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 :)

Differences in lens brands

Pawel Achtel said:
Get Arri-Zeiss Master Prime set and a Master Zoom and be done with it. :biggrinjester:

Seriously: Speed, sharpness, contrast, build quality, focus range, breathing, flare, ghosting, chromatic aberrations, distortion, vignetting, weight, price, etc... it all depends on what you are trying to film and achieve and what the budget is. It is like asking, which brand of a car you should buy?
Click to expand...

Somebody (a lens test expert) told me at IBC that brand new Cooke 5/i at 18, 25, 32, 50, 60, 75, 100, 135mm from T1.4 to T22 aperture is probably the best fast cine lens set made today.
 
I don't intend to be mean to anyone, but in hopes of keeping things clear for the OP and anyone looking at this thread after the fact, talking about a crop factor is essentially useless information for someone with a camera looking for more lenses.
It can be useful if someone already has lenses and is looking for a camera with a different image size than they are used to using with those lenses.

The OP currently has a 14-140mm zoom. Any other lens, be it 35mm still glass or PL mount cine lenses, will give him the same field of view, depth of field (at the same aperture) and "crop factor" as his 14-140 set to the same focal length.

So, if he goes out a buys a 100mm Canon FD stills lens, or a RED PRO 100mm, it will be the same as setting his 14-140mm to 100mm (except for the option of a wider aperture.)
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi Liam,

You wrote earlier in the thread "If you go for 35mm stills glass don't forget you'll have a 2x crop factor. "

That implies that the focal length written on the lens is wrong when used with a RED. It makes no difference if the still lenses are designed for DX or FF35, the focal length written on them is what they are.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Hi Stephen,

Clearly, that's not what I was intending to imply and of course, I understand that a 50mm is a 50mm and as I said earlier I also understand why you don't like the term.

And yes, I can see how this is confusing the issue:)
 
Stefan Christou said:
It's getting harder to tell these days
Click to expand...

Lens selection I find makes a subtle but important difference, often I don't have the bugdet to choose. Having a focus puller complaining about the marks on a lens, wastes energy I can use elsewhere.
I always liked the look of the K35's, my focus puller would ask why I did not use the ultra primes (which I find too sharp). I like the look & focus pullers like the handling of S4's, the Pancros & S5's have the same feel, so I am sure I will use them often. I own some Super Speeds that seldom get used, solely due to handling, I love the images.
 
I meant harder to tell where the quality comes from: Lens or camera?

I suppose it really depends what kind of level we are talking about. In the cheap seats the recording format makes a huge difference. But yes the lens is the image
 
For the record, I understand crop factor and have already made my decision (Contax Yashica zeiss lenses.)

So I'm just letting this thread go where it will, since my question has been answered.
 
Andy Jarisz said:
For the record, I understand crop factor and have already made my decision (Contax Yashica zeiss lenses.)

So I'm just letting this thread go where it will, since my question has been answered.
Click to expand...

You wont be disappointed, like the Super Speeds, just a bigger set of fast lenses available
 
Liam Hall said:
Clearly, that's not what I was intending to imply and of course, I understand that a 50mm is a 50mm and as I said earlier I also understand why you don't like the term.

And yes, I can see how this is confusing the issue:)
Click to expand...

It is an issue that has confused plenty of people in the past, and that's why I (and another Stephen) are jumping all over the terminology. Not to jump all over you, but to try and be as clear as possible so others reading this don't end up confused.

Liam Hall said:
Stephen, I'm talking formats not focal lengths, ie using a lens designed for 35mm stills (135 format) will have a crop factor of x2.
Click to expand...

It can just be grammar, but this does seem to me (and therefore likely others) to be backwards.
To be nit-pickingly precise for the record here, the FourThirds format has a crop factor of x2 compared to 135 format. It's the camera, not the lenses, as a lens designed for 35mm stills, or medium format, or APS-C, or S35, or FourThirds, used on a FourThirds format camera, will all show a 2x crop factor compared to a 135 camera.

You are definitely improving things by referring to the 135 format, as a lot of people get confused with "full-frame 35mm" being used to refer to either 135 stills format, or to 35mm or S35 cinema format. I wish it were more widely adopted.
I spent years referring to the stills format as "135 film" in the lab at a photography store, but I know for most people it will always and forever be "35mm"

And I'll never forget the DP who started swearing at me for saying that the RED ONE sensor was not the same size as his Canon 5D's sensor, because he "knew" that both were "full-frame 35mm!"
 
Andy Jarisz said:
There are lots of adapters, but the most available are for Nikon F, Pentax K, and Leica M.
Click to expand...

Not every lens work on any camera with adapters, also due to flange distance and rear element. For exemple a 24mm Leica R don't work on a Canon 5D MK II.

Leica M lenses are very special because Leica M camera don't have a mirror and are closer to the film plane as other lenses (Leica M standard of 27.80mm ± 0.01). I would definitly look if the focal flange is usable on your camera with adapter.

Sorry for my bad english.

Patrick
 
The GH1 is essentially a form digital rangefinger, so there is nothing between the lens mount and the sensor package. All viewing is done via an EVF or LCD screen.

This makes it more easy than say a 7d, to adapt to new lens formats, providing the FFD is greater than that of the stock m43 mount.
 
Stephen Strangways said:
It is an issue that has confused plenty of people in the past, and that's why I (and another Stephen) are jumping all over the terminology. Not to jump all over you, but to try and be as clear as possible so others reading this don't end up confused.
Click to expand...

Don't worry Stephen, I understand that many people don't like the term. I won't take it personally:)

Many people do like the term and fully understand what it means even though it is grammatically incorrect. Indeed, it shouldn't even be called a crop factor, because nothing gets cropped.

I work with many different formats from 35mm, Super16, 2/3" to 1/3" and I find it useful because my brain is calibrated to 135 format.

Wait until Scarlet/Epic come out, this forum will be awash with posts about crop factors...

Actually with that in mind, lets ban the use of it now!
 
Normal, in Red world??? hehe

Normal, in Red world??? hehe

If we accept the idea that a 45 degree field of view constitutes a "normal" lens, meaning that it is roughly the average human visual field sans peripheral, then perhaps the most useful info would be to note each format's "normal" focal length.

FWIW I always think of FF35 (135) format as having 50mm as normal. On the RedOne I think of 33mm as normal.

The reason I advocate this is that each shooter can use their most familiar format as their reference and semantic arguments can be sidestepped. Just a thought...

Cheers - #19
 
The term "crop factor" doesn't seem misleading to me, because the way I think about a lens is in terms of its angle of coverage as determined by the lens's image circle. For a given lens (of any focal length), the smaller the sensor, the more light that is unused (or "cropped away") from the circle of illumination projected onto the sensor frame, thereby resulting in a photo with less angle of view (relative to a larger format sensor). So, I don't see why its such a wrong thing to say "crop," however I do think it's important to specify to what format the crop factor relates to (e.g. comparing coverage of a 50mm lens on S16 vs. S35 format can be described in terms of a numerical "crop factor"). Then again I'm no expert on lenses either, so comments are welcome! :-)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top