Canon Lenses ok for documentary or RPP?

[Michael Dalton]

I have been shooting wildlife for 10 years. The best shots are the one you get, and moving heavy gear around with a crew is limiting. If your moving 200m, it's not too bad, and you afford some variety. I have options when I have to be super light, and when I move around in vehicles.

My light setup is the 2.8 L zoom series Set.
16-35
24-70 (get the mark II version)
70-200
2x

Vehicle bound I add
Sigma 150-500
Rokinon cine set (14,24,35,85)

I'd like a proper zoom, a nice 600mm 2.8, but for quick work a zoom is much better. A 600mm lens is not going to be much good if a cheetah chases an animals at you. Even 1300$ sigma 500m is pretty sharp. I shot a volcano series last year, and I did crave some faster lenses. A 1.2 would have been nice. And a faster long lens for night shots. Most of the difference between the top lenses are marginal in quality difference. Most stills lens resolve more then what broadcast can shoot. However I no longer thing about the HD world or 2k. It's 4k from now on for me.

 

[Will Keir]

Andreas. The RPPs are great lenses. If you are going to be focusing during the shot they are the better choice because they don't breath as much.

If you are going with images were the focus stays constant within the duration of the shot, the Canons will do the job and as you said, they are lighter.

Are you packing the set of lenses in a hard case or tossing the lot into a travel bag for your trips in the forest? You also might find you do not need all focal lengths of the RPP set. Maybe a wide, the medium and a long instead of the whole package? Were you adding the 300RPP to the set? That's a great lens for shooting wildlife outside of 10 feet.

Hi all
I'm writing from the jungle of Costa Rica. I have a toucan sitting to my left, tons of brig macaw parrots and a whole family of sloth living here.

Now currently I have used Red Primes for my shooting, but I want to know. Will the quality be good enough if I use some canon lenses?
Reason for me to use Canon lenses:
- they are much lighter and the weight is tough. We are at one site so we dont need to carry them much but just moving the camera 200meters when it's 25kg is hard.
- I only have primes, so no zoom. This means it takes a lot of time to switch lenses

I will use the shooting mainly for television so 2k. There is a little chance it may be for independent cinemas but unlikely.
Any thoughts are welcome.
Back to the jungles
/Andreas

 

[Steve Gibby]

I just returned from the first of many trips to the Caribbean this winter as I produce, direct, and shoot a highly mobile TV documentary. Shooting is in jungles, marine environment, villages, etc.

Lenses for my mobile EFP style Epic kit - Red Canon titanium smart mount, Canon 16-36 II, Canon 24-70 II, Canon 70-200 II, 1.4x, Sigma 120-300. Filtering is via screw-on filters. Camera has only necessary accessories to keep mobility high. Epic is used for the high-end mood montages and off speed shots.

Tripod system is Miller Compass 15, with Miller Solo CF spreaderless legs. Lightweight, smooth action, durable...

For general purpose EFP style use on the documentary I also have a Canon XF100 with about every accessory you could imagine - Canon .8x converter, dual wireless mics, short shotgun, Lite Panels Pro, slider, etc.

For POV and hyper-risky shots on the doc I use a GoPro Hero3 Black Edition, with lots of different mounts and cool accessories.

Nearly all of the above fits into my Clik Elite Contejour 40 backpack, with the tripod and Sigma (in a soft case) then slung over my shoulder.

Mobility is king for most documentaries - and using primes and walking to framings causes you to miss tons of shots, and in the case of nature filming walking around could get you trampled or eaten

When using Epic for shooting mobile documentaries 35MM still zooms are the ticket...

Best advice = use the best tool for each job, or portion thereof

 

[Alan Peterson]

I have been shooting wildlife for 10 years. The best shots are the one you get, and moving heavy gear around with a crew is limiting. If your moving 200m, it's not too bad, and you afford some variety. I have options when I have to be super light, and when I move around in vehicles.

My light setup is the 2.8 L zoom series Set.
16-35
24-70 (get the mark II version)
70-200
2x

Vehicle bound I add
Sigma 150-500
Rokinon cine set (14,24,35,85)

I'd like a proper zoom, a nice 600mm 2.8, but for quick work a zoom is much better. A 600mm lens is not going to be much good if a cheetah chases an animals at you. Even 1300$ sigma 500m is pretty sharp. I shot a volcano series last year, and I did crave some faster lenses. A 1.2 would have been nice. And a faster long lens for night shots. Most of the difference between the top lenses are marginal in quality difference. Most stills lens resolve more then what broadcast can shoot. However I no longer thing about the HD world or 2k. It's 4k from now on for me.

Michael, what do you think of the Sigma 150-500 compared to the Canons? I've been curious about it, but haven't had a chance to get my hands on one. Seeing as it's pretty affordable and about half the weight of most super-telephotos, it seems ideal for taking into the field. Is the image quality decent?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Looks like same location but one is from one floor up, looks like about the same FOV. As I remember Toia shot both with his epic. It looks quite similar as my own findings with canon FD's, they are definitely sharper than most cineglass and for sure more rectilinear as the epic only uses the center of the image circle of the still lenses they are very far from braking up towards the edges.

