7Artisans 24-96mm T2.9 Super 35 Cine Zoom lens review

[@phoenixfunny4517]

I think the lens has a lot of character. Most films people love dont have tack sharp glass or clinical looks. I think 24-96mm S35 zoom for 1600 is an absolute steal

[@funguy4797]

I love seeing these lower budget, third party manufacturers reaching out with new designs.

[@nightdonutstudio]

4x zoom is quite ambitious for cine zoom. Usually other brands are around 2.5x zoom. So the drop in performance at tele end is reasonable.

[@MattTrevett]

Wow they really saved a lot of size and cost by dropping the range a bit and leaving out any automatic features. The optics could use a bit of improvement for image quality, but unfortunately the focus breathing is worst in the focal lengths that get the most use for cine. If they bumped up the price $100-200 USD in order to put a little more effort into improving the glass I'm sure this could be an excellent lens.

[@bastienfrancois9180]

Ordered it on kickstarter, I feel like a little boy, I haven´t been that exited like this for a while.

[@robert18productions]

I commented on the previous upload about the back focus. Good to see that it can be adjusted!

[@sircas1224]

Interesting lens! When can we expect to see reviews of all the newer Canon RF lenses (24-104mm f/2.8, 200-800mm, and RFS 10-18mm)?

[@christopherfrost]

RFS 10-18 is available to watch on Patreon already. The 200-800 is coming soon!

[@CartyCantDance]

This is kind of in a price bracket and class of its own. It’s more expensive than a photo zoom, but MUCH cheaper than a normal cinema zoom. Looks interesting, I shoot full frame 6k video so I’ll pass, but this is going to make all those BMPCC4k/EOS M/Red Komodo/fx30 users very happy :)

[@TurnerCine]

Thank you for the great breakdown at the different zooms

[@todanrg3]

When is the Canon 200-800 review coming?

[@Horrrrrrrrst]

Reupload?

[@PiTdeLyX]

I was wondering too, but it seems like he remade the part about the parfocal ability. In his original video I remember him testing it and the lens was definitely loosing focus while zooming but he added that part with the manufacturers video in the corner where it looks pretty well corrected.

[@christopherfrost]

That is correct - I re-tested the parfocal range and re-made the video@@PiTdeLyX

[@CammyFi]

I tested a unit of this. However, it was soft at 24mm and sharp at 96mm

[@osakavideo]

I would prefer that honestly

[@jensmedia5083]

Thank you for a great review! I can always count on that your great channel as the lens review I am looking for. I’m been waiting for the spec to be released for this lens since the rumors/teaser started last year. I think I will stick to my self converted Canon RF Fujion mk18-55 t2.9. A great performance and super light weight. Under 1 kg. But always fun to see all these new budget cine lenses coming out.

[@Reel_Odyssey_Studio]

hoping you will review the new 7Artisans 50mm 1.8 AF lens soon.

[@cyrilhamel8289]

Hey... When was that secret week? Past, in February? Or coming, in March 🤔😬

[@VirginaAV]

March

[@Samiam-mu5ln]

Extremely Funny how they launch their product alongside the same exact date as the Laowa nanomorphs 1.5x cine zooms o.o thats competition for ya BUT how is the price to optics ratio???

[@CartyCantDance]

Laowa is launching anamorphic zooms, completely different category. Sirui is launch a 28-85 full frame cinema zoom, but this 7artisans is super 35. This is kind of in a price bracket and class of its own. It’s more expensive than a photo zoom, but MUCH cheaper than a normal cinema zoom. Looks interesting, I shoot full frame video so I’ll pass, but this is going to make all those BMPCC4k/EOS M/Red Komodo/fx30 users very happy :)

[@amermeleitor]

There are a good amount of old vintage manual zooms that are parfocal and with similar image quality, for FAR less money

[@christopherfrost]

With this zoom range and brightness?

[@sunlbx]

One example is Olympus OM system ZUIKO 75-150 f4 (constant)

[@amermeleitor]

@@christopherfrost similar zoom range, less bright, but full frame no APSC. The cheap Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f2.8-3.5 have good optics and covers full frame, I have it. The 28-105mm f2.8-3.8 could be in the same league maybe.

