Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Lens Package Options for Epic (1/2011)

Bérenger Brillante said:
If I had to go Nikon

I would take this :

Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8_____$2000
Nikon 35mm 1.4 G____$1900
Nikon 50mm 1.4 G____$400
Nikon 85mm 1.4 G____$1800
Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 II__$2200

Total $8300
Most users rarely need the shallow dof below 25mm and longer than 85mm doesn't necessary need highspeed, because it's getting hard to focus, and 100mm at 2.8 is still nice, and the only faster lens is the 105mm only T2.0 not 1.4 (and an old lens too)
Click to expand...

I would add the new 24 f1.4 G. I think 28 is a must, there is a 28 f2.8 very cheap and excellent. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28f28ais.htm
 
KETCH ROSSI said:
Yeah I also am aware of almost every one shooting UP's on 3D, but I want T1.3, T1.4 and I will not use the hold
Super speed Zeiss ;) So its either Master Primes or Leicas, so for now its Master Primes ;)
Click to expand...

Well ... I totally respect that you want T1.3, 1.4 for 2D work. Comes in handy. But for 3D - you will almost NEVER be at a T1.3 because the depth of field is too shallow. We shoot a couple 3D spots a month and our third all RED 3D feature film rolls March 14th in NYC - so ... I'm speaking from a fair amount of experience and testing.

Again, Master Primes are a great investment - I would just never use them for 3D. Just sayin ...
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Well ... I totally respect that you want T1.3, 1.4 for 2D work. Comes in handy. But for 3D - you will almost NEVER be at a T1.3 because the depth of field is too shallow. We shoot a couple 3D spots a month and our third all RED 3D feature film rolls March 14th in NYC - so ... I'm speaking from a fair amount of experience and testing.

Again, Master Primes are a great investment - I would just never use them for 3D. Just sayin ...
Click to expand...

While in deed the reason for the purchase of the Master Primes is for 2D work, and Photography work with Epic, we will in
deed do some serious tests in T1.3 for 3D, that is my intention, as I believe it could work well for what I envision.

So as son as we get our first 2 Epic cameras and our first Atom rig, will get a chance to test it ;)
 
Yes, even though I'm not quite ready for them yet, really sad that the Leica C's are so delayed to mid-next year. Stupid Otto Nemenz!!! :P

Btw, will you be getting a set Mark?

I've considered the Ultra Primes for later this year, because of their lightness, 2.0 speed and also superior price to S4's ... but sad to see they are so hard to come by now ... $10,000 per lens is excellent for these :)

Mark, curious if you prefer the image of the Optimo DP Rouge on MX/Epic versus say the Cooke S4 or Panchro? Obviously the Optimo vs. Panchro is a better comparison because it's about the same speed/and price for the set of 6 Cookes versus the 2-lens set of Rouges (with both covering a pretty similar focal range) .... thoughts?
 
AnthonyFlores said:
Yes, even though I'm not quite ready for them yet, really sad that the Leica C's are so delayed to mid-next year. Stupid Otto Nemenz!!! :P

Btw, will you be getting a set Mark?
Click to expand...

Depends of what people want to rent. I'd like to see some tests shot on EPIC with those lenses when they are ready. I keep asking an getting the run around.

AnthonyFlores said:
I've considered the Ultra Primes for later this year, because of their lightness, 2.0 speed and also superior price to S4's ... but sad to see they are so hard to come by now ... $10,000 per lens is excellent for these :)
Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor - get a PO in now.


AnthonyFlores said:
Mark, curious if you prefer the image of the Optimo DP Rouge on MX/Epic versus say the Cooke S4 or Panchro? Obviously the Optimo vs. Panchro is a better comparison because it's about the same speed/and price for the set of 6 Cookes versus the 2-lens set of Rouges (with both covering a pretty similar focal range) .... thoughts?
Click to expand...

We are just wrapping a feature on MX with the Panchros - and I have to say - I REALLY like them - they are like "baby S4s" - and on a lens projector - they are VERY similar to the S4s but much smaller and lighter - but honestly, I like sharper glass for EPIC. I would buy the 2-lens set of Rouges over 6 Cookes for EPIC - but that's just me.

I have Cookes S4s are coming back from a job in a week or so - I'll post examples of the sharpness/falloff and you can judge for yourself.
 