The only bad thing I could think of about shooting trough still glass (except for difficulties making nice focus pulls while rolling) is the fact that they actually looks a bit boring, sharp as F#€" all the way to the corners, no vinjeting, no chromatic adoration etc. But if thats wanted it's of course very easy to apply in post.

Film lenses are made bulky for a lot of different reasons. Some of these reasons do not apply well to modern way of shooting. One reason for their being sturdy was because they should be able take the beating from focus gear. One was to make the markings bigger, one was to make the focus throw longer. Another reason was to be able to use clamp on matt boxes. Also they need to be exact so the picture does not "move" when touching the lens, and avoid breathing was taking into consideration. As the video taps where shit poor on film cameras the markings where deadly important as the assistant camera man had nothing else to go by.

However a fast film stock actually did not hold up so much resolution at academy projection so the need for super sharp cine lenses was not the highest priority in comparison for still lenses that for a long time been built for vista sized image circles and the resolution has been much more important than for moving imagery.

So today with bigger sensors, and new ways of shooting, possibilities to digitally interact with the lens and even pull focus from looking at large high definition screens etc. The stll lenses, at least to me makes more sense in more cases than they don't.

One of my favorite observations about stills lenses in a longtime. Especially your note about shooting in the "center" of the frame; you are right, we are getting often the BEST of these stills lenses, and cropping way many of their flaws that our sensors don't even "see".

The only way to make them "interesting" (IMHO) seems to be to get slightly "older" lenses, like FD's, Contax, Leica's, Rokkors, etc...which have coatings and looks that predate digital and imprint a different aesthetic and flaring quality onto the sensors.

What's funny is that I've even found that my Hasselblad "F" series lenses (that faster Hassy's, mostly all 2.8s), though a tad less sharp than my Contax (most of their MTF's peek at btw 88 to 92 at f8, whereas most Contax peek in mid 90's at 5.6)...are still PLENTY sharp enough, and in their case...because we are cropped so far into the center (using about 25% of the image circle), there is a "robustness" to the image that surprises me...even wide open...

 

[James Brundige]

All of the lenses above out-resolve the sensor. For portable work, cine lenses are silly. They make sense for people with trucks and crews, but not backpacks.

My Canon zooms, 17-40, 24-70, and 70-200 look great on the Red. I occasionally use a prime, and I can not tell the difference until I grab a tiny detail and blow it up to an unreasonable dimension. The 100 mm macro is sharp as any lens I've ever seen. I carry the F4 versions because they are half the weight. If you need another stop, there is always ISO.

Zooms are the ticket for doco work, because you usually don't have the option to move the camera around for perfect framing. My only PL lens is a Canon FD 150-600, the best of all wildlife lenses IMHO.

 

[Nick Morrison]

All of the lenses above out-resolve the sensor.

Do we know what MTF "score" actually IS the sensor's max? I just asking as I'm kind of curious myself...not sure if anyone knows...

 

[Matt Ryan]

Do we know what MTF "score" actually IS the sensor's max? I just asking as I'm kind of curious myself...not sure if anyone knows...

I'd be curious of that number as well, especially now that I know what high end cine glass resolves.

 

[Michael Dalton]

I just returned from the first of many trips to the Caribbean this winter as I produce, direct, and shoot a highly mobile TV documentary. Shooting is in jungles, marine environment, villages, etc.

Lenses for my mobile EFP style Epic kit - Red Canon titanium smart mount, Canon 16-36 II, Canon 24-70 II, Canon 70-200 II, 1.4x, Sigma 120-300. Filtering is via screw-on filters. Camera has only necessary accessories to keep mobility high. Epic is used for the high-end mood montages and off speed shots.

Tripod system is Miller Compass 15, with Miller Solo CF spreaderless legs. Lightweight, smooth action, durable...

For general purpose EFP style use on the documentary I also have a Canon XF100 with about every accessory you could imagine - Canon .8x converter, dual wireless mics, short shotgun, Lite Panels Pro, slider, etc.

For POV and hyper-risky shots on the doc I use a GoPro Hero3 Black Edition, with lots of different mounts and cool accessories.

Nearly all of the above fits into my Clik Elite Contejour 40 backpack, with the tripod and Sigma (in a soft case) then slung over my shoulder.

Mobility is king for most documentaries - and using primes and walking to framings causes you to miss tons of shots, and in the case of nature filming walking around could get you trampled or eaten

When using Epic for shooting mobile documentaries 35MM still zooms are the ticket...

Best advice = use the best tool for each job, or portion thereof

Seems like when you work professionally, you come to the same conclusions. The environment demands it and why Steve and I have selected similar kit. I too have a GO Pro black, and fit it all into a Fstop backpack. I also went for a light tripod with a satchler 6 carbon. When mobil with a Land Rover I have added a Skyjib 8 Octocopter which really kills the idea of being mobile.

 

[Michael Dalton]

Michael, what do you think of the Sigma 150-500 compared to the Canons? I've been curious about it, but haven't had a chance to get my hands on one. Seeing as it's pretty affordable and about half the weight of most super-telephotos, it seems ideal for taking into the field. Is the image quality decent?

