lenses for red raven

[Tony Hernandez]

We purchased the Canon Cinema lenses, Canon CN. I will let you know once we mount on the Raven (pending to receive, not until the jetpack SDI available).

 

[Ruben V.]

I was thinking to change my Canon L 50 1.2 and my Canon L 135 f2 to Carl Zeiss Milvus. Do you think Milvus are better?
Also my point is that lens with motor of focus can be used with followfocus from foolcontrol (maybe with some limitations but i don't know)

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

People seem to be upset about using Fulframe 35mm as the 1:1 standard for calculating how lenses will look on different formats.

Why?

I just can't find a reason aside from maybe it makes one feel psychologically smaller. Which is absurd. The FF crop factor standard is the only standard used right now. It's a fact. Using s35 as 1:1 standard is simply not used anywhere when calculating how lenses will behave on different size sensors.

but if it's SO upsetting for some reason, let's use both! Easy. They'll give the same results/information.

Here:

1- FF 35mm/Vistavision as 1x standard.

The raven has a around a 1.87x crop over that standard. Varies slightly using 16:9 vs 1:25:1.

A 50mm F/2.8 lens on the standard FF/VV will give a certain FOV and Depth of field.

Using a 50mm lena on the Raven, will give the FOV and DOF of a 95mm f/5.2 on a FF/VV camera. (That's regarding the look - FOV and DOF, however it will still have f/2.8 exposure/luminosity)

Easy, right?

It's a useful standard with the raven as it has a Canon EF mount with mostly FF lenses so the calculatipn would be easier. But we'll do it too.

2- S35 as the 1x standard

The raven has about a 1.28x crop over that standard.

Using a 50mm f/2.8 on standard s35 will give a certain FOV and DOF.

On the raven, the lens will look like a 65mm f/3.5 lens on S35 in terms of look (FOV and DOF but with 2.8 luminosity)

Again, very easy.

So what's the problem? use whatever you desire but make sure you calculate the raven crop in you lens decisions because if you're a DP that's been using a s35 camera for a long time you'll find that your 50mm 2.8 lens is not what you expect. Therefore if you want that same look (FOV and DOF) you should have used a 40mm F/2 lens


Easy.

(If my raven crop number are a bit off it doesn't matter I am giving the idea, use the correct raven crop)

Now that subject is closed and pretty much known,



Actual lenses:

With the Raven you need a Wide angle lens that covers you. With the EF mount you have quite a few options.

-Tokina 11-16/20mm F/2.8

The lens is exceptional. sharp, wide, fast, and gives and ultra wide angle FOV on the raven gives a 14mm s35 look and a 20mm FF look.

-Canon 10-18mm f/4-5.6 STABILIZED.

This is a very very wide and sharp lens for EF and is 250$! It's plastic but optics are top notch. The thing about it the strength and the small iris. the advantage is that it's the only IS lens Ultra Wide. I can make steadycam-like shots handheld. So it's worth considering. It has a long smooth focus ring made for video.

-Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

If it's wide enough for you (it is for me, I use it as a wide angle on even smaller m43s 2x crop). The thing about it is the extreme fast aperture and the reach to 35mm. On the Raven it can act as both a wide and a normal 50mm f/2.2 (on s35 standard).

These three lenses are great and will work as great wide angle lenses on the raven. They can be modded for cine use. But I am only choosing affordable lenses here because of the Raven's price point. I'd choose different wide angles for a weapon user.



Standard and tele lenses are endless. It's only the wide/ultra wide end that will make you think. There are TONS of 35/50/85/100/135 lenses at all apertures and price points and built. So it's an endless talk.

I will enjoy my Raven when it comes and I will still use my beloved Canon 1DC for extreme shallow FF look and close ups. I will be using my Canon 10-18mm on it as my wide due to the unparaleled stabilization which will be even more effective with a heavier camera.

 

[Maik Müller]

About the 10-18, does it actually work now? Because i did check it, when it came out and there was no way to focus it on RED. It had a new kind of focus-by-wire. Also i'm pretty sure the IS wasn't working either. So, yeah, in theory a nice cheap lens (and a unique/special one), but i never heard it's supported and working now.

