Nikon Vs Canon

[LighthouseMEdia]

Can anyone give me some comparisons on these two.
How does the color rendition, sharpness and manual focus
generally hold up between manufacturer's? I understand it
will vary somewhat by lens. I'm just trying decide which route to go.
My initial investigation seems to indicate that Canon glass is easier to
come by but besides availability and price how do the two stack performance wise? Any insight?

[J. Bernard Vallon]

The canon mount for the time being is exclusively for the old mount, the FD mount, which hasnt been in production for a long time (in technology terms).

I doubt this would be a problem for fixed focal length lenses, but with zoom lenses, i think it gives the nikons an advantage. Modern nikon zooms like the 17-35 f2.8 are ridiculously sharp, and we have some concrete evidence from Evin's tests to show it. Its a fair bet the results would be similar on red.

When canon was producing lenses for the FD mount, it was for cameras with a 24x36mm "sensor", which means the lines/mm could be a lot lower and still register a 12-16mpxl equivalent image. Today to get that kind of result out of a nikon your lenses have to be top notch.

[Dominic Jones]

May I be the first to say:
Ooooohhh.... You've opened a can of worms there!!!

This debate has been raging for as long as, and engenders the same level of vitriolic responses as, the Mac vs PC debate (if not even longer and more vitriolic!).

The quick answer is that both companies produce fantastic glass - certainly at the top end - but that they have very different looks. I personally prefer the Nikon look (very contrasty, hard images) as opposed to the Canon look (softer - by which I mean smoother, lower contrast and more subtle colours, not less sharp in terms of focused areas - and more subdued, i.e. a little less "in-your-face"), but it's entirely a matter of opinion.

Ideally you should try and have a play with both companies lenses and decided for yourself - technically there's pretty much nothing in it...

I should also add that if you're made of money, it would be fantastic to own a set of each, as for different projects you would almost certainly be better served by having the choice. That's not to say that you need, or even should, get a set of both - so don't panic - but just to further re-enforce the point that they are both great: It's a case of horses for courses.

[tj williams]

Does anyone have a list of Canon Primes 1.4 Or zooms 2.8 The problem I've found with several others about Nikon as speed primes is that 35 is the shortest 1.4 except for a 28mm that no one can find. Maybe Canon has a more complete set?

[Evin Grant]

The Canon FD series lacks in the wides (except the 24mm F1.4) but offers some very intersting tele options like the 50mm 1.2L and 85mm 1.2L. The 135m f2 is great definately on par with the Nikkor.

[LighthouseMEdia]

Great points guys!!! Ok cool well this at least gets me headed in the right direction. I had read tha older lenses had a larger circle of confusion than newer lenses, is that acurate, and if so would that potentially be an argument for the nikon glass which is perhaps a generation newer? Also specifically which models of the nikons are the newest generation?

[Dominic Jones]

Well, a lens doesn't have a circle of confusion, that's a factor of the size (and resolution to some extent) of the recorded image and the size of the projected (or printed, in stills) image, as well as other factors such as viewers distance to the screen, etc etc, that allows a good approximation of whether or not a slightly out of focus area of the image will still look acceptably sharp.

Maybe you're thinking of the circle of coverage, i.e. how large a format they will cover - some of the newer (DX and G, I think) Nikon lenses cover a smaller area as they are designed for Nikon's smaller format (than 135) DSLR cameras. If so, there's no real advantage to them over the older lenses, unless they're faster, which is possible.

Even then I'd be tempted to go for the superior build quality and smooth focusing of the older manual Nikkor glass, but perhaps that's just me...

[Pig]

How realistic (read = easy) will it be to go from a Canon mount to a Nikon Mount?
If the attachment of the mounts is simple and easy to swap; one could possibly have a Canon Lens attached to a Canon mount, and a Nikon Lens attached to a Nikon mount. Of course, this would only work well, if the Canon/Nikon adapter is designed to be easily (and repeatedly) mounted and removed from the PL mount or Red (the Canon/Nikon mount attaches to the Red or to the PL mount? The Red most likely, no?).

