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 Lens Set

paul engstrom said:
It occurs to me that relevant questions for me are:

1. Which PL lenses to the Canon lenses we've been discussing cut best with?
2. Which PL lenses to the following Nikon lenses cut best with: 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200?
Click to expand...

Hey Paul. I'm not sure I understand either of your questions. Is this what you're asking?

1. Which PL lenses cut best with the Canon lenses we've been discussing?
2. Which PL lenses cut best with the following Nikon lenses: 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200?
 
Yes!! Woops!

I had to run right as I was writing that...

Reason I'm interested is that it might influence how I 'grow' into the PL sets and/or allow for more economical multi-camera shooting.

I'm thinking Canon leans more toward Cooke and that Nikon leans more toward Zeiss. I find it interesting that Angenieuxs are used by everybody--meaning they seem to cut pretty well with Cook and Zeiss. I've heard that RED's primes are tweeners too -- in between. But I've never actually tested how the still lenses are cutting with the PL lenses--been too big a hassle to change the mounts.
 
joshua csehak said:
How so? You mean the barrel sticking out getting in the way of a matte box?
Click to expand...
Re: 17-55 zoom mechanics - it's not a smooth pull from 17 to 55mm. If you're used to the smooth action of L lenses you won't like the 17-55mm action at all.

I guess the other issue is the barrel moving in and out, but with my RedRockMicro Matte Box and the neoprene rings it's not a problem. Set the lens to maximum extension, fit the neoprene rubber ring around it and into the matte box groove, and you'll have no issues with vignetting at 17mm. Works fine in that regard and the flexible ring ensures no light leakage.

HTH

Paul
 
The canon lenses have internal iris stops of 1/2 or 1/3 when on a canon camera body. When on the Birger mount the lenses use quarter stop increments which although small are certainly noticeable
 
Tom Lowe said:
Hhhmmm. Seems like something worth looking into. I think Pawel has said that the 14mm MP will cover Epic X. One thing about Epic X to consider is that it can overcrank to 96 - 120 at full res, so the need for ultra-wide lenses is not as great as it is for the Red One. Right now, if you want to overcrank the Red One to 3K, for example, you need a super wide lens to get a wide lens effect. Not so with the Epic X. Perhaps a 14mm MP would do.

But I still find myself in this position where it seems like the best bet is to have both EF and PL mounts on hand. I just hope the process to switch them is easy.
Click to expand...

Tom,

in the case of MP 14mm or even 12mm that can cover Epic 5K I'm pretty skeptical about it.

If you follow the image circle numbers with MPs it rules that wider MP lens you get then the lens image circle is shrinking to a smaller size:

Zeiss Master Prime

16mm 34 Diameter/mm
25mm 35 Diameter/mm
32mm 36 Diameter/mm
50mm 40 Diameter/mm
75mm 42+ Diameter/mm
100mm 42+ Diameter/mm
 
Paul Leeming said:
Re: 17-55 zoom mechanics - it's not a smooth pull from 17 to 55mm. If you're used to the smooth action of L lenses you won't like the 17-55mm action at all.
Click to expand...

I think I see what you mean. My L zoom feels smoother, but not by a lot. Neither is anywhere near a Cooke or RPZ.
 
So is it confirmed that the epic will have the option of coming with an electronic ef mount ?In that case a dump pl mount adapter should be easy to add on when needed and the option of pl glass remains

Also Julio Quintana you might want to take a look at this:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=297

since you are considering still glass.They have excellent reviews and publish mtf charts for the lenses they test.This particular 35 is full manual does come in canon mount and seems to be better overal than canon's
 
Last edited:
One thing to consider when looking at non-Canon lenses for Epic. Jarred has mentioned a few times how they are profiling all the Canon L glass and that is a part of the system approach they are taking with their Red Canon Lens Mount. Getting non-Canon L glass will probably fall outside those lenses they have profiled. I'm not sure how much that will impact performance, but I am guessing it will impact it to some degree.
 
