Nikon & Canon glass suggestions to Birger mount

[Emanuel A.]

Any input on the best set? (maybe you Evin...)

Zooms and primes. Thanks.

[chuck colburn]

There's a bunch of info under lens testing.

[Emanuel A.]

Search resource(s), I know. LOL I'm already an old fellow here. ;-)

But it seems this mount will bring some DSLR lenses to the front page.

I'm talking about DSLR options or isn't there any advantage on their use since there's no auto focus available? I mean: will the Birger device bring any real substantial difference over the manual focus control?

[Emanuel A.]

Will a cheap Nikon 18-135mm DX AFS lens be suitable for the RED ONE 4K acquisition from a 35mm sensor size? BTW, what's its image circle coverage?


EDIT -- As non DSLR shooter so far, I found this on the Nikon DX format [ LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_DX_format) ]:

«The size is 23.7x15.7mm for the D2XS, 23.3x15.5mm for the D2HS, 23.6x15.8mm for the D200, D80, D40X, 23.7x15.6mm for the D40»

So in the worst of the hypothesis, it shall be 27.984 as image circle. It does have 35mm coverage -- any doubts?

My 1st comment after my findings is that Nikon 12-24 mm f/4G AF-S DX shall be a tremendous wider!

Here's the usual review:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm

EDIT (part II) -- It seems this can be my next purchase after Birger mount.

EDIT (part III) -- But that conclusion came up before my new finding from the usual reviewer [ LINK for the Canon EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm) ]

«The Canon 10-22mm has much less distortion than any wide zoom I've tested, which means it's much better than my Nikon 12-24mm.»

Well, after the 1080p HV20 launch, I'd say this year is my Canon's one after being a Nikonist during years even if only from the F3 side. :)

Here's the coverage: 22.5 mm × 15.0 mm = 27.04 as image circle, so it fits on the RED's 35mm sensor size.
[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_20D]


Any Nikon vs. Canon thoughts? Is this Canon route sharp enough on the corners granted its smaller coverage area?

[PaulClements]

It's just the speed of the canon 10-22mm that spoils it for me. If it was 2.8 throughout I'd say it was a winner. Fact is you will be losing light when you zoom in which means you need to compensate for that with your lighting, could present some probs.

[Emanuel A.]

Thanks Paul. What would you suggest?

[PaulClements]

Depends on the budget but the L series offer superb image quality, sharpness and most importantly speed.

I'd go for the 16-35mm USM II f2.8, 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2 and the 85mm f1.2. They're quite pricey though so perhaps skipping on the 24mm and 35mm and just using the zoom might be worth while, but if you want a fairly wide fast lens for night/low light the 24 and 35 would be handy. Don't bother with the 14mm f2.8, it's slightly wider then the 16-35 of course but doesn't offer much more. The 16-35mm zooms inside the barrel as well unlike a few of the canons so shouldn't present any problems with matteboxes etc.

I'm probably being unfair on the 10-22 to be honest though. I agree with you that the 10-22 is a great size, especially because it is EF-S it means it is well suited to the sensor of the RedOne. Using as a variable prime I suppose it would be fine actually. Some of the older Cookes and Angenieux's lose light as they zoom out so I guess it wouldn't be too bad. It wouldn't be great in low light conditions full stop but otherwise could be used to great effect in other areas. If they made a 10-22 f2.8 or faster though I'd definitely pick one up. Best bet if you can is to get hold of one with a body and see what you think of the light loss. If you don't think it is too bad then it might be worth while.

Checkout this review of the 10-22 and judge for yourself, sounds promising. Also goto the bottom and look at the other lens reviews, very well informed website with lots of info and fairly unbiased.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2006-04-15_18-04-37&desc=Musical-Stage-Performance-Picture-(10mm)

[Emanuel A.]

Thanks again Paul. Much appreciated. The size counts but also the light loss is true. We'll see. Maybe several options can handle the job.

[Karl H]

I admit im still researching, but unlike some of the purists here I'm going to opt for a set of zooms rather than primes. To me, from the image comparisons tests at 100% crop, the quality between the two is small so I'd prefer the felixbility of having a zoom lens on there.

So far I'm looking at these for my wide to general :

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM
or
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Its hard to choose between the two. They both have their faults, but the 17-55 gives more range and seems to perform very well. The only complaint I could find was some vignetting at wider aperatures, but on real-world sample images it doesnt seem noticable.
http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_17_55
I think it depends on your budget as the 17-55 is cheaper than the 16-35 ($1000 compared to $1450). I'm still undecided.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

For the rest :

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
and
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

Im not sure about the 24-70 as it has no image stabilisation, but this review shows how it compares to the 50mm prime

http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/

If I just got the 70-200 and not the 24-70 then im left with a small gap in my focal range which i could fill with a prime.

