ARRI/Zeiss Ultra Prime 8R T2.8 Test

[Andrew M.]

ARRI/Zeiss Ultra Prime 8R T2.8 Test


This is not a full review Evin style but rather looking closer at important aspects of the lenses in terms of Misterium 12MP resolving power and the demands that such resolution puts on the lenses.

Since I didn’t have the 12MP still picture camera with the PL mount, I had to compromise and use the pictures done by D20 6MP movie camera, just for now.
Also, for the resolving power test, I used test pattern that was projected on the wall ~4’ away from the lenses. The horizontal size of the picture on the wall was ~11’ wide.
All tests were done at T2.8

First, this is the 8mm (112 deg at 24mm horizontal sensor size) wide angle lenses that really do keep the vertical lines vertical.
The cushion distortion at the left or right edge of the frame are not noticeable, estimated less then 3 deg. However, if you move lenses off 5 deg from the horizontal plain you get 20 deg or so tilt in vertical lines at the edges.
See the picture below, the houses on the right are falling on its back ~20 deg, camera was pointing bit up and no shift/tilt adapter was used.
So make sure that your lenses are pointing perfectly horizontal or you have to use shift&tilt adapter like this:
http://www.arri.de/prod/cam/shift_tilt_system/shift_tilt_system.htm
Underwater shooter, do not need to be concern.

The focus adjustment on this lenses is extremely precise and smooth, lending itself to the high precision of adjustment required at 4K standard.

I could go in to the details of MTF curves and resolving power of Lp/mm but for the simplicity I converted the results in to the LCD screen or projection RGB pixels.

So the lenses do resolve more then double in terms of the required horizontal and vertical Misterium pixel count, even on the far periphery of the frame. 200Lp/mm at estimated 50% modulation.
It is what one should expect from aspherical lenses. No spherical aberration problems influencing the focus is visible.
I was unable to test 10% modulation (change between white and black) since the nature of the test chart used and the fact that I don't have 12MP sensor PL mount camera here.

I have noticed that it takes just a small movement of focus ring (~1/16”) to change resolving power from 200Lp/mm to 50Lp/mm so the focus adjustment will be the most demanding factor to keep the 4K images 4K, instead of 2K. Remember the tests were done at T2.6 changing it to T8 or higher did increase resolving power but I didn’t have 400Lp/mm marks on the chart so can’t speculate what was the magnitude of increase.
Also we have to remember that focus plain is the sphere around the lenses not a flat surface.

Chromatic aberration is the whole different thing with this lenses.
I still didn’t get the clear answer from ARRI/Zisse if this lenses is a full achromatic design but as compare to the focus, I noticed, one pixel width (80Lp/mm) chromatic aberration at the 80% and farther to the side of the picture. See the fragment of the left edge of the picture below, 100% crop, one to one pixel mapping.
Chromatic aberration is almost not visible.
Note that the picture was done by 2K camera (1920 horizontal pixels) so one pixel equals 40Lp/mm on 35 format sensor.
(1920/24mm = 80; 80/2=40LinePairs/mm) Where ~24mm is the horizontal size of the 35 mm format
IMHO this alone brings the 4K format down to the 2K format in terms of color resolution.
We will repeat this test with a different unit to make sure that we are getting well aligned lenses out of the box and there is no film versus lenses, specific optimization required.
We have to remember that film has 3 color layers, spaced ~4 micron apart each, in terms of distance from the lenses (film deep).
We adjusted back focus though, 15 microns back and forth and there was no improvement, the resolving power actually dropped to 50Lp/mm.
Chromatic Idiosyncrasies TBC.

I took quick look on the 16mm and 27mm ARRI/Zeiss Master Primes and I will test these lenses as well, in light of the Misterium demands.

This test do not addresses lens breathing test or bokeh test, since these lenses are very popular and plenty of lens specific tests were done and published.
I am more concern with the film versus CMOS differences, in light of 5.5 micron photo-sensor format of Misterium.
Also the influence on the resolving power and chromatic distortion, when film versus CMOS is considered.

