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 L Primes vs. Cinema Primes

Steve Dent

Steve Dent

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Paris, France
I've co-purchased, in anticipation of an Epic-X purchase by year's end, a set of Canon L-primes. These consist of a 14mm L f2.8 II, 24mm f1.4 L II, 35mm f1.4 L II, 50mm f1.2 L, 85mm f1.2 II L, and 100mm f2.8 L macro.

Mechanically, of course, a cinema lens (let's take the Arri compact primes) is better (no breathing, much better manual focus). But is it better optically? After all, these Canon lenses are designed to resolve 25 MP, and do it with aplomb. Most of the designs on the L II lenses are less than 5 years old, so things like spherical & chromatic aberration are very minimal.

I'm curious to know if an expert would see the difference on the screen between an Arri compact prime and a Canon L prime shot with an Epic...
 
Ketch did a test (sorry, don't remember in which thread that was) with Master Primes, Canon L's and other lenses I forgot about.

No one could tell the difference... except maybe the lens flare and bokeh.
 
Modern day lenses are very good by most optical standards specially when compared to older cine lenses still in play that have been around for 20-30 years. The test Ketch did is no surprise that most wouldn't be able to see a big differences in a basic image test between a relatively newly designed and built Canon L series lens and a Zeiss Master prime.

Other differences may show up when you push the limits, from distortion to CA (edge fringing), and the iris blades (bokah) and flares characteristics etc. The physical body and how its built is a huge issue when it comes to "cine" needs vs "stills" needs. If you shooting still life then its not a problem, once your subject or camera starts moving then the "following focus" and lens "breathing" and "telescoping" are issues that most cinema lens designs deal with. A modern "Auto focus" lens has a very short "focus throw" between the close and infinity marks which can make "pulling focus" extremely difficult to say the least. Cine lenses stretch out the focus travel, and mark the distances so "pulling" is manageable. After market gears often need to be added to make a stills lens function in a cine environment.

Many of the still lenses are different maximum aperture so you need to light to the slowest lens in needed in a scene. It costs a lot to produce a set of lenses at a given (often) fast aperture, and with the focus needs for cinema, and that will last for 50 years with daily usage. Also most contemporary stills zooms wont hold focus throughout the focal range which is a major issue that's tough to deal with for a few reasons. If you want to zoom in a scene you may have to pull focus even though the subject distance doesn't change . And then many of the focus barrels are not directly connected to the focus barrel interior, and you can "over turn" beyond the limits so whatever marks you have made are now out of sync.

It can be a nightmare to try to use Canon Eos lenses for narrative style shooting but you can save money and get a very nice looking image. Ive often wondered if (or when) Canon would wake up and smell the opportunity to produce a "cinema style" set of L series lenses with PL mounts..... If they could bring them to market under the Cp.2 price range they (maybe 3,000 per), they could sell a lot of lens sets! But then we have also wondered why they have not taken better advantage of the 5d craze and deliver a more workable "motion" camera solution.
 
Having now shot two utterly beautiful feature films using both Canon and Nikon stills glass on our REDs, and having seen our first film, Works in Progress, get absolutely rave reviews from critics for its beautiful look, I can tell you that you'll be very, very happy with your Canon glass. We have the same lenses you do (except for that 35mm L II, of course), along with the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, the 135mm f2, and the 200mm f2.8. (We almost never use the 135 or 200, though.)

Will these lenses hold up to the rigors of 50 years of hard use? I doubt it. But are they sturdy enough for real-world cinema use? Absolutely. And we don't really even have an A/C on our sets to baby our babies. Heck, one guy rented our Canon glass and actually drove over our lens bag with a Chevy Suburban and only lightly damaged two of them!

And as far as the focus "issues," there really are none (other than possibly greater-than-normal breathing, which is an overblown issue, anyway) so long as you are using an electronic lens controller like the Birger/Impero or the forthcoming RED/Canon smart mount. You can adjust the lens and focus throws the way you want them and get a feel that is just downright amazing. And you'll be using glass that is blindingly fast at a cost that is shockingly low. Erich's claim that "it can be a nightmare to try to use Canon EOS lenses for narrative style shooting" has certainly not been remotely valid on our narrative films. We have had no issues at all.

Forget differences in lens looks. This is a fool's errand. Concentrate on great lighting and production design and you'll be sure to make a beautiful film. Simple as that.

The Canon L-series primes are great lenses, indeed. Manufacturing volume really is your friend when it comes to glass price/performance ratios.