The beauty of these lenses here are they are all 2.8 throughout the zoom range, and IS is something that could be really useful for handheld work. Remember that EFS is for DSLR and EF was designed for full frame 35mm. So in theory because of the 1.6x crop factor you should be shooting the sweetspot of the EF lenes, and vignetting problems should in theory occur outside the captured mysterium image. At least thas what I'm hoping.

I would toss in a few primes too, just if I ever need to get down to f1.8 in extremely low light.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

The above prime lenses range from $300-$400 each, so they wont exactly kill your budget.

I'm still weighing the pros and cons. My guess is I'll go for 2 zoom lenses and a few primes. If you buy the 17-55 for example, then the 24-70 becomes less attractive due to the overlapping ranges. If you get the slightly better build quality of the 16-35 you lose the image stabalisation. So as always it isnt just as 'simple' as giving a list of lenses.

One thing for sure is I'll be buying from the US and importing with the £/$ exchange rate at the moment.

Edit: I personally would not go for a 1.2 lens. When you're THAT wide open focus would be far to critical for my tastes on a moving shot, at 1.8 your actor only has to move 1cm and he's out of focus; also you're paying an awful lot more to go from 1.4 to 1.2... just my opinion.

[PaulClements]

Problem with the 17 - 55mm and 24-70mm is when zooming, the front of the lenses extend considerably. The 17-40mm is similar to the 16-35mm in that the length of the lense remains the same throughout the zoom range, the 16-35mm is faster and generally better image quality.

If you are going to get L series zooms I'd go with the L series Primes too. The background blur is nicer on the L series than Canon's lesser lenses due to the shape and quantity of the aperture blades, which means when you catch a lightbulb or similar in the blurred background it is almost round rather than being a hexagon or other blocky shape and the general blur is softer and less harsh.

Focusing at f1.2 can indeed present difficulties. My point of view, however, is that creating something artistic isn't always about being easy and not all shots will suffer so severely.

[Karl H]

interesting point about the 17-55. Im erring on the side of the 16-35 and filling in the gaps with some primes.

I think im in the minority but i actually like the hexagonal Bokeh patterns.... ho hum....lol

and i dont think focussing at 1.8 is going to be about easy either! in fact its my greatest concern amongst the whole red set-up.

[PaulClements]

Few pics about the points:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-50mm-Lens-Bokeh-Comparison.jpg
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens (left), Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens (middle) and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens (right).

16-35mm zoom:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Extended.jpg
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Retracted.jpg

[Karl H]

its worth mentioning the price.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens $310
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM $1360


Its always a hard choice because I have to ask myself, 'how often am I going to use that lens'. I have a feeling for set-up time I will have the 16-35 on for most work. switching to primes or 70-200 when needed. I have the f/1.8 50mm already on my DSLR and even that is a great lens which delivers fantastic pictures, far superior to the lens that came stock with the camera (18-55). The 50mm was super cheapo too ($50).

I guess it comes down to budget, for me the 1.2 is a stretch considering the quality difference between that and the 1.4. But if money is no concern then 1.2 is the best canon offers.

[PaulClements]

Yes price is a bummer. But L series lenses keep their value quite well. You don't find them a great deal cheaper second hand whereas cheaper lenses will have more knocking about.

[PaulClements]

Having said that there aren't many 1.4's "knocking about" either :)

[Erik Widding]

I have the f/1.8 50mm already on my DSLR and even that is a great lens which delivers fantastic pictures, far superior to the lens that came stock with the camera (18-55). The 50mm was super cheapo too ($50).

Both of these lenses are very poorly constructed, and definitely not suited for cinema use.

[Karl H]

Hi Erik

Thanks for chiming in.

Dont worry, I did not intend to use the 18-55 or the 50mm 1.8..... :-) But it does bring up an interesting question.

Can I ask if you have tried the mount with the 16-35, and how well it performs? My main worry about the mount is the lens motor 'stepping' or causing a rather jerky focus pull. How subtle or smooth is the motor on a USM L series lens? Any lenses you can reccommend or tell people to avoid based on your testing?

[Erik Widding]

Can I ask if you have tried the mount with the 16-35, and how well it performs? My main worry about the mount is the lens motor 'stepping' or causing a rather jerky focus pull. How subtle or smooth is the motor on a USM L series lens? Any lenses you can reccommend or tell people to avoid based on your testing?

We have yet to see a lens with a "ring-type usm" actuator not offer a pleasing result for smooth focus. This includes all "L" lenses, plus some of the down market offerings.

We have scheduled some quality time for testing lenses at the end of the Ausgust, and we will offer formal guidance at that point.

[Emanuel A.]

OK, after some research (thanks Paul for the link), here are my choices for now:


(..) plus some of the down market offerings.

