Best PL Zoom for hand held / Steadicam

[David Rasberry]

One caveat on still zooms for handheld work. If you are using them as variable primes to recompose shots, OK. But if you anticipate zooming during a shot, only the zooms with constant speed and no ramping will serve. A one stop or more exposure shift during a zoom shot is very noticeable and not easy to correct in post.

 

[Steve Gibby]

One caveat on still zooms for handheld work. If you are using them as variable primes to recompose shots, OK. But if you anticipate zooming during a shot, only the zooms with constant speed and no ramping will serve. A one stop or more exposure shift during a zoom shot is very noticeable and not easy to correct in post.

Definitely David - a constant aperture zoom (2.8 or lower), with as little ramping as possible, and which holds focus throughout the zoom range, would be ideal. Always better to get it right on the front end than to jump through hoops in post. I believe I mentioned the need for low ramping and holding focus as desirable feature in the 3-Way zoom in some of my previous posts on this thread.

 

[Babu Kantamneni]

Arri variprimes

Arri variprimes

Definitely David - a constant aperture zoom (2.8 or lower), with as little ramping as possible, and which holds focus throughout the zoom range, would be ideal. Always better to get it right on the front end than to jump through hoops in post. I believe I mentioned the need for low ramping and holding focus as desirable feature in the 3-Way zoom in some of my previous posts on this thread.

Steve,
Have you worked with VPs.I know it is off topic for handheld bur the ramping and breathing issues with zooming and not just using as variprimes?
Thx,
Babu

 

[Steve Gibby]

Steve,
Have you worked with VPs.I know it is off topic for handheld bur the ramping and breathing issues with zooming and not just using as variprimes?
Thx,
Babu

If by "VPs" you're refering to variable primes, yes, I have worked with variable primes. In fact, as a holdover from my film training early in my career, even when I shoot EFP style I rarely zoom during a take or shot unless it is absolutely necessary to tell the story I want the shot to tell. I much prefer to use all zooms - whether they are cine, 35mm stills in motion footage shooting, or EFP zooms - as variable primes. I prefer to use zooms for quick shot re-framing in the genres I shoot - where quite often it isn't practical timewise, or flat out dangerous to physically move the camera closer to the shot subject.

The above said, there are some types of documentaries and EFP style productions I work in which require shots or takes to be recorded during a pull from or push to the subject matter. That's where low (or no) ramping and holding focus through a pull/push are critical.

 

[David Rasberry]

That is the way I typically use zooms too, as variable primes. We were shooting at sundown with Peter Majtan's camera and a Canon 100-400 F4-5.6 a couple of weeks ago as Peter gave the Scarlet users SE group an orientation. Playing with the clips afterwards in Redcine, the exposure difference on the long end was quite noticeable.
So even when using a zoom as a variable prime, one has to also compensate for the exposure change, especially under marginal lighting conditions.
I must admit to being spoiled by the compact high quality servo zooms on EFP video cameras, and the old compact light Angenieux zooms from my 16mm days. For an S35 sized sensor with 8 times the surface area of a 2/3" or 16mm frame creating a similar lens means proportionally larger and heavier for the same optical performance.

 

[Daniel Browning]

Blair, the ENG lenses you reference are only possible because of the small 2/3" chip.

Blair sounds like he's willing to accept compromises; as we all know, nothing in optics is for free. For a larger format size, something has to give: cost, weight, T/stop, zoom range, aberrations, or all of the above.

Another important factor to keep in mind is that 2/3" have three sensors, which means three times the sensitivity without thinner DOF.

 

[Steve Gibby]

For an S35 sized sensor with 8 times the surface area of a 2/3" or 16mm frame creating a similar lens means proportionally larger and heavier for the same optical performance.

If the traditional lens technology used in B4 2/3" zooms and S35mm cine zooms, I would agree with you - a S35mm covering lens would have to be very big. But that's not the technology I suggested be used for the 3-Way zoom I suggested in my posts on this thread. There are a vast number of 35mm stills lenses, made to cover APS-C sized sensors (roughly same as S35mm) and FF35mm sensors, and specifically designed, optimized, and lens coated to work with today's CMOS sensors - sensors nearly identical in technology to the RED camera line sensors: Mysterium, Mysterium X, and Mysterium Monstro.

