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 :)

Lens test database

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #41
Finner said:
That matte box looks like it would work well for the nikons but a little to small for Red lenses. Oh well one step at a time.
Click to expand...

The Mattebox can handle up to 104mm fronts, so I think the Red zoom will be fine. The 300 will need a 6.6x6.6 though.

Finner said:
Evin when you test the Nikons and other lenses any chance you can do a test on how bad the lenses breathe? I assume that will be the biggest downfall of the stills glass?
Click to expand...

I will give it a shot, maybe a small video throught the viewfinder, but don't be too dissapointed if that dosen't happen, this is already a fairly big undertaking.
 
Evin Grant said:
The Mattebox can handle up to 104mm fronts, so I think the Red zoom will be fine. The 300 will need a 6.6x6.6 though.

I will give it a shot, maybe a small video throught the viewfinder, but don't be too dissapointed if that dosen't happen, this is already a fairly big undertaking.
Click to expand...

Adjusting grads may not be much of an option with the zoom and a 4x4 matte box?

As far as the breathing goes maybe you could just give us your opinion and a take 3 still shots 1 at infinity & 1 at about halfway through the focus and 1 at about 4 feet for each lens. This may give an idea of what the breathing of each lens is like?

We all would not be as excited as we are if we didn't know what a big undertaking it is. Thanks for tackling something like this Evin, it will be a great resource.
 
Some suggestions for testing:

1- Bokeh.

In particular, what does the bokeh look like for things that are too close, and too far away. A good test might be to have a pinpoint of light, both near and far. It gives a pretty good "fingerprint" of what the bokeh will look like. Maybe if you can string some christmas lights, that would be good too.

2- Breathing
Yes please test for this! Maybe shoot a scene where there are lots of vertical objects, as a point of reference for the framing. Perhaps you might do this at the same time as a pull focus between two objects (or people) in the scene.

3- Chromatic aberration
For VFX work, CA can be annoying. Not sure what a good test would be, although a test pattern might be easiest (especially one that measures CA over the entire area of the shot).

I know you're against measurebation, but from a practical perspective shooting a test pattern here might be the quickest way to figure out how prone the lens is to CA. Otherwise you might want to shoot some greenscreen, and talent against a superwhite screen.

4- Resolution: Could you maybe print out some text at different point sizes, so people can evaluate resolution based on the legibility (sp?) of the text?

5- Some real world stuff of course.

6- Can the lens make some interesting distortions and/or flaring. i.e. camera flare, and Holga/Lomo photography-type stuff. Ok, so these lenses aren't going to be Holga/Lomo quality, so that'd be a point test. But it might be nice to evaluate the flaring... could be done with some light sources in the framing (and off it), hitting directly into the lens. Maybe practicals like a bare lightbulb.

7- Subjective opinion on the ergonomics of the lens / how smooth the focus + zoom are.


Thank you in advance for doing this btw, I'd be interested in the results.
 
GlennChan said:
2- Breathing
Yes please test for this! Maybe shoot a scene where there are lots of vertical objects, as a point of reference for the framing. Perhaps you might do this at the same time as a pull focus between two objects (or people) in the scene.
Click to expand...

I think breathing is something that's on everyones minds at the moment who will be shooting with still lenses.. It would be fantastic to see this tested in someway.
 
Thanks Evin,

I am very interested in your lens tests and looking forward to read it too.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #46
I will definately test for...
Sharpness Wide open, two stops down and six stops down (Subjective test with examples and conclusions based on real applications)
Bokeh (Probably only in the faster normal/tele lenses)
CA/Diffraction Limiting (My infinity test should work for this too)
Breathing (Maybe video or animated Gif.)
Build (Can it stop drop and roll?)
Optical abberations/Flare/Contrast/Color or special charachteristics.
Adaptability to cinema style shooting.
Application/niche
Price/Value

The tests will primarily be based on...
A Wide frame (Infinity) outdoors in contrasty afternooon light.
An M*, MCU* or CU* of a perosn lit by a window (Which means diffrent distances for diffrent lenses)
An insert style shot assuming the lens focuses close enough.

*I will choose a size most appropriate to the lens being used, for instance a Meduim shot for 17mm, an Medium Close Up for a 50mm and a Close up for a 135mm.