Blair (RED reservation #19) was so kind, expressing his interest to participate in the tests here as soon as he will get his camera. Then we will be able to test the whole system resolving power, Lenses + Misterium and even the REDCODE RAW together.
We want to use the best possible lenses for Misterium so poor lenses quality will not lower the combined camera + lenses performance.

The questions to be answered:
Is there a difference in lenses optimized for film and for the CMOS sensor to the point that will influence in a major degree the resolving power at 4K format?
What is the best type of lenses for 4K CMOS format?
Do we need a special lenses design to be more forgiving on the focus setup?
Feel free to add more questions here.

Pictures of the res charts are below in post #27

Andrew

[Bruce Allen]

Fascinating tests! Yes, it's true that we don't know quite what effect the Red sensor will have with regards fringing, vignetting, etc. Probably not much but it depends on whether they're using microlenses, etc, which AFAIK has not totally been revealed.

If you look at Canon and their migration to digital, then yes, it seems that you can design lenses that work better with digital - eg minimize the rays coming into the sensors at an angle - which seems to cause problems with digital sensors so far (especially those without microlenses, I think?).

So far, Evin's prediction that the Nikons will be within striking distance in terms of optical quality (if not usability) seems to be accurate, although without a Red to test this on, all is preliminary.

Your tests are incredibly valuable to us of course and thank you for doing them. I can't wait to see what and Blair find out with Red #19.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Andrew M.]

From what we know here from this forum, Misterium doesn’t have micro lenses.
However it has thin cover glass that is also serving as a low pass filter that maybe the problem for ultra wide lenses like UP8R especially at the corners of the sensor.
Thin glass will short the back focal length for light entering it at sharp angles.
I don’t think it will be the problem though since the focus plain of these lenses is spherical anyway so it will be unnoticeably bit more curved, that’s all.
Above info is unconfirmed.

[Mike the beginner]

ARRI/Zeiss Ultra Prime 8R T2.8 Test


I have noticed that it takes just a small movement of focus ring (~1/16”) to change resolving power from 200Lp/mm to 50Lp/mm so the focus adjustment will be the most demanding factor to keep the 4K images 4K, instead of 2K. Remember the tests were done at T2.6 changing it to T8 or higher did increase resolving power but I didn’t have 400Lp/mm marks on the chart so can’t speculate what was the magnitude of increase.
Also we have to remember that focus plain is the sphere around the lenses not a flat surface.

Andrew


I am somewhat shocked! This is a cine lens made for the moving picture and you only need to move the focus ring 1/16th of an inch to go from 4k focus to 2k focus!

I must be mixing something up here surely? Lets say that lens was a nikon or a canon still lens on the red camera with an appropriate mount etc. Without any modifications to the lenses or the FFs used, would the movement on the focus rings on those lenses be signiifcantly less.


I know everyone mentions the difference of movement on the focusing rings between cine and still lenses but I thought you guys were talking about the difference between say 3/8 inch for a cine lens as against say 1/8 inch from a still lens.

What kind of learning curve are we talking about here to master such small incremental movements. Graeme i hope for my sake your focus assist is indeed magic:sorcerer:


Sure puts things into proper perspective though, shoot 4k to get 4K if you are a real pro. Or 4k to get 2k if you are just average. Or shoot 4k for SD. if you are not so good:sad:

I hope closing down the iris will allow for much greater movement betwen resolution?

Mike the beginner

[Bruce Allen]

This is a cool post, it puts things into perspective. I'm sure a lot of "pros" only got 2k-level focus. Some of my favorite old black-and-white films aren't THAT sharp... and if the editor knows what they're doing, they'll choose the shot with the better acting performance over the shot with marginally better rack focus any day.

