Nikon Vs. Canon Lens

[Adam Levins]

I am moving from a Minolta DSLR set up to a Canon or Nikon and would like to end up with a set of lenses that will work with the Red as well; once the Birger unit comes out (assuming the system works - willing to take a gamble on that one).

I do not want old glass as I will be using these for stills work as well so I need the modern bells and whistles.

I will buy new, L series for Canon or AF-S Nikon's

My question is what are the pro's and con's of these two lens groups when used on the RED?

Thanks for any input,

Regards,

Adam

[Teague Kennedy]

There are alot of comments about this on this board, but I would also like this tread to get active, because I, too, am hoping to go with a birger and either canon or nikon mount. I think I favor nikon a bit, but canon is looking very nice with the 10mm zoom that has gotten nice reviews. (with nikon you've got 12mm with great reviews, but you have to go with sigma to get 10mm -- and the reviews have not been as hot) Also with canon you get image stabilization on the eos lenses??? Don't know it all, but I'd love to see an argument get started on this thread!

[Steve Sanacore]

My question is what are the pro's and con's of these two lens groups when used on the RED?[/B]

Adam

I have been through this with my still cameras over the past three years. I use Canon L, Nikon (old and new), and Lecia on my Canon EOS bodies with adapters. The nice thing is that Canon has the shortest flange to film plane distance so Canon users can use all the rest with a simple adapter. But that said, every lens has it's pro's and con's, including within their own lines. Most still photographers that came from larger formats than 35mm (I used to shoot most of my work in 6x7), found many of the lenses for Nikon's and Canon's (the brands I use), to be marginal for their new high end sensors cameras. Especially on the wide end where correction is so much more complicated.

So in my search for 'optical nirvana' I got a new education in optical design from a few very good webistes devoted to this problem.

Here is one site that I found very useful;

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

I can't wait to have a RED camera and do my own tests but until then, I am skeptical about the use of still AF lens on the camera on professional movie set. I started my career on a Arri's with Zeiss SS and can tell you that none of these still lenses feel like they are built anything like those.

In the 'still' world in most cases Leica is number 1 and Zeiss is number 2 as far as optical quality and construction, then comes Nikon and Canon - each lens having it's own story. Canon is replacing their L line continuously as is Nikon, as each company brings out new higher resolution sensors.

The lucky thing is that the RED sensor is Super 35, so many of the lens faults may be less noticeable than on their DSLR counterparts.

If the Birger mount works 'perfectly' then I will probably buy one just to have the options but for my main work I thinks it's going to be the RED lenses or back to Ziess or Cooke.

Another great new option to test are the brand new - Zeiss lenses in Nikon mount - http://www.zeiss.com/photo

I also wonder how all of these FF units will work on the different still lenses...

Sorry for the long post but I have gone through this quest before and it's frustrating when you put up a lens you have used for years (with film) and find the images unusable from your DSLR when blown up. That was my experience...

[Adam Levins]

Thanks Steve that is very informative I think I will have to test at some point before I buy

I am thinking of going with a set of Zooms to cover the the range as opposed to Primes.

At the moment I am thinking Canons as I like the Glass and the DSLR CCD's are less noisy than Nikon's in low light (from my experience).

I am thinking the following set:

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

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

PS. Great Website Tip Steve, many Thanks!

[Sanjin Jukic]

In the 'still' world in most cases Leica is number 1 and Zeiss is number 2 as far as optical quality and construction, then comes Nikon and Canon - each lens having it's own story.



Steve,

Totally agree and that's true.

[Andrew M.]

Thanks Steve that is very informative I think I will have to test at some point before I buy

I am thinking of going with a set of Zooms to cover the the range as opposed to Primes.

At the moment I am thinking Canons as I like the Glass and the DSLR CCD's are less noisy than Nikon's in low light (from my experience).

I am thinking the following set:

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

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

PS. Great Website Tip Steve, many Thanks!


I am Canon and Zeiss shop so I am bit biased.
Tested all new canon S series and I would not recommend these lenses to use for RED at 4K work.
HD 1080p, Yes but not 4K
Tested recently EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM and then I did buy it, but it is far from “new generation L” slogan that Canon is pushing. Again on 16MP Canon it has just too much CA, thanks God that for still photography we have all these CA canceling/correcting software.
Also focus and stabilization on these lenses was designed with still photography in mind, but all new lenses are taking under account that you may start shooting up to 10 frame per second on all new Canon DSLRs so we shell see once Birger mount is out if it will work properly.

