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 :)

Shooting Macro with Scarlet

Brian Iannone

Brian Iannone

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I plan on shooting macro footage with Scarlet. I've been thinking about using Canon's EF 100mm f/2.8L IS lens with a Scarlet-X Ti Canon Mount package. I have three questions:

1. Is Canon's 100mm macro lens a good choice? If not, what other EF mount lenses would you recommend?
2. What are some PL mount macro lenses you know of?
3. Has anyone shot macro footage on an EPIC? If so, what sort of complications (if any) should I be aware of?
 
ive used the 2.8 macro canon lens tons. I think it has a great image quality for the price. Ive used it with mostly 5d and had pretty good results. The other is the zeiss 100mm macro. Has a better color to it, stronger lens, easier to focus with and has hard stops. Either way i plan on using the same lens on my scarlet when it arrives. The zeiss 50mm macro is also nice.
 
Is the Macro subject moving or static? If you have a static subject the 100 mm or 60 will be fine. If you have a lot of pans or turntable type moves, then a wider lens with close focus would lower strobing effects. The RED 18-50 or 17-50 is quite good in this regard. Also rental houses used to rent special sets of prime lenses where they pulled out the stop on the close-focus. Meaning you could focus closer than the lens was meant to. But the F-stop changes when you do this, it reduces. But now since we have digital you can see it and don't have to use scales to calculate it like we did on film.

Better to be closer and wider on moving subjects. Lessons learned from years of table-top product photography. It is all about how many frames it takes an object to roll through the angle of view. When you make the angle of view narrow the object starts to strobe as it moves through the frame faster.
 
Thanks everyone for the replies. :)

Brian Ferguson said:
Better to be closer and wider on moving subjects. Lessons learned from years of table-top product photography. It is all about how many frames it takes an object to roll through the angle of view. When you make the angle of view narrow the object starts to strobe as it moves through the frame faster.
Click to expand...

I did not know that. That is honestly quite fascinating! And slightly concerning...

I'll be shooting mostly slow-moving subjects.
 
I have shot with a PL mount Nikkor, I think it had been rebuilt from a still lens. The advantage of the PL mount is that the lens usually comes with the cine style robustness/rock solid, the lens was about four pounds and super stable.
 
Use an A mount and relevent A mount adapter and either Leica 100mm apo macro which all other macro lenses are judged, we use it ind it is exelent. Or Voigtlander apo lanthar 125mm or perhaps Zeiss 100mm macro, Id use the Contax zeiss 100 or perhaps 60 before the ZF range. The Nikon 105 and 55mm are in wide use also. Another option is the Mamiya 645 120mm Macro or 80mm macro. The 120mm is a better lens. Mount adaptors are available for 645 but the lenses are f4.
 
Brian Iannone said:
I plan on shooting macro footage with Scarlet. I've been thinking about using Canon's EF 100mm f/2.8L IS lens with a Scarlet-X Ti Canon Mount package. I have three questions:

1. Is Canon's 100mm macro lens a good choice? If not, what other EF mount lenses would you recommend?
2. What are some PL mount macro lenses you know of?
3. Has anyone shot macro footage on an EPIC? If so, what sort of complications (if any) should I be aware of?
Click to expand...

Thanks for this thread Brian. Been looking into this also.
Lot of excellent reviews about the canon 100mm Macro around.
Depending on my budget, I'm also wondering about the 24-70mm L as a great bang for buck option as I have read it does a decent job as a macro lens.
Anyone able to advise further who has shot with it?

Best
Lliam
 
Hey Lliam, We use the 24-70 L regularly at work on a dslr, I honestly think it is a little soft. I have rented a well used one as well where when protruded (wide) sags down a considerable amount. It's a very convinient piece of glass, the focus is nice, it doesn't do the weird iris studder when you zoom it, but it also doesn't hold focus through the zoom range when wide open. We haven't used it as a macro because I guess I see the realm of "macro" to be beyond this lens. We like it because we can get alot done with it easily but it has a few downsides.
 
You didn't say what you're subject is, or what magnification you are aiming for. Both factors have a big impact on how close you need to be to the subject, how close you can be without spooking the subject - if it's an animal, and how close you can be without lighting becoming a problem - because of shading from the lens front.

Also realize dof is extremely thin with macro, so if your subject is moving you're in for some special challenges.
 
You can use an extension tube with a normal Canon/Nikon lens to get macro shots with the Scarlet on a budget. I haven't done it myself, but I've seen footage from those that have (with an Epic) and it's impressive.
 
Lliam Worthington said:
Thanks for this thread Brian. Been looking into this also.
Lot of excellent reviews about the canon 100mm Macro around.
Depending on my budget, I'm also wondering about the 24-70mm L as a great bang for buck option as I have read it does a decent job as a macro lens.
Anyone able to advise further who has shot with it?

Best
Lliam
Click to expand...

:)

Regarding Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8L, I agree with Nicholas. I have one and the images it produces always seem to be a little soft. It's strange, though, considering the enormous number of excellent reviews on B&H. As for macro, honestly, I don't think it's very good at all... I apologize for sounding a little negative here, but I just don't think it's a good lens for macro. That said, it's an excellent general use zoom lens. But, as you say, it does do a decent job for macro also.
 
Steve Wake said:
You didn't say what you're subject is, or what magnification you are aiming for. Both factors have a big impact on how close you need to be to the subject, how close you can be without spooking the subject - if it's an animal, and how close you can be without lighting becoming a problem - because of shading from the lens front.

Also realize dof is extremely thin with macro, so if your subject is moving you're in for some special challenges.
Click to expand...

Mainly insects and small plants/flowers. Typically subjects smaller than 1-2" long. And, they'll probably be moving.
 
Sometimes I work on toy TVC's with tinny wheenie little toys say 30mm upwards, then to make it worse motorised, bloody DOF!! Anyway, I am aware of the x 1.6 issue using FF lenses shooting S35 but what does my head in is the following. Does this calculation also work on the minimum focus ie minimum focus on Zeiss 100mm Macro is .44m x 1.6 = .704m or is it just a magnification issue? thanx
 
Last edited:
The Sigma 70mm is stellar, one of the secret lenses few have used. The Tamron 180mm Macro is also great. the Zeiss 100mm is the most enjoyable to use on a cine camera and is razor sharp. Sigma 105 is okay, the new Canon macro is sharper. I have shot alot of macro work, so feel free to shoot me an email.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top