RED vs Canon Lenses

[Chris Gavrilovic]

I was wondering if anyone has experience using both lenses, if they could chime in on any image quality differences. Obviously Canon lenses are photo lenses first and video second (REDs being the opposite). I'm sure RED lenses are obviously smoother than the Canon lenses (not hard to do), but if you were to pop both on a Scarlet or Epic, will the REDs give a noticable quality difference? Crisper, better resolution, etc?

Thanks

 

[Michael Millichamp]

Well which Canon lenses are you referring to?

 

[Nate Clapp]

I have not done a side by side test, but you may have to clarify which RED lenses and which canon you are talking about. RED primes are very sharp. a Canon zoom probably would hold up well in comparison, but if only for being a zoom, would be less sharp, but still being pretty damn good.
I can talk more concretely about mechanics and weight. Most RED lenses, being cinema style lenses are way heavier than a comparable Canon. Hugely heavier. if you are used to shooting cinema style that is the tradeoff for full manual control, repeatable focus pulls, etc. if you only vaguely know the duties of a first AC and plan to pull your own focus, maybe do a lot of run-and gun, maybe Canon is the way to go. Cinema style is more professional, but "professional" can also mean slower, bigger crew, larger budget. If that doesn't describe your situation, then cine lenses may not be your best choice. I live in both worlds of big commercials and small corporate stuff, so I plan on having a Canon mount as well as my current PL mount for my camera.
in general though, if you look at a RED say 18-85 and a Canon 24-70 I bet as far as resolution charts go, they will be similar, or at least not a great degree of difference. However, breathing will be less noticeable on the RED. I can't confirm this by testing at the moment, but breathing is a spec cinema lenses worry about and still lenses generally do not.

 

[Justin Marx]

You can't compare a cine style lens that is made for a motion picture camera (focus marks, smooth iris, mattox, accys, etc) with a still lens..

Also, lenses to me are like food, some people like filet mignon (the "best" cut of meat) and some people like a rib eye..

Only way is to go out and rent or borrow and test yourself to see which "you" like..

Glass is forever..

I like the rib eye..

 

[Brad Crawford]

focus pulling will be the biggest difference in terms of ergonomics etc... and of course if you want to do an iris pull and optically I would imagine that RED lenses are superior. That being said I'll be using all old Nikon lenses on my scarlet, they have a little longer focus throw as they aren't auto focus and are optically nice for a good price. (35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 90mm macro f2.9) I lived in Japan and was able to find some amazing older glass for great prices.

 

[Chris Gavrilovic]

Yes I should have specified. I was comparing the L lens (like 24-70) and EFS 17-55 type lenses to lets say the 17-50 and 18-85. I really was however making more of a generalization I suppose, because yes obviously preference is involved. I suppose really what I was asking was if the RED Lenses are any good, haha.

I should note, not a direct comparison of those lenses specifically, but lenses LIKE those.

 

[Carelton Holt]

I was on a shoot using some of the RED Primes and yes, they resolve extremely well. Their real advantage is (as stated by Nate above) in pulling repeatable focus and smooth iris. In terms or pure resolution, Canon L Series Primes (and some zooms) resolve beyond 4K resolution and are as sharp as most any 35mm cinema primes. Additionally there are other Canon mount still lenses that resolve extremely well.

I have a post listed below to several Canon mount lenses we use commercially that are amazingly sharp and produce amazing images both in video and 5K stills. Certainly, I am not trying to steer anyone away from RED lenses, just offering up alternatives to those who may be coming from DSLR backgrounds.

Link to lenses we use with great results:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...I-have-no-lens-background&p=872640#post872640

 

[Phil Holland]

The biggest difference in my experience is: Focus pulling, a flatter image (less barrel distortion), less chromatic aberration, build quality, distance scale, and even field illumination.

Image sharpness, contrast, and micro contrast vary between all lenses, but those are some other things to consider.

Canon made lenses I've used with nice results: 14mm f/2.8L, 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4L, 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.2L, 50mm f/1.2L, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, 135mm f/2L, 200mm f/2.8L, 200mm f/1.8L, 200mm f/2L IS, 16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, all L primes equal to or longer than 300mm hold up extremely well.

I have little experience with EF-S lenses sadly.

The big gamble on that list is the 20mm f/2.8 as I've seen nice ones and not so nice ones. I think possibly the best deal in there is the 85mm f/1.4 and the 100 f/2. That 100mm is an extremely underrated lens.

 

[Jake Bastian]

That's a really nice list Phil, thanks! Have you compared these lenses to results from the RPPs or are these just lenses you've used alone to get nice results (either would be fine for me

 

[Eric J Kosinski]

I swear by the Nikon AIS lenses and use a few cheap ebay style Canon mounts. The only disadvantage is no electronics for Canon but they are made of metal and very well built all around. The focus is smooth as hell for still lenses and you have manual iris control. Here are some links to check out . Several recommend, however only a few are still sold new. Links below: BTW they look the closest to Zeiss Compact Primes than any other still lens in my opinion with the cooler more contrasty tones. I really enjoy the images they produce. No idea of real MTF data or resolving power. Phil may know more than me about those things but they are great lenses.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36976-USA/Nikon_1435_NIKKOR_Normal_50mm_f_1_2.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36905-USA/Nikon_1415_Super_Wide_Angle_20mm.html

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-f14.htm

Keep in mind these are made for 35mm Full Frame photography (just like the Canon lenses) so you will need to understand you are using less of the image circle of the lens and the image is cropped, so use Phil's Lens Chart for any FF35 lenses for the Scarlet at 4k

 

[Phil Holland]

I own and use a lot of those lenses and more from other brands.
I've compared these lenses in cinema situations to some Red Pro Primes, Panavision Spherical, Arri, and some Cooke lenses.

Optically speaking cinema glass is usually much better. However, at a price/speed/performance ratio still lenses are comparatively a real bargain.

I would also note that optically the Red Pro Primes are a hell of a deal for a full set.

 

[Phil Holland]

I should add that the real killer for me when it comes to some still lenses is when you see your material projected on a 40 foot plus screen; on things like pans or simple dolly moves, you can really see the effect of barrel distortion. Most chromatic aberrations fall off due to the crop factor of S35/4k/5k on Scarlet and Epic, however, some wide lenses still show their flows in the corners.

It's a grotesque test, but if you can find a large checkerboard style lens chart (or build one) to test barrel distortion and pan and tilt a bit you can see it. That's also a nice way to see any chromatic aberration as the contrast between the black and white checkers is fairly extreme if properly lit/exposed.

Here's an example of that chart (dirty field version). In this case, a Voigtlander 40mm f/2 SL II on FF35 where you can see the barrel distortion revealed:

Barrel distortion isn't the worse thing in the world when it comes to glass, but if it's glaring and distorting your subject it could really make you made. Some like it though. For instance, Wes Anderson films utilize anamorphics with a great degree of distortion to enhance the look of the film.

Breathing is apparent on many still lenses when pulling focus, but there are a few that perform really well.

Also, really hard to find a wide selection of zooms with parfocal capability.

Lenses, much like cameras, are a balance between technical performance and more intangible things like "feel". Everybody has their different opinions and has the right to use what they prefer.

Personally for me I have to hit some technical marks, but I certainly love certain lenses. Even really cheap and poor optical quality ones just because they have a unique look.

 

[Chris Gavrilovic]

Thanks Phil ( and everyone else) Looks like I'll be buying a few RED lenses. If anyone has any they'd like to get rid of certainly let me know. I'll put a WTB in the marketplace section as well.