Optically these 35mm stills lenses cover S35 and many of them also cover FF35. The footage results from them on RED One are outstanding - assuming you use the top-of-the-line lenses from Canon, Nikon, Leica, etc. Even many 10 to 20 year old 35mm stills lenses, which were top-of-the-line lenses in their day, have and are now producing excellent footage results on RED One.

These 35mm stills lenses aren't giant like cine lenses, and certainly not giant like a 35mm zoom made from B4 2/3" technology would be - they're small, compact, and the optical results on RED One (and Epic/Scarlet to come) are/will be excellent. That's why RED made a Nikon mount for RED One right from the beginning, and besides PL, has RED, Nikon, and Canon mounts all announced for Epic and Scarlet - not dumb mounts, but smart mounts with power and electronic data interfaces. Add to that the new RED Electronic Lenses, which sport auto focus and image stabilization, and obviously 35mm stills lenses are a totally viable option for Epic/Scarlet shooters and RED One - and they aren't huge in size. The new mounts for Epic/Scarlet (PL, RED, Nikon, Canon) were announced to be quickly and easily changed by 4 bolts in a few minutes, then easily re-back focused by an adjustment of a movable sensor block. Obviously RED thinks 35mm stills lenses are here to stay on their camera line.

With RED One, of my three cameras, one keeps a PL mount on it for use with my PL lenses (including a 20 year old Canon FD 150-600 zoom with Century PL conversion), and ones I may rent. My other two RED cameras have Underdahl Nikon DX mounts on them so I can regularly use each of the 19 different Nikon lenses I own, and one Tokina lens - 11-16mm zoom with Nikon mount. BTW - the Tokina 11-16, which is extremely sharp, contrasty, doesn't breath much, and holds focus throughout the zoom, is now being converted to a PL mount cine lens by Duclos - because it dances optically and mechanically very well with today's CMOS sensor digital cinema cameras (RED, etc.).

There are many S35 and FF35 35mm stills zooms which are very crisp, work extremely well on CMOS sensor cameras, don't breath a lot, hold focus throughout the zoom, and are fast (f2.8). But, as I noted earlier in this thread, most of them don't have a very large zoom ratio, thus they're of limited use for shoulder held EFP/Documentary use. The 35mm stills lenses which do have a large zoom ratio (8:1 and above) generally have variable aperture through the zoom range (Nikon 18-200, Canon 18-200, etc.).

What's needed is for a stills lens manufacturer to simply engineer a high zoom ratio zoom, which doesn't breathe, holds focus throughout the zoom, has a longer barrel rotation, has good lens markings, and has a removable servo-zoom unit. That lens could then be quickly setup for use in either cine style, 35mm stills, or EFP style.

RED's newly announced line of RED Electronic Lenses, beside including AF and IS if needed, are pitched to be able to shoot motion footage and stills at the switch of a button on the DSMC models. The announced focal lengths and apertures of those new lenses are: 15-25mm f2.8, 25-100mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, and 300mm f2.8, with 1.4x and 2x extenders also available. Notice all those are constant aperture (2.8). I would guess each of those zooms will breathe minimally and hold focus throughout a zoom. The highest zoom ratio is the 25-100 (4:1). If RED can somehow make another zoom, maybe 18-144 (8:1) or even 18-180 (10:1), and include the added features I enumerated that my suggested 3-Way Zoom should have - then we have the birth of the 3-Way Zoom!!

Sorry for the long post David. I know you're also a veteran media industry worker, and I respect your knowledge, but since you inferred that a lens had to be huge to cover S35 and also have a long zoom ratio, I thought I'd take the time to itemize that my thinking is otherwise.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Now that the primes are done...

Now that the primes are done...

I think we are actually talking 4 times the sensor surface area at S35 vs 2/3", not 8 times - but it still matters in terms of weight & size.

Physics being what they are we are never going to match every spec of a B4 zoom designed for 2/3" sensors. That said, I do think a zoom lens with S35 coverage, at least 8X ratio, T3.5 with minimal ramping and under 9 lbs can be made.

Perhaps, armed with the knowledge gained over the last two years, RED could make the "3-way utility zoom" lens happen. By all reports they've managed to make high quality affordable PL primes - something many people said they would be unable to do.

