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 :)

Epic Lens Test - Canon vs PL Elite

Evin Grant said:
Plastic has it's uses and the Zeiss ZE/F are not in the same leauge as the current G Nikkors, and yes, I've tested them side by side.
Click to expand...

Happy new year evin! That's good to know... I was looking into the zeiss because of my canon lenses and the scarlet mount. Can you show some pictures? I read some of your post on the G lenses... Sounds really good...
 
Evin Grant said:
Now this next comment is going to start a bit of a religious war but I agree with Jim, that even among still lenses the Canon L wides, zooms and even the 70-200 2.8 are not the creme de la creme (the 70-200 f4 is quite good though). They are totally servicable as is proved by many professional photographers that rely on them, but compared to Leica M/R, some Zeiss ZEs and the new Nikon G series lenses they are at the back of the pack. This is even evidenced by the number of Canon shooters who use the 14-24 Nikkor with an adapter on thier EOS bodies.
Click to expand...

No war; total truth.

I've put a Canon 28-300 on my Scarlet as my 'go anywhere, do anything' lens. It's not Canon's best lens and it's sure as hell no Optimo, but when you have to carry it all on your own back it simplifies lens selection amazingly: the best lens is the one you *actually manage to take with you*.

The other lens in my backpack will be my Nikon 14-24 + adapter. The G glass is good, but the 14-24 is outstanding.

Mike
 
Evin Grant said:
Plastic has it's uses and the Zeiss ZE/F are not in the same leauge as the current G Nikkors, and yes, I've tested them side by side.
Click to expand...

Evin, do you have any samples (stills, r3ds) that you can share?

I'm sitting on the fence with Zeiss ZEs and Nikon Gs, but I can't find any videos shot with G primes. There are some vids on Vimeo shot with them, but every video is a mix of several different lenses from different manufacturers, it's like "lenses used — Nikon 35mm G, Canon 24-70mm L etc." so I can't even guess which one is which.
 
I'm trying to get ahold of a Nikon mount for my Epic but I've had other obligations. The side by side tests I did were for a client and unfortunately I can't post them since they were internal only.
Once I do get a Nikon mount though I'll try to get a set of ZFs and maybe even a Canon mount and some L and Leica glass for a comparison. Really, though from personal experience all of the high quality lenses starting with the Canon EF and L series and up will make cinema quality images. The incremental quality increases will be minor and only noticeable under extreme conditions.

This is how I rank the still glass (optics/mechanics/value) that are currently available for cinema use...

1st Optical quality across the projected image without consideration of speed
#1st place Leica R remounted to either Nikon or Canon (best optics/manual mechanics)
#2nd Nikon G (Specifically the 24/35/85 f1.4 primes & 14-24/24-70/70-200 zooms)
#3rd Zeiss ZF/ZE (Specifically the 20mm, 28mm, 50&100mm Macros)
#4th Canon L & EF lenses (Specifically the 24-105 F4 and 70-200 F4 zooms)
#5th Nikon AI & AIS lenses (Specifically the 28mm F2, 50mm 1.2 & 85mm 1.4)

Now for mechanics you can pretty much group both Nikon G and Canon EF/L together as the worst until there is a viable Redmote pro for focus/iris control.
For the manual lenses it stacks up like this as far as mechanics...
1st (again) Leica R, smooth, well built, long focus throw in the right diection
2nd Zeiss ZE/ZF Nice barrels, smooth focus.
3rd Nikon F barrels focus backwards but mechanics can be as good as the Zeiss depending on condition and age.
Last place Tie Nikon G/Canon EF/L

Last I'll rank on value, purely bang for buck
1st place Nikon F. They are cheap, easy to find, the right ones are stellar optically and they get the job done.
2nd Leica R (Remounted to Nikon or Canon) Despite being the most expensive they are worth it and the closest to real cine lenses.
3rd Nikon G Second best optically and totally useable with a proper electronic system.
4th Canon EF/L fine optically and again totally useable with a proper electronic system.
5th Zeiss ZF/ZE better than Nikon mechanics only just, optically mixed but expensive
 
Evin Grant said:
I'm trying to get ahold of a Nikon mount for my Epic but I've had other obligations. The side by side tests I did were for a client and unfortunately I can't post them since they were internal only.
Once I do get a Nikon mount though I'll try to get a set of ZFs and maybe even a Canon mount and some L and Leica glass for a comparison. Really, though from personal experience all of the high quality lenses starting with the Canon EF and L series and up will make cinema quality images. The incremental quality increases will be minor and only noticeable under extreme conditions.