[Dominic Jones]

I don't think it's a PL mount -> Nikon/Canon "adapter", but rather a removable mount that gets completely replaced. Assuming that's correct (which I'm 99.9% sure it is), you're not going to want to be swapping mounts in the middle of a shoot - so basically you need to pick a horse and back it, at least shoot to shoot.

I intend to get the Nikon and (of course) PL mounts, and use Nikon 135 glass for lower budget shoots, and Cooke/Zeiss glass for higher-end work where I can afford to hire a full set of PL mount primes for the whole shoot...

[Pig]

Ah thanks Dominic, that makes sense....

We'll probably go Canon initially, as we have a few of those already; although I still think we'll end up with all three (or even 4) mounts eventually.

[Dominic Jones]

No worries mate - sounds good to me!

[Michael Hastings]

this is a link to the canon usa website:
should be able to get to all of their lenses from there.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=152


Does anyone have a list of Canon Primes 1.4 Or zooms 2.8 The problem I've found with several others about Nikon as speed primes is that 35 is the shortest 1.4 except for a 28mm that no one can find. Maybe Canon has a more complete set?

[chuck colburn]

There's a guy on DVXuser selling four Canon primes.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=91443

[Schmittroth]

Do the Canon or Nikon lenses change focal length when used with the adaptor? This goes back to the Canon XL1 adaptor which (if I remember right) multiplied the Canon prime focal distances by 7. Is there a similar effect here?

[ColinSmith]

Well, the focal length can't really change of course, it's a property of the lens ;-)

But yes, with the super35mm sized sensor being smaller than a 35mm still frame you have a crop with a factor of about 1.5. A 20mm slr lens mounted on the Red will have a similar field of view to a 30mm lens on a slr.

[Paris Remillard]

>with the super35mm sized sensor being smaller than a 35mm still frame you have a crop with a factor of about 1.5. A 20mm slr lens mounted on the Red will have a similar field of view to a 30mm lens on a slr.<

Unless you're talking about a cropped sensor digital SLR like the canon 20d, 30d, XTi,etc...which have an approx. 1.6x crop factor or nikon digital SLRs which have a 1.5x crop factor. So, the field of view of a given focal length lens will be about the same with these digital SLRs as with RED/Super 35.

[Poi Boy]

very little difference between the two brands.
Aloha
-A

[Evin Grant]

Here is my read on the two. (This is my subjective opinion based on 10 years being primarily a Nikon shooter but having shot my share of Canon as well)

Sharpness: Depends on the lenses, both have gems and duds.
Build: Nikon AI & AIS best, Nikon Pro AF, Canon L series and FD tied.
Color: Nikon-Red/Cyan bias, Canon Green/Magenta bias (This is very subtle)
Contrast: Nikon-punchy, Canon-medium to soft
Strengths:
Nikon- Wides, DX Zooms (The Canon 10-22 is a contender here though), MF/AF compatability, exotics (8mm FE/300 f2)
Canon- IS super teles, tilt/shift lenses, In lens AF motors (AFS Nikkors now have this too)
Weaknesses:
Nikon- Focus wrong direction
Canon- Lack of aperture ring (True for DX/G Nikkors as well)

I personally just liked the "look" of Nikkors better, but I'll never say Canon doesn't make good lenses.

[jaadgy akanni]

Ah thanks Dominic, that makes sense....

We'll probably go Canon initially, as we have a few of those already; although I still think we'll end up with all three (or even 4) mounts eventually.

I can see myself going with Nikon for most projects, but wanting the Canon look for others, like romantic themed stuff 'cause that's what the Canon look evokes for me.

[LighthouseMEdia]

Does the Birger mount for the EOS lenses change this discussion slightly? Maybe a slight push in the drection of Canon glass? What do you guys think?

