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 :)

Dragon Lens Coverage Information

Jeff Kilgroe said:
It will cover. The only CP.2 that has FF35 coverage issues is the 18. IMO, now that the 15 is available and since there are a number of great lenses in the set, I don't see why anyone would ever buy the 18mm. The 18mm CP is a complete turd and a huge blemish on what is mostly a rather good set of lenses. Oh, and get the 50mm T2 macro instead of the faster 50mm prime. The T2 macro version is miles ahead as an all-around better lens, the other is just "meh..."
Click to expand...

Part of me really wants the CP2s, part of me wants the Schnieder Full Frames... CP2's seem like a nice safe investment due to the easy mount changes, so that really appeals to me despite the non matched set...

On another tangent how is the .95 Leica Noctilux on the dragon? has anyone gave it a go?

Does it cover 6k? That lens is my white whale, and part of me wants to forgo a complete set and go straight for it... different fields of view be damned! LOL
 
Humberto Rivera said:
Phil, might I make a SUGGESTION, what would-the-lens-look like at 6000 X 3000, would they vignette at the same place or would you get a lot more coverage than a 5.5 K frame! Just a question? It would be nice to test the “Leica Summilux-C Primes” and the “Zeiss Master Primes”! Or maybe that’s a job for the Red Camera company since they did say there is full 6K coverage in both lenses!

Humberto Rivera
Click to expand...

I guess I just answered my own question, if the 25 mm “ZEISS MASTER PRIME” has an Image Circle of 35 Ø mm, and the Red 6K Dragon Epic has an Image Circle of 34.5 Ø mm! So then it stands to reason that a 6000 X 3000 image at 2:1 has an Image Circle of 33.52 Ø mm. So then the 16 mm “ZEISS MASTER PRIME” which has an Image Circle of 34 Ø mm will fit well within the 33.52 Ø mm (image circle) of the 6000 (Horizontal) X 3000 (Vertical) which is also 29.98 (Horizontal) x 14.99 (Vertical). I’m I right?

Humberto Rivera
 
Nick Morrison said:
Hey guys for wides, don't forget the Tokina/Duclos 11-16 covers FULL FRAME at 16mm, so that's another great WIDE option for Dragon 6k. It may even cover Dragon further down the zoom range...at 14mm or 13mm...someone would need to check.
Click to expand...

Erm... You must have a magic 11-16 because the ones I have don't cover FF35 at 16mm. Close, but just not all the way there... Not that it matters, Dragon6K requires coverage on par with Canon APS-H format, not FF35. At the wide end, 11mm starts to show noticeable portholing on MX 5K. Anyway, I fully expect this little powerhouse zoom to cover Dragon 6KFF from about 13mm and onward, possibly even at a bit over 12mm... At 5.5K on Dragon, coverage should be the same as on MX 5K. Anyway, I still love the Tokina 11-16, especially my Duclos cine-modded one.

Wait a minute... Is there a coverage difference between the "old" 11-16 and the new vII revision?
 
Humberto Rivera said:
I guess I just answered my own question, if the 25 mm “ZEISS MASTER PRIME” has an Image Circle of 35 Ø mm, and the Red 6K Dragon Epic has an Image Circle of 34.5 Ø mm! So then it stands to reason that a 6000 X 3000 image at 2:1 has an Image Circle of 33.52 Ø mm. So then the 16 mm “ZEISS MASTER PRIME” which has an Image Circle of 34 Ø mm will fit well within the 33.52 Ø mm (image circle) of the 6000 (Horizontal) X 3000 (Vertical) which is also 29.98 (Horizontal) x 14.99 (Vertical). I’m I right?

Humberto Rivera
Click to expand...


But the key thing to remember when doing relative size comparison is "what was the intended usage size of the lens set". Because intended usage parts of the glass may differ from the quality of the corners that were never intended to be utilized... So that is the whole thing to consider when using S35 sized glass... Thats why ideally people will throw glass up and take screen shots on all these glass sets being listed here so that one can see the vignettes and fields of view. at least i hope one day someone shoots and posts something like that...

I think that makes for an interesting test. Like all the aspect ratios shot on all the cine lenses screen shotted as a quick DP reference guide... I can try to convince the rental house I am with to put something together perhaps...It'd make for an interesting show and tell if one had a guide like that at all aspect ratios.. On ideally both Epic MX and Dragon...

I'll try to get the ball rolling if I can as far as Epic goes...
 
