Canon Lens Set

[Julio Quintana]

Hey guys. I'm trying to put together a comprehensive Canon set for my upcoming Epic. Here is what I've got:

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 Canon
Canon 16-35mm f2.8 ???
Canon 24mm f1.4L II
Canon 35mm f1.4L
Canon 50mm f1.2L
Canon 85mm f1.2L II
Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II

This set would cover everything from 11-200mm, but I would love to switch the 16-35mm with something like a 18mm f1.8 in there, or maybe a 21mm, but I can't find anything in the Canon lineup faster than a f2.8. The Zeiss ZF lenses are crazy slow in the wide end as well. Does anybody have an idea for a fast wide prime in a Canon mount?

Thanks,
Julio

[OptiTek]

There is a 20mm f1.8 Sigma but it is an APS-c format lens and it's unclear at this point what these will or will not cover.
On Abel format roundup it seems to cover but Jarred said the opposite about some other lenses. It would be nice to know what the actual recordable area on the 5K Epic is.... :thumbup:h

[KETCH ROSSi]

You got yourself the best "L" series glass right there ;)

[Tom.Wong]

you should consider the 100 mm macro too, that lens is WICKED awesome.

[KETCH ROSSi]

you should consider the 100 mm macro too, that lens is WICKED awesome.

Agreed ;)

[Julio Quintana]

Why has Canon not developed a fast prime in the 18mm range? Is it very difficult because it's full frame, or is there just not much demand?

[paul engstrom]

That's like asking why there aren't any superspeed 12mm lenses in the cinema world.

All your lenses cover full frame sensor -- all L lenses cover full frame sensor in fact. The need of a fast 18mm for full frame (Canon 5d cameras for example) is not very huge, while the development costs for such a lens are VERY huge--and the resultant lens would also be VERY huge and unwieldy.

What we would really want would be a L level lens made for the APS-C standard... sort of a very professional Canon lens that would fit Canon's not very professional APS-C cameras...

If I were building your set I would consider swapping your 16-35 for the 17-55 with IS as that would be a more useful lens in many situations with equivalent, and in some cases better, optical characteristics.

Be aware that the 14mm 2.8 L is a VERY good lens too.

[Julio Quintana]

That's like asking why there aren't any superspeed 12mm lenses in the cinema world.

http://www.fdtimes.com/news/zeiss/zeiss-master-prime-12-mm/

Now I just need Canon to make me a $30,000 18mm f1.3 and I'll be set :)

[Justin McAleece]

That's set's exactly what I have (Tokina coming in soon) plus the 24-70 2.8 which can be great to ok. Get a doubler and an extension tube and you'll really be in business. I have often really wanted an f1.4 or f2 lens in the 16-18 range but for Canon it just doesn't make that much sense because of the full frame versus crop situation. Still - it would sure help me out sometimes. With a set like this and the other things I have listed you will have an amazingly versatile set. Something that would be really hard to duplicate in the PL realm for a reasonable price.


Hey guys. I'm trying to put together a comprehensive Canon set for my upcoming Epic. Here is what I've got:

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 Canon
Canon 16-35mm f2.8 ???
Canon 24mm f1.4L II
Canon 35mm f1.4L
Canon 50mm f1.2L
Canon 85mm f1.2L II
Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II

This set would cover everything from 11-200mm, but I would love to switch the 16-35mm with something like a 18mm f1.8 in there, or maybe a 21mm, but I can't find anything in the Canon lineup faster than a f2.8. The Zeiss ZF lenses are crazy slow in the wide end as well. Does anybody have an idea for a fast wide prime in a Canon mount?

Thanks,
Julio

[Stephen Pruitt]

Forget the 70-200 and just pick up the 135mm f2 and the 200mm f2.8. Why go zooms when you can go primes?

But be careful with the 135mm. I had to search a long time to get one where the image didn't shift left to right as I racked focus back and forth. But let me tell you, it is one unbelievable lens. The 200 is also gorgeous.

Oh, and take the advice: The 100mm macro L-Series is a GORGEOUS lens. Just wish it was twice the price and twice the speed.

Finally, dump the 16-35mm. You won't use it very much between the Tokina and the 24 (both of which are terrific, terrific lenses).

Stephen

[Julio Quintana]

Stephen, if I lose the 16-35mm, what do you recommend to replace it in the 18-21mm range?