I do not understand what you are saying exactly.In a fully manual lens that does not have any sort of communication with the body the only connection would be the mechanical mount that should be exactly the same.What am i missing.
 
That's one wicked expensive lens, Steve. . .

Have you compared the look of that 14mm to the Tokina at 14mm??? I seldom ever want to be that wide, but I'd love to know the difference.

Stephen
 
Steve Dent said:
You can't overlook the 14mm f2.8 L II Canon lens. We just bought it and it's killer. The lack of distortion and CA are superior to almost anything out there in an ultrawide.
Click to expand...

To me, the EF 14mm 2.8 II has tons of distortion, and is not very sharp. I love the lens, and I use it a lot, but one of the reasons I like it is because of its distortion. It helps to sell the motion of moves, whether crane, dolly, steadicam, etc. The Nikon 14-24 destroys the Canon 14mm in terms of sharpness and image quality.
 
The optics are obviously superb on the Nikon 14-24 f2.8, no question better than those on the Canon 14 f2.8 II (which are great). But if you're going for a Canon prime set, then you've got to look at the 14. I imagine the OP doesn't want to change his mount or use an adapter, so I assumed a Nikon lens was out of the question. Also, the 14-24 will be NFG on the epic, even with an adapter, until they have an electronic Nikon mount (no manual iris ring).

The Tokina is a great lens, although not FF (yes I know it covers the Epic sensor). Electronically, it's different than the Canon. The OP may not want to gamble on a different lens in his all-Canon L primes set, depending on how well the Epic ends up working electronically with Canon glass. (speed of AF, etc.).

It's expensive, but on par with the other L lenses he's looking at. So I assumed money was not necessarily an issue.
 
Last edited:
It has already been mentioned by Jarred (I believe) that the Tokina (Canon mount) works perfectly with the forthcoming electronic RED/Canon mount. I think he said that it begins vignetting only at 12mm.

One thing that is often not discussed during the whole Canon versus PL lens debate concerns the fact that Canon FF lenses use only the center of the lenses to cover 4.5/5K on the RED One and Epic, whereas this is not the case with PL mount glass. That means that FF lenses operate in a sweet-spot, far beneath how they would need to perform on a full-frame camera. They are, therefore, over-designed, as it were with respect to One/Epic requirements. This is one of the reasons they look so darn good vis-a-vis the money spent to buy them. As Ketch has shown, in a scene with reasonably constant light levels (where iris control is not an issue), it is very difficult to distinguish the quality of the best stills lenses from the best PL lenses.

My hope is that RED's electronic lenses will allow for smooth iris control and get us stills lens users that much closer to Nirvana on a Disney World budget.

Stephen
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
One thing that is often not discussed during the whole Canon versus PL lens debate concerns the fact that Canon FF lenses use only the center of the lenses to cover 4.5/5K on the RED One and Epic, whereas this is not the case with PL mount glass. That means that FF lenses operate in a sweet-spot, far beneath how they would need to perform on a full-frame camera. They are, therefore, over-designed, as it were with respect to One/Epic requirements. This is one of the reasons they look so darn good vis-a-vis the money spent to buy them. As Ketch has shown, in a scene with reasonably constant light levels (where iris control is not an issue), it is very difficult to distinguish the quality of the best stills lenses from the best PL lenses.
Stephen
Click to expand...

It's true that all the badness, especially wide open, is pushed to the corners of most lenses. Canon designs the lenses so they'll still test out well to the edges FF, so on a smaller sensor that stuff should be next to nothing. So there are definitely a few pluses to go along with the negatives next to cinema lenses.

This is not just cognitive disonance because I bought 6 Canon L lenses, I'm sure, at all.
 
Iris control. That's what makes it special. Those other Nikon to Canon mounts are just that. . . mounts. You don't get iris control with them. That, and the cheap ones really suck, too.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top