Thanks for all your suggestions. I'm going to get to work soon.
If any of you lens manufacturers out there have products you wish to be tested I'm putting out the call. I will be warm but accurate.
 
Thanks Evin for that.
Adding a note about focus ergonomics and smoothness wouldn't take you a lot more time. I unfortunately never used cine lenses, but I found the shortness of focus ring to be the only real downside on still lenses (talking about M2).
Thanks again
 
Evin, don't you have an EF adapter? According to Wikipedia, James "Jim" Jannard has an EF 1200mm lens. You should borrow it sometime.
 
Ha ha, now that'd be weird.
 
Hi Evin,
Keep up the good work. I was wondering if you could
also test for tracking on the 17-35mm Nikkor Zoom, movement
left to right, up and down thru the zoom range, or are you
planning to use this lens as a variable prime only.
Many thanks for all your efforts.
__________________________
Mezmo
 
Hi Evin

Just wanted to say thanks in advance. I'll certainly be in the market for using SLR lenses on my RED and plan to start purchasing the lenses before RED ships.

So seriously, the advice you give here is invaluable. Thanks a lot!

My first naive question would be this. As the DSLR's and RED shoot a closer FOV than a full frame 35mm sensor, effectively this means you'd be shooting the sweet spot of a lens. Does that mean lesser expensive lenses would fair well in these tests? I always thought that lens quality was more noticable at the edges for it's deterioration/softness/vingetting etc.

Do cheaper lenses compare more favourably at the centre?
 
darkline said:
Hi Evin

Does that mean lesser expensive lenses would fair well in these tests? I always thought that lens quality was more noticable at the edges for it's deterioration/softness/vingetting etc.

Do cheaper lenses compare more favourably at the centre?
Click to expand...

remember there are alot of cheap Digital specific lenses out there now with smaller back elements, so the sweet spot is alot smaller on those lenses... but in general, the advantages of using full frame lenses on APS-C sensors translates pretty well.
 
Canon EF lens on PL mount

Canon EF lens on PL mount

Anybody knows if M2 adapter will work for mounting Canon EF lens on RED PL mount? Is there any other way of mounting Canon EF lens on PL mount?
Andrew
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #56
Andrew said:
Anybody knows if M2 adapter will work for mounting Canon EF lens on RED PL mount? Is there any other way of mounting Canon EF lens on PL mount?
Andrew
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there is no viable way to mount EOS lenses on to Red at this moment. A dedicated mount could be made but no aperture control would be possible beacuse Canon requires a proprietary electronic data conection to control Iris. There is one work around using a Canon SLR. Setting the aperture, powering down the camera and reoving the lens, but this is impractical and allows too much oportunity for dust to enter the sensor chamber. Hopefully a third party solution will emegre but I would not count on seeing one till the end of the year at the earliest.

Don't fret, used Nikon primes can be had for very lillte money on E-bay, KEH.com or your local camera store.
 
IMO, Tamron lenses suck.

I don't have any direct experience with their 17-35mm, but I think f2.8 is the widest aperture it has and I don't think that lens is a constant aperture model, meaning that it pushes you to f4 by the time you're at full tele. You get what you pay for... As for the Nikon 17-35mm It's a truly awesome lens. There's a reason why used ones on ebay are still going for $850+ in most situations. B&H has them for $1299 (where I got mine) comes with a case too.
 
Hey, I know there's still a lot to be discussed over the zeiss lenses, especially after they launch their wide angles and their macros (Zeiss cinematography macros are awesome pieces of glass), but something comes to mind while reading their specifications. They claim the ZF's focus barrels have longer turns, something that cine lenses also do and something that can help tremendously in a cine-like operation.

I was wondering that Evin's reviews, while they deal pretty well with image quality, don't mention anything about operability (but the breathing and bokeh tests are very good!). So I would suggest that to be included in future tests.

Cheers, and keep on with the good work!
 
Hey, I just discovered this forum and want to express my thanks to Evin Grant for going to make this incredible work he plans. So I feel guilty to ad a wish, but what about the Lomo Prime lenses? At the end Tarkovskij made his movies with those lenses. Browsing around the web I read a lot of interesting things about them and started to order some of those lenses. Its not easy to find them, but I think an interesting alternative for the RED ONE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top