 

[Tom Dowler]

People seem to be upset about using Fulframe 35mm as the 1:1 standard for calculating how lenses will look on different formats.

Why?

I just can't find a reason aside from maybe it makes one feel psychologically smaller. Which is absurd. The FF crop factor standard is the only standard used right now. It's a fact. Using s35 as 1:1 standard is simply not used anywhere when calculating how lenses will behave on different size sensors.

Sorry Ebrabim, but you're a little off the mark on a few points


First of all, when it comes to, you're correct in saying that as compared to full frame is one standard way of expressing "crop factor".

But crop factor compared to ff35 is only one way of thinking about FOV, and it's certainly not, in the film world, the way that actual cinematographers think about it. When cinematographers think about what a 50mm or 28mm or 75mm lens looks and feels like, the primary reference point is the s35mm frame. From there we can extrapolate out what FOV we'd get from that lens on a different sized sensor or film stock.

No no cinematographer ever first figured out what a shot would like like on a given lens on a ff35 sensor, then multiplied that by a crop factor to extrapolate what his s35 field of view would be.


As to to depth of field.... depth of field is an optical property of the lens and therefore CANNOT change depending on sensor size because how the hell does the lens know what size sensor it's projecting onto? Even if it wanted to somehow change its physics, which it can't.

characterizing depth of field with an f/ value is deeply misleading and confusing anyway, but the bottom line is that any lens will display the same dof characteristics irrespective of the sensor size it's being used with. An 85mm at f/2 is an 85mm at f/2 whether you're shooting super 8 or Alexa 65.


EDITED: to be less of a smug asshole. Further edits probably forthcoming.

 

[Oron Cohen]

Sorry Ebrabim, but you're a little off the mark on a few points


First of all, when it comes to, you're correct in saying that as compared to full frame is one standard way of expressing "crop factor".

But crop factor compared to ff35 is only one way of thinking about FOV, and it's certainly not, in the film world, the way that actual cinematographers think about it. When cinematographers think about what a 50mm or 28mm or 75mm lens looks and feels like, the primary reference point is the s35mm frame. From there we can extrapolate out what FOV we'd get from that lens on a different sized sensor or film stock.

No no cinematographer ever first figured out what a shot would like like on a given lens on a ff35 sensor, then multiplied that by a crop factor to extrapolate what his s35 field of view would be.


As to to depth of field.... depth of field is an optical property of the lens and therefore CANNOT change depending on sensor size because how the hell does the lens know what size sensor it's projecting onto? Even if it wanted to somehow change its physics, which it can't.

characterizing depth of field with an f/ value is deeply misleading and confusing anyway, but the bottom line is that any lens will display the same dof characteristics irrespective of the sensor size it's being used with. An 85mm at f/2 is an 85mm at f/2 whether you're shooting super 8 or Alexa 65.


EDITED: to be less of a smug asshole. Further edits probably forthcoming.

I have to agree with Tom on this one, Cinematographers DO NOT think in FF, not me and not the one's I've met and worked with anyway, I'm sure some are different.

Alexa and real film (as well as Sony F5, F55, F65, Canon C300, C500 and RED at 5/5.5K and 90% of Cinema PL lenses) are all super35, so most TV and film are based on this standard.

For me and most of who I know in this industry a basic set of lenses is around: 18, 24, 35, 50, 85. When you want wide you reach for the 18, when you want normal you reach for 35 etc. those are the camera and lenses that are being used, and it's not to say anything is wrong about FF, it just a different format for a different work, still work, photography work, which we don't do.

I love 35 still film, not sure why I have to mix it with cinema terms.

btw, RED is the only company that are pushing for moving out of those standards, I love using RED cameras, but I'll admit that usually I still stick to using them as close as possible to the standard of super35 i.e shooting at 5K, also it's sometimes been a must as lenses like the Cookes don't cover more then that.

Maybe things will change in the future, but I don't see why, we have super16, super35, anamorphic and 65mm. this is our own film standards.