FWIW I don't think of the RedOne as a huge camera - try the F23 with SRW-1 for example. It may be bigger than the DVX/HVX/EX form factor but it's very similar to the BetaCam rigs I shot for years. With proper balance its not that big of a deal to have 25 lbs on the shoulder, in fact, I prefer a well balanced 25 lbs on the shoulder to 8 lbs in my palm. Just sayin'

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Well put Gibby.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Well put Gibby.

Thanks Braddah - and thanks for starting this thread. I think the opinions stated on this thread are real valuable input for RED Team and other 35mm stills lens makers.

Some entity will be 1st movers to fill this large demand for a 3-Way Zoom to use on Epic and Scarlet. I'm really hoping it will be RED, but if not, and Canon, Nikon, or some other stills lens manufacturer steps up to the plate on this - and it is a good lens - then I'll be a lens customer of theirs, along with tens of thousands of other convergent indie workers who adopt Epic and Scarlet, and need an all around utility zoom which will live on their cameras a lot.

BTW - Regardless of how this shakes out I'll be buying each of the announced RED Electronic Lenses and extenders - because I expect them to be very good professional-quality lenses, and to dance extremely well with Epic and Scarlet.

Fun time to be in this industry eh Blair!!! Lovin' it...

 

[Babu Kantamneni]

Thanks everyone and Steve in particular on VPs.
Good discussion.
babu

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

If RED can somehow make another zoom, maybe 18-180 (10:1) and include the added features I enumerated that my suggested 3-Way Zoom should have - then we have the birth of the 3-Way Zoom!!

Steve,

as you know very well if 10:1 lightweight zoom lens would be possible to make it we would have that already for years.

Not even that Panavision has one lightweight 10:1 zoom available.

All that sort of PL lenses are a bit heavy and there is still no any compromise or a right solution for that issue with PL S35 mm cine lens design.

With a crop sensor DSLR still lenses we do have some or many examples in that range but also we know all their pros and cons.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Steve,

as you know very well if 10:1 lightweight zoom lens would be possible to make it we would have that already for years.

Not even that Panavision has one lightweight 10:1 zoom available.

All that sort of PL lenses are a bit heavy and there is still no any compromise or a right solution for that issue with PL S35 mm cine lens design.

With a crop sensor DSLR still lenses we do have some or many examples in that range but also we know all their pros and cons.

Very true for cine lenses, a 10:1 lightweight zoom using cine lens technology (or B4 EFP zoom technology) has been essentially impossible to build. But as I itemized in various posts of mine on this thread, 35mm stills lenses are a different story. I don't view cine lens manufacturers as being particularly progressive, and attuned to maximizing breaking lens technology. They have been making high quality, time-intensive, traditional technology, big and heavy for their focal length lenses, which are necessarily expensive. They don't traditionally work in 35mm stills DSLR lens technology, plus even if they could manufacture the 3-Way Zoom I've described, they wouldn't - because they would be seriously undermining the sales of their much more expensive cine lenses.

It will be from modern 35mm DSLR lens technology that the 3-Way Zoom will emerge - and I predict it will happen sooner than anyone would guess. I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever, or even a hint, that any entity in this industry has been planning, or has in development, a 3-Way Zoom as I've suggested. What I am saying is that it will be built because there is a huge demand for it, and I'm predicting it will happen soon.

Thanks for your input Sanjin. I've enjoyed your posts here over the years. You're a true indie - and I respect that. I love the way you have experimented with a wide variety of lenses and equipment on your RED camera. You have a good mind, and you use it. Keep up your free thinking...never change. This industry needs free thinkers - they often motivate some of the key changes in the industry. We need to look no further than Jim Jannard to find a great example of a free thinker who has changed an industry - or in his case I like to think his dream has and is changing three now-convergent industries: cine, still photography, and EFP.

 

[David Rasberry]

There are many S35 and FF35 35mm stills zooms which are very crisp, work extremely well on CMOS sensor cameras, don't breath a lot, hold focus throughout the zoom, and are fast (f2.8). But, as I noted earlier in this thread, most of them don't have a very large zoom ratio, thus they're of limited use for shoulder held EFP/Documentary use. The 35mm stills lenses which do have a large zoom ratio (8:1 and above) generally have variable aperture through the zoom range (Nikon 18-200, Canon 18-200, etc.).