This is how I rank the still glass (optics/mechanics/value) that are currently available for cinema use...

1st Optical quality across the projected image without consideration of speed
#1st place Leica R remounted to either Nikon or Canon (best optics/manual mechanics)
#2nd Nikon G (Specifically the 24/35/85 f1.4 primes & 14-24/24-70/70-200 zooms)
#3rd Zeiss ZF/ZE (Specifically the 20mm, 28mm, 50&100mm Macros)
#4th Canon L & EF lenses (Specifically the 24-105 F4 and 70-200 F4 zooms)
#5th Nikon AI & AIS lenses (Specifically the 28mm F2, 50mm 1.2 & 85mm 1.4)

Now for mechanics you can pretty much group both Nikon G and Canon EF/L together as the worst until there is a viable Redmote pro for focus/iris control.
For the manual lenses it stacks up like this as far as mechanics...
1st (again) Leica R, smooth, well built, long focus throw in the right diection
2nd Zeiss ZE/ZF Nice barrels, smooth focus.
3rd Nikon F barrels focus backwards but mechanics can be as good as the Zeiss depending on condition and age.
Last place Tie Nikon G/Canon EF/L

Last I'll rank on value, purely bang for buck
1st place Nikon F. They are cheap, easy to find, the right ones are stellar optically and they get the job done.
2nd Leica R (Remounted to Nikon or Canon) Despite being the most expensive they are worth it and the closest to real cine lenses.
3rd Nikon G Second best optically and totally useable with a proper electronic system.
4th Canon EF/L fine optically and again totally useable with a proper electronic system.
5th Zeiss ZF/ZE better than Nikon mechanics only just, optically mixed but expensive
Click to expand...

Test complete - let's all get back to work now ; - )
 
Hey Boyz,

Offer for my San Diego studio et all is good if someone wants to organize the event. I have a busy couple months ahead of me but will make time for this to happen but cannot spearhead the production effort. For me the weight issue with the PL cine lenses kinda settles the argument since my back and the airlines are getting more strict about weight every year. I just returned from a trip where the weight limit now for carry-on is 15lbs with an 80lb max for checked. My wee little Canon prime lenses may not excite Peter Lik / Jackson . . . but then I fly coach, drink beer and hump my own gear.

Cheers!
 
Plus . . . pretty sure solid results can be had with Canon lenses on Epic . . . in the right hands:

http://vimeo.com/30662640

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...roeder-Germany&p=843825&viewfull=1#post843825

I aspire to be a fraction as talented as Michael and Ketch. Keep in mind "Munich" was shot with a crew of 2 (maybe with an assistant) with no control over the environment or lighting and only themselves to hump the gear. That's the world I live in most times. And don't even get me started on what a "make it happen" stud Mark Toia is with any camera . . .

The big, manual focus PL lenses are a direct link to the film past. I purchased RED/Canon as a path to the future. I hope RED continues their development and support for the Canon EF lens family since that is the critical link for me. This support would include an aggressive development effort to exploit the full technical capabilities of EF technology.
 
Last edited:
Evin Grant said:
I'm trying to get ahold of a Nikon mount for my Epic but I've had other obligations. The side by side tests I did were for a client and unfortunately I can't post them since they were internal only.
Once I do get a Nikon mount though I'll try to get a set of ZFs and maybe even a Canon mount and some L and Leica glass for a comparison. Really, though from personal experience all of the high quality lenses starting with the Canon EF and L series and up will make cinema quality images. The incremental quality increases will be minor and only noticeable under extreme conditions.

This is how I rank the still glass (optics/mechanics/value) that are currently available for cinema use...

