@nomad I have been using an Angenieux 7-81 HR PL-zoom with my Pocket Camera. I think this was their last S16 zoom model produced. Optics seem really nice so far - even field, nice and sharp, and a good range from wide to tele. I'll post a video soon.

@nomad Have you check the Angenieux 15-150mm f2.8?. I got a copy near mint and it is fabulous, covering the S16 in all the range and with no blurry corners wide open, and also quite sharp. Posting a video soon.

Finally had the chance to test a few serious (and expensive) PL-mount S-16 zooms on the GH2 (with framing for the BMPCC) and used my trusted Schneider Variogon 18-90 for comparison (yes, I know, it's not wide).

A Canon 8-64 (probably the most expensive on the 2nd hand market) was really disappointing. Massive distortion at 8mm, on par with the 8mm 1.4 Kowa (which was sharper at f1.4 than the zoom at T4.0), but massive field curvature too. Focussing to the center made the corners soft and focussing to the corners improved those a bit, but made the center soft. Even stopping down a bit didn't help. Plus, it's 8mm is more like 10mm in practice, since it doesn't focus as close as a wide prime and it's so damn big and long – the angle is obviously not calculated from the sensor plane, but from the front. I could get as wide or even a tad wider with my Cinegon 10mm (which was sharper with less CA and nearly no distortion). Sure, it's getting a bit better when zooming to 12mm, distortion is reduced quite a bit, but what's appealing at first view with this lens is the wide end. Plus, the one I tested was quite yellow. At 2,000 grams and about 1 dollar per gram – forget it!

The Canon 11,5-138 weighs about 1.700 grams and should be a bit more interesting if you can find it for a good price. It's getting acceptable around T4, but wide open (T2.5 or so) it can't hold a candle to the Lumix 12-35 at f2.8 resolution wise.

The extreme Canon 11-165 (around 2 kg again) is really stretching it, only good from medium to tele. But who needs such a tele on the BMPCC? Maybe for wildlife, OK, but you'd need a massive tripod then…

A Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 11-110 T2.2 was the shortest one, but massive too. At least it had a more predictable distortion than the Canons, being pincushion all the way through. No field curvature either, but resolution WO wasn't impressive. Even at T4 it didn't get as good as the Lumix at f2.8. Shortest focus is quite long at 1.5m and between 13-28mm it get's quite dark in the corners at some apertures – labeling it "S-16" is stretching things a bit.

Of course, they all have serious cine mechanics, but the also breathe massively all over. These lenses were made for news, sports or wildlife and, above all, for 16mm film.

My advice would be: don't hunt for such massive vintage cine zooms these days if you don't own one yet. They are too massive for the BMPCC and they won't resolve future 4K sensors in small cameras. The Schneider Variogon can be found much cheaper, weighs only 850 grams and has serious mechanics too. It's resolution isn't too impressive either, but it has less CA, distortion and vignetting (the latter compared to the Zeiss only).

If you need something wide, hunt for good vintage primes as described here before or get modern glass plus SB, RJ or Mitakon or the tiny Kowa lenses.

anybody experienced the Fuji 1.2/12.5-75mm? I have a offer of a lens in a good condition but I am a little afraid that it will not cover the sensor

Yeah - I would bet the 17mm focal length lenses are best if choosing a single prime to shoot narrative on the Pocket as it yields an equivalent of a 28mm on a GH2...which I find is best all around for narrative filming. But I think Sigma 18-35 looks better on Pocket than Panny 12-35.

@cantsin

You wrote: "Yes, do have multiple Schneiders (17mm, 25mm, 17-90mm), Kerns (10mm, 17mm, 25mm, 75mm) and Angenieux (12-120). They produced pleasing images on the GH2 because they made the camera's harsh, oversharpened, sterile video image look more organic. But the huge disappointment came on the Blackmagic Pocket despite its more suitable 1"/S16 sensor size. Except for the newest, most modern megapixel video lenses by manufacturers like Kowa, classical c-mount lenses simply don't resolve 2K/FullHD. On the BMPC's raw image, this doesn't look 'filmic' but just blurry, or, truth to tell: just shit."

This might be more of an aesthetical judgment than by numbers. Some Schneiders and Kerns resolve quite well, but like most older lenses their coating is not as good as today – in particular the rear coating, which was not so important with film emulsion. So, they are soft in contrast WO (like many heritage Nikkors too), but the detail is there. After all, 50 ASA film had quite some resolution and with the latest developments in analog even some higher sensitivities. Plus, the perceived resolution of film is better than the grain because of temporal integration in our brains.

