Wow, that sounds really good :-)

(I just hope they lower the price a bit, $1000 for rehousing a $600 lens is a bit harsh.)

The Tokina rep said, "List, less than $2000" Are they serious? This is a $500 lens used on Ebay all day long. That is just unbelievable. Sure you'll have the guys shooting with Reds and cameras of that level waste the money just to look cool but I think they just out priced the majority of the people that would buy this lens. I'm floored that he can sit up there with a straight face and say that. You could sense some apprehension in his voice when he said the price. He knew it was crazy stupid. It doesn't even look like they lengthened the focus throw in it.

@vicharris, all I can say is MARGINS, MARGINS, MARGINS. You have to remember that the Cine lens won't sell at the same quantity as their Photo versions. That plays a large part in the pricing. You have to account for the fact that it's a niche market. This is what happens just about everywhere in the Pro Video Market. Sure I wish we could get high quality Cine Lenses from every company for cheap, but build quality and number of units sold will have a part to play. A company like Samyang is playing in a different arena in a way. They cut costs in a lot of ways that don't effect the IQ, but it's a less robust product than high end Cine Lenses. The Cine 11-16mm Tokina may be just a bit in between the Samyangs and other high end Cine lenses and viewed in that light their pricing may make sense.

It's the same lens @svart. The rep already said that in the interview. They didn't change any glass at all. That's my point. They already did the hard part. All they did was put a gear ring on the focus ring, put some more numbers on the whole thing but the main thing is the addition of the iris control. This lens already comes declicked so they didn't even do that, they just added a ring with a gear. S you are paying more than double the cost for a focus gear and a iris control, which people already have if they have the Nikon mount version. This is why I got so upset when that rep stood up there and said the price. Like I said, he doesn't want to say what it is. Listen to him again. Even the interview guy has to take it in for a sec. I know I sound like a complete asshole here but I'm not critiquing the quality of these lenses at all. I think the 12-24 is one hell of a lens for the price and is a wonderful outdoor zoom option for us GH users, not to mention how good we all know the 11-16 is. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and this lineup sells like hotcakes but I have a feeling we'll see a price drop within a year of these coming out if not less.

As for the breathing problems, I don't think that's going to be a big concern since the focus throw on these lenses is so short. It's going to be just hell for you or a focus puller to try and rack with these and hit the marks. It ramps up so quick and then hits infinity. These aren't the deep rack focus babies! :)

Well, I've got red anodized RedStan clamps for my Kowa anamorphic, so don't go doing no braggin' about lenses with little red rings around me, no sir ;-)

Less than $2,000??? Well, now I feel significantly better buying the $575 11-16mm DX I off Adorama... If they only made it for $700 I would have felt like a jack*ss.

All I need is a declicked manual aperture. No need for a fancy house. Give me the cheap

Looks like Tokina is swinging for the fences with that 16-28. $5500! Wow. So that's a 700% price increase on that lens and a 280% increase in the 11-16. Hmmm

Well, they say in that last video that the focus throws are different than their stills versions, so that immediately says that they are different mechanically as the helicals must be different. The glass is still probably the same though.

Yep, I'd pay $1000, maybe $1200 for a cine version but $2000 is way too much. It's not like you're going to pull huge rack focus' with this lens anyways so I'm not sure how much the improved focus throw would really help out. I have the Rokinon 14mm cine version and it's focus throw is about twice as far as the Tokina, maybe further and I've never really seen that pay off as much as one would think. Since it's so wide, unless you have an almost 360 degree focus throw, I'm not sure it's still worth it. I cine version of the 12-24 would be nice as well. For exterior day filming, when there's no time to swap lenses, that lens has become my go to one now!

I have produced/shot $200k^ commercials (for that we rent Zeiss/Angie/Cooke etc.) If I shot more of them, I wouldn't buy Tokinas for that use. I'd invest with the big boys. I don't think they're on par with those other lenses. Like it has been said, they are $600-800 lenses that have been slightly modified. I think most people's issue is with basically a little re-housing for triple the $. For the record, I love my 2 duclos Zeiss ZF mods, I remember I was wowed by the Tokina they had listed, until I saw the price.

Why would the "budget HDSLR crowd" need, demand, or even consider themselves the target group of properly cine housed lenses is something I still fail to understand...

Indeed. Smelling a lot of entitlement in here. These are expensive but not obscenely so when compared to quality stills lenses that even amateurs buy because they think they "need" it. They're downright cheap compared to average-ish ENG lenses used for news gathering and community college RTV classes.

@BurnetRhoades Are you speaking of us who are not happy with the price points of these lenses?