newbie question about lenses with the scarlet

[Domenic Barbero]

so, Ive got lots of access to l series glass which is great and all, but i want something else to go with my baby.... so here are questions if a few of you could give me some great easy feedback, i would be forever grateful.

I want a vintage or older cinezoom pl mount lens

question 1..... Do those eos to PL adaptors work at all?

question 2..... i see lots of lenses that are mildly affordable but are all super 16. How well, or does it even cover 4k sensor and would they even work on scarlet?

Thanks everyone in advance.

 

[Robert L. Mickles]

From what I understand S16 lenses will only cover 2k.

 

[Domenic Barbero]

so then basically i need a 35mm lens or sorts?

 

[Robert L. Mickles]

so then basically i need a 35mm lens or sorts?

Yes if you want to cover 4K you'll need 35mm lenses.

 

[Domenic Barbero]

thanks, i thought that but as well, but so many super 16 lenses out there, i needed to be sure. Any use with the adaptors at all?

 

[Clint Lealos]

I tried those EOS to PL adapters on a 7D and it worked great, except the shutter would hit the back of most lenses. We needed to modify the camera for it to work properly. You won't have that problem on a Scarlet, so I imagine they would work fine. I would definitely test it out before buying any lenses. There are also a BNCR to EOS adapters on ebay. Sometimes you can find zooms a bit cheaper if they are in BNCR mount. Good luck!

 

[Domenic Barbero]

would this work on the scarlet with an adaptor, or do i absolutely have to use the RED pl mount?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cooke-20-10...ultDomain_0&hash=item3cc14c46df#ht_500wt_1353

 

[Nathaniel Haban]

thanks, i thought that but as well, but so many super 16 lenses out there, i needed to be sure. Any use with the adaptors at all?

http://budgetmulticamera.com/cameras.php?sub=465a415f39224

Says it will expand an image circle to cover up to 3K on a RED One. However, I think you might find that once you start adding the cost of an adapter onto the cost of S16 glass, you will just about equal the price of 35mm lenses anyway.

EDIT:

Actually, there is a solution for 4K:
http://shop.ibe-optics.com/shop/art...r-PL.html?shop_param=cid=57&aid=190902401000&
But yeah, it's just shy of $6,000.

 

[Domenic Barbero]

damn and a 2.5 stop light loss, that fast lens is now a nobody. lol

 

[Clint Lealos]

I think it would "work". It would certainly be less solid then a PL mount, but it should work just fine.

 

[Robert L. Mickles]

would this work on the scarlet with an adaptor, or do i absolutely have to use the RED pl mount?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cooke-20-10...ultDomain_0&hash=item3cc14c46df#ht_500wt_1353

I've used that lens many times before. it weighs at least 5-6lbs. So you would definitely need sturdy rods and lens support, especially if you're using it on an adaptor. Its not very good for low light either. But it is a nice lens and you can get a nice image out of it, just have enough light. For that price you might be better off with a RED Pro Zoom though.

 

[Domenic Barbero]

the red pro zoom is a t2.9 right? ive got full rail support already would just need to find a lens support for 15mm rods. how does the image quality look on that lens? I primarly like to shoot around t4 if possible but if i was to need low light condition lenses, ive got l series primes i can run that are pretty fast. that lens on red at 1250 iso, decent quality, or bordering on patterny grain?

 

[Robert L. Mickles]

the red pro zoom is a t2.9 right? ive got full rail support already would just need to find a lens support for 15mm rods. how does the image quality look on that lens? I primarly like to shoot around t4 if possible but if i was to need low light condition lenses, ive got l series primes i can run that are pretty fast. that lens on red at 1250 iso, decent quality, or bordering on patterny grain?

Yea the image looks pretty bad on that lens in low light but, i've only shot with it on the RED ONE with the Original Mysterium sensor. If you're well lit the image looks great but the RPZ are much sharper. The Cooke is from the 70's or 80's, so it has a much softer, more organic look when shot right. So it depends on what look you're looking for.

 

[Domenic Barbero]

i like the soft vintage look myself, but a good sharp lens is also great for what viewers of today are looking for and expecting. Guess it all depends on my business model for what will serve my purpose. ill check the Red Pro lenses. Thanks for the feedback. super helpful.

 

[Uli Plank]

A very sharp lens is a "style" too. Why are some folks after Master Primes and others after Summicrons – both considered the best cine lenses on the planet and quite expensive ?

And why are there discussions about filtration for softening the RED look going on at REDuser?

You can optimize lenses differently, and if a manufacturer decides to optimize for some parameters, others lack. It's not that they didn't know how to make a sharp lens in the old days.
Have a look at the individual commentaries from the Portland lens test, including Cooke Panchros and RPPs. The RPPs are very sharp and quite neutral in most other parameters, but some might say they lack character. It all boils down to the style you are shooting (and personal preference).