[@robert18productions]

@@amermeleitor I have the Vivitar 28-90mm f2.8-3.5 and it is most certainly a varifocal lens, not parfocal. Unless you are counting old B4 lenses, 16mm film lenses, or extremely expensive/rare film lenses, I have never encountered a parfocal manual zoom lens, with a wider aperture than f/3.5, that can cover at least a APS-C sized sensor. Those that are parfocal with wider apertures tend to have small zoom ranges at an around 2x range or are designed for small image sensor formats.

[@PaulAtlantic]

This is targeted towards video/cine productions, price is usually not an issue. They need the focus gears, distance markings, T-stop markings, mounting points, and EF/PL mounting options.

[@hellopsp180]

OHOOHO ITS BACK !!! The lens review

[@leventebandi]

Big fan of your videos, but I pointed out on a previous cine lens video as well: the extreme corner performance you test cine lenses is totally useless as those portions will be cropped out as basically no one shoots video on a 3:2 ratio. The common 16:9 or wider video aspect ratios are cropping out those parts of the sensor... They are not optimized for those parts of the image as those are not in use

[@QuarzenZechenSoehne]

To say that no one shoots 3:2 or 4:3 is kind of a steep statement. Plus there are manual lenses that offer way better edge performance. So why not mention it?

[@leventebandi]

​@@QuarzenZechenSoehneFor photo? For sure, but I guess you are aware this is a lens optimised for video work. You know, cine lens. Please point me to the masses who shoot 3:2 or 4:3 video.

[@QuarzenZechenSoehne]

@@leventebandi 3:2 or 4:3 acquisition is great, if you have to export in different aspect ratios, like Square, 9:16, aswell as 16:9.

[@phoenixfunny4517]

​@QuarzenZechenSoehne sure but that's not the same as mastering in 3:2

[@leventebandi]

@@QuarzenZechenSoehne those extreme corners still wont be used as you wont master in 3:2 and in any other case like square, 16:9, 9:16, etc... those areas will be still chopped of

[@DrWasim]

Can’t wait for the secret press conference!!!

[@mnm5529]

Isn't the conference going to be something about what is called 6 Mark 3? 🤔

[@DrWasim]

@@mnm5529 Hmm no idea. Surely not a Canon R6 iii???

[@coolhairstyle]

Hi Chris, Just wondering if you will be getting this lens in to test any time soon. "Yongnuo YN 11mm f/1.8S DA DSM WL Lens" It looks really interesting.

[@getfmlr]

Lots of others reviewed it already. Cheap and promising with AF. Only concern will be longterm build quality but all reviews so far say it's more metal feeling and better build that other lenses offered by manufacturers.

[@craigstynardt4990]

Great review! Nice tests. inspired me to buy this as a zoom I can own and grab for side projects. I’m so sad that it’s not good enough for 8K, I was expecting to throw a 1.600$ lens on an Alexa 65 Camera to shoot Chromakey of characters with fine hair structures. 😂

[@chrisjmedia]

damn i was pretty excited about this lens but the minimum focus distance of 1m at 24mm is just a nogo for me :(

[@flikflak24]

Wish every lens was T stop instead of F stop ( even if it's not engraved on the lens then at least put on the website and look up the model and look under "specs" )

[@Buffaluffasaurus]

The reason they don’t is because F stop is a theoretical value of how much light the lens is allowing into the camera; T stop (or Transmission stop) is an accurate measurement of how much light is being let into the lens. I dare say a lot of consumer-level lenses, particularly zoom lenses, would have substantially worse T stop numbers if they actually measured them compared to the F stops. That’s one reason why cine lenses like this are substantially more expensive.

[@professionalpotato4764]

F-stops for photography makes more sense because it's the mathematical ratios that define and create the look. T-stops is only for cinema because when swapping lenses, you don't want to be adjusting all the lights between every lens. A f/2.8 lens can look like f/2.8 but have a T-stop of T 3.5 or T4 even if the coatings/glass aren't designed correctly. However a T2.9 lens could be anywhere between f/2-2.8 which is almost an entire stop of "look". Imagine the complains if someone's T2.8 lens had more bokeh than your T2.8 lens even though you had a longer focal length.

[@pierrevilley6675]

For photography, F-Stop is much better as it defines bokeh. T-Stop is used in the cinema industry only because you don't want to ajust the light each time you're swapping lenses, or have to make custom adjustments for each lens when you're shooting with multiple cameras simultaneously. Then, sites like DxO mesure the T-Stop of photography lenses, so you can find that information. F-Stop and T-Stop are actually pretty much the same in general, up to F/1.8 (1.8 primes are often T/1.9, or T/1.8) for primes, and F/2.8 for zooms (F/2.8 being often T/2.9 to T/3.1). The F-stop - T/stop difference is usually under 1/3 stops, unless for some really fast or wide angle lenses where the high angle of entering light takes a toll on the T-stop. Under those values it starts to really differ, F/1.4 lenses usually score around T/1.6.

