Help with lenses for 6k & Beyond

[Vincent Accardi]

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).

Hi Arthur, Contax also has a 15mm f/3.5 and a 16mm f/2.8 (but the 16 is fisheye)

 

[Arthur Woo]

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

lol :laugh: technically it is a lighting vignette and not a lens induced one

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.)

Not completely OCD, just partially. I try to shoot so that I don't need to punch in. I used to shoot on MX Scarlet slow motion at 3K. The quality was still good, but not as crisp as 4K since it's essentially a crop in. Sometimes I want to get as much high frame rates at FF as possible, which means 4kFF at 120fps. Though I'm finding that to be less often the case as 96 at 5kFF does a pretty good job.

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?

The more info I'm finding the more I think this is starting to make sense - I'm just being cheap not wanting to rent and spend additional $ just to do tests if I'm going to end up buying a set anyway. I'm in a situation where often times I either use the still glass I have for clients who don't have budget to rent cine lenses, or on larger projects where I'm not the decision maker on the lens set. Part of the motivation of investing is to also rent them out, either alone or w/ the camera as a package.

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.

This is actually the crux of my indecision - I realize it's all theoretical, but does play a big factor on whether or not I should take the plunge or just put money down for an apt. lol. Thanks for the insight. Probably the next step for me is to (begrudingly) rent and test.

 

[Arthur Woo]

Hi Arthur, Contax also has a 15mm f/3.5 and a 16mm f/2.8 (but the 16 is fisheye)

Thanks Vin. I've looked at that one. Ideally my goal is to have minimum f/2.8 across the lens set. I also believe the 15mm's shape does not allow it to take screw on filters, which I use 95% more often than a matte box.

 

[Arthur Woo]

Notwithstanding the foregoing... http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...-35-40-50-85-100-135-180mm-amp-K35-2xExtenderAccording to the seller (not me), all lenses cover 6K FF.

That looks pretty sweet. Unfortunately I'd either have to buy 2 lenses at a time or finance the whole thing, don't have liquid funds to buy it all at once. I prefer building over time to avoid interest

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks Vin. I've looked at that one. Ideally my goal is to have minimum f/2.8 across the lens set. I also believe the 15mm's shape does not allow it to take screw on filters, which I use 95% more often than a matte box.

Hey Arthur, the Contax 16 is GREAT, but as you say..it's a fisheye, and def a specialty lens. And the Contax 15 is interesting too, but good point about the unusual front...and the price makes it hard to justify vs the ZE/ZF 15 2.8, which by all acounts is a masterpiece.

 

[Arthur Woo]

Nick - how is the distortion on the 15mm f/2.8? I'm assuming little to none based on the price. One thing I am not thrilled about (most of the time) on the Tokina is that it makes it very obvious that it's a wide when it stretches objects toward the edges (less obvious at 16mm though). The only time I find this beneficial is when I want to exaggerate a landscape. Definitely has its place but need to be extra careful about framing. If only these wider lenses allowed filters! Too bad we couldn't create our own versions of lenses, like NikeID shoes.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nick - how is the distortion on the 15mm f/2.8? I'm assuming little to none based on the price. One thing I am not thrilled about (most of the time) on the Tokina is that it makes it very obvious that it's a wide when it stretches objects toward the edges (less obvious at 16mm though). The only time I find this beneficial is when I want to exaggerate a landscape. Definitely has its place but need to be extra careful about framing. If only these wider lenses allowed filters! Too bad we couldn't create our own versions of lenses, like NikeID shoes.

The distortion of the 15 2.8 is supposed to be spectacularly well controlled. Yeah, the 11-16 can just get shockingly wide/distorted. But thats also the nature of shooting that wide. To me anything wider than 15mm has that look, even high end cinema glass.

Again, give the Sigma 18-35 a shot. Pretty nifty/useful little lens!

 

[Arthur Woo]

The distortion of the 15 2.8 is supposed to be spectacularly well controlled. Yeah, the 11-16 can just get shockingly wide/distorted. But thats also the nature of shooting that wide. To me anything wider than 15mm has that look, even high end cinema glass.

Again, give the Sigma 18-35 a shot. Pretty nifty/useful little lens!

Ah okay I thought you owned the 15 2.8. Based on new info (to me at least) by Bob, I think the 18-35 from All Star might be next

 

[Nick Morrison]

Ah okay I thought you owned the 15 2.8. Based on new info (to me at least) by Bob, I think the 18-35 from All Star might be next

I dont own the 15 2.8, but I have seen the MTF charts which show superb distortion control. Besides the 11-16 and 18-35, Ive generally stayed away from modern glass and stuck to vintage.