RED ONE and Nikon Lenses...

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I've read somewhere that using 35mm cam lenses on RED ONE doesn't work well. Something about the sensor size not matching up or whatever. I was thinking about a set of good Zeiss lenses for RED. I know the first thing people will say is "Rent good lenses" but I'm looking at options. I've seen these available from Zacuto...

http://store.zacuto.com/manufacturers.php?manufacturerid=24

How well would such lenses work with RED ONE? Any problems? How do they compare to RED PL lenses?

Also, it's just really nice to own if you can ya know?

Thanks!

 

[Joel Kaye]

Also, it's just really nice to own if you can ya know?

Check the lens forum here (where this thread belongs). The quick answer is a good $99 Nikon 50mm looks gorgeous on RED. The top end 35mm digital slrs deliver more resolution that RED. Any lens that looks great on the current top end DSLR will look great on RED.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

yeah, i'd do more research because i haven't heard from anyone so far that the images from good nikon glass have disappointed.

 

[Ken K]

I'm running the Zeiss ZF lenses (28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and the 100mm f/2 macro) on the Nikon mount and it all looks great to me. I haven't had a chance to go out and get footage yet (backordered battery plate, NAB, on set all day, etc), but the sample footage I shot in my underlit apartment looked fine other than being too dark. These lenses were made to cover a larger area than the Red sensor, so you're definitely fine as far as sensor size is concerned. They're a little stiff on the focus, but that shouldn't be a problem for Viewfactor's FF.

I have all the parts needed now and the Red Drive is arriving next week, so I hope to put up some shots of the Oregon Coast next weekend. Expect a 28mm wide shot of the sunset, a 100mm macro shot of *something* and an 8mm Peleng fisheye shot of a cave or something.

 

[PMascetta]

May want to check out www.redrockmicro.com as well. I think they sell a full set of the same lenses. May be cheaper, and the follow focus that comes with it is really nice (have one myself) works with Red zooms as well.

 

[Steve Phillipps]

A theoretical issue is that if you use uses made for larger chip/film areas they won't be made to resolve as much detail as those for smaller chips, and 35mm SLR is larger than RED (I think). In practice I've not really noticed this, having used SLR lenses on Super 16 and Digibeta etc with good results. Another issue is with 3 chip CCD cameras as they take in a focus the light through the lens in a different way theoretically leading to issues. The RED is CMOS though so this doesn't apply. As has been pointed out DSLRs have more res than RED so the lenses should be upto it, and I've always thought that optical quality was even more important on stills as you're staring at the image for longer than a moving picture, and often through a loupe which magnifies any imperfections far more tha even an HD TV.
I'll be using my Nikons and long Canons!
Steve

 

[Ken K]

Keep in mind the Red sensor's size (24.4mm x 13.7mm) is roughly the same as the Nikon D2X (23.7 mm × 15.7 mm) and D300 (23.6mm x 15.8mm) and they are roughly around the 12MP range. Still photography's 35mm size (and the Nikon D3 sensor) is 36mm x 24mm. Motion picture Super 35mm at 1.85 is 24mm x 12.97mm.

Steve, are saying cheaper lenses made for smaller DX sized sensors will resolve more detail than FX/full-frame sized sensors? That's crazy talk! Full-frame lenses work beautifully on smaller sensors. In fact, most of the time they work better due to the frame being in more of the central sweet spot rather than pushed out toward the edges.

The cheapest prices you'll find on the Zeiss ZF lenses are from Adorama, when they have them in stock. Short of them, I'd go with B&H. B&H used to be the same price as Adorama, but they raised them recently due to higher demand.

 

[Steve Phillipps]

Really talking about the difference between say 35mm and 16mm or 2/3". They are reasons (mostly beyond me I must confess) that lenses for 2/3" and more especially 1/3" chips need more resolving power than for larger sensors. I know it doesn't make sense, I'm not 100% convinced either, but theoretically the stock lens on a Canon XL-H1 1/3" camera will perform better on that camera than a 35mm Zeiss and Cooke lenses or the most expensive Nikon stills lenses.
BBC tech Alan Roberts has written extensively on this, again way beyond my comprehension!
Steve

 

[Steve Phillipps]

And actually Chazmo, by no means most full-frame Nikons work well on small sensor cameras, check out Bjorn Rorslett's very well-respected site for Nikon lens tests, there re many legendary Nikons which test poorly on DX DSLRs. I had a 500 f4P which was superb on my F5, but on my D200 it was awful. I was very surpised I must admit, but there you are.
Steve

 

[Steve Phillipps]

This is the technical note from guru Alan Roberts (in this case re JVC 1/3" cameras with Nikons):

JVC have adaptor rings to fit larger format lenses, particularly 1"/2 and 2"/3 format. BUT, you must beware of fitting odd lenses, because these adaptors have no glass, they are just adaptors. This means that even a top-notch HD lens may well look soft on it, simply because the lens is computed for a larger format. This camera has pixels spaced 3.33 microns apart while a 2"/3 HD camera has pixels at 5 microns. So, a 2"/3 HD lens like a Zeiss prime (4 micron disc of confusion) will probably be pretty good on the HD100, but any lesser lens (i.e. any zoom) is going to look a bit on the soft side. Bear in mind that the limiting resolution of the HD100 is 300 lines/mm, that should tell you what makes sense in terms of fitting other lenses (e.g. a 35mm still lens making that resolution would produce 10,800 lines/pic width, and I know of no lens that will do that). A decent 2"/3 SD tv lens will have a disc of confusion of 15 microns or so, so can produce only about 66 lines/mm, a lot less than the camera wants.

