Help with lenses for 6k & Beyond

[Arthur Woo]

2015 I will have budget to start looking at building a mid level cine lens set as an owner/operator. However, looking at Phil's thread regarding coverage information I am a little hesitant. I'm wondering if in the future sensor sizes will trend toward getting larger and larger and move away from S35, leading manufacturers to introduce lenses that will cover these sensor sizes. In particular I am looking at starting to build a set of Cooke Mini S4/i's. I noticed that the widest lens that begins to cover 6k is 32mm, so I won't be able to go wide if I shoot 6k and have to go down to 5.5 or 5k. Should this even be a concern? Would waiting and renting lenses and using the cine converted Zeiss lenses I have for the next year be a better option? Any advice appreciated...

 

[Domenic Barbero]

Ive got a cine set of Contax Zeiss lenses, Then a full set of Contax still converted lenses, a full set of Canon CNE lenses, and some duclos Leica R lenses. all cover 6k and more just fine. If you want really high end glass to cover 6k, I think you may only have a couple options. Leica Summilux and K-35's and maybe a few random others. But all the sought after lenses will most likely not cover on the wides

 

[Mike Quill]

Why not just fill out your Contax set and call it a day?

 

[Arthur Woo]

Why not just fill out your Contax set and call it a day?

Also planning on that. The only issue are the wides. The widest contax is 18 and is an f/4. I haven't used my Tokina in some time, not only due to the back focus, but I think I have a mushy copy. After using sharper lenses it's hard to go back to the ones I have from a while ago. When necessary for run n gun I'll jump on the 24-105 (also think it's a softer copy; I've borrowed another copy and it was super sharp compared to mine).

 

[Arthur Woo]

Ive got a cine set of Contax Zeiss lenses, Then a full set of Contax still converted lenses, a full set of Canon CNE lenses, and some duclos Leica R lenses. all cover 6k and more just fine. If you want really high end glass to cover 6k, I think you may only have a couple options. Leica Summilux and K-35's and maybe a few random others. But all the sought after lenses will most likely not cover on the wides

Thanks Domenic. After reading up on various lens sets and brands I've come to the same conclusion, just wondering if it's even worth looking at investing a good amount into a set that isn't future proof as I'd like to rent the set out as well as use them for my own work.Curious - why stick with the contax in EF when you have the rehoused ones?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Also planning on that. The only issue are the wides. The widest contax is 18 and is an f/4. I haven't used my Tokina in some time, not only due to the back focus, but I think I have a mushy copy. After using sharper lenses it's hard to go back to the ones I have from a while ago. When necessary for run n gun I'll jump on the 24-105 (also think it's a softer copy; I've borrowed another copy and it was super sharp compared to mine).

Arthur dont forget the Contax 21 2.8, which is a wide-agle gem. We also just had an Arri 16 T2 serviced and converted to EOS, but thats limited to S35 coverage.

 

[Arthur Woo]

Arthur dont forget the Contax 21 2.8, which is a wide-agle gem. We also just had an Arri 16 T2 serviced and converted to EOS, but thats limited to S35 coverage.

Thanks Nick! I was actually looking at finishing my Contax set w/ either the 21 or 25 and the 100 and 135. I'm just not sure if 21 is wide enough for some situations like a landscape, so I still would need something a little wider and not liking the speed of the 18, in those instances where I'm in a smaller room and need to go as wide as I can and lots of lights aren't an option (then again...with some of the LLO images I've seen over the past couple of days on Dragon, this might not be an issue in the near future). Correct me if I'm wrong - I think the last time we exchanged messages I found out the 21mm is wider than 77mm? Would using a step down ring to get it to 77mm cause vignetting?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks Nick! I was actually looking at finishing my Contax set w/ either the 21 or 25 and the 100 and 135. I'm just not sure if 21 is wide enough for some situations like a landscape, so I still would need something a little wider and not liking the speed of the 18, in those instances where I'm in a smaller room and need to go as wide as I can and lots of lights aren't an option (then again...with some of the LLO images I've seen over the past couple of days on Dragon, this might not be an issue in the near future). Correct me if I'm wrong - I think the last time we exchanged messages I found out the 21mm is wider than 77mm? Would using a step down ring to get it to 77mm cause vignetting?