[jaadgy akanni]

Does the Birger mount for the EOS lenses change this discussion slightly? Maybe a slight push in the drection of Canon glass? What do you guys think?

I for one hadn't even considered Canon EOS before I learned about the Birger mount.

[Evin Grant]

Does the Birger mount for the EOS lenses change this discussion slightly? Maybe a slight push in the drection of Canon glass? What do you guys think?

I don't think so, it adds an option for sure, but for an indie filmaker who probably was just able to scape enough together for the Red body, drive, EVF and Batterys it's still not an affordable option. It's twice as much as the Nikon manual mount and you would still need a controller like the super grip (I think). Not to mention good EOS L series glass is expensive and there are only two L series wide primes worth using (24 & 35 1.4s) and they are both over $1K.
Compare that to a used four lens MF Nikkor set 20mm f2.8 ($340), 28mm f2 ($380), 50mm 1.4 ($80) & 85mm f2 ($150) that whole set of lenses can be had for around the price of one Canon EOS L lens. If you already own a bag full of EOS glass then it makes perfect sense. If not then it's much more about individual needs and budget.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

I don't think so, it adds an option for sure, but for an indie filmaker who probably was just able to scape enough together for the Red body, drive, EVF and Batterys it's still not an affordable option. It's twice as much as the Nikon manual mount and you would still need a controller like the super grip (I think). Not to mention good EOS L series glass is expensive and there are only two L series wide primes worth using (24 & 35 1.4s) and they are both over $1K.
Compare that to a used four lens MF Nikkor set 20mm f2.8 ($340), 28mm f2 ($380), 50mm 1.4 ($80) & 85mm f2 ($150) that whole set of lenses can be had for around the price of one Canon EOS L lens. If you already own a bag full of EOS glass then it makes perfect sense. If not then it's much more about individual needs and budget.

Hi Evin,
why do you think that there are only two L Primes worth using (24 & 35 1.4s)? Don't you rate the 50mm 1.2, the 85mm 1.2, and the 135mm 2? And what about the 24-70 zoom?
Stills photographers really rate these lenses...:greedy:

[Evin Grant]

The 24-70 is a fine lens just not very wide on Red. The new 16-35mm L II looks like it might be as good as the 17-40 f4 (that's an improvement) the 10-22 EFS is highly regarded too. But it's still a more expensive option when an entire set of Nikor primes can be had for under $1000.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Yeah will be the "crop factor" with RED? Is it 1.5?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the picture looks like when you've actually got a camera to test with, and the Birger mount etc.
It seems you've got all the great Nikkors to test there, I hope some kind local can lend you a set of Canon L series so we can have a look at the difference. It's a zen buddhist test huh.. we must learn patience: "clear our minds of questions" as Master Yoda would say...

Happy Sunday

:matrix:

[Paris Remillard]

Isn't it true/a possibilty that the Birger mount will also allow for control of the focusing motors in EOS lenses, as well as the iris? If so, the Canons would have a built in remote follow focus. That prospect is exciting to me since I already own Canons and gives Canon a leg up, in my opinion.

[Michael Hastings]

Isn't it true/a possibilty that the Birger mount will also allow for control of the focusing motors in EOS lenses, as well as the iris? If so, the Canons would have a built in remote follow focus. That prospect is exciting to me since I already own Canons and gives Canon a leg up, in my opinion.

Yes, the Birger control has both iris and focus control via the RED control handle or one provided by Birger or others. Birger has also said they will be providing a zoom motor as well and since the lens gives feedback as to the position of the zoom - zoom control can be very precise.

In a way, this is substantially more sophisticated than typical cine lenses or the Canon or Nikon manual lenses, so while Evin is right, the very cheapest way to get high quallity lenses would be the Nikons and the manual nikon mount for the RED - a modest jump in cost to the Birger mount may give enough added functionality to make it the overall best bang for the buck. All of that remains to be seen as to exactly what controls you get with the base price Birger mount, how much the added accessories cost, and how well they work.