I'll add as well that if I'm using a RED or any camera as a Cinematographer my main job as I see it, is to separate the subject and highlight the story using light, most films are shot on super35 at around F2.8.5 / F4, sometimes you have scenes with 2-3-4 actors and you want all to be in focus and you separate them and highlight them using lights not depth of field.

Last thing, I think Tom is right, depth of field do not change from sensor to sensor, if you stay on the same lens at the same F stop and at the same distance from subject, how could it change? maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

1- You think in s35 terms and want to calculate using that as 1:1 standard. Absolutely fine. I gave you both calculations above. Where are we disagreeing? You have both. Use what you like.

2- DOF does change with sensor size and in exact crop factor proportions. Due to the fact that one needs to to change Focal length (go wider) to get the same FOV, or change distance (go farther), which both elements along iris are the 3 DOF factors affecting DOF.

To make it clearer in real world use:

-You have an 85mm f/2.8 on a vistavision 8K RED focused on a person, a medium close up.

-You Put that lens on a 4K Epic, change nothing. You'll have a much tighter shot, a tight close up, with same DOF. Of course nothing changes magically. But:

-You change the Focal length to 50mm, giving the same exact medium close up, but because it's a wider lens, DOF is deeper (by a factor proportional to the crop factor).

-You open up the lens to f/1.8 (by an amount proportional to the crop factor, 2.8/1.5=1.8-ish): then you get the same DOF and FOV and overall image of the first image (but with f/1.8 brightness, and btw no perspective/background changes as distance is fixed)

So in order to get the aesthetic FOV and DOF of an 85mm f/2.8 lens on FF, you'll have to use a 50mm f/1.8 on S35. Try it. I did.


Sensor size does affect depth of field, by affecting the two primary factors altering it (Focal length and Distance). If sensor size did not affect DOF, we would have the same shallow DOF of a 5D/Epic on 2/3'' cameras and cell phones. But no, of course sensor size affects DOF. With the heavy crop on these sensors, the optics have to compensate, they are made wider (4mm for a close up on a cellphone), giving a deeper DOF on 2/3'' or cellphone cameras.

I couldn't get my head around all this equivalence math at first. But it gets easier with time of using different sensor sizes.

My Raven when arrives will have a significantly tighter crop over my 1DC (FF and 1.3x/APS-H vs 1.87x) and I know how much I'll have to offset in lenses focal length and iris to get the looks I intend/want.


Tonight while filming with the 1DC out of a moving car, I put on a 50mm lens and instinctively told the talent to stand over there, I know how it will look even without looking at the LCD. When I looked at the LCD, I saw a tight close up while I was pretty sure this distance would give a pretty wide shot, wider than shoulder. I then remembered uh, we're shooting in S35 Crop mode and not in FF. We switched to the 35mm and got the image that I wanted.

It's a bit annoying to those who really got used to one format. I strongly believe this is why Red has just released an 8K S35 Weapon and not just stuck with the Vistavision Weapon,

the demand for the standard s35 image size from film directors/dps used to s35 must be strong, that they don't want to be forced to change formats and get all new FOC/DOF to what they're used to from their lenses or having to use all new larger format lenses.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

About the 10-18, does it actually work now? Because i did check it, when it came out and there was no way to focus it on RED. It had a new kind of focus-by-wire. Also i'm pretty sure the IS wasn't working either. So, yeah, in theory a nice cheap lens (and a unique/special one), but i never heard it's supported and working now.

Doesn't the Raven come with an active EF lens mount? If so, then the focus ring and IS and AF should work. It needs power to change focus yes, so doesn't work on passive adapters. Just like the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L.

 

[jordan levy]

there's never been just one format to get used to, you have a base and your mind works from there. for most of us, s35 was the base, but i know how to instantly know if i was shooting s16, s8, anamorphic, etc. there was even so many 16/35mm formats to deal with, academy, s35, s35 "big tv", 1:33, 1:66, 1:87.
even when i got a 5D years ago, and put on the 70-200 and was surprised how not long it was! but i quickly put that new format into my brain.

anyway, since the 5D opened up a new type of film maker we will never hear the end of crop factors now, it's your perspective, i get it. we are basically at a point of a clash of the perspectives!

honestly for me, the large format is very hard to work in, mainly for focus pullers. i much rather be in a S35 format.