4k is useful for other things - it makes for a very noise-free 2K image, for example. But yes, it's hard to get a perfectly-in-focus 4K image. That's why my post plan is to go straight to 2K / HD (after a "first-light" in RedCine) unless doing effects or pushing into a shot.

What's funny will be the "indies" trying to do an all-4K finish but also trying to under-pay their focus poller. They're going to spend all that money on stupid post gear and all of that extra rendering time so that they can preserve that beautiful blurry 4K image...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Mike the beginner]

This is a cool post, it puts things into perspective. I'm sure a lot of "pros" only got 2k-level focus. Some of my favorite old black-and-white films aren't THAT sharp... and if the editor knows what they're doing, they'll choose the shot with the better acting performance over the shot with marginally better rack focus any day.

4k is useful for other things - it makes for a very noise-free 2K image, for example. But yes, it's hard to get a perfectly-in-focus 4K image. That's why my post plan is to go straight to 2K / HD (after a "first-light" in RedCine) unless doing effects or pushing into a shot.

What's funny will be the "indies" trying to do an all-4K finish but also trying to under-pay their focus poller. They're going to spend all that money on stupid post gear and all of that extra rendering time so that they can preserve that beautiful blurry 4K image...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com


Jim Jannard did say a while ago "It will seperate the men from the boys" but i had no idea it would split the boys from the babies as well:biggrin:

Edit Just read you next post Andrew. You gotta love refraction ha ha.

[Andrew M.]

I was testing with lenses wide open.
These lenses are optimized for wide open anyway.
1/16” of the move on the ring is not a problem with cine type of lenses since they are extremely well machined. No play at all. Normally you do not pull the focus on these lenses just by grabbing it by hand, and you can install high gear ratio if you want.
Don’t expect problems here. I do expect that focus plain will be very shallow, what some guys love the most. But shallow and ultra shallow is a bit of challenge for those that like it. Once you stop it up to 8T or so the DOF is not a problem, but then diffraction is kicking in.

[Steve Gibby]

Shallow DOF gets a lot of discussion, but the fact is that virtually every production requires a continual assortment of various DOF, from real shallow to isolate viewer's attention to certain subjects/items in a frame, on up to medium to extremely deep DOF for establishing shots. 35mm shooting enables inherently shallow DOF, but in my mind one of the true challenges for someone stepping up to shooting 35mm is to learn how to use and control camera, lighting, and lens features to allow them to achieve the necessary DOF for each shot, whether it be shallow, medium, or deep. Since 35mm quite easily and naturally displays shallow DOF, it is quite often a bigger challenge in 35mm to get enough light into a lens to stop it down to achieve medium to deep DOF.

Critical focus is definitely necessary in shooting 35mm shallow DOF shots, but throughout the production of a feature, commercial, or television program, or any type of production, there will be a vast number of scenes/shots that require you to also know how to effectively and quickly achieve medium to deep DOF. Narrative cinema uses a significant amount of shallow DOF, but in narrative cinema production you’ll also see lots of medium DOF and deep DOF (establishing shots, etc.).

The bottom line is that one of the hallmarks of professional cinematographers, videographers, and photographers is their ability to know their camera systems, lenses, and filters well enough to be able to quickly achieve the DOF required by any shot or scene, whether that be shallow, medium, or deep.

Mike: the kind of nature and adventure travel productions you’ve described you are interested in producing/shooting are done in natural light, and usually lots of it. 35mm lenses that are optimized for wide open shooting are obviously not your best choice for that type of shooting. Lenses that are optimized for mid-range T or F stops are best for that because most of your shooting will be between f5.6 and f11 in that type of production. At those iris levels DOF is commensurately medium to deep, thus critical focus is simply nowhere near as “critical”. You’ll be working in that type of production without a focus puller – you’ll be racking focus. I think you should wait until NAB (6 days away) to get the full info on the combination of how RED One’s focus assist works with the high-resolution EVF and LCD, before jumping to conclusions on a concept that only longtime expert cinematographers with focus pullers will be able to focus 35mm lenses on RED One.

