Preparing for VV+ RED sensors - photo lenses that cover 'digital medium format'

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I have little doubt that one day Red will produce a camera with a VV+ sized sensor, something with a similar surface area of Leica's ProFormat of 45x30mm, or the 44x33mm sensor as found in Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X bodies. It's not the thing for me, but it will be fun to watch.

So, we already know that there are plenty of medium format lenses that can easily cover that kind of sensor. We have Mamiya, Pentax, Contax, Bronica and Hasselblad lenses to choose from as far as classic designs are concerned (and most are reasonably priced). We also have modern, dedicated cinema lenses from several manufacturers that can cover ARRI's Alexa 65 sensor as well. But what about modern, yet affordable, photo lenses? Would you be able to use any of your 135 format lenses for medium format?

Well, apparently, the answer is... yes. I think Phil Holland already established that perhaps the Otus lenses can cover VV+. But what about others? It has been established that the Leica 50mm Summicron M APO can almost cover the GFX wide-open. There's a little vignetting, but if you're framing for 16:9, it's gone. Corner sharpness is another matter, which I can't comment on. Here's the statement from photographer, Matt Granger:

The lens will have an equivalent AOV and DOF as a 40/1.4 on a 35mm body.

Next is a reply to a question I asked on another GFX review:

When the GFX 50S released, I recall seeing a blog post which found that the Sigma ART 85mmF/1.4, 24-35mmF/2, and another ART lens were all able to cover the circle, so the ART line is worth exploring.
I like to shoot square so the prospect of 33x33 via ZM+VM rangefinder lenses is very appealling

Here's a forum post I found with some tests of various Zeiss 135 format lenses:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1496482

Okay so you get the idea. But I want to go further: what's the cheapest 135 format lens that can cover VV+? I'm sure there are plenty. Such as several Minolta designs:

https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/08/16/minolta-x-fujifilm/

Of course you probably have to stop down with some of them. Anyway, these are just some thoughts and observations.

FWIW I like smaller sensors anyway. Smaller sensor, smaller camera, smaller lens. And I have two very useful options: use 135 lenses with larger image circles for better quality; or use those lenses with FLRs like the SpeedBooster. But... I know some of you have very different ideas. ;-)

 

[Phil Holland]

I've been sharing a bunch of notes over the last 3 years + on FF35+ coverage.

Long and the short answer, almost every FF35 lens covers Monstro 8K VV.

Where some lenses get into trouble is typically wider than 35mm. But honestly, most of the regular suspects cover nicely.

VV+? Well that gets more interesting. The GFX 100 is only a 43.8 wide sensor, pretty small considering 645 glass like Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya, etc. So any of that will cover. In terms of new cinema glass, the most generous coverage I've found so far are the Tokina Cinema Vista Primes and Cooke S7s. They were purpose designed for RED's VistaVision format and generously over provisioned. As for other FF35 glass, typically the longer the focal lengths the more generous the coverage. Things like Leica Thalias cover a 60mm diagonal.


My general recommendation is use glass that is designed relatively close to the format your filming. Performance drops outside of field pretty quickly because frankly that's not what the lens was designed to do. Sometimes you hit some gems though.

 

[Adam Johnson]

I would rent the hell out of a RED 65mm or 70mm cinema camera. I want the best Medium Format Cinema Camera possible for specific projects.

I still crave that unicorn Panavision 70mm cinema camera. Hopefully Panavision & RED co-create one. Rental only is fine. I won’t get into details but I know the big guns such as Jim Cameron, Ang Lee, Peter Jackson, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, (and even Tarantino to an extent), want it.

I personally desire this format and at least 4K 120fps (full field of view) for my projects. At the very least, give us an Alexa 65 equivalent

 

[Misha Engel]

I would rent the hell out of a RED 65mm or 70mm cinema camera. I want the best Medium Format Cinema Camera possible for specific projects.