[@flikflak24]

@@pierrevilley6675 sorry to inform you but F stop's is the mathematical number calculated by the physical size of the iris and the lens focal lenth but T stops is just where they put it on a machine and measured the actual light transmission F stop is mathe based T-stop is measurement based

[@flikflak24]

@@Buffaluffasaurus the manifacture dont have to put it on the lens but could still measure a cope of the lens and publish it on there webside under the len's specs

[@aseingarnevaborn]

Considering it is a manual lens why not do an RF mount, seems weird to only do an EF version. The price is a bit much though.

[@QuarzenZechenSoehne]

Its PL and EF at least. They might add mirrorless mounts.

[@getfmlr]

Not weird at all. EF and PL allow this lens to be adapted to pretty much every camera body. Offering RF only locks you into that mount. If you have multiple cameras best to have the mount that let's you use it on many models. Keep in mind this is full manual lens so no benefit gained from any electronics.

[@anesudetroy]

there is rf mount now

[@TheTechnoPilot]

While I appreciate your review, I remain quite confused why they sent it to you versus CVP or CineD who are far more geared towards this lens’ target market and to test cine lenses. The comment section shows this from your audience. This is demonstrated by your lack of knowledge that the lens support mount isn’t and shouldn’t ever be “tripod” mounted and 3/8 is the standard for this for rod supports, additionally like more cinema lenses in its class are expected to be EF/PL interchangeable mount and the key review points would be that it is user interchangeable and if it includes the appropriate shims for flange adjustment beyond the back focus adjustment.

[@firehorseweddingphotograph3995]

Ah, get to watch it this time 😉

[@danncorbit3623]

They need to tone down the gaudy lens markings.

[@RealMilschmann]

Is it now better for APC or full frame

[@VirginaAV]

Seems like apsc since it had borders when he went wider

[@Bayonet1809]

The bokeh doesn't look smooth at all to me, plenty evidence of over corrected SA behind the plane of focus.

[@cyano3d]

1600 is insane, cinema tax

[@hendrickziegler8487]

Rather an effect of likely very low production numbers. Economies of scale are a thing.

[@cyano3d]

@@hendrickziegler8487 probably but its also because a zoom cine lens is so expensive that 1600 is affordable in comparison

[@dudepersonvids]

For a parfocal T2.9 constant aperture zoom with a range like this, with an all metal build? The Sirui Jupiter 28-85 T3.2 zoom is on sale now for $2400, the Chiopt zoom in a similar range can be found used for $2000, the DZO Pictor 20-55 (with much less zoom range) is still around $2000. You can call it the cinema tax - or there are design and material considerations that go into lenses with these features that make them more expensive to produce.

[@sunlbx]

Would look sharp on a Canon D30

[@mexmax1657]

I dont understand why these cine lenses are so horribly expensive, while getting such a bad image quality (yeah, i know, cine lenses are not about sharpness blablabla. I still don't understand what makes this thing so expensive).

[@Horrrrrrrrst]

There are some considerations that you have to make with these lenses I guess. First of all, you want to have as little focus breathing as possible. Secondly, you want to focus to stay on the subject while zooming in (parfocal).

[@mariobnc1995]

The fact that it is parfocal in a zoom makes all the optical elements move at the same time, this makes the design and implementation of the optical scheme very complex and they know that these lenses are used in the film industry, so they have huge budgets and eat up a lot

[@ralphsaad8637]

​@dangir1783 there are parfocal lenses for both dslr and mirrorless cameras and they don't cost that much and are sharper

[@amermeleitor]

​​​@@mariobnc1995I have a small collection of vintage manual lenses, most zooms are parfocal and cheap as they can be

[@LindonSlaght]

​@@ralphsaad8637parfocal zoom lenses tho? With this range?

[@DavidKfilmmaker]

If this was a photo lens it would be $500-600

[@JaloliddinQahharov-s8b]

👍👍👍

[@SirSeabass]

Ooof. Almost completely unusable

[@shawnlee1862]

3 minutes ago