RED One is designed for a broad range of cine-style and EFP style production, only a portion of which require hyper-shallow DOF. Narrative cinema is only one of those genres of production, and even narrative cinema requires achieving significant amounts of medium and deep DOF.

NAB is only 6 days away – let’s reserve judgment on the 35mm focus ability of RED One until all the info is in. Even then, for the factors I’ve outlined above, IMO there’s no reason for the vast majority shooters to panic about achieving shallow DOF. It gets a lot of press, but it is only one of the parameters that working pros have to achieve on a regular basis.

Hope this helps…

[Stephen Williams]

xtremely deep DOF for establishing shots.

Hi,

I think you will find it rather difficult to get a narrow DOF on an establishing shot, whatever apeture you use.

Stephen

[Steve Gibby]

Hi,

I think you will find it rather difficult to get a narrow DOF on an establishing shot, whatever apeture you use.

Stephen

I couldn't agree more...hence the statement I made on that. Mike is a beginning shooter. The obvious properties of establishing shot DOF I described weren't stated for experienced people like me and you.

Cheers...

[Mike the beginner]

Thanks Gibby and Stephen:wink:

I remember your remarks Steve in a post some time ago it is greatly appreciated to reiterate it again though (keeps me on my toes, thanks).

I was really thinking about the 300mm red lens and the difficulty of getting an accurate 4k footage with that type of lens for my wildlife stuff, especially considering i would probably be at the extreme tele end. I was considering the birger set up with canon mount and buying two quality canon L series zoom lenses or maybe even just the one with a 2x extender. The very slight movement of the focus ring might make the wildlife footage from this type of lens even more difficult to focus?

For my more usual footage t is extremely likely i will be using a polarizing filter a lot of the time (near water) so i have factored in a one stop loss for that. i might also need a ND filter as well (another stop lost). Because of this situation i am still not absolutely sure how fast or slow a zoom lens i could get away with to cover as many situations as possible.


Your right (as usual Steve) better to wait till NAB and see how things pan out.

Mike the beginner

[Steve Gibby]

I was really thinking about the 300mm red lens and the difficulty of getting an accurate 4k footage with that type of lens for my wildlife stuff, especially considering i would probably be at the extreme tele end.

I've reserved the RED 300mm lens, which I should get shortly after NAB. along with RED #8. Some of the very first test footage I'll shoot with the RED 300mm will be wildlife: elephant seals, gray whales, sea otters, etc. I'll also be shooting a ton of adventure travel and action sports footage right off the bat, with the RED 300mm and various other lenses. Within a few weeks of today I should be able to give you some direct feedback on using RED One with the RED 300mm lens and some other lenses. Along with that, I'll have some direct input for you on the operation of RED focus assist and it's use with the RED LCD and EVF.

I think that input will go a long way in answering the field use questions you have for nature/adventure travel shooting with RED One, and it's lens and accessory options.

[Mike the beginner]

Hey Gibby , when you and your good wife eventually make that trip to Scotland. I will make sure you have a great time.

Mike the beginner

[Steve Gibby]

Hey Gibby , when you and your good wife eventually make that trip to Scotland. I will make sure you have a great time.

Mike the beginner

Thanks Mike! We'll look forward to that...

[Andrew M.]

Gibby, you should write a book about 4K based cinematography after you put your hands on it. I bet you, it will be very popular and a lot of people from $%!.com will buy it in secret, from the book store.

[Steve Gibby]

Gibby, you should write a book about 4K based cinematography after you put your hands on it. I bet you, it will be very popular and a lot of people from $%!.com will buy it in secret, from the book store.

LOL...good idea Andrew! With the production schedule I'll have this year and beyond with my new RED's it will be hard to find time to write anything except a few mag articles and a some blog & forum entries from on location.