We have scheduled some quality time for testing lenses at the end of the Ausgust, and we will offer formal guidance at that point.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

I'm still inquiring myself if:

is IS worth of a purchase for motion picture use?



I have the f/1.8 50mm already on my DSLR and even that is a great lens which delivers fantastic pictures, far superior to the lens that came stock with the camera (18-55). The 50mm was super cheapo too ($50).

Both of these lenses are very poorly constructed, and definitely not suited for cinema use.

Moreover, would you say the same about my choice or can you give them any chance to perform?

Thanks.

[Karl H]

regarding the 10-22 zoom :- from the following article

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

"Equivalent to a 16-35mm zoom on a 1.6x field of view crop factor camera, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM..."

so does this mean the 16-35mm f/2.8 would give exactly the same field of view on Red as the 10-22?

If so, then the 16-35 would be a better choice as it's not only L series and a sharper lens but a faster lens than the 10-22.

please someone correct me if im wrong, I'm still learning here.

[Evin Grant]

From the Nikon perspective I've shot wit the 12-24 f4 for three years now and never noticed the distotion it seems to be worse than the 10-22 by about .5% at 12mm but otherwise on par according to slrgear.com. It does however have a constant f4 aperture so adjusting iris after a zoom is not necessary, if you are getting the EOS mount the Tokina 12-24 f4 is supposed to be just as good. The next interesting lens IMO is the 17-55 f2.8 AFS Nikkor supposedly this lens is very sharp wide open, only improving slightly by f4, good range too. I've already discussed the 17-35mm AFS plenty, the 28-70 f2.8 AFS is a great lens but I worry about the extention of the front element when zooming, some sort of hood/donught would need to be developed. Of coarse the 70-200 f2.8 VR AFS is a no brainer in tele lenses. Hopefully Nikon will introduce AFS primes soon, so far the only ones are the 10.5mm fisheye, 105mm 2.8 VR macro and super teles like the 200mm f2 AFS VR and 300mm f2.8 AFS VR.
The great thing is you can still use all those awesome AF and MF Nikkors on the same mount with a standard follow focus.

Still, a great super versitile system could be just three lenses, 12-24 f4, 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VR.

[Emanuel A.]

Thanks Evin for your care on your reply.

[Emanuel A.]

regarding the 10-22 zoom :- from the following article

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

"Equivalent to a 16-35mm zoom on a 1.6x field of view crop factor camera, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM..."

so does this mean the 16-35mm f/2.8 would give exactly the same field of view on Red as the 10-22?

If so, then the 16-35 would be a better choice as it's not only L series and a sharper lens but a faster lens than the 10-22.

please someone correct me if im wrong, I'm still learning here.

On your quote: «so does this mean the 16-35mm f/2.8 would give exactly the same field of view on Red as the 10-22?»

The opposite can be true if you as RED 35mm shooter put the 10-22mm on a comparative with the 135 (full frame) photography [ LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film) ] where a 10mm focal length has this correspondence on SLR use.

RED 35mm is similar to DSLR sensor sizes.

Here's some useful bibliography here:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2771&page=2

It's worthy of your reading.

Hope this helps.

[Dexter Gregoire]

Check out this lens;
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=7312

The review from check this link (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) gives it great reviews.

Compare the vignetting and the ISO Crops to the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM which is a $6000 lens. I'm looking at the EF 135mm f/2L USM for $1000. I may get, because even sample pictures are comparable to the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM which take good looking pictures.

Spend some time here, it may help.
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx

[Mark B.]

It's not just picture quality you have to look for, it's also the breathing when focusing. Plus, I think the Birger mount is going to allow use of image stabilization (correct me if I'm wrong though), so keeping a lookout for that feature will also be relevant for some people.

[Karl H]

All Im saying Emanuel is that from my understanding, and I could be wrong. the 10-22 on the Red would give you the exact same focal length as the 16-35 on the Red (as one was designed for DSLRs, the other for full frame)

given that option I would get the 16-35 over the 10-22. The main reason being the wider aperature throughout the zoom.

why did you choose the 10-22 over the 16-35, just curious...

[Emanuel & Co]

I cannot answer on Emanuel's behalf since I'm just working with him (he's on vacations now). But I can tell, you seem to misunderstand the subject. Have an accurate reading on the link that he provided.

The 10-22mm on the Red would give you a similar focal length as the 16-35mm on the full frame, not on the Red!

The 16-35mm is designed for full frame but on the Red, it will have the same coverage than the 10-22mm. The Red One's sensor area won't change because you put there a lens with larger coverage. The 16-35mm will be cropped on the Red. There will be magnification. Thus, you cannot get the same aspect on the Red with a 16mm than you have with the same focal length on the full frame. A 10mm will always be wider than 16mm, no matter the lens (or image circle coverage) you use. I cannot surely know why Emanuel is going there, but I can guess after several years learning with him.

Cris