Pros & Cons of Canon EF vs EF-S with Birger Mount

[Ruby Quincunx]

I am wondering what are the pros & cons of using Canon EF lenses versus EF-S lenses with the forthcoming Birger EF mount. It is my understanding that EF-S lenses magnify the image/reduce the angle of view on 1.6 format Canon DSLRs in the same fashion as the full-frame EF lenses, & given that the Mysterium sensor in 4K mode is roughly equivalent to the APS-C sensor in size, it would appear that the EF-S lenses will operate roughly similarly in the Red as in a 1.6 form Canon (with respect to angle of view/magnification).

Is there any advantage to preferring an EF-S on the Red with the Birger mount to an EF?

I am most interested in hearing elaborations on this topic by those more informed than I.

Best wishes,
RQ

[Paul Leeming]

No, the only physical difference is that EF-S lenses place the back lens element closer to the shutter since it is smaller on APS-C cameras. This means that while you can use EF lenses on APS-C cameras, the reverse is not true and would result in the mirror on a full frame Canon hitting the lens.

With Red there is no physical shutter so both can be used without issue.

In fact the Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens has no equivalent in full frame EF since it would be prohibitively expensive for Canon to make a 10mm rectilinear lens that covered the full area of non-crop sensor cameras.

Yes, I'm getting the Birger mount (as I have the Canon family of cameras and lenses).

HTH

Paul

[KETCH ROSSi]

Correct Paul, I like to add that the 10-22 is an impressive little lens, and does very good, however it does not compare to the 16-35 L II, but if you need the super wide angle, it is a very good option for the RED/Birger and the only one, but the choices in good APS-C glass ends there!

Again, I would stay away from any non "L" glass, (second generation when this is available) as the EF lenses and particularly the "L" series glass, are made to cover the full frame of the 35mm sensor, and there for are a much better performer with the RED @ 4K, they are better build, have better focus gear, higher quality glass employed in the construction of its elements, and for this they will handle CA and Vignetting as well as flaring in a much better way then any other non "L" glass.

Do note that I say to get second generation "L" when available, as I don't want any one to make the mistake and buy used first generation "L" glass to save money, because it will be a very bad idea, as the second generations of some "L" glass, which are especially true for the 14mm, and the 16-35 Zoom, are a world away from their first generations, as they have been dramatically improved and therefor are to be purchased with no esitation against their cheaper but not so good first generation brothers.

Or you could always consider the SIGMA 12-24 as this lens is made for full frame sensor, will also be a good performer on RED/Birger.



ciao

[paul engstrom]

Hey Ketch,

Have you tried any of Tokina's 2.8 zooms? I've heard the 11-16 and telephoto are pretty good. Any experience?

p

[Ruby Quincunx]

Thank you all for your helpful replies.

[Daniel Browning]

Is there any advantage to preferring an EF-S on the Red with the Birger mount to an EF?


As the others said, you get more useful wide focal lengths. Another factor is that EF-S is guaranteed to have digital coatings, whereas EF lenses did not start start getting them until well after their introduction. The implication is that used EF lenses, if old enough, will have lower contrast.

There are a lot of excellent EF-S and compatible lenses. The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and 60mm f/2.8 Macro are really sharp and contrasty wide open.

[Davide B.]

Remember that when using full-frame 35mm lenses on the Red you are going to be recording the sweet spot or center of the lens. This should help mitigate any barrel distortion, edge sharpness or vignetting problems since the image is almost always best at the center of the lens. The EF-S lenses have smaller image circles and so the Red's sensor comes closer to their edges than it does with EF lenses.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Hey Ketch,

Have you tried any of Tokina's 2.8 zooms? I've heard the 11-16 and telephoto are pretty good. Any experience?

p

No Paul, I haven't use any Tokina's, only Zeiss, Canon, and the 12-24 from Sigma.


ciao

[Michele Gavazzeni]

have better focus gear True but anytime a I have a still lens in my hand i can't imagine how you can be consistent in focus with gears that have such small travel between distance marks on the barrel.

May be Birger has solved this... maybe if i turn the FF knob 45° my movement is transmitted to motors as a small increments.