I still crave that unicorn Panavision 70mm cinema camera. Hopefully Panavision & RED co-create one. Rental only is fine. I won’t get into details but I know the big guns such as Jim Cameron, Ang Lee, Peter Jackson, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, (and even Tarantino to an extent), want it.

I personally desire this format and at least 4K 120fps (full field of view) for my projects. At the very least, give us an Alexa 65 equivalent

With current lens technology we don't need medium format lenses anymore for their quality.

When this https://news.panasonic.com/global/press/data/2018/02/en180214-2/en180214-2.html sensor technology (full well capacity of 450,000e-, 18+ stops, 8k 60fps, 4k 120 fps, global shutter) is fully commercialized and you have lenses with the quality of the Zeiss Otus line, your fine and you might feel sorry for all those who have to handle big heavy medium format camera's and lenses.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Sure, you should be good with both some of the Tokina Vista primes, and some of the Sigma Art series primes I would say.

 

[Misha Engel]

Sure, you should be good with both some of the Tokina Vista primes, and some of the Sigma Art series primes I would say.

Yep, the newer lenses in the Sigma Art line are pretty good(in the centre even better than the Otus 28mm).

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

you might feel sorry for all those who have to handle big heavy medium format camera's and lenses.

I agree. There are only two reasons to make larger sensors:

1. Resolution (which is why 65mm film exists)

2. Sensitivity (this applies less to film than it does to digital)

Any other reason is false. Flatter perspective? No. Why do people believe this? It's clearly illogical. The ability of the lens to see more around a person's face? No, that's not how optics work. Selective focus? Practically, no, because already DOF is too narrow at the wider apertures on smaller sensors. And DOF has nothing to do with sensor size anyway.

RED could make a 5K VV camera which would make sense as a low light camera. But that's all that it would offer, at the cost of larger lenses and a higher cost. Worth it? Maybe!

 

[Phil Holland]

Any other reason is false.

lol.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

I agree. There are only two reasons to make larger sensors:

1. Resolution (which is why 65mm film exists)

2. Sensitivity (this applies less to film than it does to digital)

Any other reason is false. Flatter perspective? No. Why do people believe this? It's clearly illogical. The ability of the lens to see more around a person's face? No, that's not how optics work. Selective focus? Practically, no, because already DOF is too narrow at the wider apertures on smaller sensors. And DOF has nothing to do with sensor size anyway.

RED could make a 5K VV camera which would make sense as a low light camera. But that's all that it would offer, at the cost of larger lenses and a higher cost. Worth it? Maybe!

I completely agree lots of nonsense is talked about bigger sensors...

But perhaps also consider:

1) With larger sensors one can use some pretty roppy old interesting lenses or maybe even just those designs reimagined ...these lenses actually contributed to the grammar of image that we collectively share. This has been a huge reason for me loving the Monstro. I have started a personal project of rehousing interesting glass that has not comonmly been used before....Now by having a sensor that can be big enough we still achieve enough for modern delivery.

(think for example of the positive qualities in the bokeh of an image that comes from the under correction of spherical aberration... there are some really early lenses that have bokeh that is almost Gaussian in its smoothness due to basically the existence of other optical issues)

2) I agree the perspective etc jibberish is nonsense... but different lens designs (even within a unified set of lens) do subtly look different... and wide angle lenses (with a PL assumption) are more difficult to design then short telephotos. I will dig out some good examples of this when I get time but consider Zeiss HS s16 Lenses (i think all are distagon in design) and look at the the ultra primes and see the design change from distagon to planer and then sonar... So in conclusion if you would like a particular field of view from a particular lens design you may need a a specific size imager... but for many this is not a consideration and that is cool for them.

3) aritistc process is a complicated thing and if (and agianst all good science) a particular DP feels they need a particular format to shoot Lawerence of Arabia part 2 ... ? Why not?

On the whole I do agree (and PV annoyed me with their optical property conflating absficating nonsense in their primo 70 white papers.... and they should know better) that the whole confusion around large format is so full of problematic assertions.... but we are in a sell new stuff business so it is to be expected.