What's needed is for a stills lens manufacturer to simply engineer a high zoom ratio zoom, which doesn't breathe, holds focus throughout the zoom, has a longer barrel rotation, has good lens markings, and has a removable servo-zoom unit. That lens could then be quickly setup for use in either cine style, 35mm stills, or EFP style.

Sorry for the long post David. I know you're also a veteran media industry worker, and I respect your knowledge, but since you inferred that a lens had to be huge to cover S35 and also have a long zoom ratio, I thought I'd take the time to itemize that my thinking is otherwise.

I'm with you Steve. As fast as the physics of non-linear optics and computer modeling are developing, I think it is just a matter of time before someone works it out.

I think we are actually talking 4 times the sensor surface area at S35 vs 2/3", not 8 times - but it still matters in terms of weight & size.

Scarlet 2/3" 10.1mm x5.35mm= 54mm/sq
Scarlet S35 30mm x 15mm = 450mm/sq

Physics being what they are we are never going to match every spec of a B4 zoom designed for 2/3" sensors. That said, I do think a zoom lens with S35 coverage, at least 8X ratio, T3.5 with minimal ramping and under 9 lbs can be made.

I agree, I think 8x is a lot more approachable for reasonable size and weight.

FWIW I don't think of the RedOne as a huge camera - try the F23 with SRW-1 for example. It may be bigger than the DVX/HVX/EX form factor but it's very similar to the BetaCam rigs I shot for years. With proper balance its not that big of a deal to have 25 lbs on the shoulder, in fact, I prefer a well balanced 25 lbs on the shoulder to 8 lbs in my palm. Just sayin'

That was my impression of Peter's camera with a shoulder rig, about like a Betacam. I like a good stable over the shoulder rig too. These days 12-15lbs would be a lot more to my liking than 25 though.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks for your input Sanjin. I've enjoyed your posts here over the years. You're a true indie - and I respect that. I love the way you have experimented with a wide variety of lenses and equipment on your RED camera. You have a good mind, and you use it. Keep up your free thinking...never change. This industry needs free thinkers - they often motivate some of the key changes in the industry. We need to look no further than Jim Jannard to find a great example of a free thinker who has changed an industry - or in his case I like to think his dream has and is changing three now-convergent industries: cine, still photography, and EFP.

Steve,

also thank you for your very kind of words about my little dully experimental work here and free mind sort of thinking.

Btw, I don't claim here that I'm experienced in all those things but I'm able to put known facts (shawn publicly) on a table and to drove a sort of conclusion about that.

One more thing is to say I'm here from the beginning because I saw that Jim Jannard's RED project could change some things in the industry of movie making worldwide.

Indie movies, Hollywood, Off-Hollywood, New Hollywood, Bollywood, New European, New Asian, New African or whatever in that way...

And the first real result just came this week because "Knowing" showed to everybody in the industry that a movie shot with R1 can make US box office.

At the end is to say that a camera and lenses are just one (a little) part in whole thing of movie making because main point is that a good idea and fine story telling about that particular idea is in a heart of any great movie.

Excuse me for a sort of digression from the tread topic.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Who's going to step up?

Who's going to step up?

Is S35 4 times 2/3" video or 8 times?

David-
Scarlet 2/3" 10.1mm x5.35mm= 54mm/sq
Scarlet S35 30mm x 15mm = 450mm/sq

Blair-
2/3" Video: 10.4 x 5.9 = 61mm/sq
R1 4K: 22.2mm x 12.6mm = 280mm/sq

Whatever the actual numbers, what matters is that zoom lenses made for still cameras that cover sensor areas similar to Super35mm motion picture film, APS-C DSLRs, RedOne in 4K, etc exist - they are lightweight, sharp and low enough in cost to buy rather than rent.

Is it really impossible to manufacture a lens that does most of what an Optimo does for a lot less money, with a lot less weight? In the big Dec. 3rd announcement the Madman and the Red Team put out target specs for electronic lenses that sure seem to be based on modern stills lens design with modifications that would make them terrific for motion work.

All I am pitching for is to take that inspiration one step further and offer a greater zoom ratio than the 4X (25-100mm) zoom on their list.

