New Canon Cine Lenses. Another mistake

[Chris Luker]

I hear that for now the primes will only be made in Canon mount which is lame. If Canon is serious about "cine" lenses they need to be offered in PL.

Was told that today at the Canon event in SLC. Primes only in Canon mount. Reason given was there is too much competition in PL mounts.
Scarlet X with EOS C300:

Hehehe.

 

[Uli Plank]

Well, if you look at the results of the Portland lens test, I think they'll have a hard time to beat RPPs in price/performance ratio.
They need to compete with the next level, PL or not, where the air is getting thin…

 

[Lorenzo Straight]

Red just get's it. All their products are priced for total domination. Jim has said to himself, what would I pay for equipment. I love that about the big guy.

 

[Uli Plank]

RPPs are excellent neutral lenses, they don't impose a specific look. Above that level you'll be either looking for speed and analytical sharpness, like Zeiss, or character, like todays Leica, Cooke or Hawk or vintage like Russians. Since it's not speed, Canon better have a very delightful character…

Strictly speaking primes here. If I need a longer Zoom than RPZ, I use Canon photographic since I can't afford Optimo.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Primes only in Canon mount. Reason given was there is too much competition in PL mounts.

That doesn't make any sense. Except if Canon is actually wanting to charge more as opposed to giving better value. RED is about value. The C300 is a great camera, but poor value. It is unintelligent to pay that much for an HD camera. The Scarlet-X is at least a great camera and very good value.

I am going to predict that what goes for cameras will go for lenses: the Canons won't be better value than the RPPs. That's a shame, because what we need is as much value as we can get. So I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Their zoom are more expensive than some Angenieux Optimo lenses !!!

So their primes are going to probably be sold for a higher price than the Cooke Panchro !!!

Why are people surprised that Canon makes an extremely good cine zoom and prices it in the range of other extremely good cine zooms?

Canon doesn't only make relatively inexpensive still camera lenses. Canon almost certainly has more experience (by almost any measure) making high end zoom lenses for motion picture cameras than any other company, having sold hundreds of thousands of high end zooms for television cameras, typically priced from $20K to $70K, not to mention their previous experience with cinema lenses. Over the last 30 years and until recently with these low cost digital cine cameras, cine lenses for S35 format has been an extremely minuscule market compared to the video market so they didn't bother.

BTW Fujinon introduced a very high quality cinema zoom shortly after the RED1 came out and priced it in this range as well.

 

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

I don't really CARE so much about what Canon has done. I can only react and purchase accordingly, but it is worth noting the price and weight.

While some may theorize that these zooms will "destroy" the RPZ 18-85, it's a random guess. The RPZ's are considered extremely well made and under priced.

I think we can all agree that the lenses miss the market they were announced to, people looking to buy the C300. You can buy 3 more, or buy one of these lenses.

The only zoom to be considered BETTER are the very expensive Angenieux Optimo lenses. The Canon lens weighs almost 10 lbs ( like the 18-85 RPZ ) where the Optimos are just over 4 lbs. And at the price of the Canon 14.5-60, you can buy BOTH Angenieux Optimos, get a better range, and use them without serious lens support. It really seems to be a misplaced product.




The primes still excite me, but I have heard prices of $7k - $8k each. My opinion is that they are again too expensive unless they miraculously beat the RPP and some of the other great sub $35k sets (And the Canons will be more expensive for a real full set ) and above that priced-to-own line, they have to then beat Zeiss MPs, Leicas new set, etc. Which would be miraculus... but we will see.

If the Canons came out, in either mount, at $4.5k or less each, I would be first in line.

 

[Luuk de Kok]

The new Canon Cine Zoom Lenses announced alongside the C300 finally have hit B&H for order.
Being that a ordered a Canon mount Scarlet I have been really waiting for them.
But to my surprise they are $44 grand!!!
im sure they are great lenses but probably not any better than the Red Zooms.
So to me just another overpriced mistake by Canon.
Seperate PL mount and Red Zooms here I come.

Ryan
Allocated SO #1134

How the hell can you tell that there not better than the Red zooms?
It's such a shame that there are a lot of Red fanboys on this forum who lost their perspective...
Just because the price is high doesn't mean it's overpriced and just because it's from canon doesn't mean it's bad, when the first tests come out we can tell if it's good or bad.
There are a lot of more lenses in that price range, so just basing from the price i can't tell anything about the lens.
It's not set for the indie filmmaker that's for sure.

I'm not bashing you or anything but please (and this is also for more people here) please be a bit more objective before your going to scream that red is best and beats everything else, and especially not if a product haven't been tested or anything yet (i know that Mobius is shot on it but i mean scientific tests ) because in the end, it's not the equipment that makes the man, it's the person who controls it.