Last edited:
I am with Mark on the Cookes, even so I know several friends DP's and Cinematographers that swear by them, I just don't like them,
not only for their well known Sharpness falloff, but for their warmer fill,

I much prefer the Very Sharp lenses such as the Master Primes, and now the Red Pro Primes,
as well as I love their Natural resolve in the IQ, just beautiful, then in Post I can direct any good Colorist to adjust at will,
but Sharpness it is something I crave, and place a softening filter when wanting that softer look, is better then the
need to do sharpening in post, even so many do no matter what, but I prefer to go much easy on the Sharpening tool.

Love the Optimo 24-290, but will be testing the new Arri/Fujinons before we buy in to Optimo.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
well ... you better test ten Arri/Fujinons to find the best one to test against an Optimo if you want a fair fight. Don't take my word for it - ask around.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have no doubts of the quality of the Optimo Mark, love them ;)

Just that need a smaller lighter zoom with similar range, and the new Arri/Fujinnon 45-250
16.5LB is not bad against the 24.5lb of the Optimo 24-290.

But, again I love the Optimos and the 24-290 is in the wish list, just that before buying I need to test teh Arri/Fujinon 45-250.

As far as smaller zooms, I'm not sure at all at the moment as I rarely will shoot Zooms,
and am extremely happy with the two RPZ's 17-50 and 18-85.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Depends of what people want to rent. I'd like to see some tests shot on EPIC with those lenses when they are ready. I keep asking an getting the run around.



Do yourself a favor - get a PO in now.




We are just wrapping a feature on MX with the Panchros - and I have to say - I REALLY like them - they are like "baby S4s" - and on a lens projector - they are VERY similar to the S4s but much smaller and lighter - but honestly, I like sharper glass for EPIC. I would buy the 2-lens set of Rouges over 6 Cookes for EPIC - but that's just me.

I have Cookes S4s are coming back from a job in a week or so - I'll post examples of the sharpness/falloff and you can judge for yourself.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark, really appreciate the thoughtful reply. You rock! I will heed your advice ... and in the meantime, can't wait to see your examples of the Epic/S4 combo when the time comes :)
 
KETCH ROSSI said:
I am with Mark on the Cookes, even so I know several friends DP's and Cinematographers that swear by them, I just don't like them,
not only for their well known Sharpness falloff, but for their warmer fill,

I much prefer the Very Sharp lenses such as the Master Primes, and now the Red Pro Primes,
as well as I love their Natural resolve in the IQ, just beautiful, then in Post I can direct any good Colorist to adjust at will,
but Sharpness it is something I crave, and place a softening filter when wanting that softer look, is better then the
need to do sharpening in post, even so many do no matter what, but I prefer to go much easy on the Sharpening tool.

Love the Optimo 24-290, but will be testing the new Arri/Fujinons before we buy in to Optimo.
Click to expand...

Haha, yes Ketch I know you are not the biggest fan of Cookes. Actually the whole issue of lens sharpness vs. "character" is an fascinating debate to me -- there's an interesting thread about it from the GetDPI forum:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23184

(Sorry if it's not kosher to link to another forum.)

But I think ultimately it boils down quite often to personal preference. It's possible for certain lenses to be sharper but have less character or a less pleasing character, or vice versa.

As you know Ketch, some people would say that the Leicas are not quite as "razor sharp" as some other modern lenses ... but many people (me included) are totally in love with their character. Note: I'm talking about their still lenses, never seen a single image shot with their Cine line ...

Going back to the Cookes, for some people what the Cookes lose in sharpness they might make up for in character -- and as you say, it's often based on personal taste of the DP or director :)

Also, I'm guessing this is very much affected by the unique combination of lens to camera -- and lens character could be different depending on the camera/sensor it's being matched with. I think that's why we are all so eager to see Mark's tests with RPP's, Cookes, Optimos, etc because it will help us evaluate that subjective character aspect and better choose our lenses accordingly.
 
I think what separates a great lens is how it does on the extremes and under difficult circumstances. Therefore, i hope the tests are run wide and at similar f/t stops in potential contrasting situations and hand held. I also hope a few nikons and canons will be included. I would pay a part for this service at this moment in time. I think it is really needed.

It's great to know someone can pick up a sub $100 lens (nikon 50mm 1.8) and seriously compete in this market like at no other point in time.

Obviously all round sharpness is king as it is the most workable entity in post environment.

What is the price point is what will be on everybody's lips.
 
Julio, thanks for starting this thread. Very useful to many, I'm sure, including myself.

Just a note on the Nikon prime set -- if I'm not mistaken, the 16mm which I think is FF, would have the same FOV as the 24mm 1.4G -- so really would not be needed, lowering the overall cost by a grand.
 
rod bradley said:
Julio, thanks for starting this thread. Very useful to many, I'm sure, including myself.

