Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Epic FF35 + Lenses

AnthonyFlores

AnthonyFlores

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
1,330
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Hollywood, CA
Hey Guys,

Obviously, it's a a little while away ... but I know many Epic buyers are dying for the FF35. Also, as has been discussed many times, there's going to be an issue of 6k/FF35 coverage for most S35 lens sets.

Many have expressed that once more FF35 cinema cameras are out, companies will design true cinema lens sets to cover the FF sensor across all focal lengths (I'm aware that still lenses and CP2's cover -- but I'm talking about more about cinema lenses) ...

But my question is -- is this really necessary? What I mean by that is, it seems the problem of coverage is only an issue on the wider angle lenses. Somewhere between 14mm-35mm depending on the brand.

So rather than entirely new lens sets, why don't these companies just add some wide-angle variations of their S35 sets that are designed for FF35 coverage? Then when Epic FF35 comes out, those with existing sets can simply buy the FF35 wide lenses and presto, they are good to go.

On the other hand, part of why I'm posting this is that maybe I'm thinking too simplistically. Maybe it's more than just an issue of "coverage" ... and a set that's been designed for S35 -- even on mid and higher focal lengths where coverage is not an issue -- won't be optimum for FF35. And thus maybe entirely new lens sets will have to be designed for the highest level of performance. I really don't know and would love some expert opinions.

I think it's a fascinating and important subject, because when you look at how difficult it is to develop a stellar lens line ... it could take YEARS for a company to produce a FF35 line -- and if it's only necessary to redesign the wide angles for coverage, then why go through the hassle/time/expense of all that?

Especially since you never know, the Epic FF35 could easily come out by the end of the year and certainly I would expect it by NAB 2012 -- and many of us will be investing in cine lens sets this year for our S35 Epic. So this is something for us and lens manufacturers to think about :)

Thanks in advance for your thoughts ...

Anthony
 
Last edited:
There is one giant hole in the FF35 lens market -- a very wide, very fast lens, such as a Master Prime 14mm T1.3.
 
All Things Considered

All Things Considered

When the FF35 Epic comes out it will have a new sensor, the Monstro, and considering the viability and modularity that RED has always championed I wouldn't be surprised if they've already thought of this issue and are preparing accordingly.

With the development of Anamorphics and Pro Zooms underway, it'd be highly unlikely that RED would not forsee the need for wide lenses capable of covering the FF Monstro Sensor.

I myself am considering waiting for the FF35 Epic to come out instead of getting a normal Epic - and have been researching this very issue.

But since I am on the subject (and please forgive me for derailing the thread a bit, when I talk Epic my mind goes crazy) how feasible is it to expect even more features with the FF35 as opposed to the standard Epic, considering the new, larger sensor?

100th post.....wahoo!!!
 
there's a lot of factors to think about when you have a full frame sensor. besides optical limitations, you have to also think that, compared to a 35 mm and s35 sensor. that XX mm lens on a full frame sensor will look considerably wider than on the smaller sensors.

so that canon 14 mm 2.8 on a FF sensor, will look like an 8-11 mm on a APS-C sized sensor. (roughly) Which is why you have such limited choices on medium format glass, and anamorphics. Not JUST the optical limitations, but your wides are freakin hellah wide cause of your huge sensor.

speed is simply an optical limitation that may or not be overcome. I'm not a lens technician but the amount of shallow depth of field you get on a FF sensor will smoke anything t1.3 lens. and with upcoming sensor sensitivities, will a f2.8 matter so much? DOF on a 2.8 on a ff sensor is incredibly shallow as is. My gut feeling is, if they made somewhere around a t1.4 full frame lens, it's not gonna be very sharp, and it's gonna be very milky and have a lot of other issues. my 2 cents.
 
Tom Lowe said:
There is one giant hole in the FF35 lens market -- a very wide, very fast lens, such as a Master Prime 14mm T1.3.
Click to expand...

Big fan of your work Tom ... for your stuff, do you ever use a wide angle lens wide open?