Alan, I'm mixed. I'm having issues where the fstop is not working all the time. Not sure if it's the lens or what. I have yet to fully test it, but will do so next week. I'm filming baboons who live on a cliff in the rift valley. The image is pretty sharp, no complaints even fully extended. The range is important for very fast shooting stuff. at 1300$ it was worth testing.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'd be curious of that number as well, especially now that I know what high end cine glass resolves.

Do you have an MTF score for that??! (at 10lp/mm)

 

[Matt Ryan]

Do you have an MTF score for that??! (at 10lp/mm)

I know what the lenses in our High Speed Lens shootout resolve at center and at the edges courtesy of Matt Duclos from the projector test. Results will be up Friday.

I'm really curious to know what the Epic MX resolves after compression.

 

[ivan friedman]

Anybody got the Canon L 14mm? I wonder if this prime is sharper than the 16-35 zoom. I find this zoom very soft.

I have the 14 mm and also the 16-35. So far, the 14 mm looks a lot sharper. One of my favourite glass.

ivan

 

[paul engstrom]

Canons?? No way.

You need Nikons

The 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 are great.

Kidding aside, we've had the same sorts of success that the other guys have had for mobile shooting. Depending what type of show it is, good stills zoom lenses can be perfect for 2nd unit work too.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I know what the lenses in our High Speed Lens shootout resolve at center and at the edges courtesy of Matt Duclos from the projector test. Results will be up Friday.

I'm really curious to know what the Epic MX resolves after compression.

How did you guys measure MTF? At 10, 20 or 40 lp/mm?

Love to see the 10lp/mm scores, those are the most commonly used to judge stills glass sharpness, so would be a good way to compare....

 

[Matt Ryan]

How did you guys measure MTF? At 10, 20 or 40 lp/mm?

Love to see the 10lp/mm scores, those are the most commonly used to judge stills glass sharpness, so would be a good way to compare....

Thats a Duclos question haha. We all just sat in and watched him work for that.

 

[Alan Peterson]

Alan, I'm mixed. I'm having issues where the fstop is not working all the time. Not sure if it's the lens or what. I have yet to fully test it, but will do so next week. I'm filming baboons who live on a cliff in the rift valley. The image is pretty sharp, no complaints even fully extended. The range is important for very fast shooting stuff. at 1300$ it was worth testing.

I figured it would be a mixed bag at that price, but I'm glad to hear the IQ is decent because it would make backpacking with a broad telephoto range much more practical. I guess I should try one out from lensrentals.com or something and see what it can do.

 

[Michael Dalton]

One thing I get from these forums are people are so hung up on technical data. CP L primes are not as Nikon, or you need PL etc, these lenses are better then these etc.. It's exhausting to keep up on it. I like a philosophy of one of the greatest wildlife filmmakers Alan Root. A couple of years ago I was with him on a capture of animals (he was flying his helicopter in the capture) and I asked him about lens and f-stops etc, and how much he knew of the technical side of things (I noticed he seemed not to be a technical guy), his response, I knew nothing of f-stops, lenses etc, I knew how to get good images, and tell great stories. At the end of the day all of these quality lenses are within what 2% of each other. I personally don't care about getting that 1%, I'd rather get 100% in the thing I'm capturing. Great moments captured are what it's about, and great moment is not going to matter at all if it is 1% sharper, or color is slightly better on Alexia over red. At the end of the day, less then 1% of those seeing you finished work have the knowledge to notice anything different.

A pretty picture will tell you a hundred times more things in emotion then a technical chart will.

Not my photo, but completes my argument.

 

[Will Keir]

I knew we missed you having you for the tests for a reason...

How did you guys measure MTF? At 10, 20 or 40 lp/mm?

Love to see the 10lp/mm scores, those are the most commonly used to judge stills glass sharpness, so would be a good way to compare....

 

[Will Keir]

There is a lot of truth in your point. I believe a lot of us use various lenses and compare technical data because it's an art forum we enjoy, part of our craft. Even if 2%, isn't it true, art is in the details?

One thing I get from these forums are people are so hung up on technical data. CP L primes are not as Nikon, or you need PL etc, these lenses are better then these etc.. It's exhausting to keep up on it. I like a philosophy of one of the greatest wildlife filmmakers Alan Root. A couple of years ago I was with him on a capture of animals (he was flying his helicopter in the capture) and I asked him about lens and f-stops etc, and how much he knew of the technical side of things (I noticed he seemed not to be a technical guy), his response, I knew nothing of f-stops, lenses etc, I knew how to get good images, and tell great stories. At the end of the day all of these quality lenses are within what 2% of each other. I personally don't care about getting that 1%, I'd rather get 100% in the thing I'm capturing. Great moments captured are what it's about, and great moment is not going to matter at all if it is 1% sharper, or color is slightly better on Alexia over red. At the end of the day, less then 1% of those seeing you finished work have the knowledge to notice anything different.

A pretty picture will tell you a hundred times more things in emotion then a technical chart will.

Not my photo, but completes my argument.