Sigma Goes Cine

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 9/8/2016 11:34 AM, android wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:

On 9/8/2016 10:07 AM, android wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:

On 9/8/2016 9:17 AM, android wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

On 9/8/2016 12:17 AM, android wrote:
Rewrapping photolenses and market them as cine is apparently the
thing now. This seem to be the Sigma Art line in new cases:

http://www.cameraegg.org/sigma-annou...enses-3-zoom-5
-prime/

On what are you basing your notion that these are re-wrapped photo
lenses?
There is a obvious match to the Arts in focal length and T/F values.
So? Does that mean they are just "re-wrapped"? The 18-35mm and
50-100mm Art lenses are for APS-C sensor cameras. The Cinema versions
are for full-frame as well as APS-C. That's not a re-wrapped version of
an existing lens, that's a different lens.
The release merely says that it's compatible with a sensor larger than
Super 35. What they mean by full-frame is not defined but the image
coverage has diagonal 28.4mm and that is a crop-format in the 35mm DSLR
world.

"FF Zoom Line is compatible with a full-frame image circle, and the
optical performance is ready for high-resolution shooting such as 6K -
8K. It provides a rare option for cinematographers since very few lenses
can cater to the requirements of the latest digital cinema cameras1
image sensor, which is larger than Super 35, and expand the range of
compatible cameras."

Specs on the by you mentioned lenses:

http://go.skimresources.com/?id=5500...gg.org&xs=1&is
js=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dpreview.com%2Ffiles%2F p%2Farticles%2F96349704
91%2Fspecs_1.jpeg&xguid=&xuuid=877ac4c61f4e11e0304 5840f5419b9c0&xsessid=&
xcreo=0&xed=0&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cameraegg.org% 2Fsigma-announced-8-cin
ema-lenses-3-zoom-5-prime%2F&xtz=-120

or

http://tinyurl.com/zx2r82z

BTW, even if these were simply re-wrapped versions of the non-cinema
lenses, that's not a bad things as both are excellent lenses.

I think that the customer has the right to know what they are so that
good folks aren't spending good money one cine lenses to use for photo
in the belief that they are inherently better because they are "cine".


Yes, the customer has the right to know. And it is up to the customer to
research the issue.

Well consider it done and shared. I use Samy lenses. You can't expect
that every customer should have do it individually.

FWIW: I made a couple of loupes of my Samy 14/2.8 eventually, and it's
sold in a cine version. I've got the 12/2.0, not sold as cine so far and
is reasonable happy with it, considering the price.
--
teleportation kills

On 9/11/2016 1:41 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 9/8/2016 11:34 AM, android wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:

On 9/8/2016 10:07 AM, android wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:

On 9/8/2016 9:17 AM, android wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

On 9/8/2016 12:17 AM, android wrote:
Rewrapping photolenses and market them as cine is apparently the
thing now. This seem to be the Sigma Art line in new cases:

http://www.cameraegg.org/sigma-annou...enses-3-zoom-5
-prime/

On what are you basing your notion that these are re-wrapped photo
lenses?
There is a obvious match to the Arts in focal length and T/F values.
So? Does that mean they are just "re-wrapped"? The 18-35mm and
50-100mm Art lenses are for APS-C sensor cameras. The Cinema versions
are for full-frame as well as APS-C. That's not a re-wrapped version of
an existing lens, that's a different lens.
The release merely says that it's compatible with a sensor larger than
Super 35. What they mean by full-frame is not defined but the image
coverage has diagonal 28.4mm and that is a crop-format in the 35mm DSLR
world.

"FF Zoom Line is compatible with a full-frame image circle, and the
optical performance is ready for high-resolution shooting such as 6K -
8K. It provides a rare option for cinematographers since very few lenses
can cater to the requirements of the latest digital cinema cameras1
image sensor, which is larger than Super 35, and expand the range of
compatible cameras."

Specs on the by you mentioned lenses:

http://go.skimresources.com/?id=5500...gg.org&xs=1&is
js=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dpreview.com%2Ffiles%2F p%2Farticles%2F96349704
91%2Fspecs_1.jpeg&xguid=&xuuid=877ac4c61f4e11e0304 5840f5419b9c0&xsessid=&
xcreo=0&xed=0&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cameraegg.org% 2Fsigma-announced-8-cin
ema-lenses-3-zoom-5-prime%2F&xtz=-120

or

http://tinyurl.com/zx2r82z

BTW, even if these were simply re-wrapped versions of the non-cinema
lenses, that's not a bad things as both are excellent lenses.

I think that the customer has the right to know what they are so that
good folks aren't spending good money one cine lenses to use for photo
in the belief that they are inherently better because they are "cine".


Yes, the customer has the right to know. And it is up to the customer to
research the issue.

Well consider it done and shared. I use Samy lenses. You can't expect
that every customer should have do it individually.


In the US our purchasing culture for consumer goods is, let the buyer
beware. There are general exceptions, but they are not relevant to
photography tools, except for fraud, which is never an exception..

FWIW: I made a couple of loupes of my Samy 14/2.8 eventually, and it's
sold in a cine version. I've got the 12/2.0, not sold as cine so far and
is reasonable happy with it, considering the price.

I have thought about a fish eye, in that category.


--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:


Me:
I think that the customer has the right to know what they are so that
good folks aren't spending good money one cine lenses to use for photo
in the belief that they are inherently better because they are "cine".


Peter:
Yes, the customer has the right to know. And it is up to the customer to
research the issue.

Me:
Well consider it done and shared. I use Samy lenses. You can't expect
that every customer should have do it individually.


Peter:
In the US our purchasing culture for consumer goods is, let the buyer
beware. There are general exceptions, but they are not relevant to
photography tools, except for fraud, which is never an exception..

I don't understand your reservations. Do think that knowledge about
products internals and qualities should not be shared? If so why?
--
teleportation kills

On 9/11/2016 1:32 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:


Me:
I think that the customer has the right to know what they are so that
good folks aren't spending good money one cine lenses to use for photo
in the belief that they are inherently better because they are "cine".


Peter:
Yes, the customer has the right to know. And it is up to the customer to
research the issue.

Me:
Well consider it done and shared. I use Samy lenses. You can't expect
that every customer should have do it individually.


Peter:
In the US our purchasing culture for consumer goods is, let the buyer
beware. There are general exceptions, but they are not relevant to
photography tools, except for fraud, which is never an exception..

I don't understand your reservations. Do think that knowledge about
products internals and qualities should not be shared? If so why?


Never said that. Indeed, it should be shared. But, watch out for shills.

--
PeterN