And to Tom W ... I totally get the part about the crop factor and how a 28mm on FF acts like a 21mm on S35 ... but still, part of the advantage of a larger sense is having more reach on the wide end. So having an 16 or 18mm lens with full frame coverage is nice :)

Still, looking forward to someone's on whether lenses designed for S35 sensors will perform optimally on an FF sensor at focal lengths where coverage is not an issue (like 28-35mm++) ...

And David, yes I'm sure Red has something planned for this -- but again wondering if they are just going to revise just the wide-angle lenses on the RPP line to cover a FF sensor or create an entire new FF set.

Thanks!

Anthony
 
I believe you do have it backwards....My 14mm FF lens is closer to an 22.4 mm on my aps-c sensor (1.6 crop)...so the scarlet 2/3 with a 3.5 crop factor would take my 50mm FF and look like a 175mm, hence the scarlet 8X fixed (28mm - 224mm 2/3rd) has a FF equivalent to something like 7.5mm - 60mm
 
You're all overlooking one thing; RED has made a statement of future direction, and it's DSMC. Don't overlook the 'S' in there!

Stills guys (which is what I primarily am; I hope I'm a quick study when it comes to cinematography!) need that FF35. I want a camera that can shoot stills as good as a D3, and motion as good as an EPIC. Preferably, do both better than either. And if I'm any judge, I think that's Jim's vision too.

Oh and I don't think the FF35 will be called EPIC. We'll have Scarlet - 2/3", EPIC - S35, and X - FF35.

Maybe we'll find out what 'X' will really be called at NAB... and see a working prototype?

Mike
 
Joseph Coleman said:
I believe you do have it backwards....My 14mm FF lens is closer to an 22.4 mm on my aps-c sensor (1.6 crop)...so the scarlet 2/3 with a 3.5 crop factor would take my 50mm FF and look like a 175mm, hence the scarlet 8X fixed (28mm - 224mm 2/3rd) has a FF equivalent to something like 7.5mm - 60mm
Click to expand...

This is sort of funny with the back and forth but you have everything right except the last statement - "hence...".

The ACTUAL focal length range of the 2/3" Fixed Scarlet lens will be about 7.5 to 60 mm. This is not "equivalent" to anything - this is the ACTUAL range of focal lengths. Because, as has been pointed out, the small sensor creates a "crop factor'" the full frame EQUIVALENT is about 28 to 224 (or so). Thought of another way, if you could put this Scarlet lens on to a FF camera, it would be VERY wide at the short (7.5 mm) end and only a "normal" lens at the 60 mm end. It does get confusing when you start going in circles with the "crop factor" thing.
 
Tom Lowe said:
There is one giant hole in the FF35 lens market -- a very wide, very fast lens, such as a Master Prime 14mm T1.3.
Click to expand...

A 14mm on S35 has almost the same field of view as 24mm on FF35. The Nikon 24mm f/1.4 is a nice piece of glass and it is relatively cheap. Having said that I'd kill for a 14mm FF35 f/1.2 lens :biggrin5:
 
AnthonyFlores said:
Big fan of your work Tom ... for your stuff, do you ever use a wide angle lens wide open?
Click to expand...

The question should be whether he uses anything else...LOL
 
Pawel Achtel said:
The question should be whether he uses anything else...LOL
Click to expand...

LOL ... but it seems like when you're shooting big sky/nightscapes you would need to be stopped down a bit more to have everything effectively in focus? No? I must admit I know NOTHING about timelapse photography ... maybe Tom can do a paid seminar someday for us Redusers :p
 
Terry VerHaar said:
This is sort of funny with the back and forth but you have everything right except the last statement - "hence...".

The ACTUAL focal length range of the 2/3" Fixed Scarlet lens will be about 7.5 to 60 mm. This is not "equivalent" to anything - this is the ACTUAL range of focal lengths. Because, as has been pointed out, the small sensor creates a "crop factor'" the full frame EQUIVALENT is about 28 to 224 (or so). Thought of another way, if you could put this Scarlet lens on to a FF camera, it would be VERY wide at the short (7.5 mm) end and only a "normal" lens at the 60 mm end. It does get confusing when you start going in circles with the "crop factor" thing.
Click to expand...