I am waiting for Canon 14mm L II USM that is available now in Canada for $2395 and in US for 2K or so. Again Canon did build this one for its 21MP Ds Mark III, we will see how it performs compared to Zeiss.
So far Zeiss new lenses I have tested (see my test results on this forum) is the minimum acceptable quality for 4K on RED. However best Zeiss below 28mm FL, is far below what we need for 4K on RED, IMHO. Remember Zeiss wide angle lenses need to show a lot of details at 4K and with all these CA and 100lp/mm resolution at the 75% to the edge is not a pretty view. I am hoping that new 14mm L Canon will do 200lp/mm at the edge of S35 frame since the lens was designed for full frame that is much bigger.

[PaulClements]

An interesting point to note is that there are no reasonable length Nikon Prime lenses that will work with the Birger mount (I.E can use the motors inside combined with the birger follow focus or remote control to re-focus the lens).

Only 200mm to 600mm primes and 10.5mm DX fisheye primes will work since these are the only AF-S primes available.

Paul

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

I am Canon and Zeiss shop so I am bit biased.
Tested all new canon S series and I would not recommend these lenses to use for RED at 4K work.
HD 1080p, Yes but not 4K
Tested recently EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM and then I did buy it, but it is far from “new generation L” slogan that Canon is pushing. Again on 16MP Canon it has just too much CA, thanks God that for still photography we have all these CA canceling/correcting software.
Also focus and stabilization on these lenses was designed with still photography in mind, but all new lenses are taking under account that you may start shooting up to 10 frame per second on all new Canon DSLRs so we shell see once Birger mount is out if it will work properly.

I am waiting for Canon 14mm L II USM that is available now in Canada for $2395 and in US for 2K or so. Again Canon did build this one for its 21MP Ds Mark III, we will see how it performs compared to Zeiss.
So far Zeiss new lenses I have tested (see my test results on this forum) is the minimum acceptable quality for 4K on RED. However best Zeiss below 28mm FL, is far below what we need for 4K on RED, IMHO. Remember Zeiss wide angle lenses need to show a lot of details at 4K and with all these CA and 100lp/mm resolution at the 75% to the edge is not a pretty view. I am hoping that new 14mm L Canon will do 200lp/mm at the edge of S35 frame since the lens was designed for full frame that is much bigger.

You may be right but I don't think your logic is correct. Your premise is mistaken: RED 4K is much lower resolution than the new or even the old Canon 1Ds, and is comparable to a Nikon D300. We can certainly imagine better lenses than the current crop, but it's just false to suggest that the best Canon or Nikon lenses are unable to resolve at 4K or that their imperfections are so terrible it would be a disaster to use them.
Millions of fantastic digital images have been taken with these lenses at 4K+ resolution already.
Also, loads of great films were captured on s35 in the past with lenses that would now be considered optically very poor, yet it hasn't stopped us enjoying watching them over and over again. :biggrin:

[Andrew M.]

Yes I took many pictures with these lenses with the sensor 4K+ but I corrected it as most of us do with single camera shots, in software for all imperfections. Try to do it with 30 fps material, you will need a lot of coffee cups or maybe even a vacation.
Yes, many good movies were created with the 30 or 50lp/mm lenses but then why to use 4K or 2K camera, the same effect you will get with 1080p HD sensor.
To see the difference between 4K and 2K you have to use lenses that beats the 2K pixel spacing. Yes you get some miniscule difference between 4K and 2K sensors using 50lp/mm lenses, especially at the center of the picture but when using wide angle lenses shots, you are just trying to listen to HiFi classic music then, through announcement grade speakers.

As to the enjoyment of movie material, I hear it over and over again, that the best equipment will not replace the good story and talents. This sentence is addressing very narrow spectrum of movies. I will change it, the same story will be enjoyed much more with good quality of picture. And it all boils down to the competition, I will pick the same movie/story in 4K over the same movie in 720p. And this addresses only some movies, we are forgetting about the nature, science, or news. The quality of the image there is as important as the content of it.

[Karl H]

Hi Andrew,

I'm suprised at your results. I knew that the mechanics of Canon lenses may cause a problem for cinema use. But in quality, well, I thought they would be up to the task. Certainly the canon lenses on my 8Mpixel DSLR can resolve the image to fine detail.

