I own the 3 lens set as the 50mm was not out when I purchased. I agree with everything said here. For the price they are great lenses and versatile. For the 17mm though, you can’t stack filters. This is important for BlackMagic shooters as we often need an IR filter when using NDs. Stacking leads to vignettes so you will need step up rings and bigger filters or matte box filters.
thank you for this review. Since some time I was looking for a comparison of the flares each lens has, and couldn't find anything. Now you provided exactly that.
I try and test the little things that mean a lot to me and others and is so often overlooked like flare characteristics, focus breathing, and if a lens is parfocal or not.
They are pretty neat if you like the image they produce! There are smaller photo versions of the 17 and 25 as well if that’s more of your style but I believe the 35 and 50 only exist for other mounts and for these cinema versions
I have a real love hate relationship with the 17mm! I love that 35mm FOV but sometimes it feels like the most quirky one of the set. Sometimes that’s good sometimes that’s bad
@RhettThompsonFilm I'm talking about the regular not the cinema one. Dude that lens had the most character but sharpness mixed with vintage vibes. Like a sharp sigma and a vintage Canon fd had a baby.
I was just this morning looking at my 17mm I haven't used and wondering if I should sell. Can't wait to hear your take! I'm leaning toward 'no' but just haven't had a good reason to use.
I like the whole set including the 17mm but I like the 25 and 50mm more for one reason or another. Still its def nice to have a wider angle in the set.
I'd love to see you review the DZOfilm Linglung 10-24 & 20-70 T2.9 cine zooms, I'm thorn between getting this set or getting the zooms haha. Might get the set and the 20-70.
You know what that would be totally crazy if I was already working on exactly that video! (I am) Could be fun to compare them as well but the video won’t be done for a while. I’ll try and report back with my advise. What type of work do you do?
@@RhettThompsonFilmuffff nice! I’ve been eyeing those zooms for a while and then I find out about these bad boys haha. I do a bit of everything (event coverage, product videos, etc) but I want to focus more on narrative stuff.
@@loiccardenas well on paper here’s my thoughts. Zooms are better all rounder lenses for sure for videographer and cinematography and even with the slower T2.9 that’s plenty for most narrative work as well unless you specifically want that shallow DOF effect. You also get much wider and more telephoto with the DZO lenses which is important for videography. Zooms in both settings just help you move much much faster because you rarely need to change lenses. The biggest advantage of the primes are light gathering and shallow DOF which can be nice. They’re also versatile being quirky and “cinematic” wide open but behave themselves nicely at 2-2.8. They also have much better close focus which allows for details and other interesting angles without diopters. They’re also smaller which could help for tighter setups or gimbal shots. It’s complicated haha
Yeah it is quite an interesting dilema, shame that DZO hasn't released fast M4/3 primes as well as another zoom for M4/3 (70-140?). Also something I really like about the DZO zooms is that they take full advantage of the M4/3 size, they aren't too heavy so you can use them without a rig and they are surprisingly compact unlike with most Super35 or FF cine zooms, for gimbal work they must be quite neat. The T2.9 is ok but for certain situations a bit more would be better (not necessarily because of light since in narrative work you tend to have controlled lighting) but for shallow DOF shots, I might grab both zooms and the 17mm or 25mm @@RhettThompsonFilm
@@loiccardenas I think the 25mm is the most versatile. 50mm equiv. Awesome DOF and bokeh and the best close up reproduction of the set. Just my personal preference though!
Ive got 2 mitakons but none cinema lenses 25mm and 17mm 0.95 and Im using 17 over 17mm 1.2 olympus becouse mitakon gives wayyy less DOF. Ive been shocked becouse it gives me same DOF like my samyang 35mm 1.4 on FF, and its way smaller. From my other tests mitakon 17 at f2.8 is like my oly at 1.2 in terms of DOF. I dont mind flaws, lens is magical.
I think you need alot of keyword or change your title because I know your video on Reddit, not RU-vid. I've researched about gh6 and mitakon for my next step short film for 1 month and this video is good for my choice, thank you
I'm surprised that companies are allowed to blatantly lie about T-stops and nobody seems to do anything about it. An f/0.95 lens is not going to be a t/1.0, especially if they're small/don't have extremely advanced coatings.
I mean to be fair every company lies or has inconsistent aperture, focal length and iso values but it does feel like T stops should be a little more precise. I’m sure it’s a little darker perhaps but I meter at T1.0 and it’s usually been pretty close
@@RhettThompsonFilm That's good that it's pretty close, but it might also depend on the camera as those have some pretty loose ratings for ISO sometimes. It's more than just these Mitakon lenses, of course. Almost every one of these smaller companies that made manual stills lenses and are now using the same optics for cine lenses are just making up some arbitrary number for the t-stop, I've even seen some of the really cheap f/1.2 or f/0.95 lenses claim a t-stop that's the SAME as the f-stop.
Good question! As far as I can gather the 17 and 25 are specifically designed for MFT, the 35 is for APSC and the 50 is for full frame. Typically I don’t like this but since they managed to have consistent build quality which makes it easy to swap in and out of rigs and the character all matches it works for me.