Stephen
 
I suppose if you have an electronic way to deal with focus pulling then you've licked that issue.
 
You right on both counts, Erich. Without the electronic focus, it would be a nightmare!

Stephen
 
Here's an example of Canon L-glass at work.

We just shot this scene from our new "Terminal" this past weekend. We had a four man crew.

Background lighting consisted of a 300 watt tungsten with a double blue down the stairs, a 1.2K HMI through a back window, a 200 HMI down an elevator shaft, four 75 watt light bulbs on a "short" circuit, and a 6" Kino. It was otherwise completely black. Almost all of the lighting used in the actual shots themselves comes from the one practical flashlight. The scene was shot using a RED One #791 M-X with Canon EOS primes (24, 35, and 50) and the Birger/Impero controller. We put a great deal of haze in the air. A few shots have been pushed in in post. Edited using Premiere Pro CS5.5. It is, of course, a rough cut, has not had any audio sweetening, and I'm not a colorist. :-(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dFT-2bNV2U

This is a flashback scene of a murder. "Terminal" is a deeply redemptive drama. Rest assured that it is not a slasher film.

Stephen
 
I haven't done any tests personally ... but I've heard that where the Canon L glass falls short compared to say Cooke or Arri high end glass -- or all Leica glass -- is wide open. Leica especially has always designed it's glass to essentially be flawless wide open (both their still lenses, and new cine lenses), and probably only the most expensive lenses from Zeiss and Cooke can match that performance.

I do believe Evin Grant said the newest Nikon's have much improved wide open performance, better than Canon L ... but not sure if he posted images.

Anyway, I don't want to create FUD -- especially because 1) I'm willing to bet that the difference is not very noticeable unless on a huge screen or via some intense pixel-peeping ... and ... 2) it's pretty rare that you're going to be shooting on the Epic at 1.2 or 1.4. Also, many of the still tests are done on FF cameras and critique the performance at the corners -- whereas when shooting on the smaller sensor of the Epic, those issues may never surface.

So overall it's probably not a huge deal, and the performance/value these lenses bring to the table is pretty ridiculous :)
 
BTW, the above scene from "Terminal" was shot entirely wide-open. Either 1.4 or 1.2, depending upon the lens. We just didn't have the lighting kit or time to do it any other way.

Stephen
 
Pretty much all modern still glass and most of the "good" still glass from the last 20 years will produce sharp images on an Epic. The more important concerns are mechanics and durability. The electronic EF and G mounts for the Epic will certainly help mitigate the focusing issues with still lenses but there will still be certain fundamental issues with using still glass for cinema. These come down to lens mount ridgitity, concentricity of the focusing and zoom elements, tracking and parallelism. These issues are by no means a deal breaker but they really do impact the performance and ability of the lens to perform beautifully and still remain "unnoticed" by the audience.

As for the new Nikon G primes, they are the first non-leica F1.4 still primes I'd be comfortable shooting wide open for a 4k projection.
They really are in a leauge of thier own.
 
Depending on how well the Epic electronics work on their Canon mounts, small filmmakers may end up regretting buying more expensive, manual only cinema lenses! If you can rack focus automagically by redmote control, you can save money on things like focus pullers, complicated rigs, super high-end tripods, sandbags....
 
The trick, Mr. Dent, will be with the iris. Will RED's electronic lenses allow for smooth iris control AND have the great optics and low weight of still glass? If so, it will, indeed, be the beginnings of a sea-change in cinema.

Stephen
 
Steve - I think you give focus pullers too little credit. It's quite an art and as much as I believe in Red's technology and forward-thinking vision ... it's going to be a while before technology can replace what an experienced focus puller can do. Maybe not ever. For those who are really good at it, it's quite a skill and would take some incredibly advanced hardware and programming to achieve the same results.

Of course, not all focus pullers out there are all that great -- so there's a good argument against me :)
 
AnthonyFlores said:
Steve - I think you give focus pullers too little credit. It's quite an art and as much as I believe in Red's technology and forward-thinking vision ... it's going to be a while before technology can replace what an experienced focus puller can do. Maybe not ever. For those who are really good at it, it's quite a skill and would take some incredibly advanced hardware and programming to achieve the same results.

Of course, not all focus pullers out there are all that great -- so there's a good argument against me :)
Click to expand...

That's why I threw in the qualification - the Epic AF control would have to work really good to have any shot at replacing a focus puller "en chair et en os".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top