My choice so far was to get the same lenses as Adam, but Ive heard if the zoom extends outwards that can cause problems with the matte box.

The test shots Ive seen posted so far with nikon and canon glass have seemed promising. You're saying no Canon glass can resolve 4K?

this is a confusing one for me....

I have to say if the birger works it may well prove to be a better FF device than anything out there. It could be far more useful than any manual geared PL mount system, if it's accurate enough.

[Andrew M.]

We discussed it in length here and I posted 1:1 pixel per pixel cutouts from the edges of the frame with best wide angle Canon lenses made for 16MP and 8MP cameras.
Once you correct CA and other aberrations and you add some sharpening the pictures are good for news paper size presentation.
The different story is when you do not correct CA and you try to look at it on 40” or bigger screen. I know that for HD TV material that is fed to the viewers at home with 1:5000 compression ration all this CA and 50 or 200lp/mm doesn’t matter but for big screen presentation of 4K material a specially if material is to be presented and sold few years from now it will make the difference of sold or not sold. As soon as I get my 21MP Canon I will make few pictures using some old Canon 50lp/mm lenses and I am curious if I will see much difference between unprocessed shots from 8MP versus 21MP
At 6 micron pixel size on the new Canon 50lp/mm lenses will not be able to resolve less then 4 pixels.

[Jim Arthurs]

My choice so far was to get the same lenses as Adam, but Ive heard if the zoom extends outwards that can cause problems with the matte box.

You'll be fine with the 70-200 L series as it doesn't change length. The 24-70 does, but it is reversed in motion so that it's most telephoto when smallest length, wide angle when extended. This is good news because you can rig a shade that won't intrude into frame and keep the "effective" length the same for use with a mattebox.

The other lens to consider is the 10-22. It doesn't extend at all, and will be a very good choice if you do occasional 2K, as 10mm is a decently wide FOV on Super 16mm coverage.

If the Birger works as promised, I'm going with the 10-22, 24-70 and 70-200 for my personal lens set. If the Birger is not field rugged, doesn't focus smoothly, etc., then I'll be spending a LOT more money I guess...

Hopefully some tests with the LART group will include Birger and Canon and we'll have a good idea as to sharpness, etc.

[Karl H]

Thanks for the feedback Jim and Andrew, much appreciated.

If I look at my lens options I'm looking at spending around $5000, so maybe on the birger mount and a set of Canon lenses. Maybe Nikon if they perform better. I read that Bourne ultimatum was shot on rehoused nikon lenses somewhere so I'm guessing someone thought these were up to cinema presentation... I'm wondering whether I should just go for a single Red Lens for not much extra dosh.

So confusing.

I'll search for your thread Andrew and try to draw some conclusions.

[Steve Sanacore]

Thanks for the feedback Jim and Andrew, much appreciated.

If I look at my lens options I'm looking at spending around $5000, so maybe on the birger mount and a set of Canon lenses. Maybe Nikon if they perform better. I read that Bourne ultimatum was shot on rehoused nikon lenses somewhere so I'm guessing someone thought these were up to cinema presentation... I'm wondering whether I should just go for a single Red Lens for not much extra dosh.

So confusing.

I'll search for your thread Andrew and try to draw some conclusions.

Please remember that what works on a film may not work as well on a digital sensor. Color negative film has a soft lush look and can be very forgiving of optical imperfections. This has been my experience moving to DSLRs.

There is no substitute for testing optics and to see for ourselves, otherwise it's only a guess.

I guess it really depends on the 'look' you will be happy with for your needs.

[Steve Murray]

When I switched to Canon EOS last year (after 30 years shooting Nikon) I had to buy five yes, five 24-70mm zooms before I found one that was sharp enough for me. It took three 16-35mm zooms to find a good one. I had similar results with Nikon lenses, it took three 17-35mm to find one.

I buy 3 lenses at once, test them and hope that one is good. If not, I return them and get 3 more. Pain in the ass - yes - but that is the only way I have found to get the quality of lenses I need for my stills and now for the RED.

So I do not assume that a lens of any brand, new or old, is sharp & working properly until I test it. I think this is especially true with the wide zooms. You will find great and also so-so lenses with all brands. I do not think you can go by anyone else's tests as those results will only be valid for that specific lens. Your same brand/mm lens could be much better.... or worse. Test.