[KETCH ROSSi]

True but anytime a I have a still lens in my hand i can't imagine how you can be consistent in focus with gears that have such small travel between distance marks on the barrel.

May be Birger has solved this... maybe if i turn the FF knob 45° my movement is transmitted to motors as a small increments.

Michele, I'm not sure if you are trying to make a comparison of focus markings of the Stills vs. the Cine lenses, my referring to better focus gear was when comparing the "L" series lenses of the canon make, vs. the None " L" series ones, and not to any Cine lenses.

I think that Birger will offer fantastic control of the Cann glass, but should not be the glass or the adaptor be compared to Cine lenses and Cine focus control gear, at a price over ten times the range.

ciao

[Michele Gavazzeni]

I was joust trying to wonder how you can pull focus using a still lens
not making comparisons.

On my still lens the travel distance between 3ft to 6,5ft is so small i joust can't imagine if the movement ratio between the FF Knob and the lens motor is 1:1

I've read a lot of Birger related post but never found an answer...

[KETCH ROSSi]

Okay Michele, understood, I actually have been evaluating the same thing, and awaiting delivery of the finalized Birger mount, as it serves for a great option, but till has actually such option been tested on set, we are just talking, but ultimately I believe that a Cine lens work flow can't be surpassed in the quality, configuration of accessories usable in each individual need, control etc.


ciao

[Michele Gavazzeni]

but ultimately I believe that a Cine lens work flow can't be surpassed in the quality, configuration of accessories usable in each individual need, control etc.

Actually there's no doubt but who knows... I think RED can't do everything but maybe one day other producer will surprise us as RED did.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Absolutely.

ciao

[Joel Kaye]

True but anytime a I have a still lens in my hand i can't imagine how you can be consistent in focus with gears that have such small travel between distance marks on the barrel.

May be Birger has solved this... maybe if i turn the FF knob 45° my movement is transmitted to motors as a small increments.

The Birger mount maps the entire travel of a lens to one full rotation of the follow focus wheel. So even lenses with very small travel will map out to something usable. Later versions of the Birger will allow even more flexibility. From there you can put distance markings on your follow focus wheel and use those to pull focus.

Can the Birger beat a Cine lens? If weight is a consideration then possibly. If they get to where they can map any lens to any rotation desired by the user then I'd say that would be getting close. As far as lens sharpness I'm personally really happy with my Nikons. From there only breathing and holding focus through a zoom are differences. Some still lenses don't breath. Still looking for zoom that hold focus well. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple turn up.

[Michele Gavazzeni]

The Birger mount maps the entire travel of a lens to one full rotation of the follow focus wheel. So even lenses with very small travel will map out to something usable

I don't think is usable in a 1:1 ratio too short to be smooth and precise


If they get to where they can map any lens to any rotation desired by the user

that would make it really usable

[Daniel Browning]

Still looking for zoom that hold focus well.

Do you mean parfocal?

[Joel Kaye]

Do you mean parfocal?

Yeah. Obviously if you're zooming during a shot you don't want the focus drifting. We're used to focus holding with video lenses.

I'm wondering if you can cheat this by zooming in, focusing and pulling back since at wide focal lengths your DOF is greater so it'll seem in focus there but when you get close to your subject the focus sharpens up. Seems like that should work but I haven't tested it. Perhaps it's better on some lenses than others.

[Daniel Browning]

Most of the inexpensive consumer lenses aren't parfocal, but many in the upper echelon are. Unfortunately, Canon wont specify (or even comment on) the parfocal nature of their lenses. Still, the following lenses are known good: Canon 16-35, 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 (all four varieties), 17-55 f/2.8 IS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and probably many others. When testing focus, don't use SLR autofocus, which is subject to errors in the camera and/or lens autofocus system.

[Adam Levins]

Still, the following lenses are known good: Canon 16-35, 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 (all four varieties)

I have been trying to test this for some time but have not gotten round to it. So U R sure they hold focus throughout the zoom range?

I am mostly interested in the canon L 24-70, 70-200

[Daniel Browning]

I have been trying to test this for some time but have not gotten round to it. So U R sure they hold focus throughout the zoom range?

I am mostly interested in the canon L 24-70, 70-200

Yes. I have tested the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS myself.

[Adam Levins]

Cool Thanks, this is great news!