FS: Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II, Canon 24-70 2.8L, and Canon 50mm 1.4

[jaadgy akanni]

The thread was probably deleted because folks were doing silly things like selling off gear and canceling orders based upon someone else's assessment of a visual aesthetic without making informed descisions based upon their own likes and needs.

The deletion may have save the lives of many lemmings.

I for one, have never even considered Canon glass as an alternative to Cine glass, not even to the lesser cine glass. My motto has always been: if not Cine, Leica still glass; if not Leica, Nikon (especially the newest crop of G lenses which are the closest thing to Leica in sharpness, color, resolution)

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Okay...

Canon Glass, has been and continues to be some of the best Still glass out there, the Super Telephotos have always been the sharpest and best of the bunch, and now are more so then ever,
some zooms softer then others, the newest Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, been their best ZOOM, PERIOD!!

Compare Canon to every other brand in the Still market and they are still the best, just don't compare them to LEICA...

However, even so Sharpness in Still is different then in Motion, trust me on this one it is, Canon do a great job, just not as great as Leica.


Cine Prime lenses like the Leica S-C, MP's and UP's, of course, are to be absolutely put in a category of their own, and not even by far compared to Still glass.

 

[Eric Lange]

I think what Jim was trying to put across was if you are really serious about stills then you might want to consider other lens combinations if you need to shoot really pretty wide angle pin sharp shots. Basically that’s what any serious stills person will be thinking about. So what is nice is that RED tries to help the photographer reach their goals essentially without limitations. Also note worthy is that you can’t put an M lens on a Canon DSLR due to flange focal length and mirror fouling. So this illustrates that RED has a platform that tries to enable a much greater range of possibilities beyond the most obvious… THAT really gets professional stills photographers attention.So there are some fantastic stills lenses that you wouldn’t normally think to put on the front of an Epic or Scarlet. The fact that RED takes that seriously and wants to support the highest standards can ONLY come from a CEO that is genuinely passionate about photography. I just think that is hard to re-frame that sentiment in the context of thread that was starting to go “pear-shaped” and ultimately got deleted as it was too easy for folks to get the wrong end of the stick (in terms of sentiment).

Seriously you can buy AMAZING wide angle M lenses that are less than $1200.00 (from Zeiss and in some cases the Leica stills glass is not super expensive either). I agree that Stills IS different from motion.

I agree with what Ketch is saying here too.


Also I think in the case of stills my own philosophy is far fewer but VERY high quality lenses… Whereas the Canon idea is more about having an entire smorgasbord of lenses too and yet historically they have always been good at the “all-in one” concept.

Over all I think Jim just wants people to take good pictures with his camera… and be informed. What you don’t necessarily want is the first few thousand scarlet users to be putting cheaper soft squishy wide angle lenses on the front of Scarlet and posting weaker results. At least one in twenty Scarlet users will be able to post pin sharp wide angle shots. Canon has great long lenses, and long lenses have been the preserve of cinematics too. But… I also sense that Jim eagerly awaits the release of the cinematic based Canon primes too, that looks like a terrific range of lenses.




Cheers,

Eric

 

[Steve Gibby]

I use a full range of Canon L series lenses with a Canon 5D MKII for my still photography. I've used the 28 different Nikon still lenses and two different Canon L series lenses on Red One since 2007. I've also used Canon lenses on Epic. I've been very happy with the results from using 35mm still lenses on my Red One and Epic cameras. "Great", "Good", and "adequate" are necessarily subjective terms as applied to the look and feel of images shot with Red cameras. Opinions are like noses - everyone has one.

There is no "right" or "wrong" lens type to use on Red cameras. But there may be a "right" or "wrong" lens choice for a particular delivery medium (cinema vs HDTV). I'm not into the notion that "if it isn't shot with a cine lens it isn't a good image". For vast numbers of motion media genres and delivery mediums 35mm still lenses are a perfectly good and logical choice for shooting with Red One, Epic, and Scarlet. If you're involved with high budgets and big screen deliveries, then obviously cine lenses will be your best bet. But far and a way the highest percentage of motion media projects shot with Red cameras are targeted for television or corporate delivery - thus 35mm still lenses fit the bill nicely.