1st Optical quality across the projected image without consideration of speed
#1st place Leica R remounted to either Nikon or Canon (best optics/manual mechanics)
#2nd Nikon G (Specifically the 24/35/85 f1.4 primes & 14-24/24-70/70-200 zooms)
#3rd Zeiss ZF/ZE (Specifically the 20mm, 28mm, 50&100mm Macros)
#4th Canon L & EF lenses (Specifically the 24-105 F4 and 70-200 F4 zooms)
#5th Nikon AI & AIS lenses (Specifically the 28mm F2, 50mm 1.2 & 85mm 1.4)

Now for mechanics you can pretty much group both Nikon G and Canon EF/L together as the worst until there is a viable Redmote pro for focus/iris control.
For the manual lenses it stacks up like this as far as mechanics...
1st (again) Leica R, smooth, well built, long focus throw in the right diection
2nd Zeiss ZE/ZF Nice barrels, smooth focus.
3rd Nikon F barrels focus backwards but mechanics can be as good as the Zeiss depending on condition and age.
Last place Tie Nikon G/Canon EF/L

Last I'll rank on value, purely bang for buck
1st place Nikon F. They are cheap, easy to find, the right ones are stellar optically and they get the job done.
2nd Leica R (Remounted to Nikon or Canon) Despite being the most expensive they are worth it and the closest to real cine lenses.
3rd Nikon G Second best optically and totally useable with a proper electronic system.
4th Canon EF/L fine optically and again totally useable with a proper electronic system.
5th Zeiss ZF/ZE better than Nikon mechanics only just, optically mixed but expensive
Click to expand...


I don't have any quarrel with this Evin, except possibly a quarrel of omission; you've entirely neglected Canon FD glass. It can be every bit as good as Nikon F, and better value as it's been 'obsolete' for most practical purposes for many years. But it will be perfectly usable on Scarlet/Epic once Jarred gives final approval to the Optitek FD mount - which should be any day now.

The Canon FD L primes, especially the 24/1.4, 50/1.2 and 85/1.2, are very nice glass indeed, and outstanding bang for the buck.

Mike
 
Canon FDs are optics I'm really not that familiar with. Like Nikkors, EF/L etc. I'm sure there are gems and dogs.
My only concern would be that it's a "dead" line, there will never be more FD mount lenses than there are today.
Also repair parts for broken lenses could be a concern. Most Co. only continue manufacturing parts for 10 years at most.
Other than these issues I'd imagine they have most of the same benefits as AI Nikkors and focus in the right direction :)
 
Here's an Epic 5K 96fps test shot with the Canon 500mm/f4.0 L USM IS lens, f=4.0. The compression removes the finest sharpness, but still this gives an idea of how the Canon tele lenses appear. Remember to switch the HD mode on.

 
Hey Lauri,

Beautiful!! Just one question from a guy in San Diego . . . what's all that white stuff flying around? Cocaine?

Cheers!
 
Matt Uhry said:
When I read the title I thought - I've got a set of PL Elites... Then I realized they meant generically "High end Elite PL Lenses" anyway....

Canon makes some great stills lenses, many people hold them as being the best for stills work. If that's what you've got available they won't prevent you from making great images. There are some clever cheats that make them not so bad for motion work. Amazing work has been and continues to be done with ridiculously sub par equipment don't let any of this stop you. Good piano, bad piano did not change stop or slow Thelonious.

That being said - if you are working on a high stakes production it generally does not make sense to mess around with improvised lens solutions. Motion picture lenses are built to shoot movies the way race cars are built to win races, specialized, precise and at a cost that civilians find to be a bit crisp, but make sense to those that need them to do what they do. Every picture you make on set needs to go through that lens....

Auto Focus ? It's gonna be a little while before it's suitable for narrative filming... Might be a great way to pull off a shot now and then, when you'll let a computer cut your hair it's probably time to let it pull focus. Someday.

I'd be glad to participate in a test in San Diego, If I'm avail. Bring some fancy glass and some cool ghetto glass too.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
Shane Kelly said:
I guess what I'm trying to say is that as much as you try to convince yourself that canon glass can replace a proper pl cinema lens, there are still issues that cannot be overcome.
Click to expand...

I've shot 3 indi features with my Red One using Canon glass on a Birger mount, and although I will admit that it does add an extra challenge to an already difficult process stating that it cannot be overcome is just untrue.

Bob
 
I'm looking forward to the update of the Canon 24-70mm as my goto field lens. Would be awesome if they include video style image stabilization. This would be the "if I had one lens" I would recommend to my Scarlet Brothers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top