Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Birgers and Breathing

H

Harmonica

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm glad to see I'm not the only miserable creature who finds himself at the crossroads of the Canon vs. Nikon decision. Is there anyone who can make this decision process less painful by pointing me towards some info on Canon lens breathing? Google didn't come up with anything useful, so I'm not holding my breath:wink:. I guess I could wait, since my Red doesn't ship until December, but it would be nice to pick up a DSLR right now...

I'm very impressed by Evin's review of the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 AFS breathing, but I'd like to know if Canon has a comparable lens as far as breathing is concerned. If not, I'm definately going with Nikon, unless there is an afordable way to permanently convert the mount for consistent accuracy... Couldn't you just "weld" the EOS adaptor to an F-mount and then collimate it?

Would an AFS lens adapted to the Birger EOS system still have all the functionality it would have with the Nikon Birger?

Are there any thoughts on the range of selection of EOS versus AFS lenses available for their respective Birger mounts?

And if I can sneak in one more... Is a 10-22mm f3.5 (not f4), like Canon's, possible on an F-mount? In other words, will there ever be one?
 
I think if you are willing to spend more money, Canon has a few advantages in terms of their L series primes 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4 The 10-22 is generally accepted to be the better than the Nikon 12-24.

For the wide / medium / long f2.8 zooms I think it's close.

If you are penny pinching Nikon AIS lenses offer great performance / value. Manual iris's are nice.

I think Canon's CMOS is a bit better than Nikons CCD's but you'll find plenty of the opposite opinion ( I've owned both a Nikon and a Canon DSLR )

Otherwise it's pretty close. But I'd recommend the Canon...

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Harmonica said:
Would an AFS lens adapted to the Birger EOS system still have all the functionality it would have with the Nikon Birger?
Click to expand...

No, it would be manual only.

Harmonica said:
Are there any thoughts on the range of selection of EOS versus AFS lenses available for their respective Birger mounts?
Click to expand...

Concerning just EOS Vs. AFS, Canon has more autofocus lenses that will work with the Birger (But we still don't know for sure that Birger won't support regular Nikon AF). But all new Nikon lenses will be AFS so this won't be an issue going forward. And if you include the manual Nikon lenses that can be attached directly to the F mount Birger there are more of them.

Harmonica said:
And if I can sneak in one more... Is a 10-22mm f3.5 (not f4), like Canon's, possible on an F-mount? In other words, will there ever be one?
Click to expand...

Sigma already has a 10-20mm HSM (granted f4, a 1/2 stop isn't that much, is it?) for Nikon F that is supposed to as good as the Canon 10-22 and Nikon 12-24. All three of these optics should be very good on the Red. I own the 12-24 and it's a rock star at 12MP. Of course nobody knows what Nikon or any of the other optical houses is planning till it's out. Nikon does make a 10.5mm f2.8 fisheye that Canon does not.

Nikon 12-24 f4 sample
318377507_ee7a6b6c36_o.jpg
 
Matt Uhry said:
I think Canon's CMOS is a bit better than Nikons CCD's but you'll find plenty of the opposite opinion ( I've owned both a Nikon and a Canon DSLR )

Otherwise it's pretty close. But I'd recommend the Canon...www.mattuhry.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for your insight on lens selection, Matt. I'd be happy to get a Canon DSLR. However, the Nikon DSLR could be tens times worse than its Canon counterpart, and I would still buy it, if the Nikon glass turns out to be best for my Red:). I'm talking strictly lenses...
 
Thanks for clearing all that up for me, Evin. Do you happen to know of any sites that would have reviews on Canon breathing? Can an adaptor be mounted permanently and then collimated? Beautiful work by the way!
 
The breathing issue is going to be an individual lens issue. I don't think you're going to find a clear winner here. Most still lenses do breathe, some are much better than others but it's not a concern for still lens designers so it'll be hit and miss. I can't speak for the Canons but the Nikon AFS zooms do seem to do better than the manual primes. This is probably because of internal focusing, which most L series zoms have as well.
 
Harmonica said:
Thanks for clearing all that up for me, Evin. Do you happen to know of any sites that would have reviews on Canon breathing? Can an adaptor be mounted permanently and then collimated? Beautiful work by the way!
Click to expand...

Not breathing specifically, were going to be the first cinema camere ever to even use EOS lenses (The XL series could but since they would all become super teles it wasn't used much).

I suppose you could spot weld the adapter to the lens but I'm not sure that would be good for the lens or once collimated would still be accurate for Eos lenses. Plus who would do the collimation? Not a Nikon or Canon tech, a cinema tech? Would they have an Eos mount for their bench? You'd need to do some research but it's probably just easier and cheaper to buy both Birger mounts.
 