Nikon or Canon... It really does not matter which brand if you are using a Birger and you test the lenses and find the "good ones". The Nikon F mount Birger however will not be available until after the Canon EF version so that could be a while. That alone could be the reason to go Canon.

If you do not get a Birger and go with Nikon manual lenses remember that they focus backwards to most other lenses. Many of the Nikon F lenses are great if the focus direction does not matter to you. Test.

There is a very good reason Cine lenses cost so much, they are made better and I think that each lens is tested before being sold. Still lenses are made quickly and cheaply in comparison. You get what you pay for. If you will be shooting drama I think you should get the RED lenses instead.

I'm hoping my Canon FD (older) lenses will work well on the RED. Why? Because I have a nice set of lenses from 7.5mm Fisheye to 600mm (all tested) so I can shoot almost anything I want. And I do not shoot drama so focus breathing and the other issues with still lenses are not as big a deal to me. If they do not work well then I will get a Birger and use my Canon EF lenses.

I like both Canon and Nikon. I even had a Arri 2C with a Nikon mount that I shot a lot of footage with. In the end if I could justify the RED zooms I would get those.

More still lens info on this post: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4401

Canon 1Ds MK II. Waiting on a 1Ds MK III and my RED.

[Andrew M.]

Enzo, I am surprised that Canon will have such bad quality control especially on a new S lenses assembly line.
My experience with 10-22mm Canon was 3 pixel wide CA at 85% to the edge of the frame.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=21221#post21221

CamDiver (Mark) suggested that maybe my lenses are not the finest tuned so I didn’t comment then but I had opportunity to get the picture from yet another 10-22 Canon and I have seen the same result there.
Well did anybody else had to go through 3 lenses to get the much better one?
This I have to test next time I am buying Canon lenses.
Well the good news is that the new Canon 16-35 II USM has only 2 pixels CA and less of spherical aberration. Also it is full frame not S type lens. It mean that the edge of the S35 frame is somewhere at 55% from the center where CA is 1 pixel wide.
The Canon S lenses are covering just the S35 frame size so the edge of the lenses illumination circle is the edge of the sensor, that is why the full frame Canon lenses are better choice. I really hope that new Canon L lenses specifically designed for Ds Mark III 21MP sensor will be much better, somewhat comparable to Zeiss Ultra Prime.

The one remark though on the Canon web makes me nervous though, that we will be able to correct the CA SA in the software supplied with the camera and the software does it by applying Canon particular lens specific algorithm. I hope it is so you don’t have to through out all these Canon lenses manufactured in year 2006 and before when you upgrade to 21MP camera.

So far nothing beats ARRI/Zeiss Master Prime 65mm T1.3
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1475

Though anything below 65mm on Master Prime is not what I would call 4K lenses.
I have a feeling that Zeiss is working on a second generation Digital Lenses line, though they call Master Primes as a first lenses specifically designed for digital sensors.
Well as a first attempt it is not bad indeed, but not below 65mm of FL.

When you get your RED, rent 65mm Zeiss Master Prime for one day on a dry crispy sunny day and shoot at 4K the city skyscrapers from a far or snowy mountain picks.
Then go back to your Canon lenses, watch it! don’t rip off your focus knob then and don’t send your RED back for repair.

[Steve Murray]

I think that we all being much more critical since we know that 4K on a 40 foot screen demands more from these still lenses than they were meant for. Most people rarely see a print from a 1Ds MK II larger than 4-5 feet wide. Still lenses are not made for movie cameras. They do great for what they are made for.

The Canon B4 HD zoom & prime lenses cost $15-20,000.00 each, so perhaps Canon will see the market for the RED and start making high quality Cine lenses for S35mm format. But they will be a lot more $$ than EF lenses.

I sort of consider my old FD lenses as having a "built-in" Black frost & diffusion filter effect.... You are already seeing the "that is too sharp" posts about some of the RED footage, right? Why spend all that money on lenses and then just have to filter the "too sharp" away.... ?

Seriously, If I could afford them I would get the best lenses, but I cannot spend that kind of money for my projects.

[Andrew M.]

I think that we all being much more critical since we know that 4K on a 40 foot screen demands more from these still lenses than they were meant for. Most people rarely see a print from a 1Ds MK II larger than 4-5 feet wide.

