly what I do with mine, though I am looking at the Tokina Cine and the GL Optics Sigma 18-35 for the conversion that gives manual aperture control.

The Cinematics rehouse of the Nikon version of the Sigma 18-35 provides manual aperture control and it sells for $1900. ( the GL Optics rehouse of the same lens is $3500. ).

I believe that the Nikon version of the Sigma 18-35 has focus end stop. And the focus turns the "right way", the same way that Canon / Fujinon / Zeiss glass turns.

About the only difference I see between the GL Optics rehouse of the Sigma and the Cinematics rehouse of the Sigma is that the iris throw appears to be shorter on the Cinematics, more like that on the unmodified lens.

The Tokina 11-16 Cine EF is interesting because it gives you the Tokina 11-16 with an iris on the lens. I am considering using this lens with a simple EF to e-mount adapter on the Fs7. That would give me a wide zoom with manual iris control on the lens, thus avoiding the control of iris via an adapter or electronics.

The two lenses- Tokina 11-16 EF CINE and Cinematics 18-35 ( Nikon version ) would give me two wide zooms with manual iris control on the lens, covering 11mm-35mm or a comparable 35mm equivalent of roughly 15mm to 48mm. ( I would just leave an EF adapter on the Tokina and a Nikon adapter on the Cinematics. Both only needing a simple mechanical adapter with no iris control or electronics. I don't need the f-stop displayed in the viewfinder. )

The upcoming Sony FE 28-135 ( also with iris ring on the lens ) would complete the package. Package range being a 35mm comparable equivalent of 15mm to 187mm, all with manual control of iris via iris ring on the glass.

Anyone see any reason to go with the $3500 GL Optics rehouse of the Sigma 18-35 over the Cinematics $1900 rehouse of the Sigma 18-35? Both are Chinese companies. Both rehouses are metal and not plastic.

[Dylan Couper]

Have you previously owned any Cinematics products?

[J. David Pope]

I have not owned or used any of the rehoused lenses, Cinematics or otherwise.

I am so wanting mechanical iris control, with an iris ring on the lens itself, that I am considering taking a chance on the Cinematics. I don't see any reason why Cinematics products would be more suspect than G.L. Optics. Both are Chinese companies that rehouse photo glass to make it more usable for video. I trust Duclos over both Cinematics and G.L. Optics, but the Duclos mods are far more pricey. Duclos may perform a mod on the Sigma 18-35 but such a mod isn't listed on their website. Only the Tokina 11-16 mod is listed.

My interest in the Cinematics lens is obtaining a Sigma 18-35 with an iris ring. This is the cheapest way to obtain one. The $800 Sigma 18-35 for Nikon ( unmodified ) does NOT have an iris ring.

A criticism of Cinematics rehousings is that the witness marks do not line up correctly. But I could care less about that because I will be focusing by eye "run & gun" style. The greater focus travel as a result of the rehouse would be lagniappe. It doesn't hurt that the Cinematics rehouse makes the Sigma 18-35 appear far more professional, more "filmic" and less prosumer. I am only looking for a short term zoom lens solution until I make the leap to a Angenieux DP Rouge or the Canon Cine-Servo 17-120mm. Although there will always be a need for a small, lightweight wide zoom. Either because of confined space ( shooting in a car ) or needing to be more discreet than having a huge cine zoom on the camera. Or, simply not wanting to lug around 4-6lbs of zoom lens on the camera.

[Dylan Couper]

It sounds like there's only one way to find out...

[Troy Moss]

Originally Posted by J. David Pope

I have not owned or used any of the rehoused lenses, Cinematics or otherwise.

I am so wanting mechanical iris control, with an iris ring on the lens itself, that I am considering taking a chance on the Cinematics.

David, let us know if you purchase the Cinematics lens. I'm seriously considering the Cinematics too!