 

[PeterM]

In prinziple Steve is right.
Only for your reference.
The current active area of the Sensor is around 12.6mm *22mm
Fullformat (DSLR)Lenses.
A top grade fullformat lens normally give you real 20Mpixels resolution.
So you can say most older top glasses but def ALL new high end glasses for the fullformat DSLR like Nikon D3 will work fine on RED.
But a lot of glasses are not made for the ful resolution of an old 50 ASA film.
On the smaller sensor of the RED (you only use a part of the area of the lens) You will get less than 5Mpixel and thats def to less for the RED.

DX Format lenses.
APS or DX format lenses are normally design for an image circle 25mm
(fullformat 40mm) so this means they will cover the horizontal area of the RED sensor.
So high end DX lenses for eg designed for the D300 will work fine on the RED.
But don´t espect that a kit lens for a body lens kit for 1000 US$ will give you even the qulity for the DSLR and than def also NOT for the RED.
And yes Steve is right. A 1000 US$ DX lens is normally better than a 1000 US$ fullformat lens. There are two simple reasons.
1 The DX lens has often a newer design eg aspheric lens better optical glass.
2. Its simple more cheep to build a lens for a image circle of 25mm than one of 40mm. You need about 50% less optical glass for the same speed.

 

[albert rudnicki]

Personally I love the ZF Zeiss.
We shot a small test using two Reds; first one equipped with standard primes PL Zeiss, second with nikon ZF Zeiss (28, 50, 85)
They didn't only matched, but the Zf simply outperformed the older PL glass.

 

[Steve Phillipps]

Good news Albert, I certainly plan on using my Nikkors (17-35 f2.8, 55 and 105 macro, 180 f2.8) plus Canon 150-600, 300 and 800 on the RED. I think they just feel nicer than the Video lenses I've been using on HDCam./Varicam.
Steve

 

[Emanuel & Co]

This is the technical note from guru Alan Roberts (in this case re JVC 1/3" cameras with Nikons):

JVC have adaptor rings to fit larger format lenses, particularly 1"/2 and 2"/3 format. BUT, you must beware of fitting odd lenses, because these adaptors have no glass, they are just adaptors. This means that even a top-notch HD lens may well look soft on it, simply because the lens is computed for a larger format. This camera has pixels spaced 3.33 microns apart while a 2"/3 HD camera has pixels at 5 microns. So, a 2"/3 HD lens like a Zeiss prime (4 micron disc of confusion) will probably be pretty good on the HD100, but any lesser lens (i.e. any zoom) is going to look a bit on the soft side. Bear in mind that the limiting resolution of the HD100 is 300 lines/mm, that should tell you what makes sense in terms of fitting other lenses (e.g. a 35mm still lens making that resolution would produce 10,800 lines/pic width, and I know of no lens that will do that). A decent 2"/3 SD tv lens will have a disc of confusion of 15 microns or so, so can produce only about 66 lines/mm, a lot less than the camera wants.

Can you provide the link please?

Thanks.

 

[Steve Sanacore]

This is an old story for photographic lenses and a big surprise to me when I discovered it. The larger the format - the lower resolving power a lens needs. As I understood it, a 35mm camera lens needed way more resolving power than a 4x5 lens for the same detail on the final print or transparency.

The RED sensor seems perfectly suited to 35mm still camera lenses as far as resolution is concerned. Although many mediocre lenses will probably show defects which were well camouflaged by film emulsions.

 

[Steve Phillipps]

Here's the link http://forums.dvdoctor.net/archive/index.php/t-36611.html
Steve

 

[Cristina S]

By the way, can you also add the links for these ones?

Really talking about the difference between say 35mm and 16mm or 2/3". They are reasons (mostly beyond me I must confess) that lenses for 2/3" and more especially 1/3" chips need more resolving power than for larger sensors. I know it doesn't make sense, I'm not 100% convinced either, but theoretically the stock lens on a Canon XL-H1 1/3" camera will perform better on that camera than a 35mm Zeiss and Cooke lenses or the most expensive Nikon stills lenses.
BBC tech Alan Roberts has written extensively on this, again way beyond my comprehension!
Steve

And actually Chazmo, by no means most full-frame Nikons work well on small sensor cameras, check out Bjorn Rorslett's very well-respected site for Nikon lens tests, there re many legendary Nikons which test poorly on DX DSLRs. I had a 500 f4P which was superb on my F5, but on my D200 it was awful. I was very surpised I must admit, but there you are.
Steve

Thank you.

 

[Steve Phillipps]

Hi Cristina,
This is the Nikon review site http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
The other one is lost in the mists of time, but just expands on what Alan said in the other link. I'm still not that convinced that the theory holds up that well anyway to be honest. I was with Alan on an HD training course and we put my Canon 150-600 on a camera against a good HD zoom and you couldn't really see much difference.
As has been said, I think these 35mm stills lenses would be expected to do very well on RED as the sensor size is not far off 35mm and it's CMOS instead of CCD.
Best,
Steve

 

[Mennovandijk]

If you want to use a Nikon DX lens you should check if is has a manual aperture ring. I think all modern Nikon DX lenses have electronic apertures. This means that the aperture is standard at its smallest size (my 17-55 is at F22)
I hope you can adjust the aperture with the Berger mount or else these are not usable i think. :-(

Menno

 

[Anthony Gratl]

If you want to use a Nikon DX lens you should check if is has a manual aperture ring. I think all modern Nikon DX lenses have electronic apertures. This means that the aperture is standard at its smallest size (my 17-55 is at F22)
I hope you can adjust the aperture with the Berger mount or else these are not usable i think. :-(

Menno

Last I read on the Birger was that it would be able to work with the 'G' series of Nikons.