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 :)

canon lenses--ready to order

Caleb Heymann

Caleb Heymann

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
330
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I need to order canon glass in the next 24 hours for use with the birger mount. Unfortunately my budget is only $2500. Here's what I'm thinking:

Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS
Canon 50mm 1.4 USM
Canon 70-200 2.8L

Does anyone think there's a better solution given the budget?

I'm still torn between the 16-35mm and the 17-55, and with each you are paying for features that aren't necessarily important with Red (full frame coverage in the former and IS in the latter). Have any Birger beta testers used the 17-55?
 
Full frame coverage is not necessarily important? What if, at some point you want to shoot 4k.

Better to be looking at it than looking for it.
 
Caleb Heymann said:
I need to order canon glass in the next 24 hours for use with the birger mount. Unfortunately my budget is only $2500. Here's what I'm thinking:

Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS
Canon 50mm 1.4 USM
Canon 70-200 2.8L

Does anyone think there's a better solution given the budget?

I'm still torn between the 16-35mm and the 17-55, and with each you are paying for features that aren't necessarily important with Red (full frame coverage in the former and IS in the latter). Have any Birger beta testers used the 17-55?
Click to expand...

I have a lot of Canon lenses (but no birger mount yet) The IS is unimportant on a motion camera lens and could even be unwanted in a shot if the Birger activates it. I don't know how good the 17-55 is because I only shoot full sensor cameras. the "New" 16-35 is pretty good but they are all a bit different, to be really sure, buy from a pro dealer like Samy's in L.A. and try to get 3-5 lenses with the understanding that you are going to test them and keep the one you like and returning the others.
 
Tico said:
Caleb, if you're buying used glass, you may also want to consider the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 to cover you on the wide end.

Just a thought...
Click to expand...

I never recommend buying used glass. Too many guys are getting rid of soft lenses on ebay etc. and trading for another sharper lens.
 
Caleb Heymann said:
Here's what I'm thinking:

Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS
Canon 50mm 1.4 USM
Canon 70-200 2.8L
Click to expand...

Hi Caleb,
I think Erik was using the 17-55 as one of the lenses that were being tested at the Reduser party at NAB and it was working fine. I'm sure the 70-200 will work since it is a L lens. So both of those should be good choices regarding functionality with the Birger mount.

Given your budget, I would suggest getting those two to start and then using the remainder to get the filters you need - unless you already have them. The filter size is 77mm for both zooms so one set of filters would serve both lenses, but the 50mm lens has a much smaller size. A hot mirror, some NDs and a polarizer are essential tools with the Red. In my opinion, I would much rather have fewer lenses rather than have an incomplete set of filters.

Regarding the 50mm... having shot a bit with our Red (not as much as I'd like since we've been spending time in post on other things), I think it is important to have lenses in your kit that are faster than 2.8 but I'm not sure the 50mm would be the one I would choose if I only had one fast lens. I realize that 50mm is relatively inexpensive, but I suggest using the two zooms for a while and figuring out what focal lengths you prefer and then saving up for faster primes at those lengths. The fast wide-angle L primes may cost more, but they may be a more useful range. Of course these are all personal choices, so if you know the 50mm is the right length for your needs go for it.

Walter
 
I'm sure you already know this, but just because you are getting the Birger mount, that does not limit you to just Canon Glass.
 
there were reports that the 50 1.4 was not a good lens to use. I'm waiting on my birger to test. I have the 50 1.4, the 50 1.2 and the nikon 50 1.4 with adapter so I'll do a shootout as soon as I get my birger mount. I've heard conflicting reports on IS but it can always be turned off. None of us really know anything till we get the mount.
 
rpshooter said:
I never recommend buying used glass. Too many guys are getting rid of soft lenses on ebay etc. and trading for another sharper lens.
Click to expand...

Granted, but he doesn't have much of a choice with a $2,500 budget. In his place, I'd buy the 10-22mm, the 35mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.2. And take it from there. Roll with the punches until I could get the 24mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.2. The 70-200 f/2.8 would round it up nicely on the top end.

Otherwise, I'd go with the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) right off the bat. And consider the 10-22 when budget allows.

My 2¢...
 
While the 16-35 II is fixed length, the 24-70 changes in length too. The weak spot in the Canon zoom approach is those middle lengths, where you need either the 24-70 or the 17-55...as both lenses move on you.

For mattebox issues, one option would be to leave their included lens hoods on and mount your mattebox to the lens hood--because the lenses accomplish all of their travel inside their non-rotating lens hoods.

17-55 appears to be a good lens, with similar functionality to the 24-70. It should cover all 4.5k of RED's sensor as RED's sensor is similar to Canon and Nikon 1.5/1.6 crop factor cameras. While it is not an L, it appears to have L level glass and excellent motors. I would think the Canon 17-55 is equal or superior to the still lens upon which the RED 18-50 is based.

For a 50mm equivalent to old school full frame still camera angle of view you would need roughly a 30mm lens for the RED--that's why guys are questioning you going for one prime at the 50mm length. That's a slightly odd one to go with first.