 

[Mike McEntire]

Speaking about Cine Zooms I recently have had the opportunity to shoot on the Fujinon 24-180 2.6 and the Fujinon 75-400 2.8-3.8 lenses. I have to say that these are by far my favorite zooms I have ever used. 20 pounds each and razor sharp. Not cheap but IMHO the best zooms out there now. Used them on the New Years No Limits jump in San Diego when Maddo and Levi jumped over the bay. I was blown away by these lenses. Better then the Optimo for sure.

 

[Scott Frace]

I've read on DP Review that the new Canon Zooms are not compatible with APS-H size sensors, does this mean they will not cover the full 5K on the Epic sensor? Any confirmation of this? I don't doubt the quality of these lenses, I would just be really bummed if they don't cover the Epic sensor.


Link for reference: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/11/4/cinemaeoslenses

 

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

Mike - That's good to know! Zooms are so interesting, because to me I am interested in the speed and flexibility they offer, however if they are really heavy, it's negated. But just because that is my preferred workflow doesn't mean that will change. What setting were you using the Fulinons in?

Scott - Canon is saying they are made to cover 4k. Whether that is because their C300 is "only" 4k or because they CAN'T cover 5k I don't know. DP Review is pretty thorough.



I am starting to sense another lens shootout for zooms! Despite how some people may feel, most of us are just interested in the best lens for the job / that the client wants. So a zoom shootout could be amazing! Including DSLR zooms for comparison as well? (I will stop here lest I end up being responsible for such a test)

 

[George Su]

it seems exorbitant to pay that much for a lens in EF mount...

 

[Mike McEntire]

Jeffry I was shooting 5K full frame. It was super dark and backlit and foggy and the shots were still awesome.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

How the hell can you tell that there not better than the Red zooms?
It's such a shame that there are a lot of Red fanboys on this forum who lost their perspective...
Just because the price is high doesn't mean it's overpriced and just because it's from canon doesn't mean it's bad, when the first tests come out we can tell if it's good or bad.
There are a lot of more lenses in that price range, so just basing from the price i can't tell anything about the lens.
It's not set for the indie filmmaker that's for sure.

I'm not bashing you or anything but please (and this is also for more people here) please be a bit more objective before your going to scream that red is best and beats everything else, and especially not if a product haven't been tested or anything yet (i know that Mobius is shot on it but i mean scientific tests ) because in the end, it's not the equipment that makes the man, it's the person who controls it.

Hi, i own a cooke s4 set and the cooke cxx zoom.
and i own the rpz lenses.

the red lenses rock for the money they cost.
and i wouldnt pay that much for the canon lenses...variable iris? not for me.
and the resale value is not good enough at that price.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

and the resale value is not good enough at that price.

We don't know the resale value yet! But hey, I'm as curious as anyone to see how they compare to other lenses.

The way I see it: Canon wants to be taken seriously. Fair enough. So they look at RED and see that it has its detractors. They think that maybe this is due to their excellent value, which implies lower prices. So they attempt to avoid this problem simply by charging Zeiss-like prices. I think it was Versace who said that price was a feature. And some people will overlook RED simply because it's RED, with the 'bonus' of being able to say that they are paying more for other cameras and lenses.

 

[Yaque Silva-Doyle]

The Canon cinema zoom are incredible lenses no matter how you cut it. I have talked to more that one lens tech who was as blown away as I was. These lenses do not miss the mark. They are very high quality cinema lenses that will be some of the best zooms that money can buy. They are not supposed to compete with mid range lenses so the are not priced in that range. And i really have no interest in anything else that Canon does but we would be fools to discount these lenses just because we have all been on that shoot where some producer thought they would save money by using some shitty Canon DSLR.

 

[sergio arguello]

i havnt seen it , but im sure its quality...why is the price so shocking? 44k the angenieux 24-290 is almost double that and you'll need about 8k worth of sevicing a year

 

[Yaque Silva-Doyle]

i havnt seen it , but im sure its quality...why is the price so shocking? 44k the angenieux 24-290 is almost double that and you'll need about 8k worth of sevicing a year

Yep Sergio. I don't quite get it either. But we all have are biases and not everyone who posts has a good balance of experience/knowledge and opinion.

These thing are all just tools so use what ever works for the project.

 

[David W. Jones]

it seems exorbitant to pay that much for a lens in EF mount...

Some people might think the same thing about buying a full Epic or Scarlet package only to use an EF mount.

 

[Doug Gardner]

I certainly don't know what you guys are talking about....I can honestly say there is NOTHING about the new Canon 30-300 that is a "mistake." In fact it has to be one of the best REAL cine lenses I've every used. I just finished a 2 week intensive natural history shoot for the BBC and the lens performed flawlessly. Fast, sharp through-out and gorgeous bokah. Yes the price is high but compared to other lenses in the same league...it's on par. When purchasing a lens like this you have to realize the it is a proper "sequence lens" meaning you can get NEARLY every angle and view you need for most segments. Combine that with the option of several resolutions of the Dragon and you can't beat the setup for natural history.