Better for features: RPP 300, or converted Nikon 200/2

[Shane Kelly]

Shane..no.

no, don't keep going or no, you're wrong?

 

[Mick van Rossum NSC]

Shane is right.

 

[Yousuf Abbasi]

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is if I put a medium format lens (huge image circle) on a super16 camera (small sensor), the resulting picture (field of view from corner to corner) from the super16 camera vs. the medium format camera would be IDENTICAL?

If what you are saying was true, there would never even be a need whatsoever to discuss crop factors, fields of view, etc.

If you're hard convinced otherwise (which I don't understand why you would be, as experiments would confirm it very quickly), then maybe give Duclos or Clairmont a call...

 

[Dave Blackham]

I think the Red 300mm is a very nice lens and I like the way it focuses. The Nikon is a different lens and is a widely used and nice lens. You will need to check out the lens you wish to buy to make sure its a good example. It also depends on the conversion and who did it. if its jut remounted then the Nikkor will no focus Cinewise. If its completely rehoused then it may or may not focus Cinewise but most likely will. Mechanics are a big part of the lens as well as the optics.

 

[Mick van Rossum NSC]

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is if I put a medium format lens (huge image circle) on a super16 camera (small sensor), the resulting picture (field of view from corner to corner) from the super16 camera vs. the medium format camera would be IDENTICAL?

If what you are saying was true, there would never even be a need whatsoever to discuss crop factors, fields of view, etc.

If you're hard convinced otherwise (which I don't understand why you would be, as experiments would confirm it very quickly), then maybe give Duclos or Clairmont a call...

No, of course not; what we are saying is that every 80 mm (or any other focal length) will yield the same FoV on an Epic at a given resolution. That same 80 mm will (if the image circle of the lens allows it ) give a much wider FoV on a medium format camera, but then again, EVERY other 80mm will give this same FoV on such medium format camera.

 

[Yousuf Abbasi]

No, of course not; what we are saying is that every 80 mm (or any other focal length) will yield the same FoV on an Epic at a given resolution. That same 80 mm will (if the image circle of the lens allows it ) give a much wider FoV on a medium format camera, but then again, EVERY other 80mm will give this same FoV on such medium format camera.

Mick, Agreed. My point was that for a given focal length, say 80mm, the FoV will change depending on which sensor size you use it on (to which Shane disagrees).

 

[Mick van Rossum NSC]

Yousuf, clear, I think we all agree, but also for me this statement

True, but the resulting image would be comparable to using a 300mm lens. ;- )

was rather confusing (and not correct, I think) and there are still a lot of people who mix up crop factor/FoV/focal lenght, so that might add to this confusion. It is probably all semantics, I guess.

 

[Shane Kelly]

Yousuf, clear, I think we all agree, but also for me this statement was rather confusing (and not correct, I think) and there are still a lot of people who mix up crop factor/FoV/focal lenght, so that might add to this confusion. It is probably all semantics, I guess.

The statement that "the resulting image would be comparable to using a 300mm lens" was the one that I had issue with and one that is simply wrong. The lens will always be the same length , it will always behave like its focal length .
I'm not talking about crop factors, 35mm full frame cameras etc, just the fact that this strange 98mm lens, if you could get it on an epic would behave exactly like any other 98mm lens (if anyone else made one) .

 

[Steven Veldkamp]

The statement that "the resulting image would be comparable to using a 300mm lens" was the one that I had issue with and one that is simply wrong. The lens will always be the same length , it will always behave like its focal length .
I'm not talking about crop factors, 35mm full frame cameras etc, just the fact that this strange 98mm lens, if you could get it on an epic would behave exactly like any other 98mm lens (if anyone else made one) .

Oh, I thought most folks around would be smart enough to figure this out for themselves...
Isn't it quite obvious that the lens doesn't change optically? As you're only using a crop of the same lens?

 

[Shane Kelly]

Oh, I thought most folks around would be smart enough to figure this out for themselves...
Isn't it quite obvious that the lens doesn't change optically? As you're only using a crop of the same lens?

Your original statement was: " The large image diameter translates to about 300mm on a s35 sensor."
A reader might interpret that as meaning that using this 98mm lens on an epic would be comparable to using a red 300mm on an epic. This is simply not the case. It would be comparable to using a 98mm lens on an epic.
If you disagree then tell me how this "translation" is done.

 

[Shapour Daneshmand]

I have the 300mm RPP. We used it on a number of shots on our feature and it was sweet. We added my doubler to get some 600mm action, which was even sweeter. Can't comment on the other glass but I can tell you we loved the results from the 300.

Jeremy,
what kind of doubler are you using with your Red 300mm lens?

 

[Will Keir]

So Morgan,

Did you ever pull the trigger?

Greetings,

Curious to hear folks' thoughts. I'd like to acquire a longer lens to add to my package, partly to get those beautiful out of focus backgrounds. The two candidates that are in my price range (of course if you're aware of others...) are the Red 300/2.8 and the older converted Nikon 200/2. Do you have an opinion on which is more 1) useful in day to day feature production, and 2) beautiful? By beautiful I mean there's a 'vibe' to the shots made with it, it flares beautifully, particularly nice bokeh, etc...

Cheers,
Morgan

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.morganschmidt.com
--------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Shane is right.