The 21mm filter is 82mm, but we've stepped down to 77mm so far with no probs.

You may want to also consider the Sigma 18-35, a very useful and fast S35 wideangle solution that inntercuts ok with Contax if you filter it (with BPM, HBM or Promist). We just used 1/4 Promist on a Tokina 11-16, and it worked great...so optomistic about how it'd fare on the Sigma.

Hope this helps!

 

[Domenic Barbero]

Thanks Domenic. After reading up on various lens sets and brands I've come to the same conclusion, just wondering if it's even worth looking at investing a good amount into a set that isn't future proof as I'd like to rent the set out as well as use them for my own work.Curious - why stick with the contax in EF when you have the rehoused ones?

the gl version is only 5 lenses. which are great. I keep the other full set around because its a much more full set.

 

[Arthur Woo]

The 21mm filter is 82mm, but we've stepped down to 77mm so far with no probs.You may want to also consider the Sigma 18-35, a very useful and fast S35 wideangle solution that inntercuts ok with Contax if you filter it (with BPM, HBM or Promist). We just used 1/4 Promist on a Tokina 11-16, and it worked great...so optomistic about how it'd fare on the Sigma.Hope this helps!

Thanks, good to know. I was looking at the Sigma 18-35 as well. Ideally I'd want a completely cinemodded lens, and the only option at that point is the GL optics. Not sure if it's worth $3500 for the conversion. For that price I can get the 21 and 100 f/2 with full cinemod. My theory is if I'm going to stay with stills glass I'd want everything to be light and compact. The GL makes a whole lot of sense if one uses both PL and EF.

 

[Bob Gundu]

Don't forget AllStat makes a cine conversion of the 18-35 too which is lighter than the GL Optics.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I will soon own two sets of Mini-S4's, and I love them. I did a Dragon 6k test and you are pretty much right on.

IMO, Only the 32mm+ can be used on the full 6k sensor. However, 6k HD and 6K-WS helped tremendously with eliminating the most extreme hard vignetting found in the 18mm and 25mm, although there was some increased uneven field illumination on the extreme corners at t/2.8, it cleaned up a stop or two closed down.

Anyhow, best way is to test yourself (if you haven't already.) See my test here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ooke-MiniS4-i-and-Dragon-6k-FF-WS-and-HD-test




That said, hypothetically if the entire world of cinema went full-frame-only starting tomorrow (god, I hope it never comes to that... I'm a HUGE fan of s35mm!) I would jump on the Schneider Xenon's! They are amazingly built, reasonably priced, cover FF, and have just wonderful focus scales due to cam-driven focus design, something not often found in budget lenses. The Zeiss CP.2's have an amazing selection of focal lengths including the harder to find 15mm, 21mm, 28mm and 135mm.... but I'd rather have the Xenon's.

But those are about it, honestly. The larger-than-Dragon6k-lens-world is not a big one. Most of the best lenses we have are made for s35mm. Even lenses that 'cover' larger than intended areas will have larger discrepancies in 'center-to-corner' quality than the manufacturer initially set as the intended tolerances.

I say this as a warning for many people who thinks cinema lenses are as simple as, "if it covers ; it works." All lenses are designed differently, and some extend into the unintended zone more graciously than others.

For now, I'm going to continue to use my Cooke Mini's at 5.5k Dragon. I'm also not exclusively RED, so my lenses are working great on Sony, Arri, and Canon cine cams. I'm really not worried about it.

