Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: SALT II results... (Part 1,2,3,4 Bokeh, Breathing & Flare and Part 5: Impressions)

Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 170
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Joshua Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    387
    It was an absolute blast participating this time around. Great guys... great lenses. These results as very handy, but what was that phrase uttered? A pistol is not a rifle? :)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member D Fuller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Portland, Maine
    Posts
    1,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Jiri Vrozina View Post
    Saw tests by K.R. And others between Zeiss 21mm and Nikon 14-24 where Zeiss completely beat Nikon zoom. But not according to you.
    I've read the "K.R." test you're referring to. It's completely bogus. It is not really a comparison of lenses at all.

    Evin, thank you again for organizing this. I'm really interested to hear your 'aesthetic' analysis of the lenses.
    David Fuller
    AirStream Pictures
    Portland, ME; Boston, MA
    RED ONE #172MX
    EPIC-M #1053
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Hey Evin, thanks for doing this.

    I'm sad and glad to hear that the Canons tested showed just as much CA as the set I have. That is my least favorite part about them. (And that the 85 is focus by wire). On one hand I wanted to believe that I would be able to sell a couple and buy possibly better ones but it seems like they'll probably be similar. I did a comparison on thedigitalpicture on charts and had very similar findings to what you guys have regarding Canon/Nikon/Zeiss. By my count the Canons had worse CA and Edge sharpness but consistently slightly better center sharpness and sometimes had less vignetting. The Zeiss were worse all the way around let alone while stopping down the Canons and comparing at the same f-stop. The results look pretty clear over there (on charts at least which only tell a part of the story). What I really would like to see is the exact same tests done with ultra primes and master primes and maybe even Cookes. The basic thing I always wonder about is the expensive cinema glass vs the high-end still lenses in terms of pure sharpness, contrast and CA. Fortunately the easily swappable Canon and PL Mounts of the Epic are so quick that anyone can do very thorough tests at a rental house.
    Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.
    - Theodore Roosevelt

    Justin McAleece
    Red One Camera Rental and Video Production
    Justin at BLAREMedia dot net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin McAleece View Post

    I always wonder about is the expensive cinema glass vs the high-end still lenses in terms of pure sharpness, contrast and CA.
    - Modern good quality Lenses easily out resolve the camera in the center and in most cases the edges. So in terms of resolution you will not see big differences between any Stills or Cine set. CA varies quite a bit. Contrast is more of a subjective thing.... You'll find amazing and just good contrast in both stills and Cinema lenses.

    -Cheap lenses can look amazing if you are a good cameraman and have good subjects to film...cheap lenses, within reason, are optically not that bad.

    - Cinema lenses are built to very high optical and mechanical standards in low quantities with a design objective of being able to shoot moving images. You for the most part are paying for the mechanics and not the optics. However the optics are usually very good.

    - It's hard to pull focus well on stills lenses that were built for AF camera systems. There may be electronic solutions in the future.





    Matt Uhry
    www.mattuhry.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Damn Evin... this is rad! Really looking forward to the rest of the SALT II results. Thanks.
    Clint Lealos
    Director of Photography

    Yeah, that's a forklift tattoo. I wasn't always a cinematographer :)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member Keith_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, New York
    Posts
    216
    Thank you Damn Evin!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Section 2: Mechanics updated on page 1...
    http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...art-1-Metrics)
    "All art is deception."

    My DP reel...
    http://www.evingrantdp.com
    http://www.YouTube.com/evingrant
    360 Cinematography and camera rigs...
    http://www.360dop.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,333
    Good work guys...

    No surprise on the Leica R glass, this glass is no doubt the glass that performs less favorably to the Leica family, were currently the number one in Still glass is the S2 series, followed by the M series glass,
    and even so with some manufacturers some glass of the old family is better then the new, it is not so with Leica, and buying the absolute latest generation of a given Focal will give you the very best.

    I'm actually surprise not to see the Nikon have better scores, I now you too well Evin, NIKON GUY... ;)

    But in Nikon's defense there is to say the obvious which you well know, which is that even Nikon, as any other company that has a Mass Production facility for their Lenses, their glass will have Quality Control issues, so possibly some of this glass was not their best?

    Canon I'm with you on almost all but the 85mm f/1.2L II, this glass is absolutely phenomenal, and here again I promise you did get a copy that was not one of the good ones, and not to defend this particular focal and aperture it brings, but it is to be understood, that one can not have a SUPER FAST lens and also expect it to be STELLAR in its sharpness edge to edge, you need to stop it down to get the results, and this lenses are built to give you the chance to shoot wide open at this speeds to create something unique of an image, just like in the new Leica Noctilux 50mm .95, its insane, and it cost almost "3" times the price of the 50mm 1.4 ASHP yet is not as sharp.

    Too bad you didn't trow the new 24mm TS lens, which is the absolute Sharpest and most contrasty 24mm even build by canon to date, will see what their new 24mm f/14L II will bring.

    Zeiss, I don't say anything about this glass, is simply disappoints.
    KETCH ROSSi F i l m m a k e r
    ___________________________________
    RED EPIC #00008 aka DragonM8

    "Sponsors" listed for full disclosure
    Maxx Digital | Schneider Kreuznach & Optics | BB&S | Miller | Blueshape | Inovativ | Trost | Bright Tangerine | Kessler | Village Blackout | Actionproducts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Ketch, that was the 24mm 1.4 L II.

    Honestly I do feel the lenses tested represented a pretty realistic cross section of what the average buyer will encounter. The 85mm 1.2L preformed great for such a high speed optic. I've used a few samples and all have been sharp in the center and all have showed a real propensity to CA, especially purple fringing wide open. The new Nikon G 85mm f1.4 also showed some CA wide open, it's the nature of high speed lenses. You well know that to completely correct this at 1.2-1.4 you need to go to the massively corrected designs of the MPs or Leica Summilux Cs.
    "All art is deception."

    My DP reel...
    http://www.evingrantdp.com
    http://www.YouTube.com/evingrant
    360 Cinematography and camera rigs...
    http://www.360dop.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member Sanjin Jukic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    8,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Uhry View Post
    - Modern good quality Lenses easily out resolve the camera in the center and in most cases the edges. So in terms of resolution you will not see big differences between any Stills or Cine set. CA varies quite a bit. Contrast is more of a subjective thing.... You'll find amazing and just good contrast in both stills and Cinema lenses.

    -Cheap lenses can look amazing if you are a good cameraman and have good subjects to film...cheap lenses, within reason, are optically not that bad.

    - Cinema lenses are built to very high optical and mechanical standards in low quantities with a design objective of being able to shoot moving images. You for the most part are paying for the mechanics and not the optics. However the optics are usually very good.

    - It's hard to pull focus well on stills lenses that were built for AF camera systems. There may be electronic solutions in the future.





    Matt Uhry
    www.mattuhry.com
    Pretty good observation and conclusion Matt!!!

    Also I found long ago that the latest Leica R prime and zoom designs (discontinued anyway) perform very well optically.
    "There is no point in having sharp images when you've fuzzy ideas."
    Jean-Luc Godard.

    Dynamic range is, after all, the measurement between well saturation (photosite blowout) and noise floor.
    Thom Hogan
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts