Best Canon L lenses 4 RED

[Ketch Rossi]

Time sure does fly...

Ketch, are there any new/other lenses you would add to your very helpful list of Canon lenses.

And given the IMS solution, are there any non-Canon lenses that you would add to the mix?

Hi Martin,

just edited the post 1.

ciao

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Does any one have views on the following lenses and suitability for use with Birger mount.

16-35 f2.8 MK2
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8

Sigma 12-24

Im also interested in the Viewfactor Impero control system with the birger mount and the Canon Zooms.

thanks for the advice.

Dave
UK

Please revisit POST 1, Updated.



The Sigma EX 12-24 mm - f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM for Canon EF: Is a great lens, but I would seriously look at the EF-s 10-22 before diving in to the Sigma world, as it has too much inconsistency in the quality of each lens, but if you do find a good copy then by all means keep it, they can be very good.

ciao

 

[Dave Blackham]

This is very useful thanks.

I will definitly use the zooms as I have Canon Still equipment but need to update lenses.

How well do the primes match for inter-cutting in a movie.

Dave
UK

 

[Ketch Rossi]

My pleasure.

Intercutting Primes with Zooms, both for Stills and for filming depends on the Prime and the Zoom in Q?

Some have more subtle differences then others, but to most in all truth the differences when using the Above mentioned "L" series Zooms, will be very hard to see.

ciao

 

[Dave Blackham]

What about the matching of the Canon L primes ?

Id want to go 14,24, 35, 50, 85, 135 but possibly add the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Distagon and possible a 60mm or 100mm Macro, and Im not sure that to do to go wider than the 14mm. At the the wide end its obvious that lenses are hard to come in large apeture by to cover the requirement unless EF-S lenses are used notably the 10-22 and that's a zoom anyway.

Also if as we think may happen that we shoot for TV HD in 2k (DOF and ability to access the higher frame rates) for much of the work then this becomes even more important. Are there any wide primes that would match to the L glass that is of the same optical and quality of build.

One really good aspect of the L glass we do want to use the Electronic interfaces (Birger, Viewfactor etc) for the lenses for iris and Focus. possibly zoom remote also.

Dave
UK

 

[Steven-Marc C.]

Does any one have views on the following lenses and suitability for use with Birger mount.

16-35 f2.8 MK2
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8

These are the 3 lenses Rodney Charters says he took with him around the world to use with the Birger mount so I expect them to work well since he doesn't mention anything to the contrary. Seems like the current optimal 3 lens configuration for RED+Birger. Unless you need anything faster than 2.8 of course.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Dave, are you referring as to lenses in the same focal length but not "L" series lenses from Canon? Or from other manufacturers that can be easily used o RED/Birger with an additional adapter such as the one for Nikon which will also in turn allow for the Zeiss ZF series?

Also to note for those that are nont aware that Zeiss is coming out with a series of lenses for the EF mount.

ciao

 

[Dave Blackham]

Im refering to the L series canon Primes

14mm f2.8 mk2
24mm f1.4 mk2
35mm f1.4
50mm f1.2
85mm f1.2
135mm f2

Any views on matching, I believe they should be good but don't have a first hand view on this. Id like any suggestions on any wider lenses that may match the L series glass.

The new Zeiss do sound very interesting but Id probably go with a Y/C mount 21mm f2.8 distagon with a mount convertor all be it manual as they can be found at reasnoble price. I believe the 21mm is the same glass as the new lenses but would like to hear of any views on this.

thanks again,

Dave
UK

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Okay Dave,

then if I understand right the matching you talk about is if this can be alternated in shooting, kinda of like the UP and MP, well DSLR lenses are not color matched or Super color matched, but they do work just fine, even if some have different carachteristics then others, they are very subtle, and easily corrected in post.


ciao

 

[Dave Blackham]

That sounds good to me. We do have great grading over here and I'm certain any colour issues can be sorted. Im interested also the the general optical characteristics of the L primes patricularly in terms of bokeh, sharpness and so on. I have done a quick test on the Zooms mentioned and initial tests look very good. I think but am not yet convinced that a set of L primes is a good move.

Dave
UK

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I have been absolutely pleased with the "L" bokeh all the way, been my absolute two favorites, the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and the EF 200mm f/2.0L IS, this two wide open are absolutely stunning.

ciao

 

[Michael Hastings]

Okay Dave,

then if I understand right the matching you talk about is if this can be alternated in shooting, kinda of like the UP and MP, well DSLR lenses are not color matched or Super color matched, but they do work just fine, even if some have different carachteristics then others, they are very subtle, and easily corrected in post.


ciao

Ketch, I don't think that is quite accurate. I believe Canon in fact does try to keep consistent color performance in the L series lenses (they tout it in one of their brochures). Obviously not hand tested and picked like say a master prime, but I suspect consistency is fairly good simply because in high volume manufacturing they do have the ability to do pretty precise measuring of the glass and coatings to keep them consistent.

In other words, because zeiss is making very small batches of lenses they have to try to be consistent over time, so they make a small batch of glass or coatings and then have to check it carefully to see that they got it right. Canon gets to make a large batch and even though it might require expensive sophisticated equipment to mix, and check those batches in a way they can afford to spend a lot more time and money to get it consistent because it is spread out over a larger universe of lenses.

Canon probably makes 1000 70-200 L series lenses for every set of say 75 100 and 150 master primes zeiss makes and what do they make 30 sets a year?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Ketch, I don't think that is quite accurate. I believe Canon in fact does try to keep consistent color performance in the L series lenses (they tout it in one of their brochures). Obviously not hand tested and picked like say a master prime, but I suspect consistency is fairly good simply because in high volume manufacturing they do have the ability to do pretty precise measuring of the glass and coatings to keep them consistent.

In other words, because zeiss is making very small batches of lenses they have to try to be consistent over time, so they make a small batch of glass or coatings and then have to check it carefully to see that they got it right. Canon gets to make a large batch and even though it might require expensive sophisticated equipment to mix, and check those batches in a way they can afford to spend a lot more time and money to get it consistent because it is spread out over a larger universe of lenses.

Canon probably makes 1000 70-200 L series lenses for every set of say 75 100 and 150 master primes zeiss makes and what do they make 30 sets a year?

Acqua, infact I can say that the canon "L" series lenses, of which I had and have many copies do have subtle differences, as they are NOT, Super color matched as the Cine Pro like the Zeiss, obviously in Still is not a big deal, and especially when shooting RAW it is easily corrected oin POST.

However my pointing out was to the fact that the differences are very subtle in deed and not any viewer will spot them, and they do vary from lens to lens in comparison, a little more differences obviously when Zooms are trown in the mist.

I have and I'm very happy with mixing Pics with any "L" series lens I have and never had any complains form any Commercial shoot.

Most of the subtle differences comes from Aperture settings and Focal lenght, do to CA, Vignetting, Barrel Distortion on SWA then does on color rendition, and some do have a more subtle 3D look then others.

But yes I do absolutely agree with you that the Canon team works very hard and well on keeping the "L" series glass in close detail.

ciao

 

[Dave Blackham]

This sounds very good. Thanks again for the information and views.

I used to own a 14mm (not mk2) which I liked for stills and hope to get a 14mm mk2 soon. Is there anything wider available ? in largish aperture ? comparable to L glass and build quality.

Dave
UK

 

[Ketch Rossi]

This sounds very good. Thanks again for the information and views.

I used to own a 14mm (not mk2) which I liked for stills and hope to get a 14mm mk2 soon. Is there anything wider available ? in largish aperture ? comparable to L glass and build quality.

Dave
UK

The EF 14mm f/2.8L II is an incredible lens and a remarkable provement over the mkI.

The wider lens for RED will be the EF-S 10-22 not at par with L glass but the only other options will. E to go with the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 12-24 in that order of build and quality of their image.

Of the three lenses the Sigma is the only one suitable for FF cameras like the 5D and 1Ds series, all will work on RED each with their limitations.