[ericyoung]

Thankfully this thread has been very civilised and as objective as is possible when it comes to personal preference! :biggrin:

I agree with Evin, it terms of picture quality there is nothing in it. Some Canon lenses beat equivalent Nikons and vice versa. There is absolutely no argument that both systems are used by renowned professional stills photographers everyday to make a living. So it then comes down to personal workflow, type of work etc.

Value for moneywise for Red, the Nikons seem to have an advantage, unless you factor in the possible functions of the Birger mount and controls.

Again, it will come down to what functions you need in your particular workflows, and what system you may already have invested in, as well as how deep your pockets are.

I am 100% sure that there will be great work done with both Nikon and Canon lenses. The agony is only between two good "budget" options - so let's just relax and enjoy the ride! :)

[Evin Grant]

Remember there will be a Birger/Red Nikon electronic mount as well, and it will have all the same functionality as the EOS mount. So it might be argued that an investment into Nikkors (If you don't already own EOS lenses) is more future proof because you can use both the manual lenses and in the future the AFS/VR/DX lenses with the same functionality as the EOS system. However you will not be able to use the older Canon FD lenses on your EOS mount.

BTW There is also the possibility of using a good EOS-Nikon adapter to allow your manual Nikkors to be used with your EOS mount (Although I worry about the precision of this) so you may not be limited in your EOS mount choice afterall. I do want to test the rigidity of these adapters though.

[J. Bernard Vallon]

I hope the Birger Nikon mount is as awesome as it sounds. You could do most of your work with 2 lenses, the 17-55 f2.8 and the 28-70 f2.8, and have remote focus control.

[Matt Uhry]

If you have some Nikkor and some Canon you just have to use together you can adapt Nikon F mt lenses to canon FD and EOS bodies, so presumably to the Red FD and or EOS mounts. This in fact is one of the current favored setups for stop motion and is how they shot "the Corpse Bride"

http://www.stopmotionworks.com/corpsebride/cbmaghdr4.jpg

Obviously adapters are not going to be as reliable as origonal mounts.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[KETCH ROSSi]

Canon,s glass is fantastic, especially the L series lenses wich I had most of them(unfortunatelly they were all stollen recently) I posted a few test in on other thread, Nikon F mount also are great lenses but not longer have the upper and vs. Canon as it is now the World leader in Digital cameras and camcorders, so there investement in research and delivery of product is far greater the any other manufacture.

To make a comparison of these two manufacturers is no longer usefull, and also this is one of the major reason as whay Zeiss is now making F mount lenses to mount on Nikon, there quality is far better then the Nikon's one.

As Birger engeniring has come out with a adaptor it is now possible to use Canon with RED, but the price I believe will be a massive workflow slodown as you have to controll the lens electronic from a separate device via computer, so for me it would be better to use the Zeiss F mount lenses prior to use Canon, but offcorse if you have the Canon lenses then changes, also remember that the Birger adaptor I believe is colose if no more to a $1,000.00.

My self I'm purchasing the set of Zeiss glass for use with my XH-A1 and a 35mm adaptor, so I can make a film wile the RED's get delivered, but with the RED'S I intend to purchase the RED's Prime set.

Ciao

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

[Sanjin Jukic]

The Canon FD series lacks in the wides (except the 24mm F1.4) but offers some very intersting tele options like the 50mm 1.2L and 85mm 1.2L. The 135m f2 is great definately on par with the Nikkor.

The 135m f2 is great definately on par with the Nikkor.

I do not have anything against Nikon, I owe simple Nikon DSLR (D50), a lot of manual and DX lenses, but I also owe Canon 30D and some Canon EOS lenses.