While I agree that it CAN be confusing, I've found it's fairly common practice ... just probably more so in the world of photography than in film, since FF is far from the "standard" in the film world. But in the still world, many MF shooters will discuss the crop factor relative to FF (in this case, the FOV goes down) ... and likewise, with those factoring up from smaller than FF sensors.

I think ultimately it's probably better to just have a good understand of a particular sensor and what the focal length of a lens looks like on that sensor -- then you can easily visualize what a shot looks like.

For example, I'm sure David Mullen can immediately picture the FOV on a 21mm lens shot on S35 ... no need for him to convert it to FF to picture anything. Same probably with someone who shoots a lot on S16 ... you tell them that the Scarlet is 7.5 to 60mm and immediately they will know what shots look like at each focal length in that range.

I would rather be in this position/level of experience than needing to figure out the crop factor all the time, but it's a process and takes some experience shooting a lot within a certain format to achieve this level of understanding :coolgleamA:
 
Getting back to the first post, when people started putting 35mm PL-mount lenses on Super-16 cameras, such as the Cooke S4's and ARRI Ultra Primes, there was a lack of short-enough focal lengths for Super-16, so Cooke and ARRI made some short primes that only covered the Super-16 frame to augment their line-up... I suspect the same thing will happen with FF35, they will release some wide-angle lenses that cover the FF35 area to augment their regular PL-mount line-up.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Getting back to the first post, when people started putting 35mm PL-mount lenses on Super-16 cameras, such as the Cooke S4's and ARRI Ultra Primes, there was a lack of short-enough focal lengths for Super-16, so Cooke and ARRI made some short primes that only covered the Super-16 frame to augment their line-up... I suspect the same thing will happen with FF35, they will release some wide-angle lenses that cover the FF35 area to augment their regular PL-mount line-up.
Click to expand...

If so David, that's fantastic news for those of us looking to invest in S35 glass this year ... since (as the original post states) I wasn't sure if a lens set would/should be completely redesigned across all focal lengths, so as to be optimized with that particular size sensor.

(I think I got this notion because Jacek once said on a separate thread that lenses are designed and optimized for a certain sensor ... thus, for example, MF lenses wouldn't have the same level of performance/accuracy on an FF or S35 sensor. Not an exact quote but that was his point.)

But knowing we can buy an S35 set today, and then just later add new lenses at the wide end to cover the FF image circle is very good to know. Thanks David! :)

I just wish more manufacturers listed the maximum image circle coverage for each focal length on their literature -- yes Duclos has helped us, but he can't do that for everything lens out there. IMHO this should be standard practice, just like it is to list the close focus distance or other details ....
 
I have a set of ZF nikon mount.. but I wouldn't worry if I had to crop into that Monstro sensor, which might mean 4.5k.. and making do for a while :)

Maybe we'll see more cinevized SLR glass popping up :crazy:
 
I'm telling you guys right now, there is a fortune to be earned for the first lens manufacturer to put out a high-IQ 16mm T1.3 FF35 lens.
 
Tom Lowe said:
I'm telling you guys right now, there is a fortune to be earned for the first lens manufacturer to put out a high-IQ 16mm T1.3 FF35 lens.
Click to expand...

Dude, really? Please explain -- and also what things you think it would be used for other than your amazing timelapse films ..... :lurk5:

As an aside, I wonder how much cinema glass will be really be designed for FF since -- it has been and seems likely to remain more of a specialty format for a while. Maybe it will pick up for those looking to replicate an image/resolution that's more Imax-like. (But even that's a small niche, in terms of camera numbers.) And with not as many FF cinema cameras out there for a while (considering that the Epic FF won't have nearly the sales numbers as the S35, partly due to upgrade pathway) ... there's not as much incentive for a lens maker to do a total redesign.

One possible option, however, is for some lens manufacturers to design FF sets with interchangeable mounts (ef, zf, pl ... like Zeiss did with the CP2's) -- because I do anticipate there being a ton of whatever the next version of the 5D is and that's going to be a decent size market. Even if most 5D Mark III owners don't have the money to own high-end FF cine glass, there will be a much bigger rental market for it.

Could be more worth the manufacturer's while then ...... and at that point Tom, you might get your razor sharp 16mm t1.3 cinema glass :)

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