Just a note on the Nikon prime set -- if I'm not mistaken, the 16mm which I think is FF, would have the same FOV as the 24mm 1.4G -- so really would not be needed, lowering the overall cost by a grand.
Click to expand...

This is a super great link for those of us interested in the new lens choices:

http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

I think you'll find the 24 to be, well, not quite as wide as you'd like on the Epic...

FOV would be same as putting a 20.5mm on the RED1.
 
rod bradley said:
Just a note on the Nikon prime set -- if I'm not mistaken, the 16mm which I think is FF, would have the same FOV as the 24mm 1.4G -- so really would not be needed, lowering the overall cost by a grand.
Click to expand...

Hey Rod. A 16mm is a 16mm in every case and never changes, and a 24mm is always a 24mm and never changes. The only thing that changes the field of view of a certain lens is the frame size. For example, a 16mm on full frame might look like a 24mm if you put it on the RED, but that is because the smaller sensor is making the lens look tighter. But it is still a 16mm lens. The important thing is for people to know what a 16mm lens looks like on their particular format.
 
rod bradley said:
Just a note on the Nikon prime set -- if I'm not mistaken, the 16mm which I think is FF, would have the same FOV as the 24mm 1.4G -- so really would not be needed, lowering the overall cost by a grand.
Click to expand...

The 16mm has a much wider FOV on every camera than the 24mm. Both lenses, when put on a camera with a smaller sensor, produce a narrower FOV. If you are used to Nikon speak, the Red sensor is close to a DX FOV.

For super wide, a lot of folks like the Tokina 11-16, built for the smaller (DX, APS-C, and Red) sensors.

I have the Nikon 10-24 DX, which is comparable to the Tokina. Neither can be used on a FF (Nikon FX) camera.
 
Hey guys. After much thought, I think I've finally decided on this Canon zoom set:

CANON ZOOM SET
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8______$600
Canon 16-35mm f2.8______$1400
Canon 24-70mm f2.8______$1300
Canon 70-200mm f2.8L II__$2250
TOTAL
$5,550


Here is why:

1. Price:
For $5500, I can cover every focal length from 11-200mm.

2. Weight and Size:
It is extremely convenient to be able to carry all of those focal lengths in one airline carry-on size bag.

3. Touch Screen and Auto Focus:
Although one of the biggest drawbacks of SLR lenses is their focus scales, one of the biggest drawbacks of PL lenses on Epic is the inability to take advantage of the electronic focus controls. Maybe the electronic controls will be crap. Or maybe it will usher in a new style of filmmaking. We'll see.

4. Rentability:
Most people testify that it is very difficult to rent out Red lenses as clients usually prefer Zeiss, Cooke, or Angenieux. That means that to tap into the cine market, I would have to invest around $30K minimum to get a used set of Zeiss Super Speeds. And unless I can make $25K on those lenses in the next two years, they don't make much financial sense over the Canon zooms.

So why not the Canon primes? Because I would probably rent a nice set of PL lenses for any serious project I do, so by purchasing SLR lenses, I am really just having something to get by. While it is nice that the Canon primes are faster, for $9700 I actually cover less focal range than the zooms (12-135mm), with a serious gap in the 13-23mm range. So for my purposes, the Canon zooms just seem like the best value in the sub $30K range.

Julio
 
Julio,

I own and use the Nikon version of that set, with a Canon 150-600 (converted to Nikon mount), and it works great. The zooms look better than the older Nikon primes I've collected, which is why I'll try some of the new G series primes, and compare to the Zeiss ZFs.

If you don't already own those lenses, you might consider the Nikon set, because the 14-24 is recognized as far superior. IMHO, the 17-35 Nikon is better in that range as well. The Canon 70-200 is fantastic, and Canon is known for their telephoto lenses.

I own both a D700 and 5D mkII, and have come to prefer Nikon for wider focal lengths, but clearly both manufacturers produce glass close enough to the resolving power of the Red. I am not a fan of the older still glass. I filter if I want a softer look for romantic close ups.

I'm waiting on a feature to see which cinema glass folks will go for, and can buy or rent at that time.
 
Hey there, Julio. . .

. . . there are going to be times when you are going to need some speed. Depending upon if your tastes run long or short, you will probably want to pick up a Canon 24, 35, or 50mm lens (1.4, 1.4, 1.2, respectively). I would probably pick the 35mm.

It just turns out that there is a heckofa speed difference between 2.8 and 1.4.

It's another $1500 or so, but you'll find you are using that fast lens quite a bit of the time at night.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top