 

[Arthur Woo]

I will soon own two sets of Mini-S4's, and I love them. I did a Dragon 6k test and you are pretty much right on. IMO, Only the 32mm+ can be used on the full 6k sensor. However, 6k HD and 6K-WS helped tremendously with eliminating the most extreme hard vignetting found in the 18mm and 25mm, although there was some increased uneven field illumination on the extreme corners at t/2.8, it cleaned up a stop or two closed down.Anyhow, best way is to test yourself (if you haven't already.) See my test here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ooke-MiniS4-i-and-Dragon-6k-FF-WS-and-HD-testThat said, hypothetically if the entire world of cinema went full-frame-only starting tomorrow (god, I hope it never comes to that... I'm a HUGE fan of s35mm!) I would jump on the Schneider Xenon's! They are amazingly built, reasonably priced, cover FF, and have just wonderful focus scales due to cam-driven focus design, something not often found in budget lenses. The Zeiss CP.2's have an amazing selection of focal lengths including the harder to find 15mm, 21mm, 28mm and 135mm.... but I'd rather have the Xenon's. But those are about it, honestly. The larger-than-Dragon6k-lens-world is not a big one. Most of the best lenses we have are made for s35mm. Even lenses that 'cover' larger than intended areas will have larger discrepancies in 'center-to-corner' quality than the manufacturer initially set as the intended tolerances. I say this as a warning for many people who thinks cinema lenses are as simple as, "if it covers ; it works." All lenses are designed differently, and some extend into the unintended zone more graciously than others.For now, I'm going to continue to use my Cooke Mini's at 5.5k Dragon. I'm also not exclusively RED, so my lenses are working great on Sony, Arri, and Canon cine cams. I'm really not worried about it.

great info Ryan, those tests are perfect. I do plan on building a full set with the goal of renting them out, so my concern is more of a financial one vs a personal one. Technically I don't need to own the lenses and could just rent them for shoots with the budget, but it would be nice to have a set to rent as a package if someone wants a DP/op with a package

 

[Arthur Woo]

Don't forget AllStat makes a cine conversion of the 18-35 too which is lighter than the GL Optics.

I was not aware of that, thanks!

 

[Troy Bakewell]

Ryan.

Why no love for the CN-E's?

Just curious about your thoughts.

Also, has anyone tried the new Sony's at 6k?

 

[Michael Tiemann]

2015 I will have budget to start looking at building a mid level cine lens set as an owner/operator.

Which means that you should be looking for the lenses that make you most happy/comfortable. Every lens is a compromise, but some lenses are more expensive/heavier/faster/slower/wider/longer/sexier than others.

However, looking at Phil's thread regarding coverage information I am a little hesitant. I'm wondering if in the future sensor sizes will trend toward getting larger and larger and move away from S35, leading manufacturers to introduce lenses that will cover these sensor sizes.

Are you trolling yourself with your own profile photo? Just kidding, but I had to acknowledge the apparent vignette it displays.

In particular I am looking at starting to build a set of Cooke Mini S4/i's. I noticed that the widest lens that begins to cover 6k is 32mm, so I won't be able to go wide if I shoot 6k and have to go down to 5.5 or 5k. Should this even be a concern?

I cut between an EPIC DRAGON at 6K and a SCARLET DRAGON at 5K all the time. The resolution change is the least of my concerns. That said, I am aware that the two become less equivalent when pushed around. 6K footage is much more tolerant of a punch-in than 5K footage, so I tend to shoot wider and looser on the EPIC than the SCARLET. And if you are not completely OCD about shooting 6KFF, then many lenses do start to cover at 6K-WS, 6K-HD, 5.5K-FF, etc. Of course you have to decide whether the quality at those edges are OK for you. But I have come to see the DRAGON sensor format as being an intentional compromise between the taller HD format and the wider WS format. i.e, if it had been formatted as HD to begin with, the WS guys would lose too many pixels, and if it had been formatted as WS to begin with, the HD guys would lose too many pixels. As formatted, everybody loses something, unless you shoot the arbitrary FF format. (And yes, the 2:1 anamorphic guys really lose a lot of pixels, but that's not a mid-level problem you have to worry about.)