Then there's the factor of mobility. Where a high degree of mobility is required, the bigger and heavier a lens (such as cine lenses), the more mobility is decreased. That's simply unacceptable for certain genres and styles of production. Are 35mm still lenses a perfect solution? Nah - but for mobile highly styles of production, moderate budgets, and most TV deliveries, they're a much better solution than big, heavy, expensive cine lenses.

Beyond the above, many motion media genres of production logically call for the use of zooms, rather than primes - such as sports, wildlife, documentaries of various genres, etc. For those genres with Red cameras 35mm still zooms are the most logical choice. Some 35mm still zooms are remarkably crisp - Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II, Nikon 14-24 f2.8, Tokina 11-16 2.8, etc. They represent a good trend in 35mm zooms toward crispness and performance throughout.

If Red feels that wide angle 35mm still zooms aren't that good, then I'd suggest they should make the forthcoming Red Electronic Zooms to perform really well, thus filling a void they perceive in the affordable, lightweight, electronic wide zoom marketplace.

Jim Jannard's opinions are always interesting and informative. But there are tons of other deeply experienced professionals in this industry who naturally have alternative opinions when it comes to cameras, accessories, and lenses. That's what makes this industry strong - the cross pollination and sharing of experienced, educated opinions. That doesn't mean we all have to agree on everything - far from it.

I'd suggest everyone think twice about a kneejerk reaction to one thread by rushing out to sell off their 35mm still lenses. If you don't shoot big budget cine productions for delivery to the big screen, your best lens choice for Red cameras will usually be 35mm still lenses - and 35mm still zooms for the real mobile genres of production. As the saying goes - horses for courses. There's really no need to kill flies with a baseball bat - when a fly swatter is a much better tool for the job.

 

[Eric Lange]

I use a full range of Canon L series lenses with a Canon 5D MKII for my still photography. I've used the 28 different Nikon still lenses and two different Canon L series lenses on Red One since 2007. I've also used Canon lenses on Epic. I've been very happy with the results from using 35mm still lenses on my Red One and Epic cameras. "Great", "Good", and "adequate" are necessarily subjective terms as applied to the look and feel of images shot with Red cameras. Opinions are like noses - everyone has one.

There is no "right" or "wrong" lens type to use on Red cameras. But there may be a "right" or "wrong" lens choice for a particular delivery medium (cinema vs HDTV). I'm not into the notion that "if it isn't shot with a cine lens it isn't a good image". For vast numbers of motion media genres and delivery mediums 35mm still lenses are a perfectly good and logical choice for shooting with Red One, Epic, and Scarlet. If you're involved with high budgets and big screen deliveries, then obviously cine lenses will be your best bet. But far and a way the highest percentage of motion media projects shot with Red cameras are targeted for television or corporate delivery - thus 35mm still lenses fit the bill nicely.

Then there's the factor of mobility. Where a high degree of mobility is required, the bigger and heavier a lens (such as cine lenses), the more mobility is decreased. That's simply unacceptable for certain genres and styles of production. Are 35mm still lenses a perfect solution? Nah - but for mobile highly styles of production, moderate budgets, and most TV deliveries, they're a much better solution than big, heavy, expensive cine lenses.

Beyond the above, many motion media genres of production logically call for the use of zooms, rather than primes - such as sports, wildlife, documentaries of various genres, etc. For those genres with Red cameras 35mm still zooms are the most logical choice. Some 35mm still zooms are remarkably crisp - Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II, Nikon 14-24 f2.8, Tokina 11-16 2.8, etc. They represent a good trend in 35mm zooms toward crispness and performance throughout.

If Red feels that wide angle 35mm still zooms aren't that good, then I'd suggest they should make the forthcoming Red Electronic Zooms to perform really well, thus filling a void they perceive in the affordable, lightweight, electronic wide zoom marketplace.