That Angenieux 12-120 sucks, I agree. They made far better ones than that.

The Kowas are much more contrasty, yes, but the wider ones suffer distortion big time. I suppose nobody cares in the kind of application they were initially made for. Plus, the focus ring is so close to the camera that their handling is not the best either, just like tiny Kerns.

Please note that I don't talk about cheap C-mount lenses made for SD-TV initially. Most of these are too soft.

And then: "Another factor for this disappointment: 16mm movie film camera lenses were constructed to take into account the bending of the film in the film transport and the different distances of single color layers in the emulsion."

Sorry, I never heard of this. Can you please point me to a source? AFAIK the film was considered planar and camera constructions did their best to keep it that way, but then I know I don't know it all.

What I know is that for Bolex RX lenses the prism was taken into account. That makes Kern lenses for RX up to 25mm softer on MFT.

You: "This makes them suboptimal/unsharp on video sensors, especially at shorter focal lengths. It's the same issues rangefinder (Leica) photo camera lenses create on mirrorless full frame bodies (such as the Sony Alpha 7/7R). You don't get those problems with adapted vintage SLR lenses because of their much longer flange mount/greater distance to the film layer."

No, it's not the same issue. Flange distance of C-mount is 17.5mm, while Leica-M is 27.8. But the FF-sensor is much larger, and the problem is caused by the angle of light hitting the sensor from wides in the corners. Sony tried to counter-act this with improved (angled) micro-lenses on the A7 and A7R – with limited success.

"And finally, you need ND filters + IR cut filters on any lens you're putting on the Pocket, and that is difficult to impossible with c-mount lenses because of their often esoteric filter thread sizes."

I agree, but I'd never hang a heavy filter on a tiny lens with a small adapter, I'd use a matte box anyway.

"Ah, yeah, and regarding Lumix MFT lenses being all S.H.I.T.: once you put them on a camera like the Pocket which doesn't software-correct its distortions (and can't do that anyway because its video signal isn't downsampled from a higher sensor resolution, but recorded in native 1080p) and its purple fringing, you see how terrible their optics really are."

Well, true, the 7-14 and the 12-35 distort quite a bit on the wide end, but apart from that they are not so bad. Actually I hate any motorized lens for filming, so we can agree on this one.

"All the more in comparison to Nikon lenses that actually cost less (and adapt and perform superbly with the Speedbooster.)"

My Nikkor 1.4 50mm is very soft WO…

One last thing: Softer lenses might help with the awful moiré on a BMPCC ;-)

Actually, I'll keep the Kowa myself. I just like to give folks here a clear indication what it's good for and what not. Should be fine for skaters, but not for architecture ;-)

BTW, the Arri/Zeiss Distagon 8mm 1:2 that a friend adapted to BMPCC has far less distortion, but vignettes. Plus, you won't find it in decent condition anywhere near the price of the Kowa.

Choose your poison.

A very quick google brought me this: https://github.com/kylemcdonald/ofxCameraFilter A filter that distorts should undistort too.

@nomad Thank you for your clear technical input. You just prove that nothing is perfect at this world. But, we live at real world with its limitations, and it isn't too bad. Take real picture of 7-14 lens and see you can't find any disturbing distortion. You just can call it character. I really glad that I haven't seen your test picture on Kowa 8mm 1.4, the test looks so horrible, I've been never buy that lens. People some times don't want know truth. :)

Lumix 7-14 on BMPCC very straight with no visible distortion from 7mm. I didn't make any scientific tests, I just see what acceptable for my eyes.

Ahhh, that's it then. Sucks this lens is not good till you get past 25 or so on the pocket. Odd though cause my 14-140 doesn't have the same problem.

I wonder why it looks good on the Oly too, but on the GH2 it's fine for sure, since it gets corrected.

In the BMPCC there's no correction of any kind, and it shows on the 12-35 and on the 7-14 on the wide end, getting better in the middle range and is gone on the long end.

@vicharris It's strange, I use Lumix 12-35 2.8 every day on GH2 and Olympus OMD EM5 (without in-body lens correction) and I don't feel any barrel distortion. But I begin to notice it at Pocket. I very like its POV 35-101mm range, it more useful than on GH2, very good for close-ups at BMPCC. I even decided to buy second lens 12-35 2.8 OIS second hand (at half price) from friend.