Sorry for threadjacking your ARRI/Zeiss 8R Test thread. Thank you for those tests. Interesting stuff. I'll look forward to the tests of Blair's RED #19. I'll have the testing of RED #8, with multiple cine, still, and B4 lenses, and post tests, done and reported before you guys test #19, but I'm sure you can build off from our tests. More on the #8 tests will be posted shortly on RED User and HD for Indies. Mike Curtis will be doing the technical testing of #8, and I've also invited a diverse group of pro DP's to bring their lenses and experience to the testing for some real world shooting sessions. I plan to just hang back and let the guys have some fun with the camera. Names and details will be released shortly...

Thanks again for your upcoming tests and your very knowledgeable technical posts here on RED User...

[M Olsen]

I was really thinking about the 300mm red lens and the difficulty of getting an accurate 4k footage with that type of lens for my wildlife stuff, especially considering i would probably be at the extreme tele end.

For my more usual footage t is extremely likely i will be using a polarizing filter a lot of the time (near water) so i have factored in a one stop loss for that.

Mike the beginner

Hi Mike,

Lots of knowledgeable folk here giving good advice, but I better put my 2 cents worth in..
There is only one end of the 300 mm prime lens .. and please check the polarizer filter, and any others with your meter, before use as all filters vary a little in terms of stop loss.
Generally a polarizer is rated anywhere between 1+2/3rd - 2 Stops light loss so that may take care of your ND requirements also and avoid unnecessary filter stacking.

[Mike the beginner]

Hi Mike,

Lots of knowledgeable folk here giving good advice, but I better put my 2 cents worth in..
There is only one end of the 300 mm prime lens .. and please check the polarizer filter, and any others with your meter, before use as all filters vary a little in terms of stop loss.
Generally a polarizer is rated anywhere between 1+2/3rd - 2 Stops light loss so that may take care of your ND requirements also and avoid unnecessary filter stacking.

OOPS. Well spotted Turnover. Is strange how you are thinking about one lens and writing about another!

I an still deciding between the 300mm red prime or the birger solution and using one of the best canon still zooms perhaps the 70mm-200mm with a 2x extender as an added option. So my mind was obviously on the cheaper solution whilst discsussing the 300mm fixed prime. The differences between cine and still zooms at the longer end of the tele could make it massively difficult to focus whilst shooting in 4k with the still lenses. Does that make sense:blink:

Thank you with the other info as well re the different types of polarizers. There is a lot more info on the polarizers and different types so i will hold fire on that lot until i get all the info and ask you guys if possible to help out with my final selection.

Mike the beginner

[Michael Hastings]

Mike: Probably the best thing you can do is buy a Canon Rebel XTi for $689 and the zoom you are thinking about - or even one of the cheaper ones and just practice shooting with it in manual focus mode. This will give you almost identical images as RED (same size sensor so same image size- and 12 MP is pretty close). You could always sell it when you get the RED but you may find it pretty nice to have as well. The L series are the better lenses but you could probably simulate the focus issues pretty well with the $189 lens or see what IS does with the $549 IS version - or just bite the bullet and buy one of the L lenses. All of this stuff has pretty high instant resale value on ebay so you can use it a while and lose only a small percentage when you want to change to something else.

IMHO I strongly suspect that the capability of built in image stabilization is going to make the use of the Canon still lenses more worthwhile for a lot of wildlife and other EFP style productions than the 300mm RED or Zeiss primes.

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM AF $189

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM AF Lens $ 549.95

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Image Stabilizer USM AF Lens $ 1,099.95

Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM AF Lens $ 2,199.95


OOPS. The differences between cine and still zooms at the longer end of the tele could make it massively difficult to focus whilst shooting in 4k with the still lenses. Does that make sense:blink:

Mike the beginner

[steevo435]

The differences between cine and still zooms at the longer end of the tele could make it massively difficult to focus whilst shooting in 4k with the still lenses.