Would waiting and renting lenses and using the cine converted Zeiss lenses I have for the next year be a better option? Any advice appreciated...

Since you are based in NYC, the world is your oyster--as far as renting is concerned. Rent many wide options and see both how the mechanics, the character, and the coverage behave. Then rent sets of your two favorites to see which serves you better across the range. Then run the numbers to see whether it's worth replacing your Zeiss lenses you have with whatever choice works best for you.

Or is your real question something different?

I fully expect there to be a larger-format RED camera coming down the pike soon. It might be FF35 (36mm x 24mm). It might be the size of the Leica S (45mm x 30mm). It might be as wide as 65mm or 70mm. If it is only FF35, then FF glass is suddenly going to be more valuable (covers 6K and 9(?)K). But if they go beyond FF35, then FF35 glass is also going to be a compromise, much as S35 glass is on 6KFF. Perhaps that returns us to the previous question: is it more important to you to squeeze every last pixel out of whatever the sensor offers? Or perhaps it sharpens the focus on the investment question, in which case I would say this: there is absolutely no extra return for betting today that the next RED camera is going to be FF35. If it is, you can buy your lenses when it in announced (they will work on your current camera for however long it takes to go from announcement to availability). And you win. But if it is larger than FF35, even your FF35 glass might look inadequate. And who knows, maybe RED will re-enter the glass business, offering larger-than-FF35 primes at prices attractive to mid-level operators such as yourself. I wouldn't bet on that, but I also wouldn't bet $50,000 against it.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Notwithstanding the foregoing... http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...-35-40-50-85-100-135-180mm-amp-K35-2xExtender

According to the seller (not me), all lenses cover 6K FF.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

We also just had an Arri 16 T2 serviced and converted to EOS

Nick, where did you do the conversion? How much it was!? I've always dreamed to do that but didn't find the time/courage to ask around! he he!

We just used 1/4 Promist on a Tokina 11-16, and it worked great

Isn't a PM 1/4 too heavy to match the CY Zeiss lenses?

BTW Have you noticed some glow in the bright areas (AKA diffusion) from the 18-35?
That lens is insanely sharp /modern look but strangely it has a nice built-in diffusion WO...just confirmed past week on a job...I like it!

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Ryan.

Why no love for the CN-E's?

Just curious about your thoughts.

Also, has anyone tried the new Sony's at 6k?

Oh! Yes, you are correct. I did forget those! I've only used them once, waaay back when they were new and only three, I believe. They were pretty good, and yes I often forget they exist because I almost never find myself with EF mounts and thus are not a consideration. In order for those to be a consideration, I would insist on them having the new Duclos Mod for PL mount.

Duclos did the industry a solid by jumping on that. I've only used those lenses once on a Golf commercial (EF mount) and they were impressive. There were only three back then but they seemed pretty decent.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nick, where did you do the conversion? How much it was!? I've always dreamed to do that but didn't find the time/courage to ask around! he he!

RP lens is doing it for me for a couple of Arri Bayonet lenses I have. Cost is by the hour, as each lens is unique. The 16 T2 should be fun, though barely covers 5k Dragon. Also doing an Arri 24 T2, and some S16 glass (some Super Speeds...9.5, 12) and two zooms - Zeiss 10-100 T2 and Angy 12-240 (the Kubrick).

Isn't a PM 1/4 too heavy to match the CY Zeiss lenses?

At the time we were going for an instagram look, so it worked well on an 11-16. We were also matching a 25 AEG which flares like crazy

BTW Have you noticed some glow in the bright areas (AKA diffusion) from the 18-35?
That lens is insanely sharp /modern look but strangely it has a nice built-in diffusion WO...just confirmed past week on a job...I like it!

Hard to tell, cuz weve always used the Sigma with BPM 1/8 or HBM 1/4...so not sure whats the lens..and whats the filter!