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 :)

$3000 budget for scarlet (canon mount) cinema lenses- what would you choose?

Scott Crawley said:
The 24-70 is a telescoping zoom... Not particularly good with a MB, but with care they can be used together.
Click to expand...

Leave the lens shade on, and this is a non-issue.

Also, the 24-70 with shade and the 70-200 2.8 without shade are about the same length, making lens changes faster when working with a MB.
 
Scott Crawley said:
I had a 50 1.4, but found both the 24-70 and the 70-200 to be sharper. Maybe I had a poor copy.
Click to expand...

You didn't. Canon's 50 1.4 isn't that good. Not crap at all, but not that good.

Nikon recently redesigned theirs (which also wasn't that good) and took it a few notches "up-market." Canon is rumored to soon be following suit.

But for now if you want a good 50 in Canon mount it's the Canon 50 1.2 or Zeiss 50 2 (not Zeiss 50 1.4)
 
david_winters said:
Leave the lens shade on, and this is a non-issue.

Also, the 24-70 with shade and the 70-200 2.8 without shade are about the same length, making lens changes faster when working with a MB.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how that solves the problem. Is the shade going to prevent a careless person from slamming the shade into a filter, or allow him to complete that zoom and save the shot from being screwed up?

I suppose with a bellows or close fitting step down ring you could set the MB to fit the back of the shade at the len's longest (widest) point and allow the lens to glide in 'n out along the length of the shade. Is that your solution?

Good point RE: total length though.

I think what you need to do is treat it like a variable prime, so to speak; no in shot zooming with the 24-70 in a matte box.
 
Last edited:
I would definitely recommend the Tokina 11-16 as a secondary lens (after a normal 24-70 or similar standard zoom). The low-distortion super wide is beautiful, especially given the amount of detail the Scarlet can resolve with it. Additionally, it'll be a good match for high speed when the sensor crops way down.
 
I would also propose
24mm 1.4 l, 50mm 1.2 and 100mm L macro.
 
Scott Crawley said:
I'm curious how that solves the problem. Is the shade going to prevent a careless person from slamming the shade into a filter, or allow him to complete that zoom and save the shot from being screwed up?
Click to expand...

Yes, sun shade on lens, mattebox in front of shade. I use a large neoprene donut to seal. This is the same setup as the Red 18-50mm. Front element moves, but contained within the shade.
 
Don't know if anyone mentioned it, but the EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS would be a great walkaround lens on s35/APS-C and apparently has better/equal quality to L series zooms.
 
Lee Saxon said:
You didn't. Canon's 50 1.4 isn't that good. Not crap at all, but not that good.

Nikon recently redesigned theirs (which also wasn't that good) and took it a few notches "up-market." Canon is rumored to soon be following suit.

But for now if you want a good 50 in Canon mount it's the Canon 50 1.2 or Zeiss 50 2 (not Zeiss 50 1.4)
Click to expand...

If you want a really good set of SLR primes, get the Zeiss ZEs (Planar and Distagon). The 85mm 1.4 is amazing with great out of focus area (the lens has nine blades and solidly constructed) + 270 degrees of focal run.
 
david_winters said:
Yes, sun shade on lens, mattebox in front of shade. I use a large neoprene donut to seal. This is the same setup as the Red 18-50mm. Front element moves, but contained within the shade.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm going to try that. I've gotten neoprene donuts with Red Rock MB rentals. Is Red Rock a good source for those or are they readily available elsewhere? I hadn't seen them before.

Alex Bros said:
Don't know if anyone mentioned it, but the EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS would be a great walkaround lens on s35/APS-C and apparently has better/equal quality to L series zooms.
Click to expand...

The EFS 17-55 is in no way better or even comparable to L series glass IMHO. It can't touch them for sharpness or (if I remember correctly) CA. The biggest pitfall with that lens has nothing to do with it's quality however. The biggest mistake users of that lens make, most often, lies in the mis-use of the wide end of the lens. They tend to shoot too close to subjects at 17mm, making them look ridiculous. Of course this is mostly related to the experience level of the audience that lens is targeted at, and has nothing to do with the focal range itself, but it's a peave of mine that needed venting. Sorry.

Jim's recent post http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?68947-Testing-with-Peter-Lik has me seriously considering renting PL glass for wide shots over my L glass. If L's are resolving as poorly as they seem to be saying, then I have to expect that EFS lenses are going to look far worse.
 
Last edited:
Scott Crawley said:
The 24-70 is a telescoping zoom... Not particularly good with a MB, but with care they can be used together.
Click to expand...

According to B&H, the Canon 24-70, f/2.8 has internal focusing which "allows the front of the lens to remain stationary."--- ??
 
Terry VerHaar said:
According to B&H, the Canon 24-70, f/2.8 has internal focusing which "allows the front of the lens to remain stationary."--- ??
Click to expand...

Internal focusing yes, but it is a telescoping zoom. At 24mm it is about 1 1/4 inches longer than it is at 70mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top