 

[jordan levy]

oh, and since this is a raven lens thread, check out this standard zeiss prime adapted to EF!

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Do Canon EF-S lenses mount and work on Red EF mount?

Someone asked that question earlier in the thread but the reply was (yes, your Tokina 11-16mm is EF-S), but that isn't actually correct. All third party lenses for Canon have a Canon EF mount, not EF-S (EF-S is protected by copyright while EF timed out for being an older patent). So any tokina/sigma/tamron/zeiss is EF whether it's designed to cover s35 or FF.

So what's the difference?

EF and EF-S mounts are virtually the same. The difference is that EF-S mount on the lens side, has a slightly protruding lip,

this lip/projection allows optics to get closer to the sensor and make better optical designs while also preventing accidental mounting of lenses that only cover s35 on FF EF cameras because that lip interferes with the OVF mirror. Aside from this little protrusion they're identical. So if the area is clear, we have that sea of affordable EF-S s35 lenses to use on the Raven.

You can use EF-S lenses on the C300II. I don't think there will be a problem but just checking. There might be an issue with the OLPF or a Glass slide or something in the way.

So anyone tried an actual Canon-branded EF-S lenses on a RED EF mount? (Most likely the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - a perfect kit lens for Raven if it works fully with IS BTW!)

 

[Oron Cohen]

1- You think in s35 terms and want to calculate using that as 1:1 standard. Absolutely fine. I gave you both calculations above. Where are we disagreeing? You have both. Use what you like.

2- DOF does change with sensor size and in exact crop factor proportions. Due to the fact that one needs to to change Focal length (go wider) to get the same FOV, or change distance (go farther), which both elements along iris are the 3 DOF factors affecting DOF.

To make it clearer in real world use:

Ibrahim, what you're explaining is absolutely right! of course that if you want to match two formats, say super16 and super35 so you need to move the camera, change f stop etc, we were talking about something else, it's the fact that a 50 is a 50 is a 50. the lens is always the same, if you did stayed at the same distance and same f stop you get the same depth of field, what will change is your FOV, the lens characteristic , i.e the "feel" of the lens on someone's face, depth of field, bokeh will stay the same, ONLY FOV changes.

It seems like you're working on a camera that is not the norm on film sets, and you got used to it so much and that's understandable. Most sets I'm on this days shoot Arri and Sony and a bit of RED.

 

[Oron Cohen]

oh, and since this is a raven lens thread, check out this standard zeiss prime adapted to EF!

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

Amazing!

How could that be possible? is that some earlier non PL version of the standards? I actually like standards even better then high speed! can you convert all set(if you can find one)?

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

we were talking about something else, it's the fact that a 50 is a 50 is a 50. the lens is always the same, if you did stayed at the same distance and same f stop you get the same depth of field, what will change is your FOV, the lens characteristic , i.e the "feel" of the lens on someone's face, depth of field, bokeh will stay the same, ONLY FOV changes.

-You have an 85mm f/2.8 on a vistavision 8K RED focused on a person, a medium close up.

-You Put that lens on a 4K Epic, change nothing. You'll have a much tighter shot, a tight close up, with same DOF. Of course nothing changes magically

We're clearly talking about the same thing.

Point is, if you want to make s35 your reference, go ahead, if you want 35mm FF, go ahead, if your want s16 to be yours, go ahead. Nothing wrong with any. Just make sure we state what we're talking about/referencing to when speaking to others either on sets or forums and we'll all be fine. The end result is that same anyway, that some sensors are more cropped that others and this affects lensing in a certain way a DP has to know and calculate/make adjustments for.

BTW: I've shot 1.45x s35 film for 24 years, then 1x FF 5D for 5 years, then 2.3x M43s for a year, then 1.3x APS-H 1DC now, and will be shooting on a fifth new 1.87x format size with the raven soon. So lens equivalence among different sensor sizes has bitten me in the arse quite badly enough to know how it works.