[Tom Lowe]

Forget the 70-200 and just pick up the 135mm f2 and the 200mm f2.8. Why go zooms when you can go primes?

But be careful with the 135mm. I had to search a long time to get one where the image didn't shift left to right as I racked focus back and forth. But let me tell you, it is one unbelievable lens. The 200 is also gorgeous.

Oh, and take the advice: The 100mm macro L-Series is a GORGEOUS lens. Just wish it was twice the price and twice the speed.

Finally, dump the 16-35mm. You won't use it very much between the Tokina and the 24 (both of which are terrific, terrific lenses).

Stephen

I have to disagree. The new 70-200mm 2.8 II is the sharpest lens in my bag. The sharpest, most awesome still lens I've ever used. This thing is stunning. IMHO, no Epic with EF mount will be complete without the 70-200 2.8 II. Ask Jarred how well it works on an Epic. The 16-35 II is my most used lens. It's an absolute workhorse, and very sharp. I never leave home without it.

Julio, I would also like to suggest that you take a look at the EF 14mm 2.8 prime. Probably half the major landscape shots on my most recent reel Rapture were shot on the 14. It's stunning. The difference between 16 and 14 might not seem like much, until the camera starts moving. Then you notice a beautiful warping around the edges. It helps to "sell" your moves. I love it.

One thing that is important to consider is that many of the people coming from a cinema-heavy background will tell you to always choose a prime over a zoom. In cinema, this is true. But in the stills world, it is not always true. For example, the Nikon 14-24 will smoke ANY prime in any focal length from 14 to 24. It will in fact beat the Canon 14 prime overall, I have been told. The Canon 70-200 and the Nikon 70-200 are examples of super high quality glass in a zoom body.

Leaving aside the speed of the lenses, I would love to see comparison of the Canon 85mm 1.2 and the Canon 70-200 2.8 II. I bet the 70-200 will smoke it. And keep in mind that the 85 1.2 is possibly Canon's finest fast lens. I tested the 85 1.2 against a Panavision Primo and the Canon smoked it.

Of course, all of this advice is coming from a guy who shoots much more outdoor/nature stuff than cinema, so take this with a grain of salt. :beer:

I should add that I do not have experience with the 11-16, so I can't say anything about it.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Well said Tom,

also not to forget a very important aspect of this renewed lens, the IS, which works on Epic!!

An the new 4 Stops will give a very good assistance when shooting hand held.

I have owned every 70-200 since the original, and this new version is siply the best by far of all 70-200, and not only in the Canon line up.

[Tom Lowe]

Well said Tom,

also not to forget a very important aspect of this renewed lens, the IS, which works on Epic!!

An the new 4 Stops will give a very good assistance when shooting hand held.

I have owned every 70-200 since the original, and this new version is siply the best by far of all 70-200, and not only in the Canon line up.

I mean, seriously, I don't know if I just happen to have a really good copy of this 70-200 or what, but this lens blows away anything else in my Canon bag. The first time I put it on my 5D2 and hit the x10 digital zoom focus-check button, my jaw hit the floor. None of my other lenses are even close. Laforet had the same reaction.

[Stephen Pruitt]

Tom. . .

I will bet you that the 85mm f1.2 will win any head-to-head image competition with the 70-200mm set at 85mm. The bokeh on the zooms is quite inferior compared to that of the great L-series primes. And with respect to sharpness, the 70-200mm does not compare to the 135mm f2, which is probably the sharpest lens Canon has ever made. That thing is a razor, and it has bokeh to die for, as well.

To me, the main things I look for in a lens are speed and bokeh. The 16-35 (2.8) is slow as molasses compared to the 24mm (1.4). I just sold mine since I never used it except for exterior steadycam work, and I just had to sell my Actioncam to raise money to finish our current feature. I do not miss the focal lengths between 16 and 24 for my own features, but I suppose I wouldn't mind a great Canon L-series 20mm prime at 1.4. In general, I'll use the 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses for at least 90% (frankly, probably closer to 95%) of the shots in our features. I do not like a wide lens except for special effects shots.