Threads like this on a pro cinematography or photography forum just make my head hurt. And yes, Shane is 110% correct.[/quote]

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is if I put a medium format lens (huge image circle) on a super16 camera (small sensor), the resulting picture (field of view from corner to corner) from the super16 camera vs. the medium format camera would be IDENTICAL?

NO, NO, NO!!! If you put a 50mm medium format lens (big image circle) on a 16mm camera (small sensor), you would get the same FOV on the 16mm camera as you would get by putting any other 50mm lens on it, whether that 50mm lens is made for the 16mm camera, a 35mm camera or the MF camera.

Lenses do not have crop factors. Only camera imagers (sensors, film frames) do.

 

[Phil Holland]

#2012

Glad I made a few data sheets since then explaining all this

 

[Will Keir]

Look what my late night thread sniffing has done! So sorry Jeff.

NO, NO, NO!!! If you put a 50mm medium format lens (big image circle) on a 16mm camera (small sensor), you would get the same FOV on the 16mm camera as you would get by putting any other 50mm lens on it, whether that 50mm lens is made for the 16mm camera, a 35mm camera or the MF camera.

Lenses do not have crop factors. Only camera imagers (sensors, film frames) do.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Guys....

You are confusing the hell out of each other...

Simple answer has been given... A 50mm is and will always be and remain a 50mm Lens, NO matter were or on what you place that lens!!

HOWEVER...

If a 50mm Lens design for FF 24x36 sensor such as the 5D, and used on a x1.3 cropped sensor camera such as the Red One, or Epic MX (eta just make strait mathematical example without going in to inner decimals) then such a 50mm while remaining a 50mm will give you an image equal in field of view of that of a 65mm, and that is a FACT...

HOWEVER...

What this means is not that magically your 50mm has turned in to a 65mm... NO

What it means is that you placed that 50mm in a sensor smaller then the one that the 50mm was designed for, and here is why you get the image that is smaller in the frame and appears as if it is a 65mm, because it is only using the center of the lens and not all of the lens it can be a blazing or a curse depending on how you see it, as some like the look of the edges on a given lens.

Additionally, there is an other element to consider strongly here...

A Focal is used and chosen not only because of the area it needs to cover in the frame, but also it is or at list it should be also a choice carefully considered as to display on screen what the Director/DP Photographers wishes to display as to convey not only the Image itself but also the fill that it contains, were the wider the lens the more distance each subject appear form each other and differentiation is made by that which is the Foreground form the Background.

So, you need to make subjects appear much closer to each other then they really are, or much closer to the background then they really are... Then you use a Longer Focal and move the camera further out... If you need the opposite then move the camera closer and use a Wider lens.

But when all you have is what you have and can no take this creative choices, then just use what you have that gives you the framing you want, and don't worry or over worry too much about Crop factor on a lens, because lenses don't have a crop factor!!


BTW... On this last words... I like to think that a 200 1.8 & 2.0 are great lenses and had both of them in the Canon mount, but the Canon or RPP 300mm 2.8 range it is just magical and an other great lens, so choosing which to use only based on the speed or Focal without knowing any needs for the character of the image at hand would be limiting, and if I had to choose only ONE either way, I would as I have already choose the RPP 300mm 2.8 every time...

But each one's opinion I am sure will continue to vary as it comes down to also a matter of taste, not just reach of the lens or speed.

 

[Shane Kelly]

Guys....



If a 50mm Lens design for FF 24x36 sensor such as the 5D, and used on a x1.3 cropped sensor camera such as the Red One, or Epic MX (eta just make strait mathematical example without going in to inner decimals) then such a 50mm while remaining a 50mm will give you an image equal in field of view of that of a 65mm, and that is a FACT...


.

I think that you are confusing the issue.
simply put, a 50mm lens designed for a medium format camera but used on a red one will give you the same field of view as a 50 mm lens designed for aps-c used on a red one. You may be only using the center of the lens but the field of view will be the same on both lenses on the same camera.
Crop factors only come into play when you are comparing two different FORMATS and you are trying to match the field of view between those formats.

That was the issue that I had with the original post. He was saying "buy this 90mm lens for your red and it'll give you the look of a 300". It won't, it'll give you the look of a 90mm, that's a fact.

 

[D Fuller]

Guys....

You are confusing the hell out of each other...

Simple answer has been given... A 50mm is and will always be and remain a 50mm Lens, NO matter were or on what you place that lens!!

HOWEVER...

If a 50mm Lens design for FF 24x36 sensor such as the 5D, and used on a x1.3 cropped sensor camera such as the Red One, or Epic MX (eta just make strait mathematical example without going in to inner decimals) then such a 50mm while remaining a 50mm will give you an image equal in field of view of that of a 65mm on a FF 24x36 sensor, and that is a FACT...

Very often, these discussions get so confusing because one person is referencing one thing, while another person is referencing something else, but they're both using the same words. It's just hard to be clear enough on the internet, and even harder with the range of native languages on this forum.

Ketch's statement is a great example. It is unambiguously correct with the reference clarified (my addition in yellow), but really confusing without it.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Ha ha, yes, I tough it obvious, but needed to be there...

 

[Marcos Montenegro]

back to the original question, a Nikon 200 f/2, no brainer for me.