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

Josh Beadle said:
We would be very honored to have you attend the testing. I follow your threads closely - always learn something. Would love an updated opinion (from 2009 SALT) on high quality zooms for Epic:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?69287-Best-Zoom-Lens-for-Epic
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Zooms. These are the one's I own, or would seriously considered buying,

Criteria is how much I like the images, how much my AC's like it, chance of paying itself off in a reasonable
amount of time and anticipated resale value, and reliability

Angenieux rouge 16-42 and 30-80 series are the best value / performance
Duclos 11-16
Ruby 14-24
Cooke 18-100 ( not as new, clean used one )
Angenieux 24-290 Optimo
Duclos 70-200 if Paul ever finds the time to make it.
Long Fuji / Arri 45-250
 
Evin Grant said:
Well having organized the original Salt test I guess I should chime in. Most modern lenses are sharp enough to produce good looking images on an Epic, at least in the center, especially stopped down. Where things start to become complicated (and expensive) is when they need to be good even in the corners and wide open or close to it. However Matt is right, it's really not optical performance that truly sets apart high end cinema lenses (my leica M lenses are sharper than my Optimos) it's mechanical accuracy, repeatability and the lack of optical abberations specific to cinema (breathing, ramping and image shift). These aspects are why cinema lenses command thier premium prices.

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.

I'd be glad to help you with your test but do not put too much hope in L glass trouncing the cinema or even the other still glass that's brought to compare. In the end there will be more similarity than not but at the edges of optical performance every little thing counts.
Click to expand...

Evin has pretty much nailed it!
 
I want to make myself very clear here: I am talking about using the Canon glass with an electronic mount. I cannot imagine that Canon L-glass will fare very well when using a manual follow-focus, as those lenses simply weren't designed to be used in that way. The throw isn't long enough. But plug in a Birger electronic mount and/or RED's new electronic Canon mount, and those sorts of mechanical issues vanish.

I have not used RED's electronic mount (and it will likely be some time before I can do so), but we are extremely happy with the performance of our Birger/Canon/Impero combination on our RED One MX. Focus is repeatable and smooth as butter, you can change the focus "gearing" electronically at will, and focus can be done remotely without ever touching the camera.

I'm definitely not saying that L-series glass is the equal of the best cinema glass. Not at all. No one would say such a thing. I'm merely saying that anyone can achieve truly impressive, professional-quality results using Canon L-series or Nikon or Leica or (insert great stills glass here) glass on a RED camera.

And as for breathing, if there was ever an overblown lens issue, that's the one. Unless you are racking from the tip of your nose to all the way across the room, no eagle-eyed client would ever notice. Further, even if they did notice, half of those mentions would be good! ("I loved the way you slightly zoomed in there as you pulled focus from his beer to the zit on the end of her nose.")

Stephen
 
I too would love to see this test. I have my order in for a Scarlet Canon TI mount and have already received:

TOKINA 11-16mm f/2.8
CANON 16-35mm f/2.8L
CANON 24-70mm f/2.8L EF
CANON 70-200mm f/2.8L IS EF II

With all the chatter about canon L lenses being subpar on the Epic I have been trying to decide if I want to return the 16-35mm and get the Nikon 14-24mm. So I would love to see the Nikon G glass vs. Canon L glass. Canon has the edge for me because I want to be able to us my "Little Bramper" with a Canon body and lenses for controlling exposer for time-lapse, and the Canon mount came out before the Nikon mount. How much will I loose by getting an adopter for the Nikon? I know it won't match as well as having all Canon, but I do mostly documentary work and this new rig will already be a big step up from my Panasonic HPX-500.
 
FYI the new Nikon D800 and D4 which will be announced at the beginning of 2012 will both have 1080p uncomressed HDMI out. The D4 will have 102,000 ISO, that's a pretty compelling C cam for video.
The D800 will be 36MP too.

Until the redmote-pro starts shipping there is no elecronic follow focusing with any still lenses.
Once it does I'll be very curious to see how the Nikon and Canon lenses respond to it. Exciting times.
 
Last edited:
re: zooms, the RPZ's would be very interesting to see.... again, only if you add zooms to the range.
 
Hey there, Evin. . .

. . . I was under the understanding that the standard REDMote could be used to control the focus of Canon lenses? Is this not true?

