4"x5.65" or 6"x6"

[Michele Gavazzeni]

I'm looking for a MB that will work with both RED zoom lenses and standard nikon primes
would know if a 4"x5.65" would be enought or I should go fo 6"x6"

[Stephen Williams]

I'm looking for a MB that will work with both RED zoom lenses and standard nikon primes
would know if a 4"x5.65" would be enought or I should go fo 6"x6"

Hi,

The 4 x 5.65 will cover most lenses. 6 x 6 are needed for some wider lenses & huge zooms, l try not to use a 6 x 6 they get very heavy for hand holding.

Stephen

[Chris Burket]

For the current RED lenses and the nikon primes, 4x5 should be more than enough. You might be able to get away with 4x4, but I'd go with 4x5 anyway. You might need a 6x6 for the 300mm red prime, but I doubt it.

[Kevin Halverson]

For the current RED lenses and the nikon primes, 4x5 should be more than enough. You might be able to get away with 4x4, but I'd go with 4x5 anyway. You might need a 6x6 for the 300mm red prime, but I doubt it.

You have it backward. A long lens (like a 300mm) has a small angle of view and doesn't require a large filter to prevent vignetting. A short lens, with its wider angle of view becomes a challenge with smaller sized filters.

[Evin Grant]

I'm going 4x4. Mostly becasue it's what I already own but I forsee no problems with my current Nikkor path. Once I get some Red lenses I may have to move up but we'll see.

[PaulClements]

Are you going clip on matte box and slr filters Evin?

Kind of makes sense with still lenses if they do the job, makes for a very very light weight setup.

[Jaime Vallés]

I'll probably go with Redrock Micro's Mattebox, which is said to hold up to 6x6. We'll see if that's true when the finished thing is available. I'm hoping it works as advertised, but for $500 I can afford the mistake.

[Chris Burket]

You have it backward. A long lens (like a 300mm) has a small angle of view and doesn't require a large filter to prevent vignetting. A short lens, with its wider angle of view becomes a challenge with smaller sized filters.

Not with most longer lenses I've seen. The optimo 12:1, Canon 300mm 2.8 and the 400mm 2.8, The angeniux 12:1 HR. Wider lenses have the same issue, like the zeiss 14mm and 10mm. You can use 4x5 with almost every panavision lense except huge zooms. You can even use the 4x5 box with the 14.5mm primo. I think you can use the LMB5 with the wide cooke's like the 12 and 14 but don't quote me on that. It all just depends on how big the front element is, how close you can get the filter to the front element, and how wide the field of view is.

[Alex Wengert]

Best way to check is looking through the lens. In this case looking through the evf or on board monitor. But based on the fact that the chip is the size of a Super 35 frame, the same rules should apply as shooting with a 35mm film camera.

[Kevin Halverson]

Not with most longer lenses I've seen. The optimo 12:1, Canon 300mm 2.8 and the 400mm 2.8, The angeniux 12:1 HR. Wider lenses have the same issue, like the zeiss 14mm and 10mm. You can use 4x5 with almost every panavision lense except huge zooms. You can even use the 4x5 box with the 14.5mm primo. I think you can use the LMB5 with the wide cooke's like the 12 and 14 but don't quote me on that. It all just depends on how big the front element is, how close you can get the filter to the front element, and how wide the field of view is.

Assuming that the "front element" fits within the opening of the matte box, the thing that matters in the end, at least for vignetting concerns, is the angle of view. Longer lenses have smaller angles of view, shorter lenses have greater ones. Its a short prime or the bottom of a zoom that is of concern. A 300mm or 400mm is going to have such a small angle of view on a S35 sized sensor, that there isn't much of any concern of vignetting. Now the 10mm and 14mm examples you site will likely require a larger matte box (4 x 5.65 or 6x6) to assure that they don't exhibit problems.