What makes me nervous that some Nikon "hooked" guys do not respect Canon or even other lens technologies at all and the most its notions finishing in the opinion that some Canons (even FDs) can be par with Nikkor. It sound like a big LENS joke. Somebody has to know that still lens technology leader is not Nikkor or Canon or Olympus or Pentax. It is LEICA in the the past and for the future. Talking about LEICA series of manual focus M and R series of lenses. Looking forward to get Birger Engineering EOS mount to attach my LEICA R to EOS lenses to get the best lens performance EVER with moving images. By by Cooke, Zeiss, Angenieux zoom and primes cine lens monsters. I do not want to listen stories about differencies between still and cine lenses. Finally we have to get the catch that is going to happen with RED. RED is the first 35mm movie making like device to ALLOW attachment of stil photo lenses. And that is great opportunity to BEAT cine lenses ever. LEICA as a leader in 35mm quality and performance (sorry not Nikkor) has to show a new MOVING pictures style using RED. I hope everybody is getting this truth on time. No more Japanese lens advertising. Get it real, get it true. LEICA.

http://www.leica-camera.us/assets/media/img2188.jpg
LEICA SUPER-ELAMRIT-R 15 mm f/2.8 ASPH
"The extremely wide viewing angle and the clarity of perspective offered by this compact ultra-wide-angle lens make it outstandingly well suited for landscape and architectural work, as well as shooting in tight spaces."
http://www.leica-camera.us/photography/r_system/lenses/503.html

[tj williams]

Evin, you say the FD Canon lenses in manual won't mount on the EOS Birger mount. Of course they will still be manual, is there some other problem. There are adapters on Ebay etc. for this so I know it's not mechanical joining. Can you explain the problem.
Thanks
Whooops I see the problem, adapter has glass in it!!!! Oh well will work with reds FD adapter?

[Júlio Taubkin]

It is LEICA in the the past and for the future. Talking about LEICA series of manual focus M and R series of lenses. Looking forward to get Birger Engineering EOS mount to attach my LEICA R to EOS lenses to get the best lens performance EVER with moving images. By by Cooke, Zeiss, Angenieux zoom and primes cine lens monsters.

LOL, I "luv" LEICA too... It's kinda early to say "bye bye Cooke, Zeiss and Angieneux", but I certainly like your enthusiasm! :spidy:

[Emanuel A.]

Ciao Ketch!


(...) and a 35mm adaptor (...)What's yours?

E.

[Evin Grant]

[COLOR="Red"]
Somebody has to know that still lens technology leader is not Nikkor or Canon or Olympus or Pentax. It is LEICA in the the past and for the future. Talking about LEICA series of manual focus M and R series of lenses.

This may surprise you Sanjin, but I agree with you completely. I was a Leica M shooter until recently (I Can't afford an M8 and the Red 1) and have always been a huge fan of Leitz glass. It's mostly ust a cost issue, it's going to to cost just as much to buy Leica glass for your Red as it would be to buy Red's lenses. However I may have a Leica M mount made for my Red anyway.

But let's get back to the question at hand Nikon Vs. Canon. The reality we can all accept is that both companies make porfessional level lenses that will produce sharp results. But there are real differences in their philosophys. Canon has often prefered to get the newest technology out into the market place even if it's not particularly mature. Nikon has been more conservative, and in my opinion thoughtfull approach. This has favored the overall quality of thier lenses and UI. Conversely it has benefitted Canon in their hyper speed sensor develpment. As well as a IS(VR) and a bunch of other technologies both useful and not that Canon has developed over the past few years. It's interesting but in a real way Nikon's hiatorical dominance of the 35mm SLR market was what forced Canon to become a technological leader in so many other avenues. Which is what gives it such an edge in the new digital era. Nikon started life as "Nippon Kugako" of Tokyo Optical house and has always been at it's heart an optics company. The first Canon camera had a Nikon lens! My own bias toward Nikkors has a history as well. My first good camera was a Canon AE-1. I HATED it! It was hard to use and broke three times before I bought my second camera, the Nikon 8008s with a 85mm f1.8 lens. It's probably not fair to compare a 1970's era Canon 50mm cheapie FD lens to a 1990's era AF Nikkor but I was hooked (As Sanjin put's it). Since then I've shot with lenses from just about every optic house imaginable and I still find Nikkors to be the best price/performance deal out there. I'm very fond of Zeiss (Hasselblad) and Pentax (especially the 6x7cm) as well as the aformentioned Leica which is my #1 choice if it was a choice finacially. I even bought a Canon 5D with some faster Canon lenses when it first came out, it was going to be my low light kit, but I just couldn't get into it. I much prefered my D2x and 28mm f1.4 despite the higher noise. It just came down to charachter. I have seen beautiful work with Canon equipment but I'm a glass-a-holic and I think Canon's strength is really it's sensors not it's lenses. I'm sure many of you will disagree, but that's what's great about a public forum.