 

[Phil Holland]

BTW: I've shot 1.45x s35 film for 24 years, then 1x FF 5D for 5 years, then 2.3x M43s for a year, then 1.3x APS-H 1DC now, and will be shooting on a fifth new 1.87x format size with the raven soon. So lens equivalence among different sensor sizes has bitten me in the arse quite badly enough to know how it works.

If you are referring to FF35, 36mm wide imaging plane, Raven @ 4.5K 2.1:1 is actually 1.56X relative to that HFOV. Not 1.87X.

http://phfx.com/tools/REDCamAssist/REDCamAssist.cgi?camera=REDRavenDragon&resolution=4.5K&format=2.1%3A1&ana=none&fps=24&HDRx=no

 

[jordan levy]

Amazing!

How could that be possible? is that some earlier non PL version of the standards? I actually like standards even better then high speed! can you convert all set(if you can find one)?

that one is a native B (Bayonet mount) its only possible on the 50, 85, 100, 135 and 180. anything wider has a back element that hits a matt inside the raven that is protecting the sensor. That is a B-EF adapter made by RAF Camera, he sent it to me not even know if it would work, but it does, perfectly. that setup is for sale actually, http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...-Primes-16mm-and-50mm-barely-used-mint-in-box

 

[Matt Carlson]

For my Raven I'm trying to decide between the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II Lens or the Canon 16-35mm f/4.0L IS Lens. In the Raven manual it says it supports the 16-35 f2.8 electronically but does not list the 16-35 f4.0 as supported electronically? I would prefer to have image stabilization in the lens as with the f/4 version since I'm going to use my Raven for gimbal work mostly. Does anyone know if the Raven actually supports the 16-35 f/4 lens electronically?

 

[Maik Müller]

For my Raven I'm trying to decide between the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II Lens or the Canon 16-35mm f/4.0L IS Lens. In the Raven manual it says it supports the 16-35 f2.8 electronically but does not list the 16-35 f4.0 as supported electronically? I would prefer to have image stabilization in the lens as with the f/4 version since I'm going to use my Raven for gimbal work mostly. Does anyone know if the Raven actually supports the 16-35 f/4 lens electronically?

The 16-35/4 IS did work fine on my Scarlet-X when it came out. No problems at all.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

If you are referring to FF35, 36mm wide imaging plane, Raven @ 4.5K 2.1:1 is actually 1.56X relative to that HFOV. Not 1.87X.

http://phfx.com/tools/REDCamAssist/REDCamAssist.cgi?camera=REDRavenDragon&resolution=4.5K&format=2.1%3A1&ana=none&fps=24&HDRx=no

That's really misleading. Who measures crop factors by the Horizontal FOV?

Why don't we measure it by the Vertical FOV, in which case the Raven is more than 1.9x crop?

It's measured by diagonal FOV at standard 16:9/10 aspect ratio - That's the way we measure all the other cameras crop factors so to give a relevant number it should be the same. (and if the sensor can go a little beyond in H or V direction it should be noted on the side as a plus for those who want it)

 

[Maik Müller]

That's really misleading. Who measures crop factors by the Horizontal FOV?

It makes sense, given that there are multiple different aspect-ratios. Due to the fact that in film wide and wider plays a big role it makes a lot of sense to use horizontal. It's also what people associate in first place with FOV ("wider FOV").

It also shows why crop-factors are not a good way to figure things out.

Seriously, this math isn't doing anything. It is at best a little helper for yourself when you switch from one format to another.

Why don't we measure it by the Vertical FOV, in which case the Raven is more than 1.9x crop?

It's measured by diagonal FOV at standard 16:9/10 aspect ratio - That's the way we measure all the other cameras crop factors so to give a relevant number it should be the same. (and if the sensor can go a little beyond in H or V direction it should be noted on the side as a plus for those who want it)

What would we gain by playing around with different numbers aside from more confusion?

Seriously, that crop-factor thing is annoying and misleading, especially when people are using it with different viewpoints (which is the case as soon as two people talk about crop-factors ).