Hey Mike,
Out of curiousity, yesterday I figured out a way to mount a nikon lens on my Chroszeil lens test projector...oh boy.
There is a reason these lenses are cheaper than cine lenses.....not that anybody doesn't already know this but I really was surprised by two things:
A) How sharp these lenses really are when they are in focus.
B) how bad the focussing mechanism really is. I really think in order to use these lenses on cine cameras they are going to have to be re-housed, ala Panavision. There is way too much play when you change direction in order to follow focus something, and they really don't even hold focus from tele to wide.
I know a lot of folks are on the Nikon bandwagon, so I really don't wan't to offend anyone here :) I just think without having the luxury of auto, folks are going to have a hard time keeping focus during zooms or rack focussing.:sad:

[Evin Grant]

No one said it was gona be easy, just a hellva bang for the buck. And some Nikkors are much better than others. I don't know what lens you tested but if it was an AF prime then your assertion is right on. The AIS and especially the AI series are much better for focusing throw.

[Andrew M.]

Guys, no panic here. Steevo, you probably had it wide open. Step it up (whatever DOWN) to f8 and repeat the test. Don’t look on the chart with your eyes, just take long exposure picture of it with your still camera. Problem with these charts is the black background, so your eyes show everything more exaggerated. Remember our eyes work in logarithmic way. There is plenty of room in terms of focus once you are not wide open.
For outdoor will be sufficient, for indoor, hmmm… if you don’t want to spend $$.$$$ for renting the light then you spend some on renting the cine primes.

[Michael Hastings]

Thanks for testing them,

I think you are providing evidence of what I have been suggesting all along as far as sharpness (on some of the other threads).

As far as rehousing, Century has done quite a bit of that in the past but it has been very low volume so not that big of a priority for them. I have spoken to David Contreras there and put the bug in his ear a little bit. It might be worthwhile to go by their booth at NAB and show some interest. You can see their stuff at www.schneideroptics.com - it is pretty high priced but some indication of volume with the RED may induce lower pricing. Also they may be able to leave it in Canon mount but just rework iris? Use it on Birger EF mount?






A) How sharp these lenses really are when they are in focus.
B) how bad the focussing mechanism really is. I really think in order to use these lenses on cine cameras they are going to have to be re-housed, ala Panavision. There is way too much play when you change direction in order to follow focus something, and they really don't even hold focus from tele to wide.
I know a lot of folks are on the Nikon bandwagon, so I really don't wan't to offend anyone here :) I just think without having the luxury of auto, folks are going to have a hard time keeping focus during zooms or rack focussing.:sad:

[steevo435]

Thanks Aqua.
Andrew, and anyone else:sarcasm:
I'm not trying to create a panic, I'm trying to inform based on my experience, that's all.:innocent:
In MY experience, the lens is an important part in total system resolution. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. Therefore, it is important to test lenses independently of the rest of the imaging system.
If you plan to shoot everything at F8, just punch a whole in some black wrap and call it a day.
The charts that get projected are black vs. white. What can show flaws as well as resolving power, chromatic abb, barrel distortion, vignetting, spherical abbs, etc better than that? The lens projecter system is suppose to find flaws.
If my opinion is not welcome here because it's not the same as everyone else's, I'll go away.
By the way, the lens I looked at was a 18-200. I don't know whether this is considered a good or bad lens because I don't come from a still background, it's what was available to me yesterday.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2159

[Sanjin Jukic]

I collected very different still lens brands or the most famous world's lens brands that are all able to get in NIKON F mount. And just waiting for the RED ONE. After the RED ONE tests I should know what are the best still lens options for a cinema like shooting. But I should wait until September/October. OK. Keep cool.

Attractive lens set of Nikkor F, Zeiss ZF, Sigma Nikon F mount,
Leica VISO M/Nikon F adapter, Schneider-Kreuznach M42/Nikon f adapter,
Cooke Panchro for M42 adapted/Nikon F adapter and Hasselblad/Zeiss/Nikon F.