Here is my all time greatest hit list of optics houses (Just my overall preference based on experience):
#1 Leica
#2 Goerz
#3 Zeiss/Cooke (Tie)
#4 Nikon
#5 Fujinon
#6 Olympus
#7 Rodenstock
#8 Schneider
#9 Kern
#10 Angenioux
#11 Pentax
#12 Voigtlander/Cosina/Zeiss ZF
#13 Canon
#14 Minolta
#15 Lomo
#16 Tokina
#17 Sigma
#18 Tamron

[tj williams]

Cooke?

[Poi Boy]

It is most amusing that this debate persists. It gets down to personal taste, They are all so close that in a blind test I challenge anyone to identify them, Canon, Nikon and Leica. I know my favorite but I would be happy with the other two to the point that I would say it is the least important part of a great image. I can produce great images with any of them.
Aloha
-A

[Evin Grant]

Cooke?

Oops, I knew I missed one.
Tied for third with Zeiss.

[Poi Boy]

What do you say Evin ? Think you can pick them in a blind test ?
-A

[Sanjin Jukic]

This may surprise you Sanjin, but I agree with you completely. I was a Leica M shooter until recently (I Can't afford an M8 and the Red 1) and have always been a huge fan of Leitz glass. It's mostly ust a cost issue, it's going to to cost just as much to buy Leica glass for your Red as it would be to buy Red's lenses. However I may have a Leica M mount made for my Red anyway.

But let's get back to the question at hand Nikon Vs. Canon. The reality we can all accept is that both companies make porfessional level lenses that will produce sharp results. But there are real differences in their philosophys. Canon has often prefered to get the newest technology out into the market place even if it's not particularly mature. Nikon has been more conservative, and in my opinion thoughtfull approach. This has favored the overall quality of thier lenses and UI. Conversely it has benefitted Canon in their hyper speed sensor develpment. As well as a IS(VR) and a bunch of other technologies both useful and not that Canon has developed over the past few years. It's interesting but in a real way Nikon's hiatorical dominance of the 35mm SLR market was what forced Canon to become a technological leader in so many other avenues. Which is what gives it such an edge in the new digital era. Nikon started life as "Nippon Kugako" of Tokyo Optical house and has always been at it's heart an optics company. The first Canon camera had a Nikon lens! My own bias toward Nikkors has a history as well. My first good camera was a Canon AE-1. I HATED it! It was hard to use and broke three times before I bought my second camera, the Nikon 8008s with a 85mm f1.8 lens. It's probably not fair to compare a 1970's era Canon 50mm cheapie FD lens to a 1990's era AF Nikkor but I was hooked (As Sanjin put's it). Since then I've shot with lenses from just about every optic house imaginable and I still find Nikkors to be the best price/performance deal out there. I'm very fond of Zeiss (Hasselblad) and Pentax (especially the 6x7cm) as well as the aformentioned Leica which is my #1 choice if it was a choice finacially. I even bought a Canon 5D with some faster Canon lenses when it first came out, it was going to be my low light kit, but I just couldn't get into it. I much prefered my D2x and 28mm f1.4 despite the higher noise. It just came down to charachter. I have seen beautiful work with Canon equipment but I'm a glass-a-holic and I think Canon's strength is really it's sensors not it's lenses. I'm sure many of you will disagree, but that's what's great about a public forum.

