Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

SALT II results... (Part 1,2,3,4 Bokeh, Breathing & Flare and Part 5: Impressions)

Evin Grant said:
Zeiss are great, the Standard speed T2.1 primes are probably my favorite affordable cine lenses.
I still miss the set I sold to Martin.
Click to expand...

Hello Evin,

So..........I just received my Epic-X today (Drink..Drink), and will finally be able to use the
Zeiss Standard speed T2.1 primes you sold me.

:)

I have ALWAYS loved the look of movies that were shot with these lenses.

Also, how is your short movie "SAND" coming along?
 
So this reaffirms my choice to go with Zeiss ZE lenses for my base lenses with the Scarlet. I was, and will be, open until the last minute to new info, but mechanics are HUGE for me, even if I am talking about for my "grab and go" lenses. I would love to buy a RPZ for my PL mount to own, but its NOT QUITE in the budget... And I have a lot of cine glass nearby for rental on larger projects.

I think I will be getting the 50 2.0 macro, and the 85 1.4. I am also getting a wide, still deciding which. Advice?
 
Martin,
Slower than I'd like, I've had too many lens tests getting in the way :) honestly what we shot looks georgeous but there is still a bunch of VFX work to be done and it looks like it's going to have to wait till after my next pilot. So I don't think there will be a finished film till fall. It'll be worth it though, I promise.

Jeffrey, you can't go wrong with either the 20, 25 f2 or 28mm f2 ZFs or a 17-35mm 2.8 Nikkor is also a popular wide option and quite sharp.
 
Evin,

Between SALT and SAND you have a lot of work on your hands.

And I am grateful!
 
I am also grateful to Matt Duclos.

Thanks Matt.
 
This is a very basic example. I don't have any Summilux lenses in shop right now to demonstrate. The Summilux lenses exhibit the contrast/resolution difference the most obvious.
Anyway, here is a 50mm Summicron as an example. It's a bit difficult to see, especially since There is no easy way to take a macro shot of a projected light from straight on which means that the depth of field in my sample photo is rather shallow due to the angle I snapped the photo at.

Tip: Since the depth of field is effecting this photo, I'm using the upper right set of diagonal lines as reference...
So here is the example of the lens focused best for contrast which is what most auto focus cameras are going to look for. The difference between black and white (contrast) is very quick, there is very little grey area between black and white areas. If you look at the tips of the diagonal lines where the converge, you can see that there is very little flare and decent contrast.
dsc_6326.jpg

Moving onto the resolution. As I said, this is a bit difficult to see in the photo (much easier in person). I have focused the lens for the best resolution, concentrating on the tips of the diagonal lines at the converging point. You can see that there is better separation than the photo above, however, the contrast suffers dramatically due to a large amount of veiling flare. This focus setting, while providing higher resolution, won't necessarily look as good because the contrast is prevalent.
dsc_6327.jpg

I hope this helps explain why I say lenses can be "technically bad" on paper, but still make amazing images. This is why you shouldn't believe every MTF chart you read.
 
Scott Crawley to Matthew Duclos said:
But you don't yet offer select lenses in the original manufacturer's housing, or do you? Is that because it doesn't seem profitable, or because you are focused on the best cine gear you can offer? Is this something that might change with the proliferation of Red mounts?
Click to expand...

OK... I've been overlooked? Snubbed then. I know one place that won't be receiving any of my money
 
Last edited:
Matt....is there a photo missing from your post?
 
Cont. from page 1.

Red Nikon Mount:
Just some quick thoughts on the Red Nikon Mount as we had an early version there to test (thank you Jarred and Evin!). That damn thing is built like a tank. I walked up to it and gave it a "firm handshake" with lens mounted and it's rock solid. It performed flawlessly all day. Owners of Nikon glass have a lot to be excited about. Nicely done yet again Red.


For Cinema Use:
The simple answer is yes. I've had material on screen shot with still lenses from about 2002 on. However, it's not all cut and dry like that. Focusing on still lens issues, problems, and strengths is the real story here. When it comes to pulling focus still lenses tend to have a very short focus throw. The Canon lenses are the weakest out of the bunch as their focus ring just keeps on turning when you hit minimum or infinity focus. Worse than that the amazing 85mm f/1.2L employs a fly by wire focus motor and if turned too fast you will have inconsistent marks. Nikon does a much better job at this. However, Leica R lenses with their nearly 270 degrees of rotation performs closest to what a cinema lens should be. I add focus gears to all my still glass as I feel a follow focus is a necessary piece of equipment. I recommend doing the same or having a company like Duclos add a fitted Delrin gear to each lens. On a different note, Canon and Nikon have done a great job of increasing their aperture speeds while maintaining a good amount of contrast and resolving power. However, this is at the cost of increased chromatic aberrations. In a still workflow this is fairly trivial to correct (sometimes even corrected in camera), but in terms of nailing it right in a motion picture camera these modern lenses leave a bit to be desired and often this has to be corrected in post.