Brian Merlen said:
Part of me really wants the CP2s, part of me wants the Schnieder Full Frames... CP2's seem like a nice safe investment due to the easy mount changes, so that really appeals to me despite the non matched set...
Click to expand...

Be careful with assumptions on "easy mount changes". It's not something you do in the field if you need to move from PL to Canon mount, per se. It should be done in a clean environment and followed with a check on a collimation bench. We're strictly in the realm of rental house operations here and not something that should appeal to end users or indie operators. The Schneider Xenon FF primes also offer the same mount exchange ability.

Speaking of the Xenon FF primes, they look very promising and I have been rather pleased with what I have seen of them so far. I have a set on order and I'm expecting them around the time I should be Dragonizing my EPIC-M. :) Like within the next 4 weeks or so.

Anyone who's ever read my lens comments will know I'm not a fan of the CP.x lenses. Maybe I'm just less of a fan of the Zeiss marketing on these. The mismatched set combined with a dud lens (18mm) has always been a turn-off. Yes, I've used them on several occasions, still not impressed. I find it odd that when Zeiss "fine-tuned" the set and released the CP.2's (vs. the original "Compact Primes"), they crippled the aperture performance on the 35, 50 and 85. Only to re-release the lenses again within the past year as "super speed" versions that had their original aperture operation restored. WTF?

Anyway, enough on that. Some people really like these lenses and they're still not a bad option at that price since they have a decent selection of focal lengths -- something that most "low cost" sets of cine primes don't offer. For now, my money is on the Schneider FF's though. We'll see what happens -- it's going to take them a while to build out a complete offering with several focal lengths.
 
THIS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE ARRI BROCHURE; “This unique combination of features allows for fresh angles and focus pulls that would have previously been impossible, creating new ways to block a scene and new image sequences for cinematographers to explore. All these advances, combined with the improved T* XP anti-reflex coating, strategically painted lens rims and special light traps, result in lenses with UNSURPASSED RESOLUTION, HIGH CONTRAST AND LOW VEILING GLARE. Even in the darkest corner at night the MASTER PRIMES can capture details other lenses simply cannot see.” Just saying, they were talking about the “Master Primes”!

Humberto Rivera
 
Phil, are you sure you didn't accidentally mix the Leica's with the Master Primes? Jarred has said the Leica's cover fully down to the 16mm which just slightly vignettes at 6K with the rest fully covering.
 
Would love to have a confirmed report on the cooke miniS4 as well! The data puts them around the same ballpark as the Schnieders I think, but it would be great to hear from some hands-on tests!
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Erm... You must have a magic 11-16 because the ones I have don't cover FF35 at 16mm. Close, but just not all the way there... Not that it matters, Dragon6K requires coverage on par with Canon APS-H format, not FF35. At the wide end, 11mm starts to show noticeable portholing on MX 5K. Anyway, I fully expect this little powerhouse zoom to cover Dragon 6KFF from about 13mm and onward, possibly even at a bit over 12mm... At 5.5K on Dragon, coverage should be the same as on MX 5K. Anyway, I still love the Tokina 11-16, especially my Duclos cine-modded one.

Wait a minute... Is there a coverage difference between the "old" 11-16 and the new vII revision?
Click to expand...

Jeff, I don't think the vII has any coverage differences vs the vI.

Are you sure about the Tokina not covering 16mm at Full Frame? Maybe it vignettes and we haven't noticed? If you look at this piece here, the opening "wide" shot is the 11-16 on a 5D, whereas the rest of the piece is Red One MX with Ultraprimes.

Either way. Point still stands. This "little powerhouse" as you call it (I like that!), should be TERRIFIC on Dragon.

 
Great to see the Ultra Primes covering 6K (except the 16mm at 5.5K). Would also love to hear how the Optimo DP Zooms cover on Dragon.
 
My Superspeed Mk3's don't cover my Epic's at 5kWS. I wonder what version of Leica's you had, the first 50 sets were version 1.
 
Thanks Phil, a sticky-worthy post as usual. I'm curious about how anamorphic lenses play with Dragon.
 
There's something odd with the numbers on the Leicas. Phil's records don't seem to match this statement by Jim, and this statement by Jarred.

Phil, could you clarify please.
 
A chart with screen grabs of the vignetting could really help the end user in the decision of lens choice.

MIght ease up some confusion everybody is having now.

Phil, thanks for all this wonderful info.
 
Last edited:
Most standard sets should be more than fine, as they're all created to cover 4-perf academy 35mm (which is a good deal taller than dragon)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top