Stephen
 
Control focus and follow focus are very different things. Yes, the remote or even the side handle can be used to focus, but that is not the same as having a properly mapped focus scale with repeatable stops and accurate distance markings. That is what's needed to make AF still lenses useful in production.
 
I'm still confused here. Based upon what you said above, I would say that the Birger must possess "a properly mapped focus scale with repeatable stops and accurate distance markings," or at least a reasonable facsimile. But you are saying that the REDMote as it now exists does not allow for repeatable stops???

Thanks.

Stephen
 
On the cine auto focus topic: Canon 1DX will have 61 point matrix focus @ 12 times per second and record to raw. I don't remember throwing out too many frames from my Canons over the years from confused focusing. On my manual focus lenses . . . well, my eyes aren't getting any sharper. AF will come to cine as it did to still photography. Picture a DP holding a WiFi connected to camera iPad with a stylus dynamically choosing the point/zone of focus in real-time.
 
@stephen you can dial in the focus feet/ distance in a menu, but to my knowledge you can't turn the wheel on the Redmote or side handle and have it respond, as if you were turning the knob on a follow focus. Though that would be awesome!
 
Randall Brown said:
@stephen you can dial in the focus feet/ distance in a menu, but to my knowledge you can't turn the wheel on the Redmote or side handle and have it respond, as if you were turning the knob on a follow focus. Though that would be awesome!
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, Jarred stated in the Canon mount thread that you will be able to pull focus with Redmote's wheel on fully electronic lenses.
 
Autofocus, as it exists in still cameras, is not useful in film production no matter how accurate or fast it is. Focusing is a creative act that is constantly changing dynamically as the shot changes and different actors or elements eneter or leave the frame. Even with face detection you need a focus puller (this is not the DP's job) to properly choose and ramp the focus form subject to subject. Autofocus may provide fine tuning focus tool that can handle the small adjustments, but for real production it's quite a long way from being ready.

My understanding is that the redmote wheel will be useable for focus but this is no more useful than grabbing the barrel, you need a true preston/berger style follow focus with mapping, a marking wheel and hard stops. This is what I expect the redmote pro to include.
 
stu aull said:
welllll...Jannard and some buddies in Vegas did some comparisons btw Canon and cine glass on an earlier thread - and Jim came away disappointed in the performance of most Canons. I use the word "comparison" since I don't think it was a hard core test. Didn't stop me from getting 3 Canon zooms for my Scarlet tho...
Worth a read- JJ has certainly seen his share of glass.

Stu Aull
Alaska
Click to expand...

its not really scientific to compare a $1.5k lens to a $3k-$6k+ lens....which is why i have no regrets getting in to some L series primes for a starting point.
 
@demetri i have the mount and have been shooting with it extensively. I haven't been able to enable the ability to use the scroll wheel as a follow focus knob. Maybe it's coming? If someone who has the mount and camera knows the secret. Let us know.
 
let's throw some non-L canon's in there. i think many will be even more surprised with that in real world conditions. i'd be interested to see it all projected at 4k in a blind test. or just projected at 4k :)
 
In wildlife shooting PL lenses are often too heavy, so have shot quite a bit with Canon L-series lenses.

My experience seconds what Evin says about shooting wide open. Say take a Canon 24-70mm/f2.8 and the Red 17-85mm and shooting on low light the lens wide open. I think most dedicated people will notice the Canon image is less sharp towards the corners.

What comes to autofocus and following focus, was rather pleased with the Birger Impero controller on R1 that demonstrated an electronic controller can result in beautifully smooth focus. Consequently, have quite a lot of expectations on the Pro Redmote and Canon lenses.

My preliminary experience with the autofocus in Epic has created less plans for serious usage. In low light the autofocus does not seem to spot the focus on moving objects and a pumping autofocus is worse than slightly out of focus in motion capture. In addition, nailing the focus precisely on a desired point, such as an eye of a bird is challenging. However, should add, the autofocus in Epic is very handy to quickly set focus in the beginning of a footage.

When testing Canon lenses, I think it's better to have the backfocus adjusted in maintenance before drawing conclusions.

Finally, the Canon 24-70mm/f2.8 is already bit old design and an updated version from the days of film. The newest designs such as the Canon tele lenses have made a remarkable improvement that can be noticed by a naked eye. Correspondingly, would not be surprised if the new versions of the shorter lenses show a similar stepwise improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top