My own set is as follows:

Tokina 11-16 (2.8) (used only for special effects or car interiors)
Canon 24mm L II (1.4) (used maybe 5% of the time)
Canon 35mm L (1.4) (used maybe 30% of the time)
Canon 50mm L (1.2) (used probably 35% of the time)
Canon 85mm L II (1.2) (used probably 25% of the time)
Canon 100mm macro L (2.8) (used only for special effects macro work)
Canon 135mm L (2) (used only when the 85mm won't get us close enough)
Canon 200mm L II (2.8) (used only on the very rare super long shots we do)

Tossing out the 100mm macro (used only for special macro work), each of these lenses is almost exactly a factor of 1.5X from the next widest lens. I find that moves between these lenses cut very well.

Now, I'll admit that I'm giving up the obvious speed of shooting of a zoom for speed of glass and better bokeh, but we use a very distinctive, very slow style of filmmaking where the preference is on using as much available/practical light as possible. We'll typically shoot our features over periods of between 4 and 6 months each, so saving time is not a real consideration for us, and this clearly has an impact upon the lenses we keep in the case.

In addition, I find any lens slower than f2 almost totally unusable for interiors at night. Indeed, in most of our interior shooting (day or night), we are wide-open even at f1.4. An f2.8 lens is just pretty much unusable for us except for daytime exteriors or for specially lit shots. Finally, it should be noted, we ONLY use these lenses on our M-X RED. We don't even own a Canon stills camera. If we were using a Canon stills camera like a 5/7D, we might feel very differently about the zooms.

Of course, your mileage may vary, as Tom's clearly does.

Stephen

[Jarred Land]

Great post Stephen. Agree 100% with the 85L comment.. Thats my favorite lens even though i must say the new 70-200mm is a lens that probably sits on my camera more than any other... the old version was great, but that new zoom is incredible.

[Tom Lowe]

Stephen, I understand your points. Like I said, my style of projects and shooting are a lot different from most of the cinema shooters here. I can understand why you like those faster primes. Julio and I just worked on a project, however, that was nearly 100% wide-angle, deep focus. So we all come from different points of view.

Just curious if you've had a chance to play with the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II?

In terms of bokeh, don't count out the newer zooms. This was taken with a new Nikon 70-200 (not by me):

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/1332/deerbokeh.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll87/Aka_Hakurei/bowdown.gif http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll87/Aka_Hakurei/bowdown.gif http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll87/Aka_Hakurei/bowdown.gif http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll87/Aka_Hakurei/bowdown.gif

[paul engstrom]

The 85 is ridiculously good lens...and I want the 70-200. They're both awesome. What's wrong with having both of them?

Julio -- thanks for the news re: the new 12mm Master Prime -- hadn't realized they had done that -- the size in the picture pretty much makes the point though: even bigger than a regular Master Prime :).

the 17-55 is a very, very good lens with Image Stabilization and exceptional, L level optics. You could shoot an entire film on that lens. I prefer it to the 16-35 and 24-70 combination, which are also excellent lenses. That would be the other option I would consider vs the 16-35.

[Justin McAleece]

Forget the 70-200 and just pick up the 135mm f2 and the 200mm f2.8. Why go zooms when you can go primes?

But be careful with the 135mm. I had to search a long time to get one where the image didn't shift left to right as I racked focus back and forth. But let me tell you, it is one unbelievable lens. The 200 is also gorgeous.

Oh, and take the advice: The 100mm macro L-Series is a GORGEOUS lens. Just wish it was twice the price and twice the speed.

Finally, dump the 16-35mm. You won't use it very much between the Tokina and the 24 (both of which are terrific, terrific lenses).

Stephen

Have you ever used the newest gen IS on the 70-200 Stephen? It's crazy good and you'll find so many situations that it will help you out that I would never want to be without it.

[Vincent Thomas]

Anyone else could comment about the new Nikon 14-24? Any great adaptater with aperture ring to use on canon system? How is focus ring?

I'm close to replace my old 70-200 for the new one but so great this lens could be, most of the scene i shoot are below that range so a 80 or 85 1.4 maybe better?
If only a stabilized 24-70L II could came out...

[Tom Lowe]

The Nikon 14-24 is fabulous. You can get Canon EF adapters for it, but if you are getting an Epic with an EF mount, you might want to be able to use the electronic features of a lens, and the Nikon G 14-24 adapters are strictly manual, not electronic.