Speculation on effectiveness of IS has gone both ways on the forums: until tested, nobody knows. It can be turned off on the barrel of the lens--it should not be effected by Erik's mount. IS worked on Canon's lenses for the XL1... It would be a nice benefit if this feature works for us!!

my 2c--get the glass AFTER the mount arrives!

You can rent these lenses too, by the way.
 
just to add a little to paul's comments. The 17-55 works very well and does have IS while the 24-70 does not. Erik has already tested it and it works very well both optically and mechanically.

People should also remember that the RED zoom extends just like these Canons. Seems to be the nature of the beast in wide/midrange zooms.

David W. Jones said:
I'm sure you already know this, but just because you are getting the Birger mount, that does not limit you to just Canon Glass.
Click to expand...

Because of hardware/software issues you should probably stick to Canon for now. We tried the 18-50 sigma at NAB and it didn't work fully. this will probably be fixed in future releases but when is the big question - I think there are other priorities.

Overall you should probably be using late model L glass or the virtual-L glass like the EF-S 10-22 and EF-s 17-55 f2.8 as they are likely to work better mechanically.

People should probably NOT look at birger as a way to use any old cheap ef mount glass - it is a way to use top quality canon L-type lenses which even at their higher prices are a tenth the price of equivalent Zeiss/cooke pl versions.
 
$2500 budget, I'd buy:

Canon 17-55/2.8
Canon 24/1.4
Canon 85/1.8

The 85/1.8 is a great lens, even if the 1.2L is a little better. Swap the 24 for the 35 if you find that focal length more useful. (The 35 is a better lens, but I like 24mm FL.)
 
Thanks for all the feedback. Not at easy decision. Of course I would be happy to wait to purchase the glass until after I have the mount, but I head back to South Africa on Friday, not gonna be back in the US for quite a while and it's cheaper to purchase here. Plus there's the special happening at the moment on Canon lenses.

Gonna go with the 18-55mm 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8L for now. Took some photos with each of them today and was very impressed.

My next purchase would be primes, probably the 24mm 1.4L, the 50mm 1.2L and the 85mm 1.8 USM. That would be as soon as I have $2,800.

And then next would be either the Tokina 11-16 or the Canon 10-22. Then a Lens Baby 3G. Another grand.

At that point, it would be a versatile and attractive set of lenses that could cover most shooting situations. Assuming the mount works as well as we hope, that is. Hell, I may as well try my luck as a stills pro while I'm at it.
 
Caleb Heymann said:
And then next would be either the Tokina 11-16 or the Canon 10-22. Then a Lens Baby 3G. Another grand.
Click to expand...

If the Tokina 11-16 works with the Birger mount, I think it's the best solution for wide angle. Better than the Canon 10-22, and f/2.8. Limited zoom range, but perfect to compliment the 17-55.
 
Go to http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html. It is an old site. It gives all of the data on different lenses. The 20-35L lens is amazing. Very sharp. The only issue is that it has the old style usm which should not be too much of an issue shooting motion. I mention this lens because you can get good deals on them used. The 50mmF1.4 is a great lens for the money. The 50mmF1.8 is also a great bargain for $70. High ratings on photodo. Or you could pick up some Contax Zeiss primes pretty cheaply for BH Photo and use an adapter. The 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm are amazing. You could purchase all four Zeiss primes for around $1800. Corner sharpness is very good on these lenses.
 
Ended up pulling my finger off the B&H trigger at the last moment. will just have to suck it up and pay south african prices for the glass, but it's worth the piece of mind of knowing that the lens has already been tested. The questions about viability of zoom lenses and whether they will hold focus across focal lengths are the most serious to me. Zooms could be devastating for on-set workflow. It's also hard to buy before you know the effect of IS.

On the other hand, as far as primes go, not only can I not afford to buy a set of 4 or 5 L lenses, but it's a shame there isn't anything wider than 24mm at around f/2. On Red the FOV is slightly less than s35 by about 10%, and I don't think 24mm is wide enough to nicely complete a set of Red primes. I'd really want that 18mm Canon 2.0 that doesn't exist.
 
but it's a shame there isn't anything wider than 24mm at around f/2. On Red the FOV is slightly less than s35 by about 10%, and I don't think 24mm is wide enough to nicely complete a set of Red primes. I'd really want that 18mm Canon 2.0 that doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree with you more! This, for me is the big fly in the ointment with Canon/Birder approach. Basically, we need fast, L quality EFs lenses--and I don't see a market for Canon to produce these--they're unusable on the 5D and full frame bodies--so I don't think we'll see still lenses that are fast enough for us wider than 24.

p
 
paul engstrom said:
Basically, we need fast, L quality EFs lenses--and I don't see a market for Canon to produce these--they're unusable on the 5D and full frame bodies--so I don't think we'll see still lenses that are fast enough for us wider than 24.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see Canon produce full-frame lenses, dropping EF-s entirely. I want to be able to buy a lens and then be able to use it on either the Red or a full frame SLR. In that regard, buying an EF-s lens is like buying a crippled EF lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top