Jim Jannard's opinions are always interesting and informative. But there are tons of other deeply experienced professionals in this industry who naturally have alternative opinions when it comes to cameras, accessories, and lenses. That's what makes this industry strong - the cross pollination and sharing of experienced, educated opinions. That doesn't mean we all have to agree on everything - far from it.

I'd suggest everyone think twice about a kneejerk reaction to one thread by rushing out to sell off their 35mm still lenses. If you don't shoot big budget cine productions for delivery to the big screen, your best lens choice for Red cameras will usually be 35mm still lenses - and 35mm still zooms for the real mobile genres of production. As the saying goes - horses for courses. There's really no need to kill flies with a baseball bat - when a fly swatter is a much better tool for the job.

Horses for courses and baseball bats vs fly swatters, is perfectly set out.. I like that.

Also completely agree on bulky cinematic primes for certain applications is just too much.. When you don’t need super fast retrofocal optics you can have something that is sharper less distortion and is 10 times smaller and is 25 times lighter.

Thanks for taking the time to set that out very nicely…

Southern Utah, I’m in NM.

Cheers,

Eric


Thanks for taking the time to set that out very nicely…

Southern Utah, I’m in NM.

Cheers,

Eric

 

[Steve Gibby]

Thanks Eric...

Its been no secret here on Red User that I represent the mobile, non-cine genres and styles of production with Red cameras. There are tens of thousands of others working in those styles and genres too. Naturally through experimentation and repetition on location we feel we know what works best for our particular portions of the motion media industry. Its a very diverse industry - and a "one size fits all" approach simply doesn't work.

New Mexico eh? Beautiful state! If you're headed over here give me a shout...

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Thanks, once again, for words of calming wisdom, Steve. And, nice to see you here on the forum again - seems like you were off somewhere, maybe doing some work?

I had a moment of doubt after Jim's post but then got my bearings and realized just how much fun it will be to explore all the lens options; starting with my Canon mount. What a great time to be a cinematographer!!!

 

[Steve Gibby]

Thanks Terry...

I'm happy to contribute here occasionally. From early 2006 when Red User was formed until mid-2011 I contributed a lot. Since then I haven't posted as much as I used to - but I enjoy helping others whenever I can. When I'm here now I usually just lurk...

It is a great time to be a cinematographer, videographer, and photographer - the equipment options are growing daily!

Enjoy the Canon mount on Epic or Scarlet - it opens up a myriad of alternative possibilities

 

[Adam Johnson]

Try telling Gareth Edwards not to use stills glass on a feature film. Monsters is a great film and looks good to me and it was shot entirely with a Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1.2 lens via Letus 35mm adapter to Sony EX3! I'm sure he would have loved the compact size and 4K raw of the Scarlet with that lens. And I gurantee it would look fabulous on the big screen! I do agree that cine glass is superior for a number of reasons but it is way expensive and doesn't always make since especially for the Indie filmmaker. To each their own!

 

[Eric Lange]

Thanks Eric...

Its been no secret here on Red User that I represent the mobile, non-cine genres and styles of production with Red cameras. There are tens of thousands of others working in those styles and genres too. Naturally through experimentation and repetition on location we feel we know what works best for our particular portions of the motion media industry. Its a very diverse industry - and a "one size fits all" approach simply doesn't work.

New Mexico eh? Beautiful state! If you're headed over here give me a shout...

Thanks will do…

Utah is super beautiful too, all that Colorado Plateau stuff is just amazing, you can’t beat it and there’s nothing else like it on the planet. Generally I’m not far from Santé Fe or Albuquerque also spend time at Ghost Ranch,… fabulous location. So if you head down this way give me a shout too..

Cheers,

Eric

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Thanks Terry...

I'm happy to contribute here occasionally. From early 2006 when Red User was formed until mid-2011 I contributed a lot. Since then I haven't posted as much as I used to - but I enjoy helping others whenever I can. When I'm here now I usually just lurk...

It is a great time to be a cinematographer, videographer, and photographer - the equipment options are growing daily!

Enjoy the Canon mount on Epic or Scarlet - it opens up a myriad of alternative possibilities

Thanks, Steve. I'll hit the ground running as soon as my Scarlet arrives.