I am not saying it would be a simple task to create this 3-way utility zoom but I agree with Gibby, its got to be worth the effort to somebody. I hope its RED, I love the way they do business and they seem to understand that by offering quality at reasonable prices they can increase volume which cuts unit costs and allows a sustainable business model. Just sayin'

 

[Lenny Manfred]

maybe someone mentioned this lens, i could not read everything written here, but if you are looking for inexpensive and lightweight there is nothing better than the Century Precision Optics 17-35 T3. it is very sharp, and it is a true zoom, focus holds, no ramping and minimal breathing, plus there is nothing as compact. i am selling mine because i already own a rouge 30-80 and i am among the first in line for the matching 16-42, but, otherwise, i would not let this beauty go. and i have yet to see a better hand held set up than the one i made for myself. here are some photos.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

The lightest and cheapest 10x zoom for RED1 is

Tamron AF 28-300mm AF 28-300/3,5-6,3 Aspherical LD IF.

Not PL but who cares!?

 

[Lenny Manfred]

i took some time to read all these posts and was very entertained. I notice that no one with actual lens manufacturing knowledge has stepped in, so the wishes and assumptions have just run wild.

first, i have to say, i am not a lens builder either, but have been around cameras for over 35 years, long enough to get an idea of what is likely and what isn't. and most of your expectations defy the laws of physics.

10x or 12x range, T2.8 or lower, compact and lightweight, guys, you can only have two, not all three, it is impossible. even the best B4 eng lenses breathe and ramp like crazy. you have to move up to B4 cine style lenses to start getting better.

let's just take the lovely 13x4.5 fujinon as an example. it breathes less than most (easier to control on wide angle lenses), and it goes down about a stop on the long side, but only weights about 4 lbs. an equivalent lens for s35 would be about 4 times the weight and twice the size, and still it would probably ramp and breathe. to correct that, the front diameter would have to grow a little more, and therefore the size and weight would increase. now it's starting to look more like the angenieux 24-290. (for an easy comparison, think of 35mm still photography lenses vs medium format lenses: you can have a canon 1.4 or even 1.2 normal lens, but the fastest medium format lens is 2.8, 2.0 if you get really big and expensive)

lens makers ARE trying to make this happen. the 16-42 and 30-80 rouge are an example of that. technology moves a lot slower here than on cameras. example, look how much camera technology has changed in the last 10 years and how little the lenses have changed in the last 50. you can shrink conductors and chips, but we still have not figured out how to shrink light. and, until will do, the rules of the game will stay the same.

and to make a decent 35mm still photography lens into a true film lens that professionals will be happy to work with also adds weight and size. for example, my century 17-35 canon re-house. they started with decent canon glass, but then they really re-designed the mechanics of that lens so that it would not breath and it would not ramp.

so, what you are asking for, is just not that simple. unless you are willing to give up light sensitivity, and then all bets are off. but to me, that would render the lens useless for what i shoot. so i learn to live with short range zooms and just have to carry two of them... or three.

right now, for me, the best bet are the angenieux rouge sisters.

just my never-to-be-humble opinions

 

[Steve Gibby]

Again, for the reasons I itemized previously on this thread, it will not be a cine lens or broadcast lens manufacturer who make the inevitable 3-Way zoom, but rather a 35mm stills lens manufacturer who re-works and tweaks 35mm stills lens technology to make the lens. There are tons of indie professionals using 35mm stills lenses on RED One as we speak, with excellent results - just not in the union cine style and network broadcast (B4) environments - so its not a question of if 35mm stills lenses will be used, because they have been, are now, and will continue to be used for motion media acquisition with RED One, Epic, and Scarlet.

I think its great if someone want to narrow their field workflow and lens choices down to just cine lenses or just B4 lenses, if their genres determine that's the best lens choice for them. But there are hordes of indie, non-union shooters who have other needs - mobility, budgets, small crews, etc., but still need good 35mm optics and can/are/will be dealing with the workarounds inherent in shooting with 35mm stills lenses on RED One, Epic, and Scarlet. I shoot in all three disciplines (cine style, 35mm stills, and EFP), so I can definitely appreciate the needs of each separate discipline - but it is a convergent world - and that's not changing - in fact it is accelerating.

Yes - you can have all three with 35mm stills lenses - we already do - and with some re-engineering the 3-Way zoom will be born.