Harmonica said:
Thanks for your insight on lens selection, Matt. I'd be happy to get a Canon DSLR. However, the Nikon DSLR could be tens times worse than its Canon counterpart, and I would still buy it, if the Nikon glass turns out to be best for my Red:). I'm talking strictly lenses...
Click to expand...


Same answer - if you want to spend $9,000 and get some high speed "L" primes and all the zooms probably get the Canon's. Nikon is a little weak in the modern high speed prime lens dept. The 28mm 1.4 being a notable exception.

If you want to spend a bit less than that and not get all the fancy "L" prime lenses it's a tie and depends on personal taste. ( these factors have been already been well covered in one of Evin's posts )

Nobody who is talking knows the specifics of what does and does not actually work well in regards to the Red.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
The Nikon 85mm f1.4 is at least up to par with the Canon 1.2L. The new 50mm 1.2L is not as good a performer as either the 1.4 Canon or Nikon. Just too many comprimises I guess. Check this out...
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon50f12/canon50f12_jt.htm

"Conclusion:
Given its L-class designation and lofty(!) price, we found the 50mm f/1.2 to be a bit of a disappointment. While the center-sharpness and shading (vignetting) are excellent over the full aperture range, the wide-aperture corner sharpness, the chromatic aberration, and the distortion performances were all subpar. Could it be that our sample was not one of the better ones? We'll ask Canon for another one, and report here whether it tests better or not. If the results hold true though, it's hard to find a justification for spending $1,400 to $1,600 for a lens with this one's optical characteristics. (It's blur profile is somewhat better than that of t he Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open, but $1500 or so strikes us as a lot to pay to get only reasonably good performance at 50mm and f/1.4)"

All in all I think the bigest problem wih going EOS may be their bad sample variation. There seem to be many more duds out there for some reason.
 
Mayby it's just me, but I find this desire for f1.4 and such a rather mote point.
How often does one really need such large apetures? And for the few times they are called for why not just rent one for that shot? Use the money you would save by not buying a $1,200 to $3,000 lens and buy two or even three really nice f1.8 or f2 lenses.
 
Most pro still lenses are passable wide open but don't get spectacular till two stops down. So if you mostly want to shoot f2.8-4 then f1.4 primes makes sense. If you're planing on f4-5.6 those other lenses are fine. However Most of the really good f2.8 L series and AFS zooms from C & N are really great by f4 so it really dosent apply as much to those.
 
Matt Uhry said:
The 10-22 is generally accepted to be the better than the Nikon 12-24.
Click to expand...
Evin Grant said:
Sigma already has a 10-20mm HSM (granted f4, a 1/2 stop isn't that much, is it?) for Nikon F that is supposed to as good as the Canon 10-22 and Nikon 12-24.
Click to expand...
Seems to these reviewers, Canon is the best of the bunch:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Arzn

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

But nothing on the Canon breathing though I thought the Birger's mount may solve the problem or am I wrong on my thought?
 
Don King said:
Seems to these reviewers, Canon is the best of the bunch:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Arzn

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

But nothing on the Canon breathing though I thought the Birger's mount may solve the problem or am I wrong on my thought?
Click to expand...

Don, you do realize that they're comparing the Canon 10-22mm with the Sigma 12-24mm, not with the Sigma 10-20mm, which is the one that's been categorized as better than both, the Canon and the Nikon superwides in most reviews I've seen.
 
I like how through the guys are at http://www.slrgear.com

Here they go head to head to head. The Canon does win, but it's close, Canon rates 8.88 the Sigma a 8.72 and the Nikon 8.29. In real picture taking you'd be hard pressed to tell any of them apart.
 
Evin Grant said:
I suppose you could spot weld the adapter to the lens but I'm not sure that would be good for the lens or once collimated would still be accurate for Eos lenses. Plus who would do the collimation? Not a Nikon or Canon tech, a cinema tech? Would they have an Eos mount for their bench? You'd need to do some research but it's probably just easier and cheaper to buy both Birger mounts.
Click to expand...

It might be easier and cheaper to buy both Birger mounts, but I wouldn't be too excited about switching out those mounts every time I need to go from C-N or N-C.

I guess it comes down to picking the lens manufacturer with the least opportunity cost, and sticking to it. Nikon seems to fit my budget better, and I like the backwards compatibility of their lenses.

I probably shouldn't worry about it so much. After all, if I can't make enough money with my Red to be able to switch to a Canon setup (should I decide I was wrong about Nikon), then I should probably consider a career change.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top