In other words, you would not be able to use the REDMOTE to control a Nikon lens on a Canon mount.

[Paul Leeming]

Great thread!

One note as a previous owner of the beautiful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens: it is optically gorgeous but the zoom mechanics do leave something to be desired when used on a Red.

I sold it when I moved to full frame photography BTW, not because of that issue (which is minor unless you want to zoom while rolling).

It also sounds like I really need to get a hold of the EF70-200mm f/2.8L MkII IS USM lens Tom!! :D And I love my MkI version!!

My picks for a cinema narrative set would be as follows:

EF14mm f/2.8L USM
EF24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF35mm f/1.4L USM
EF50mm f/1.2L USM
EF85mm f/1.2L II USM
EF135mm f/2L USM
EF200mm f/2.8L II USM

That's all primes though - for flexibility in zooms I'd go with the following:

EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM (fingers crossed Canon releases a MkII IS version of this lens soon!)
EF70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM

Constant f2.8 aperture across the range which is more than sufficient for all but the most low light situations.

As it is, I usually stop down to f2.8 or f4 on my primes for sharpness and ease-of-focus-pulling. Mysterium-X is a phenomenal sensor on the Red One and it's only going to get even cleaner with the Epic's 16bit pathway!

HTH

Paul

[Stephen Pruitt]

I have never used IS on anything, and cannot imagine wanting to do so for our shooting. If I want a hand-held look, it would just defeat the purpose (fighting against it). If I was up on sticks, what good would it do me? Again, we don't do stills (or docs or commercials or anything else). We're strictly a RED/features shop.

But that is one very nice shot of the deer, Tom. . . very nice. But that lens is just so darn slow. Maybe I just need a bigger light kit (which, given what we have, seems unlikely). I think what I really need is just a different style of shooting or a Canon DSLR to go play with!

Nah. I think I'll wait for my Stage 3 Epic.

:-)

Thanks, guys.

Stephen

[Tim Lüdin]

Hi guys. I'm with Tom on this one also. The new 70-200 is a killer lens.
As sharp as hell with a very good autofocus performance. The 14-24 nikon realy smokes all lenses in that range including the primes. This is the uber lens.

Stephen you are right, the 130 f2 is razer. I own and love it. I'm also luky to have one that works with my RED. No image shift an such.
I use the Birger Mount a lot and it works just fine.

So that leaves me with the most important question for most of us.
What about the RED Pro Mote. Is it ready, when will it be ready?
I really really hope the thing will be there with the first big Epic batch.
I own just about every Canon L-lens up to 200mm. The RED Promote would solve all my lens problems in a second. I would like to buy the new RED automatic Lenses but we all kinda know, that we wont see any let's say for a long time to come. No offense. :ihih:

It also would make things easier for RED to have it ready right at the start of Epic. Nobody wants to buy a REDmote because the Promote isn't ready and later sell the REDmote and ...you all know what I mean. And everybody will ask Jim to make specials for not getting the Promote at first and the make special trad-ins etc etc.

So the RED Promote will be the greatest thing since hot cakes and it will also sell like them.

So Jarred, how far is the Promote in your development? Could you give us some infos? :thumbup:

With best regards

Tim

[Roberto Lequeux]

Just want to add a vote to the 24-70mm f/2.8L being only great to OK. There is a lot of room for improvement. Probably like the new and prior 70-200mm. I was expecting much more, but then again it is one of the more affordable f/2.8 L zooms.

[Julio Quintana]

Julio and I just worked on a project, however, that was nearly 100% wide-angle, deep focus. So we all come from different points of view.

That particular director has had a pretty profound influence on me, and I now find myself wanting to shoot everything on an 18 or 21mm Master Prime! But I would settle for a sharp, fast 18mm Canon if one exists.

I agree with Stephen that f2.8 is just too slow for a lot of night work. There's nothing more frustrating than wanting to shoot a wide shot of a street at night, but you have to use a 50mm because it's too dark. So I guess that means I'm leaning more towards primes. We'll see.

[Thomas Church]

Instead of getting a truckload of Canon L Prime Glass I'd rather get a RED 17-50, personally.

[Tom Lowe]

That particular director has had a pretty profound influence on me, and I now find myself wanting to shoot everything on an 18 or 21mm Master Prime! But I would settle for a sharp, fast 18mm Canon if one exists.