Dirty Little Lens Secrets:
Here's where things get really ugly and the separation between still glass and cinema glass is very apparent. Still lenses suffer from somewhat extreme copy variation. I've built rigs that employ lens packages in common lengths and some specialized lengths. When looking at 5-30 copies of a specific lens from a manufacturer you can learn a lot. Variations in color reproduction, optics, and strange calibrations are all fairly normal with mass produced still glass. For both cinema and still glass as lenses are handled, bumped around in travel, and get pushed around on set it's possible have things get thrown out of whack pretty quickly, especially for those who rent their gear. I get my lenses calibrated once a year to tighten them up back to spec (and cleaned too!). If you are a Canon CPS member they can perform this task for you on still glass. Still lenses are actually pretty tough overall, but it's something to point out. Large rental houses have technicians on site who regularly check out and fine tune mechanics of cinema glass. Also when it comes still glass, since these lenses we never designed with motion work in mind, image shift and centering seem to be the biggest and oddest variation among manufacturers. Maintained modern medium end to high end cinema glass usually doesn't suffer from this at all. What may look absolutely fine on a 40 inch monitor may induce vertigo to an audience with an image bouncing around projected at 40 feet. The effect of focus breathing can also just produce ugly and visually strange feeling results. Resolving power is also often increased in the longer heavier cinema lenses due to less "correcting" and a simpler (i.e. straighter) light path in their design. There's such a focus on compact size with still lenses that this is a concept that's foreign to their design just by the nature of how they are typically used. If you want the best optical performance, your lenses will likely be longer, bigger, and heavier. That said, it's rather amazing what still glass can pull off in very compact sizes.

_MG_1032.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you Phil.

I am grateful.
 
i just want to thank everyone involved in this test. what a great wealth of information.
i've been using canon glass on my red one since the beginning of the birger mount...
since a lot of my work is travel doc. and smaller/lighter is a usually a priority...
PL has its place for me, most def... but DSLR glass is usually on my camera, and i'm always assessing its limitations.
i've been refreshing this thread like crazy.
thanks again guys for going the distance.
 
Thanks for doing this guys.... Two quick questions -

@Phil you say that the canon 24-70 isn't very good for focus pulling? I've had the exact opposite experience where it's basically the only lens in the Canon lineup that doesn't breath.

See David Winter's video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FYSrRYJqnM

Also you say the short optimo vignettes - how much and @ what focal lengths?

It would be awesome if you guys actually included the optimos review against the stills stuff.
 
Ryan Lalonde said:
@Phil you say that the canon 24-70 isn't very good for focus pulling? I've had the exact opposite experience where it's basically the only lens in the Canon lineup that doesn't breath.

Also you say the short optimo vignettes - how much and @ what focal lengths?
Click to expand...


Phil Holland said:
This is particularly sad because both the Nikon and Canon lenses exhibit very little breathing and in reality should be rather lovely to shoot with.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm saying it doesn't breathe much (which is good). But that damn image shifting is a pisser in my book.

I'll let Evin answer about the Optimos as they are his. I believe the 16-42mm vignettes at 5k around 16-18mm. He knows for sure.
 
Ryan Lalonde said:
Also you say the short optimo vignettes - how much and @ what focal lengths?

It would be awesome if you guys actually included the optimos review against the stills stuff.
Click to expand...

The Optimos do not vignette the 5K frame at any focal length, they do however have about 1-1.5 stops of fall off at the edges, this evens out by T4.5.

As far as a comparison they are optically superior to all the still lenses (except the 70-180 Leica) in pretty much all areas except distortion where the 16-42 displays a slight moustache signature. Mechanically they are real cinema lenses with proper marks on both sides, over 300˚ of focus rotation and all the mechanical features required of a work horse lens. They display a neutral to slightly warm tone and fall between the Nikon and Canon as far as contrast with practically no CA.
 
Evin, Matt, Phil, Matt and everyone else who helped this test happen, thank you so much for doing this!

After reading all the results I think I'll stick with Zeiss, as it seems to be the perfect "all-arounder".

P.S.: Too bad I can't sell my Nikon 17-35 f2.8 to buy some new Zeiss glass, I just love it so much I can't let it go)
 
Phil Holland said:
Cheers Martin. FYI, long time Glidecam 4000 user and owner with cameras big and small.
Click to expand...

Hello Phil,

Nice to hear. Thanks!

So do you have a Glidecam 4000 Pro, or the newer Glidecam HD-4000?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top