I lived in Colorado for almost ten years before moving to the SF Bay Area and I still love the Rocky Mountains dearly. My daughter lives in Denver, so I like to get there as often as possible. I even drive when I have the time, just to enjoy the scenery!

Take care.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Eric - Yes, its definitely beautiful here in Southern Utah too. I'll let you know if I'm headed through New Mexico. I've shot there many times - love it

Terry - definitely something incredible about the Rockies. My ranch is in the southwestern corner of the rockies, in a heavily forested 5,000' valley, surrounded on all sides by 11,000' mountains. To the east we also look right into the giant red cliffs of the north end of Zion National Park. On our forested acreage we have tons of deer, wild turkeys, coyotes, and various other critters - including mountain lions. We're super close to seven national parks and Lake Powell. There are so many camera subjects here. When I need an ocean fix, its only a seven hour drive.

Going to Colorado from the Bay Area you probably take the I-80, then 1-15 south, then I-70. Where you turn on the I-70 isn't that far north from me. If you're headed this way let me know.

For both of you my normal email address is steve (at) cut4 (dot) tv

Cheers...

 

[Christian Munoz D]

Eric - Yes, its definitely beautiful here in Southern Utah too. I'll let you know if I'm headed through New Mexico. I've shot there many times - love it

Terry - definitely something incredible about the Rockies. My ranch is in the southwestern corner of the rockies, in a heavily forested 5,000' valley, surrounded on all sides by 11,000' mountains. To the east we also look right into the giant red cliffs of the north end of Zion National Park. On our forested acreage we have tons of deer, wild turkeys, coyotes, and various other critters - including mountain lions. We're super close to seven national parks and Lake Powell. There are so many camera subjects here. When I need an ocean fix, its only a seven hour drive.

Going to Colorado from the Bay Area you probably take the I-80, then 1-15 south, then I-70. Where you turn on the I-70 isn't that far north from me. If you're headed this way let me know.

For both of you my normal email address is steve (at) cut4 (dot) tv

Cheers...

I was in the area a couple of months ago doing time-lapse photography and shooting wildlife. Very beautiful place.

Nice to see you posting again Steve. Hope everything is doing well.

 

[Jeffrey Loewe]

I'm not selling because of the thread, I'm selling as I actually placed an order for a PL on the 12th of December after my initial order. It has nothing to do with the thread that was in Recon.

Mods, please delete so I can re create the thread elsewhere since it's not even in the right place

 

[Eric Lange]

Eric - Yes, its definitely beautiful here in Southern Utah too. I'll let you know if I'm headed through New Mexico. I've shot there many times - love it

Terry - definitely something incredible about the Rockies. My ranch is in the southwestern corner of the rockies, in a heavily forested 5,000' valley, surrounded on all sides by 11,000' mountains. To the east we also look right into the giant red cliffs of the north end of Zion National Park. On our forested acreage we have tons of deer, wild turkeys, coyotes, and various other critters - including mountain lions. We're super close to seven national parks and Lake Powell. There are so many camera subjects here. When I need an ocean fix, its only a seven hour drive.

Going to Colorado from the Bay Area you probably take the I-80, then 1-15 south, then I-70. Where you turn on the I-70 isn't that far north from me. If you're headed this way let me know.

For both of you my normal email address is steve (at) cut4 (dot) tv

Cheers...

That’s very kind…

Your Ranch sounds beautiful… I mean REALLY beautiful.

I have a little “ranchito” (on a few acres) by comparison; I do a lot with horses (get up at 4.30 am typically); (generally don’t like to be in doors) [Like now], but we are situated on the Bosque and Rio Grande so you can ride practically all the way to Taos if one wants to, the trails are all connected.

Coming originally from the boggy low parts of the UK I am having trouble adjusting to the high desert climate, (really killer migraines, I don’t get on too well with dry at altitude) beautiful as it is. We are fixin one day to get place to move the horses during the summer possibly to Colorado… unfortunately my wife seems allergic (conceptually) to pine trees for some reason and really loves the desert…she managed to chop rather a lot of them down when we lived in France… I think she would be too dangerous to take to Colorado…; and rather ironically I am trying to twist everybody’s arm to maybe go to Northern California… [Terry's stomping ground], as I think the climate will play better with me.