Here is my all time greatest hit list of optics houses (Just my overall preference based on experience):
#1 Leica
#2 Goerz
#3 Zeiss/Cooke (Tie)
#4 Nikon
#5 Fujinon
#6 Olympus
#7 Rodenstock
#8 Schneider
#9 Kern
#10 Angenioux
#11 Pentax
#12 Voigtlander/Cosina/Zeiss ZF
#13 Canon
#14 Minolta
#15 Lomo
#16 Tokina
#17 Sigma
#18 Tamron

Evin thanks for a great reply. I thought you would be a bit angry, but not and you gave us a nice explanation. By the way if I think about lens glass the first I have Leica in my mind. You are right and it is expensive. Also I cannot afford Leica M8 at the moment but looking to get it in future with a hope that till then Leica could worked out the bug that "M8 remains with the wake-up from sleep mode." (link (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/amazon-worked.shtml)).

One more reference to the reality >> Canon is the most popular camera+glass from the professional landscape photographers like >>
The Luminous Landscape>>Quote:"In The Bag:
Of the dozen photographers on the trip, seven used Canon gear, four used Nikon, and one used a Sony A100." (Link (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/amazon-worked.shtml))

[Roberto B]

lomo at #15?.. are you nuts, my friend?

edit
worst, next minolta.. worst than that.. only to have tokina, sigma and tamron as the next ones..

[Michael Hastings]

CAs Birger engeniring has come out with a adaptor it is now possible to use Canon with RED, but the price I believe will be a massive workflow slodown as you have to controll the lens electronic from a separate device via computer,

Ciao

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

While technically the control requires a computer, it is a very simple one and will be built in to a simple control using either knobs or controlled from a follow focus knob or something like the RED control handle shown at NAB.

[Sanjin Jukic]

If you would have Birger RED adapter for Canon EOS then you could attach Leica-R to Canon EOS adapter
and MANUALLY use one of the worlds best still lenses available ever
LEICA-R lenses covers the extensive range of focal lengths from 15 mm to 800 mm, and, with the LEICA APO-EXTENDER-R 2x even up to 1,600 mm.
The Leica-R to Canon EOS adapter can be found on the right side at the picture below.

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/extras/canon_eos_adapters.jpg

Learn more about Leica -R lenses at
Link>>http://www.leica-camera.us/photography/r_system/lenses/

[Evin Grant]

What do you say Evin ? Think you can pick them in a blind test ?
-A

Leica definately, Nikon most of the time (At least from Canon) and usually Zeiss but it has alot to do with how much PP is done, which is almost always these days.

[Poi Boy]

Sorry Evin, I have high regard for you but that is hard for me to believe.
Aloha
-A

[Evin Grant]

Sorry Evin, I have high regard for you but that is hard for me to believe.
Aloha
-A


Let's be clear, I'm talking about same subject, same focal length side by side comparisons with a significant file or print size to see some real detail, both tonal and sharpness. I've been shooting these lenses for 15 years, and I've had extensive experience in testing lenses and photo sensitive materials at Brooks. I don't generally toot my own horn but I do have a BA in advertising photography. I made a living for five years shooting professional still photography (I still do a little) and it's my responibility to sense and control the subtleties that define the look and feel of my work. So I feel very comfortable saying that I can see the diffrence, and most pro photographers would say the same, just as many DPs will tell you that they could see the difference between S4s and Master Primes.
E.

