EX3 with Angenieux, or Fuji lens at DVinfo.net

James Milonski · May 29th, 2009, 04:16 PM

Angenieux 19 x 7.3 BESMDHD,or Fuji 17 x 7.6 BERM (for wildlife).Both lenses are 2/3. Is the Fuji superior glass? My brother is used to shooting full auto, with the GL2, XL2, and XHA1, with 1.6x and 2x extenders from century optics. Is it better he shoot in manual all the time or can some of the auto functions still be used in certain conditions with these lenses? He is a bit intimidated about manually operating a camera.

Mike Tapa · May 30th, 2009, 04:22 AM

Hi James.

It is always good practice to shoot fully manual.
One day he may be tasked with using a 2/3" broadcast or even an Arri 3 Super 16mm camera.
If that day comes, he will be glad that he has the skill acquired through practice.

James Milonski · May 31st, 2009, 03:45 PM

I appreciate your response, it appears alot of people are using stills glass with the EX3 and other cameras. Are you aware of any information using the two lenses i mentioned in my original post, and what type of results can be expected, as far as image quality and operating the fucus, zoom and iris? Are the lenses user friendly on the EX3?

James Milonski
Thank you

Dale Guthormsen · June 7th, 2009, 08:04 PM

James,

1st for your brother, to start use auto to see what the camera recomends, flip over to manual, adjust thw shutter speed to what you want if it is for action then set an aperature that gives you your best exposure. for depth of field shots turn on the ND filters, perhaps add a polizer, set the aperature you want tor your shallow depth of field, then set the shutter to what gives you the right exposure. These are important skills in my book.

I have never seen a fujinon lens that was not of fine quality, they are not cheap!! the optics I have looked through were great, but I was of the opinion they were beyond the point of diminishing return.

I do not know the other brand.

Steve Phillipps · June 8th, 2009, 07:24 AM

Both are good lenses for sure, but expensive!
I've not used the Angenieux, but have used the Fuji and it's very good. Small too for a 2/3" lens (86mm front). They'll sit very happily on an EX3, but I'd tend to want to use some bars to support the lens, not due to the weight so much as to minimise vibration when touching the lens to focus at high magnifications.
Theoretically 2/3" lenses shouldn't perform perfectly on a 1/2" chip, but I think to the eye the HD ones will be more than adequate.
Much cheaper alternative though would be to buy something like a Sigma 120-300 and an adapter.
Steve

James Milonski · June 8th, 2009, 01:44 PM

Dale
Whitetails sure are synonymous with your area (Big mature bucks). Deer and waterfowl are my brothers most favorite. It seems to be a weight issue, we want that 1/2 inch chip and telephoto capabilities.but at the lightest possible configuration for long treks and aging lower backs.Your last comment on return, is that optical,financial. or both together? Just wondering if a stills lens of equal weight and focal range,what would be the differnce in quality of the captured image? Am i splitting hairs here?
Thankyou for your time and reply.
James

Steve
The angenieux is only 1K less in price than the fuji. was not sure if that was for the name or something else.You mentioned an alternative. Is there a Sigma lens that would give a focal range near or equal to the fuji and angenieux i mentioned, that is also comparable in weight (fuji 1.43 kilo angenieux 1.84 kilo)? Can you recommend some ultra light bars for lens support for the EX3? I asked dale this same question,the image captured by the still lens, who could tell the difference and who would it matter to most? Steve thankyou for your time and information.
James

Steve Phillipps · June 8th, 2009, 02:56 PM

No stills lens has the sort of range of the video lenses. Sigma, Nikon, Canon etc., do some fairly long ranges (like 35-350, 28-200 etc.) but the quality suffers, in many cases badly. But things like the Sigma 120-300, Nikon 50-300 etc., are cheap (ish), light (ish) at about 1.5kg, and optically good (ish), probably just short of what you'll get with the EX3 stock lens.
Do a search for EX3 bars, there are a few systems out there. I'd just have an aluminium plate made up though, one that scres to the base and extends out the front to seat the lens foot.
Steve

Dale Guthormsen · June 8th, 2009, 08:02 PM

Good evening,

I tested some canon primes, and canon zooms. Primes are always a little sharper, but the zooms of today are really quite good. Sense video is lower resolution than film I can't imagine that real expensive lenses will be so much better everyone on the planet would notice and stand up and announce it to the world!!!
If you need reach the canon 100/400 staying back to about 350 or so and it will please most people!.

for light weight the sigma lens mentioned would be good, a friend has a 50 to 500 and loves it, and he says its better than my canon but I personally can't see it or I would have one!!

The canon 400 f4 on my camera made a real nice image!! bettter than my 400 zoom to be sure. the cheaper 400 was actually just fine too.

I prefer the zooms, to me images are far more that the sum total of articulate clearity.

A great topic to talk about!!!

James Milonski · June 10th, 2009, 02:49 PM

Steve

I looked at sigma and nikkor lens specs on there web sights,Nikkor has 2 lenses 70-300. The sigma seemed a little heavier i am not sure where this info will lead me but the price is less. thankyou

Dale

cannon has 3 super telephoto 400mm. I also saw a 100/400 tele zoom.Some of the lenses were light, and the price nice. Sure enjoyed your films on vimeo havent watched them all but intend to. thankyou

James

May 29th, 2009, 04:16 PM	#1
James Milonski New Boot Join Date: May 2009 Location: Destin Florida Posts: 5	EX3 with Angenieux, or Fuji lens Angenieux 19 x 7.3 BESMDHD,or Fuji 17 x 7.6 BERM (for wildlife).Both lenses are 2/3. Is the Fuji superior glass? My brother is used to shooting full auto, with the GL2, XL2, and XHA1, with 1.6x and 2x extenders from century optics. Is it better he shoot in manual all the time or can some of the auto functions still be used in certain conditions with these lenses? He is a bit intimidated about manually operating a camera.