++Primes:
14mm = Sigma AF/MF 14mm f/1:3.5 Multi Coated
24mm = Nikkor-N A 24mm f/1:2.8
28mm = Nikkor AI-S 28mm f/1:2.8
35mm = Nikkor AI 35mm f/1:1.4
50mm = Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm ZF f/1:1.4
50mm = Nikkor AF 50mm f/1:1.8 D
55mm = Nikkor-R-Micro AI 55mm f/1:3.5 + Auto Extension Ring PK 13
65mm = Leica Elmar 65mm f/1:3.5 Leica-VISO to Nikon F adapter
75mm = Cooke Speed Panchro 75mm f/2, T/2.3 adapted to M42/Nikon F adapter
80mm = Hasselblad - Carl Zeiss Planar T* 80mm f/1:2.8 to Nikon F adapter
85mm = Nikkor AF 85mm f/1:1.8 D
90mm = Leica Summicron 90mm f/1:2.0 Leica-VISO to Nikon F adapter
105mm = Nikkor AI-S 105mm f/1:2.5
135mm = Nikkor-Q A 135mm f/1:2.8
135mm = Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 135mm f/1:3.5 M42/Nikon F adapter
180mm = Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar Olympia 180mm f/1:2.8 Nikon F
200mm = Leica Telyt 200mm f/1:4.5 Leica-VISO to Nikon F adapter
500mm = Carl Zeiss Jena Fernobjektiv 500mm f/1:8.0 M42/Nikon F adapter

++Zooms:
17-35mm = Nikkor AF 17-35mm f/1:2.8 D ED
35-80mm = Nikkor AF 35-80mm f/1:4.0-5.6 D
70-210mm = Nikkor AF 70-210mm f/1:4.0-5.6
100-300mm = Soligor Nikon/F 100-300mm f/1:5.0

[Mike the beginner]

:blush:
Thanks Aqua.
Andrew, and anyone else:sarcasm:
I'm not trying to create a panic, I'm trying to inform based on my experience, that's all.:innocent:
In MY experience, the lens is an important part in total system resolution. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. Therefore, it is important to test lenses independently of the rest of the imaging system.
If you plan to shoot everything at F8, just punch a whole in some black wrap and call it a day.
The charts that get projected are black vs. white. What can show flaws as well as resolving power, chromatic abb, barrel distortion, vignetting, spherical abbs, etc better than that? The lens projecter system is suppose to find flaws.
If my opinion is not welcome here because it's not the same as everyone else's, I'll go away.
By the way, the lens I looked at was a 18-200. I don't know whether this is considered a good or bad lens because I don't come from a still background, it's what was available to me yesterday.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2159

Thanks everyone for the great feedback, very much appreciated.

Steevo, i think others are just voicing what they have found etc. Your points are just as valid. I think you are right to mention it, why, because right now it is a real concern. After NAB it might not be such a big concern though who knows. Lets keep things friendly and relaxing whilst we wait for NAB and what follows. We all enjoy each others feedback and we learn from it all the time. This is a great forum with a great group of people.

Truth is we really will not know for certain until we test with the red camera all the various options with a variety of lenses. Guys like Evan are very experienced still photographers in their own right. it is always wise to listen to what they say and see if it will apply in cine use. I am positive (based on what i have read) that there will be a number of top quality still lens that will be perfectly sharp for use with the red camera. Many guys here tend to think the same. I think we all have concerns about the focusing issue. But if we try and "kick out the trash and keep the gold" as far as selecting only the still lenses that are known to perform extremely well in their own right throughout their range, we can THEN look to examine the workarounds with those selected lenses. I know a lot of my work will be done somewhere btween f5.6 to f8. Other work will require different settings.