[Poi Boy]

Yes I too have made my living from advertising photography since 1984. It would be very difficult to do a proper comparison but I would be surprised if anyone could consistently pick them correctly.I would agree on cine lenses because they have far more distinct differences.
Aloha
-A

[Matt Uhry]

Nice can of worms you just opened Evin! Surely anybody who's ever clicked a shutter can disagree with some aspect of that list!

So what's the point? Be observant, try many different lenses, find out what you like.

http://fuzby.com/favlens.jpg

Matt Uhry.
www.mattuhry.com

[Evin Grant]

I agree completely, and that list is just my own personal opinion, some of those optics houses don't even make lenses that will mount on a Red (Goerz).
I know you're a Lomo fan Matt, I really liked the lens in my L-CA compact but since I've never shot any other Lomo lens it's hard to rate it any higher. You may be able to change that. As far as sharpness or quality, all those companies have made great lenses, or they wouldn't be on the list.

BTW I just found a sweet deal on a 58mm f1.2 Noct Nikkor, I never thought I'd actually pull the trigger on one but this deal and the crazy prices that lens is commanding on E-bay made it a no brainer. I'll try to get a review up before I leave for SC on Sunday.

[Sam Druckerman]

BTW I just found a sweet deal on a 58mm f1.2 Noct Nikkor, I never thought I'd actually pull the trigger on one but this deal and the crazy prices that lens is commanding on E-bay made it a no brainer. I'll try to get a review up before I leave for SC on Sunday.

WOW, that's great Evin. I remember the prices we were throwing around at NAB..... So I know you got sweet deal. Couldn't happen to nicer or more deserving artist.

But I'm still jealous....

[Mr. Paul White]

Leica definately, Nikon most of the time (At least from Canon) and usually Zeiss but it has alot to do with how much PP is done, which is almost always these days.

PP?

Please, take as granted that you have a wide auditorium, Evin. I'm a producer not a photographer.

[Stephen Williams]

Post Production

[jaadgy akanni]

I just found a sweet deal on a 58mm f1.2 Noct Nikkor, I never thought I'd actually pull the trigger on one but this deal and the crazy prices that lens is commanding on E-bay made it a no brainer. I'll try to get a review up before I leave for SC on Sunday.

Wow, the elusive 58mm f1.2 Noct Nikkor from the Himalayas. I gots to get mee hands on one of those...I can't wait 'till you post some shots:biggrin:

[Mr. Paul White]

Post Production

AhAhAh! In the real world outside, it's known by a different term ('Post' about far more than PP; at least at my own). "Post" here has a different meaning. AhAhhAh!

****Edit: Now I wonder what the hell does SC mean? Himalayas?

[number6]

AhAhAh! In the real world outside, it's known by a different term ('Post' about far more than PP; at least at my own). "Post" here has a different meaning. AhAhhAh!

****Edit: Now I wonder what the hell does SC mean? Himalayas?

Mr., I think most of the posts on this forum are like Instant Messages between friends, because they know each other personally and have like, a private language that they understand because they know each other personally. I for one just discard anything that I can't figure out and concentrate on what I can. They really are knowledgeable people and occasionally you get some useful information out of them. :detective2:

Mr., (may I call you Mr.?) This is just my take on it. You may see things differently.

[Evin Grant]

SC is South Carolina and I though PP was used widely enough here but I'll try to be more descriptive from now on.

[tj williams]

One other point for the Birger EOS, supposed to support the lens stabilizing. Would be nice to smooth up some hand held and take out those little bumps in the badly built dance floor.

[Michael Hastings]

One other point for the Birger EOS, supposed to support the lens stabilizing. Would be nice to smooth up some hand held and take out those little bumps in the badly built dance floor.

Image stabilization is a really important point as it is the one area (besides price) that the canon option really beats the cine lenses from zeiss, cooke, etc. - as far as I know (i'm a video guy) they don't offer anything like it, and if you've used IS on a long tele it is very impressive, like having the old Gyrozoom but 1/25 the price.