May 30th, 2009, 04:22 AM	#2
Mike Tapa Sponsor: MTF Services Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: London UK Posts: 80	Hi James. It is always good practice to shoot fully manual. One day he may be tasked with using a 2/3" broadcast or even an Arri 3 Super 16mm camera. If that day comes, he will be glad that he has the skill acquired through practice. __________________ Mike Tapa http://www.mtfservices.com

May 31st, 2009, 03:45 PM	#3
James Milonski New Boot Join Date: May 2009 Location: Destin Florida Posts: 5	Mike I appreciate your response, it appears alot of people are using stills glass with the EX3 and other cameras. Are you aware of any information using the two lenses i mentioned in my original post, and what type of results can be expected, as far as image quality and operating the fucus, zoom and iris? Are the lenses user friendly on the EX3? James Milonski Thank you

June 7th, 2009, 08:04 PM	#4
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	James, 1st for your brother, to start use auto to see what the camera recomends, flip over to manual, adjust thw shutter speed to what you want if it is for action then set an aperature that gives you your best exposure. for depth of field shots turn on the ND filters, perhaps add a polizer, set the aperature you want tor your shallow depth of field, then set the shutter to what gives you the right exposure. These are important skills in my book. I have never seen a fujinon lens that was not of fine quality, they are not cheap!! the optics I have looked through were great, but I was of the opinion they were beyond the point of diminishing return. I do not know the other brand. __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

June 8th, 2009, 08:02 PM	#8
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Good evening, I tested some canon primes, and canon zooms. Primes are always a little sharper, but the zooms of today are really quite good. Sense video is lower resolution than film I can't imagine that real expensive lenses will be so much better everyone on the planet would notice and stand up and announce it to the world!!! If you need reach the canon 100/400 staying back to about 350 or so and it will please most people!. for light weight the sigma lens mentioned would be good, a friend has a 50 to 500 and loves it, and he says its better than my canon but I personally can't see it or I would have one!! The canon 400 f4 on my camera made a real nice image!! bettter than my 400 zoom to be sure. the cheaper 400 was actually just fine too. I prefer the zooms, to me images are far more that the sum total of articulate clearity. A great topic to talk about!!! __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

June 8th, 2009, 07:24 AM	#5
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Both are good lenses for sure, but expensive! I've not used the Angenieux, but have used the Fuji and it's very good. Small too for a 2/3" lens (86mm front). They'll sit very happily on an EX3, but I'd tend to want to use some bars to support the lens, not due to the weight so much as to minimise vibration when touching the lens to focus at high magnifications. Theoretically 2/3" lenses shouldn't perform perfectly on a 1/2" chip, but I think to the eye the HD ones will be more than adequate. Much cheaper alternative though would be to buy something like a Sigma 120-300 and an adapter. Steve

June 8th, 2009, 01:44 PM	#6
James Milonski New Boot Join Date: May 2009 Location: Destin Florida Posts: 5	Dale Whitetails sure are synonymous with your area (Big mature bucks). Deer and waterfowl are my brothers most favorite. It seems to be a weight issue, we want that 1/2 inch chip and telephoto capabilities.but at the lightest possible configuration for long treks and aging lower backs.Your last comment on return, is that optical,financial. or both together? Just wondering if a stills lens of equal weight and focal range,what would be the differnce in quality of the captured image? Am i splitting hairs here? Thankyou for your time and reply. James Steve The angenieux is only 1K less in price than the fuji. was not sure if that was for the name or something else.You mentioned an alternative. Is there a Sigma lens that would give a focal range near or equal to the fuji and angenieux i mentioned, that is also comparable in weight (fuji 1.43 kilo angenieux 1.84 kilo)? Can you recommend some ultra light bars for lens support for the EX3? I asked dale this same question,the image captured by the still lens, who could tell the difference and who would it matter to most? Steve thankyou for your time and information. James

June 8th, 2009, 02:56 PM	#7
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	No stills lens has the sort of range of the video lenses. Sigma, Nikon, Canon etc., do some fairly long ranges (like 35-350, 28-200 etc.) but the quality suffers, in many cases badly. But things like the Sigma 120-300, Nikon 50-300 etc., are cheap (ish), light (ish) at about 1.5kg, and optically good (ish), probably just short of what you'll get with the EX3 stock lens. Do a search for EX3 bars, there are a few systems out there. I'd just have an aluminium plate made up though, one that scres to the base and extends out the front to seat the lens foot. Steve

June 10th, 2009, 02:49 PM	#9
James Milonski New Boot Join Date: May 2009 Location: Destin Florida Posts: 5	Steve I looked at sigma and nikkor lens specs on there web sights,Nikkor has 2 lenses 70-300. The sigma seemed a little heavier i am not sure where this info will lead me but the price is less. thankyou Dale cannon has 3 super telephoto 400mm. I also saw a 100/400 tele zoom.Some of the lenses were light, and the price nice. Sure enjoyed your films on vimeo havent watched them all but intend to. thankyou James