I agree with Stephen that f2.8 is just too slow for a lot of night work. There's nothing more frustrating than wanting to shoot a wide shot of a street at night, but you have to use a 50mm because it's too dark. So I guess that means I'm leaning more towards primes. We'll see.

To me, this is why I am hopeful that the EOS and PL mounts can truly be changed "in the field" without too much trouble. When it comes to wide-angle, fast lenses, there simply aren't any in the mainstream Canon and Nikon world. My idea is to have both mounts, and use PL glass for super-wide, fast lenses. Maybe just get one, like a 14mm MP, for example.

Trouble is, that one prime will cost more than the entire Canon lens lineup.

[Julio Quintana]

Instead of getting a truckload of Canon L Prime Glass I'd rather get a RED 17-50, personally.

I would LOVE to buy the RED 17-50. In fact, my original plan was to buy the whole RED Pro Prime set. But these are the two options as I see them:

RED/PL Lens Package - $26,300
Duclos 11-16mm f2.8 PL Mount_______$3,500
RED PP 18mm f1.9 w/ set discount_____$3,800
RED PP Set (25, 35, 50, 85, 100)______$19,000

Pros-
1. Pro quality focus gears and markings
2. Uniform f-stop and (mostly) uniform size
3. 18mm available
4. They look bad ass (that's worth something)

Cons-
1. Big and heavy
2. More than twice the cost of Canon
3. No full frame (Monstro) coverage
4. No electronic mount control (touch focus, iris, etc.)

Canon Lens Package - $9700 (this includes $250/lens for the Duclos Cine-Mod)
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8_______$850
Canon 24mm f1.4L II_______$2050
Canon 35mm f1.4L_________$1650
Canon 50mm f1.2L_________$1850
Canon 85mm f1.2L II_______$2050
Canon 135mm f2__________$1250

Pros-
1. Affordable
2. Small and light weight
3. Full frame coverage for future RED brains
4. Electronic mount control using Redmote or touch screen
5. Faster f-stop in most cases (f1.4 vs. f1.9)
6. Can be rented out as "B-Cam" lenses for 5D/7D (ugh...)

Cons-
1. Completely unusable focus marks
2. No 18mm prime (that's huge for me)
3. Extremely inconsistent sizes and slightly varying f-stops

That's pretty much all I can think of. For my uses, the Canon's seem to prevail after looking at this list. But if someone needs professional focus marks no matter what, than all the other points are irrelevant and the RED lenses are the better choice. I'd love to hear if someone else has anything to add to these lists.

Julio

[Roberto Lequeux]

I don't like the idea of having to shoot multiple setups in narrative with mix-matched lenses, because in the end you either get mix-matched looking shots or a bigger bill from coloring. Most likely a combination of the two, unless you have the right artist and/or budget. Even shooting with certain "great" sets of still primes will be tricky. I am not saying this is the Canon prime case as I have never shot with Canon primes yet.

When you are inter-cutting like you do in narrative saving on optics is a big liability. I know DITs can set up looks for each lens to compensate a bit in the metadata, especially if shooting RAW. But you are also spending money on rentals right there for him to have everything at his disposal. They can match based on actual footage, but charts and other apples to apples tests make matching faster, easier and more accurate. And you will still need to tweak in post in certain situations, or at least wonder if something you are seeing is from the lens or something else.

I see spending on top-shelf primes as a smart investment, very smart. It saves time and money once you hit a certain budget sweet-spot. You also need to factor in the ability to shoot at wider apertures while still getting a sharp and contrasty image to the sensor, which in certain situations will end up saving you piles of money on G&E, and schedule which translates to a massively wise investment.

0.02

[Julio Quintana]

As a glass connoisseur just get the RPPs and thank everyone later :001_smile:

There is really nothing else close in this price range, specially if you like fast modern lenses that are well supported by the vendor.

Either that or get Master Primes or Leica Summilux-C and be done with it.

RPPs are beautiful lenses and you will love them as your own children. I don't own them, but had a pleasure to use them. Yes, Master Primes are nicer (faster, sharper, less distortion, better build, etc..), but not that much nicer. Jim Hare and I used both on the same shoot and they cut nicely. You'd be hard pressed to tell which one was which.
And then there are posts like these that make me feel crazy for wanting to put still glass on the best camera ever created :willy_nilly:. Can somebody who has worked with both weigh in on the RPP vs. Canon debate? Which are likely to rent more with a small Epic package? Are the electronic controls a huge plus on the Canon side?