Ciao

 

[Steve Murray]

These are the 3 lenses Rodney Charters says he took with him around the world to use with the Birger mount so I expect them to work well since he doesn't mention anything to the contrary. Seems like the current optimal 3 lens configuration for RED+Birger. Unless you need anything faster than 2.8 of course.

Just remember that he did not use a matte box and that the 24-70mm - while one of my favorite all around Canon lenses - is NOT matte box friendly. The front element comes way out when zooming and that is nearly impossible to deal with when using a matte box. The 16-35 and 70-200mm do not do this.

Also I would agree with Ketch -- stick with the Canon 10-22 as the "off" brands are just not as good. The new Tokina 11-16mm is a very nice little lens but it could not match my 10-22 in overall sharpness wide open. It was very even overall however and since I only had 1 lens to test others could be much better than that one. And only getting 5mm zoom instead of 12mm is a high price to pay for F/2.8.

I keep hoping that Canon will come out with a new 8-20mm F/2.8 zoom...... How sweet would that be?

 

[Michael Hastings]

I keep hoping that Canon will come out with a new 8-20mm F/2.8 zoom...... How sweet would that be?

or how about a supersharp EF-S 9mm equivalent ofthe 14mm fullframe!

BTW Ketch I agree with your analysis response to my earlier post.

To be clear I was just saying that color matching is pretty good and as you said with the ability to manipulate raw files so well it is probably fine for all but the fussiest/highest end production.

In other words it isn't that the master primes and such aren't better it is just that they are only a little bit better and there is nothing UNprofessional about using Canon L glass for serious production - L lenses are very, very, very good.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Enzo you are right about the moving front element of the 24-70, as it moves forward when zooming to the wide angle side of the zoom, but this has a remedy, not the best, but nonetheless a good one, what you have to do is leave the hood mounted on the lens, as it is made to have in off inner space for the front element to move inside of it with out sticking out, the only thing you will have to do if you wish to completely have the light spill controlled, is to cut the petals edges off the hood making it a round one.

ciao

 

[Ketch Rossi]

or how about a supersharp EF-S 9mm equivalent ofthe 14mm fullframe!

BTW Ketch I agree with your analysis response to my earlier post.

To be clear I was just saying that color matching is pretty good and as you said with the ability to manipulate raw files so well it is probably fine for all but the fussiest/highest end production.

In other words it isn't that the master primes and such aren't better it is just that they are only a little bit better and there is nothing UNprofessional about using Canon L glass for serious production - L lenses are very, very, very good.

Totally agree with you on the MP's and Cine Lenses vs. Still Lenses, there is not that Huge of a difference, in image quality that they can each produce, in fact some Still lenses have an impressive image reprodcution quality that not even the best Cine lenses can reproduce, such as are the Leica's and some of the Hasselblad.

The mechanincs of the cine lenses is what most Pro's have to say about in a professional shoot, and not very friendly to the idea of bringing in Still lenses, but I must say that RED has been changing that as well, little by l;ittle I'm finding more and more Pro's willing to try before saying NO! And some are very surprise of the results, as time moves forward we know that the resistance will be even lesser, as third party are manufacturing gear to control the Still lenses on RED such as Birger, and when in Remote mode, and no fisical contact with the lens is made, then the only telling will be the image they produce.

Obviously there is a big difference in using a Cine Remote unit such as the ARRI's and Birger's Blue tooth, but things are changing.

ciao

 

[Steve Sanacore]

Dave, are you referring as to lenses in the same focal length but not "L" series lenses from Canon? Or from other manufacturers that can be easily used o RED/Birger with an additional adapter such as the one for Nikon which will also in turn allow for the Zeiss ZF series?

Also to note for those that are nont aware that Zeiss is coming out with a series of lenses for the EF mount.

ciao

And I would expect the Zeiss lenses to be sharper than the Canon L's. I have quite a few Canon L lenses and they do not compare to my Leica R's but are much better than the Sigmas I own.


Just my 2 cents.