The engineer in me thinks that it must be possible to fit a combination of focus rings or replacing the existing focus rings to one's that make the focusing turn exactly like cine lenses. Judging by some comments focusing with cine lens at 4k is going to be difficult as well. Someone is likely to find a great solution that would maybe double the price of the still lenses once modified, but you then have a cracking lens possibly even with greater movement on the focusing rings who knows. Perhaps some of the technical lens guys can comment. I think the great thing that Evin, Andrew (and others) are doing is they are selecting the really good still lenses. What would be the point of selecting the ones that have breathing or aberations etc. I noted that even experienced cine guys like Stephen Williams has commented that a lot of the cine lenses have problems. The best cine lenses do cost a lot and some of us here on this forum strongly believe that a large part of the reason for the high price is down to numbers made for the effort to make them etc. That does not mean they are not made better and more effort and care does not go into them etc etc. It just states that due to numbers sold, the profit has to be higher. Just imagine if 500 reservation holders decided to put their faith in a particular still lens nominated for a modification. Would a third party not be willing to step in and declare to do the mod for half what he would normaly charge....i bet he would.

Last night i looked through some of the posts last year about red and still lenses. I think Evin has already stated (sorry if i am wrong Evin) that if we can get to 90% of the level and quality of a good cine lens for a fraction of the cost he would be very happy and so would many others. Jim Jannard commented a while back that Cook made great lenses, they will make lenses nearly as good but for much less. In the end it will be down to your willingnness to accept a little loss for a huge saving or as J Jannard put it so nicely...how much pain your pocket can stand to the amount of gain you get, Or something like that (sorry Jim if a got that wrong).

I doubt Canon with their $25,000 b4 HD lenses are going to make still lenses every bit as good to use in cine mode as cine lenses, that might affect their profit. So it might boil down to third party individuals to do the mod for us.

My posts areway toooo long sorry

Mike the beginner

[Andrew M.]

Here are two pictures of charts taken during the UP8R test.
The one on the middle is for f2.8 and one in the left is for f5.6
This chart section is located on the far right of the test chart near the S35 frame outlines in section E

Also to show how straight line are kept straight on these ultra wide lenses, the zoom out picture of the chart to show the cushion distortions at 117 deg field of view (far right line on the chart).

[steevo435]

Thanks for posting the projector pics, Andrew. This is the same chart I prefer on my projector. I hate to say, but that is pretty damn good for a wide angle, especially at the edge of S35. That level of color fringing will be really hard to spot in a recorded image.

[Andrew M.]

Steevo, maybe you will not see it right straight as a fringing but look on the marina picture above.
Left side boats have pink sun reflections, boats and whole picture except the center is soft.
Also of focus items will not look nice, kind of winter freez splatter. See below.
The best off focus background should look like looking through the fog not like water based aquarelle. Now imagine you take wide shoot of the busy street in the sun or ocean/lake with sparkling surface of the water. Believe me it will look ugly.

Now for post it will be much more difficult to work as oppose to the 200Lp/mm sharp lenses, like MP65mm
I don’t even want to speculate about quality of green screen keying.
There are ways around it, but it will take much more time to do it and time is money.

Sure for HDTV it is just right for time being.

[Andrae Palmer]

What's the general price range of the Ultra Prime 8R?

[Mark K.]

Andrew, do you own an ARRI D20?! :w00t: And is that Monte Carlo in those sample photos (could explain things :shifty: )

[Michael Hastings]

What's the general price range of the Ultra Prime 8R?

Andrae:

Ken Corben bought one earlier this year at about a 5% discount for a little over $28000. Price may have changed a little with the drop in Euro.

[Andrae Palmer]

Andrew, do you own an ARRI D20?! :w00t: And is that Monte Carlo in those sample photos (could explain things :shifty: )

No! I'm just a poor cinematographer... window shopping. :shifty:


Andrae:

Ken Corben bought one earlier this year at about a 5% discount for a little over $28000. Price may have changed a little with the drop in Euro.

Thanks for the info.