Would be good to pick your brains one day as to what would constitute suitable field equipment… in terms of what people are willing to put up with in terms of heft and awkwardness amongst other kinds of more dynamic shots we would like to get…

Nice One,

Eric

 

[Ben Pluimer]

Are these lenses still available? I'm interested in the 70-200mm.

 

[Wes Howell]

FYI - Jim's comments can be easily found by googling "Peter Lik tests" - I found them on Scarlet user.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the comments seem to be directed towards Canon wide zooms. If that's the case, that's an important differentiation.
I haven't seen any useful info that shows their L primes are soft or crummy. Nor have I seen any tests with the 17mm TSe which may be their sharpest wide angle lens. The 24mm 1.4 L II and of course the 35 L Prime are highly regarded still lenses and I'd be surprised to see extremely poor performance on the Epic

I'm starting off with the full range of Canon fast primes + 70-200 IS + the wide Tokina.

 

[Jack Shanahan]

FYI - Jim's comments can be easily found by googling "Peter Lik tests" - I found them on Scarlet user.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the comments seem to be directed towards Canon wide zooms. If that's the case, that's an important differentiation.
I haven't seen any useful info that shows their L primes are soft or crummy. Nor have I seen any tests with the 17mm TSe which may be their sharpest wide angle lens. The 24mm 1.4 L II and of course the 35 L Prime are highly regarded still lenses and I'd be surprised to see extremely poor performance on the Epic

I'm starting off with the full range of Canon fast primes + 70-200 IS + the wide Tokina.

Agreed.

 

[Donald Strubler]

The reason I cancelled my Ti Canon Mount order is because I no longer want to shoot with Canon lenses. I have a 24-70mm f/2.8L and have used a few others, and to me, they all seem soft. I've always thought it was my imagination, but after coming to the forum and reading about other people's experiences with Canon glass and seeing tests and comparisons, I've decided to avoid shooting with Canon lenses. I'll still be getting a Canon Mount from RED as there are a few application-specific lenses from Canon that I like to use, such as their macro, tilt-shift and super telephoto lenses, but for the most part, I've decided to use some alternate glass, like Zeiss' primes and RPPs.

I think Canon lenses matched with an Al Canon Mount on Scarlet or a Ti Canon Mount on EPIC can be a great choice for specific applications or lower-budget productions. If you want the best possible quality out of your footage, I think it's important to use crystal-clear lenses. (Canon glass, to me, doesn't seem crystal-clear...) I'm fortunate enough to be able to use RPPs and/or rent lenses as I need them, which is why I'm doing what I'm doing. I'm not saying that everyone should move away from Canon lenses. It's just that, in my personal situation, it's what I've decided (and am able) to do.

I will say this, however... My experience with Canon glass in still photography has been just 'okay'. No matter which of their lenses I use, the images they produce are never sharp. However, I've been able to get by as I don't do photography as a living. I'm a high school student. And besides, even with not-so-sharp Canon glass, you can still capture some great images. Like this...

Perceived spatial contrast from tonemapping is not the same as optical alignment and lens sharpness.
People want sharpness, sharpness, sharpness because they feel their favorite DPs convey sharp images (when they happen to use a full range of master primes).
Its usually a confusion of content. I can watch an emotional motion picture and be tricked that the lenses are sharp, when in reality, the writing was sharp, the acting was sharp, the editing was sharp, the lighting was sharp, and the mastering was sharp.
Shoot with lomo diana plastic lenses and do the aforementioned things, and people will think your content is sharp.

To each his own.

Bitrate of a song to audiophiles reigns supreme, while the uneducated uncultured layperson can be shaken to their core by the same arrangement.
One rests in a persons heart, the other on some chart in an office that gets replaced every so often.

 

[Jeffrey Loewe]

Are these lenses still available? I'm interested in the 70-200mm.

No but the 24-70 is.