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 :)

Using Canon Lenses with EPIC

R

Robert Mott

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Points
0
What is the down side to using Canon lenses with the Epic?

Do they give full sensor coverage?

I am looking at the L Series lenses; any that you reccomend?
 
1. I've seen tests recently on the 24-70mm and must say the breathing is minimal. You be the judge:
http://www.youtube.com/user/davidwinters

2. Crop factor of 1.4 - Epic close to Super 35. Canon L glass is designed for FF 35 so has a much bigger cone of image
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

3. Primes and the 24-70mm for basic film work. Dozens of others for special effects

I have mucho Canon glass so am waiting for RED to ship the mount
 
I was just using Canon lenses with the new DSMC Canon Mount on Epic and I have to say, it was pretty exciting. I was primarily using the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, and I felt like the results were great considering how small I was able to keep the camera. For run & gun or EFP work, I think it'll be a great option. IS lenses (image stabilization) is a great addition, so be careful when selecting between IS and non-IS options. I was shooting from a floating dock that would occasionally shake or rock, and the IS helped a significant amount, especially at 200mm.

Don't worry about crop factor, unless you're only used to using FF35 cameras (like 5D) when thinking about coverage/FOV. There are, however, lenses that are only made to cover APS-C cropped sensor cameras (like the 7D) that will vignette slightly on the Epic at 5k FF. As long as you're buying L series lenses for full frame 35, you'll be fine. Otherwise, you may have to shoot the Epic at 4KHD.
 
I have both the 24-105mm and the 24-70mm and can say the 24-70 is a much better lens in every regard. That and the new 70-200mm are the best portrait lenses in the zoom range. The 16-35mm is great for walk/talk or action low budget GlideCam work (at least on the 5D) - focus to infinity and shoot.
 
I dislike the new 70-200 IS. It is a very rough lens with ugly noisy bokeh, and ugly focus fall-off. The only thing it is is sharp. There are many much better Canon long lenses. Sharpness is not everything unless all you shoot is focus charts- any modern L lens will resolve fully to 2K wide-open, and many have a much sexier rendition and feel. To me the 70-200 IS is for unrefined doco work only.

16-35 LII is very nice for fast fashion work, but primes in that range are much better in all ways.
 
To add to this and simplify some of it.
All Canon EF lenses cover the Epic. Some EF-s lenses cover the Epic.
All Canon still lenses breath more than recent cinema optics, though some surprisingly breathe very little.
Lenses 85mm and wider do have noticeable barrel distortion especially on a big screen.

All that said, it's a lot of bang for your buck for the optical quality of the glass overall.
 
The Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS captures legendary images and I use it to shoot 85% of OS shots, dramatic closeups, and beautiful women. I'm not sure I've ever seen noisy bokeh from it. I have taken stunning images at f2.8 that clients will die for.
 
Jason Comparetto said:
The Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS captures legendary images and I use it to shoot 85% of OS shots, dramatic closeups, and beautiful women. I'm not sure I've ever seen noisy bokeh from it. I have taken stunning images at f2.8 that clients will die for.
Click to expand...

Ditto - the 70-200II is loved by many in the fashion/portrait biz for the buttah bokeh
 
Opinions are opinions, but I find the bokeh very crunchy and distracting for video work. With talent one can make great images with it, fine, but I personally strongly dislike the look of focus falloff and bokeh. People say they are shooting beautiful women, but are you shooting mainstream campaigns for international clothing brands? Maybe you are, but at that level clients might find the bokeh unacceptable. I know I did. Actually using IS would be totally unacceptable. The "portrait business" is (sorry to sound like a snob but...) not the same league of fussy criteria.

24 1.4 some breathing 35 1.4 almost none 24-70 basically none, 85mm 1.2 LII not much, but focus pulls are slowish (because it uses a internal motor at all times). 50 1.2 nominal breathing. All in all you don't often actually catch the breathing in real-life shots much, and you can always do a zoom pull in post to fix it. We only use these lenses with remote follow focus systems - I would not try to pull focus without speed conversion because the throw is way too short.

I would stay away from any non-L Canon glass - it's all crap, and some L is crap too (but not much - the 24-105 comes to mind). Only exception is Tokina 11-16, which is almost free and stellar by any standard.

No L primes have much barrel distortion - the 85 and 50 have exactly none, the 35 almost none.



The main thing is, you can have a full kit of every lens out there, and still have cash to spare. And they weigh very little so great for Steadicam.
 
Hey Rob, Thanks for the insights. I'm a still photog so my POV is based there. You're clearly experienced with the vid application of these lenses. What is "speed conversion"? Is that a ratio gear thingy to provide more degrees of rotation to the focus puller?
 
Canon glass is cheap and plentiful, the look best described as straightforward. Nothing remarkable but gets the job done.

Zeiss is incredibly sharp but has character, incredible dimensionality, and long focus throws. For what it's worth, the older Contax Zeiss primes contain rare earth T* coatings Zeiss can no longer afford to use. The look is still blazingly sharp, but less clinical than the ZF and compact primes, a little bit of Cooke roll off but with the classic Zeiss sharpness and contrast.

Compared to the ZF series, they're larger, they focus with cinema orientation, and have focus throws of 180 degrees, some even 360, the 60mm Macro far more--because it focuses up to a few mm from the front element.

Anyone who wants to try our set of 7 Zeiss primes and 28-85 zoom on a canon mount Epic-M in New York, send a PM.
 
Besides all the nice L lenses in the regular line up mentioned above. I really like the option to use Canon specialty glass, like TS lenses, Macros (I just picked up a 100 2.8 L macro) and the exotic telephotos like the 600 T4. The Canon mount opens up a lot of possibilities.
 
The new 70-200mm 2.8 IS II is the best lens in the Canon quiver by a country mile. It's not even close. The only two better still lens are the new Nikon 70-200 (5- or 10% sharper than the Canon, with better bokeh) and the Nikon 14-24G. You can easily use these Nikon lenses on a Canon mount, in theory, with a simple Nikon G>EOS adapter, which costs about $250, and gives you manual control of the iris.
 
The original 70-200 was excellent. The first IS version was very soft. I have read many reviews stating that with the 70-200 IS II, Canon has now an IS lens with the sharpness of the original non IS. I have only the original non IS and am very pleased with it. I have not worked with the IS II. Is there someone who has worked with both that could compare the two optically from practical experience?
 
Mark, I had the original version, but my impression is the IS II is even sharper than that. However, have not tried to make any serious comparison. Perhaps my gut feeling is affected by what the Red One LCD shows in the 2K mode. That reveals quickly those lenses that stand up from the other ones. The 800mm is in its own class, but the new 70-200mm IS II is not far from that. It's an amazingly good zoom lens.
 
Mark Crabtree said:
The original 70-200 was excellent. The first IS version was very soft. I have read many reviews stating that with the 70-200 IS II, Canon has now an IS lens with the sharpness of the original non IS. I have only the original non IS and am very pleased with it. I have not worked with the IS II. Is there someone who has worked with both that could compare the two optically from practical experience?
Click to expand...

I own both - the II is a bit sharper and a whole lot faster to grab focus. Great all purpose fashion/portrait lens for my style of shooting which is very interactive with models.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top