[Tom.Wong]

breathing
contrast
fine focus
matched set (they don't produce canon lenses as "sets" on the factor line, you get them made at different times, they aren't matched as closely as a matched pl prime set in most cases)
lack of versatility on going on other cameras. PL is a relatively cheap mounting standard. electronics mounts aren't...

sheer simplicity in less electronic components? glitches do happen, as rare as anybody claims them to be.



there are a lot of reasons why people will still choose PL glass like RPP's over canon electronic lenses, both sides ultimately have amazing strengths. sharpness of a lens isn't the only factor.

[OptiTek]

And then there are posts like these that make me feel crazy for wanting to put still glass on the best camera ever created :willy_nilly:. Can somebody who has worked with both weigh in on the RPP vs. Canon debate? Which are likely to rent more with a small Epic package? Are the electronic controls a huge plus on the Canon side?

As everyone (including manufacturers) is struggling to shave weight off cameras to the point of getting into "camera diet wars" the lenses keep getting bigger and heavier. Kind of strange really...
I personally think that short range wide zooms such as Angies or Zeiss LWZ are the way to go. smaller than primes yet replace several... The stop is not so crucial with new sensors and HDR anyway....

[Julio Quintana]

The stop is not so crucial with new sensors and HDR anyway....

Not to undermine your point, but people keep saying that fast lenses aren't as critical with the new sensors, but nobody talks about how much light is required to shoot at 120fps. Yes, the sensors are faster, but to really make the most of the Epic, I think we will need every bit of light we can get.

[Roberto Lequeux]

I am still thinking of the (lighter and smaller) Leica T1.4's. All that and what's going to be the sickest barrel design ever. Oh yea, and Leica glass.

:willy_nilly:

[Julio Quintana]

I am still thinking of the (lighter and smaller) Leica T1.4's. All that and what's going to be the sickest barrel design ever. Oh yea, and Leica glass.

:willy_nilly:

Aren't those priced somewhere between Master Primes and Ultra Primes? I'm sure they're fantastic, but if I could afford them, I definitely wouldn't be hunting for an 18mm Canon lens!

[paul engstrom]

In my market neither the Canon nor the RPP would be considered especially attractive rentals. Angenieux, Cooke and Zeiss -- in that order -- are the attractive rentals here.

Personally, I see the Canon and PL mounts as facilitating 2 different goals for my camera.

For features and work where actors are hitting marks I prefer PL lenses with abundant lens marks and smooth mechanics. In my opinion, still lenses, even nice ones with sophisticated electronic ff (like Birger mount) or with generous focus throws like Zeiss mechanical lenses, are inferior to their cinema brethren for the purpose of making feature films. My preferred stop for these types of projects is somewhere between T2.8 and T4 because generally speaking, faces don't look that good at T1.3 -- there are almost always focus problems that distract from the story at T1.3. As a result, there are a few really good ways to go on PL lenses right now and I think a few more viable alternatives still materializing. With the PL lenses I don't care if they wont cover a full frame sensor because the 5k S35 Epic will be an ideal narrative camera for a good number of years.

The Canon mount is a different story. For documentary work, 2nd unit shooting, commercials and pretty much any other type of shooting I can think of, the Canon mount has been AWESOME. For reasonable amounts of money I have been able to assemble a group of lenses covering me from 10mm to 600mm with excellent optics, with image stabilizers, that are lightweight, hold their resale very well, etc. etc. I've found it very easy to borrow random lenses for special circumstances with this set up too. When I get my full frame EPIC -- and eventually the 645 Epic, these still lenses and/or whatever special lenses RED makes will likely be the main lenses--because I will tend to use these cameras for the non-feature filming that I enjoy doing.

Point is: I fully intend to have both still and PL mounts and to freely swap them on my Epic. I intend to have and use PL lenses for features and to have and use still lenses for everything else.

[Julio Quintana]

Thank you Paul. That is actually very helpful. Maybe the best option for me is to own a good set of Canon glass for the "everything else" scenarios, and just rent PL glass when doing narrative work.