Exactly, how many times we have to do heavy post for material that have to be presented on large posters. I really hope that this baby will make a difference a specially that in sub 15mm FL range where you are packing millions of details in to the picture lens quality is so critical.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=15670

Andrew

[Steve Murray]

I have the first version I and also the FD. Both are very sharp so I hope that the new version II is even better.

[Adam Levins]

I feel the answer is the usual; to test the lenses with the RED

I think much of the rigmarole of Cinema lenses in past came down to matching color across a set. I would not shoot a film without a DI process and with the extreme looks I sometimes go for a small tweak in color is not a problem.

Resolution is an issue as is lens distortion so I will try and test the RED and Nikokn/Canon marriage on these issues when they and the Birger are available. the last film I shoot was on the S4's and I do love them but I am intrigued by the idea of using stills lenses to achieve new looks.

I am London based and a focus puller I worked with recently said he was on a shoot with Three red's here in the UK and I have been trying to get my hands on one but I think it was the Steven Soderburg film that briefly passed through. The other thing I want to test is the low light sensitivity of the RED camera as I have heard that called into question and I have to say film for all it's faults is great in low light.

If anyone has a RED in the UK I would love to set up a day at a rental house to play with various lenses. from Cookes to Primo's etc. and Nikons too, charts and some real life stuff as well.

[Joel Kaye]

Resolution is an issue as is lens distortion

But the crop factor should mean SLR lenses are using the sweet spot and that should minimize any barrel distortion. I'll be stunned if SLR lenses don't get pretty close to the RED zooms in quality. I'll be equally surprised if the really expensive lenses don't prove to be clear winners at 4k... but will we see the differences between them all at 1080P?

[Andrew M.]

SLR full frame (not S) will work on S35 frame in the sweet spot indeed but it is double edged sword. Canon 14mm for instance is very nice wide angle lens on the full frame giving more then 110 deg angle of view, well on S35 it will give you less then 70 deg

[Michael Hastings]

SLR full frame (not S) will work on S35 frame in the sweet spot indeed but it is double edged sword. Canon 14mm for instance is very nice wide angle lens on the full frame giving more then 110 deg angle of view, well on S35 it will give you less then 70 deg

Andrew: The Canon Lens chart gives that angle of view on the 14 on APS-C (S35) but it seems to me that is a misprint as it should be equivalent to about a 22mm which would give an angle of about 87 degrees - can you check my math?

[Nils J. Nesse]

SLR full frame (not S) will work on S35 frame in the sweet spot indeed but it is double edged sword. Canon 14mm for instance is very nice wide angle lens on the full frame giving more then 110 deg angle of view, well on S35 it will give you less then 70 deg

I don't know why that is a double edged sword, it will give the same angle of view as a 14mm cinema lens.

[Joel Kaye]

I don't know why that is a double edged sword, it will give the same angle of view as a 14mm cinema lens.

That's what I was thinking. I do think a lot of testing to final output is in order though. If I've got a project that calls for the sharpest lenses on Earth I'll rent them.

I'd love to do some double blind tests of the same scene shot on different lenses shown on 1080P monitors and projected in 2K and 4K to see what the "truth" is. (ie - the resolution may be there but if I can't see I personally am not going to work myself up over it.)

[Michael Hastings]

I don't know why that is a double edged sword, it will give the same angle of view as a 14mm cinema lens.

Yes, 14mm is 14mm, but a lens designed as a Superwide just becomes a wide on S35.


SLR full frame (not S) will work on S35 frame in the sweet spot indeed but it is double edged sword. Canon 14mm for instance is very nice wide angle lens on the full frame giving more then 110 deg angle of view, well on S35 it will give you less then 70 deg

Andrew: The Canon Lens chart gives that angle of view on the 14 on APS-C (S35) but it seems to me that is a misprint as it should be equivalent to about a 22mm which would give an angle of about 87 degrees - can you (or someone else) check my math?


That's what I was thinking. I do think a lot of testing to final output is in order though. If I've got a project that calls for the sharpest lenses on Earth I'll rent them.

I'd love to do some double blind tests of the same scene shot on different lenses shown on 1080P monitors and projected in 2K and 4K to see what the "truth" is. (ie - the resolution may be there but if I can't see I personally am not going to work myself up over it.)

Since the 14 was just updated for the new 22MP camera and since we are shooting the "sweet spot" of the lens I highly doubt that there will be any resolution issues on the RED with the 14