Red EF vs. PL mount

[Gene Sung]

I know PL mount is the industry standard for Cine glass and I can see it's strength over a traditional non-Red EF mount. I use both EF and PL (rented) mount lenses.

However, does anyone else feel that the Red version of the double locking EF mount is a superior design over the traditional PL mount? I love how on the Red EF you click the lens in, then rotate the second locking mechanism. The double lock just adds an extra layer of security IMO.

Is there any reason why PL mount is better than the Red EF mount?

The reason I'm asking is I might get the Sigma Cine lenses and debating between EF or PL.

 

[Kurt Myers]

PL is still more robust. You're probably not going to be mounting anything as heavy as a master prime on an EF type mount without lens support. The flanges are just larger and made of thicker steel.

 

[Chad Lancaster]

If your going with the sigma cine lenses, definitely get EF because they will transmit data.

 

[Tim Daust]

If your going with the sigma cine lenses, definitely get EF because they will transmit data.

the PL versions wont? even with the legit RED Ti PL mount?

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

A lot of lens mount preference boils down to your personal workflow. If you are mostly a one-man band type and pull your own focus by eye, then EF can work just as well and save you a lot of money. However, if you work on bigger projects with a full crew and lots of lenses, PL mounts start to save the production a lot of time, which translates to more setups per day, which leads to significant cost savings as well as making life easier on set, especially for the 1st ACs.

Adding to what Kurt said, having to rotate the lens in order to mount it is not ideal for heavier lenses, especially zooms. When you are mounting a lens like the 25lbs 24-290mm Optimo, the easiest way to do so is to attach the lens support to the zoom first, pop the zoom onto the studio rods, then slide the lens on the rods into the mount. If you have to rotate the lens to mount it, then you can't have the lens support attached since it will interfere with the rods. So you have to support the full weight of the lens with both hands while making sure it is precisely aligned on three axis, lock the mount, and then attach the lens support. Basically, it becomes a two-person operation. With only one person, it is slower and more likely to result in damage to the lens, especially when working under pressure and after long hours on set day after day. No 1st AC wants to deal with that when they have so many other things to deal with.

Rotating the lens also requires re-positioning accessories like lens motors, which further slows down lens changes. With lenses of the same dimensions and gear positions, you can simply leave the motors or follow focus where they are. One less thing to deal with when the DP wants the next lens up ASAP.

Lastly, PL is more likely to maintain its FFD, ensuring consistent back-focus throughout the production. It is hard to emphasize how much the 1st AC relies on this to do their job properly. If all the focus marks on every lens are off and you have to rely solely on eye focus, then it's almost better for the operator to pull their own focus. Of course, this becomes more problematic as an AC when you have to work with so many non-rental house cameras bodies with user-adjustable back-focus and limited time or none at all to prep them. I'm really quite glad that I am longer an AC, let's put it that way!

 

[Randy Panado]

Satsuki, thanks for the detailed information bro! Good stuff.

 

[Brody_B]

The second lock isn't really for security. I tightens down on the mount making it nice and stationary, especially important with heavy or long lenses.

I am enjoying my EF, working pretty good for me.

 

[Lee Kelly]

I own both mounts in static and motion mount versions. I have only heard of one time a PL mount failed and it may have been operator error as much as the mount itself. It was on a car mount, a very expensive ultra wide lens driving over a very prominent Sydney landmark. Vibrations (apparently) caused the mount to wiggle loose and that very expensive lens fell out, onto the road. From that story alone, whether completely fact or not, I always suggest adding some tape to a situation like that just for added security. Super hard to imagine the PL rotating loose like that but it could happen. EF with the twist/lock and then rotate the ring to lock it down tight does feel good.
As for lens mount options, with many of the top cameras in use today, having options for Canon mount or PL, often interchangeable, as well as DSLR or similar, Canon isnt such a bad idea.

 

[emil_h]

I own an EF mount and rent PL mounts when I need PL lenses. Owning an EF mount allows me to use a lot more readily available cheaper lenses.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Locking EF Mount is pretty cool but PL Mount is in another league...as the glass you can mount on it.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

The only advantages of EF Canon mount vs PL mount is that it is much smaller and lighter, but mainly the fact that is great for Still Glass passing Electronic Data and retaining both Auto Focus and Image Stabilization where supported by RED, which of course is especially great for one man band and or for Remote set ups, such a sDrones, Remote Heads etc.

This is especially true with the new addition of the Offhollywood OMOD add ons and the RT Motion system, the Foolcontrol app been the most widely used.


The advantages of PL mount vs EF Canon mount is that it is the Industry standard and the line up of Glass offered is simply greater by large, and it is with any and most Pro sets use...

However I have seen and used myself more and more the Canon Mount, Aluminum (AL) the lighter and cheaper one, or Titanium (Ti) the heavier and more expensive one but also the most strongly built and durable also the one that will take better care of supporting heavier glass.

Comes down to "Needs" of your production...