Are you RPP owners feeling that you are getting regular rentals from them? Or are most renters likely to choose a set of Super Speeds instead?

[paul engstrom]

Superspeeds over the RPP up here. I would think this would vary with which market you're in though.

Problem #1 was that the first RPP to hit Vancouver had mediocre quality control and therefore instantly gained a bad reputation--this after the mediocre reception of the original RED zoom lens (which wasn't a particularly nice lens for ACs). I'm under the impression the quality has improved since then.
Problem #2 is that Vancouver is inherently more conservative on cinema equipment/art than a place like LA. New things are embraced a touch slower here than down there.

You would really need to look at your own market. Personally, I wouldn't spend $40k on superspeeds. I am considering the RED primes--I really just wish that they were lighter.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Yea, they are up there with MPs and 5i's. I was thinking rental. Unfortunately they sound like they will come out in extremely low quantities so they won't be easy to get a hold of for a while even after they are out.

While not meant for motion, the Canons are amazing if you consider their price and IQ. Not trying to compare them, just wanted to point out that there will be a small, light AND fast set that will deliver top shelf IQ. At ~25k a pop, unfortunately.

[paul engstrom]

I just read elsewhere on here that Jarred had tried the 17-55 on the Epic and it vignetted severely -- so do NOT consider that lens for your 5k purposes!!

[Julio Quintana]

The EF-S 17-55 will vignette full frame 5K for sure.. I tried. Same with the 18-200mm EF-S ( tried that one as well )

The electronics, as expected, do work, but they all clip every corner anything under 40mm at full 5K.

Here is the quote Paul is talking about. So the 17-55mm is a no-go on Epic. Thanks for pointing that out, Paul.

[OptiTek]

Not to undermine your point, but people keep saying that fast lenses aren't as critical with the new sensors, but nobody talks about how much light is required to shoot at 120fps. Yes, the sensors are faster, but to really make the most of the Epic, I think we will need every bit of light we can get.
I can't tell for sure but with extremely shallow DOF at low apertures it may be very difficult to shoot fast moving objects. Can anybody with real life experience comment? What stops are common for HS shooting?

[Roberto Lequeux]

That is a real shame about the 17-55mm. Unless in my optics physics ignorance I don't know that its design will be a big stepping stone for the design of a new zoom which could cover 5k and have a slightly longer focal range. Though it seems the 18-85 would be a bit more useful, with the wide end cut short a bit.

What were the focal length ranges for the electronic Red zooms?

[Andrew Walker]

There is a 20mm f1.8 Sigma but it is an APS-c format lens and it's unclear at this point what these will or will not cover.
On Abel format roundup it seems to cover but Jarred said the opposite about some other lenses. It would be nice to know what the actual recordable area on the 5K Epic is.... :thumbup:h


The Sigma 20mm f1.8 is a full frame lens. I use it a lot on my 5D2 and it looks great and is a fairly cheap lens considering the speed and focal length.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Sounds like a very nice option. How is the focusing feel, and how long is the throw? Any breathing?

Close focus of 7.9 inches (20cm) and f/1.8 is pretty impressive for shallow DoF needs. It would be useful for creating distance between objects if you wanted to seem far away in interiors and completely OOF... what have you. Look at this sample from the review on The Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Sigma-20mm-f-1.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx) and crop in with whatever the factor is for 5k (~x1.8?) to get an idea: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2006-08-12_18-47-36&Title=Looking-Down-on-a-Red-Cosmo

However this is a bit worrisome (also from the review on The Digital Picture):

At f/2.8, the Sigma is sharper in the center than the Canon 20mm, but the Canon easily wins the corner competition even on a 1.6x FOVCF body at all apertures. My Sigma is worse on the right side than the left (the ISO 12233 chart mid and corner crops are from the right side), but the difference is not enough to merit much thought. Sigma's own MTF chart even indicates miserable performance outside the center. The corner problem seems to lie in the Sigma having a significantly curved plane of sharp focus - which I suppose no longer qualifies as a "plane". I am able to get reasonably sharp corners when the Sigma 20mm lens is stopped down, but the sharp areas are not close to the primary plane of sharp focus. At f/4, the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens is sharp in the center and even sharper in the center at f/5.6. Below f/8, the corners are terrible.

If you set his 100% crop comparison application to compare against a lens you know well, you'll be able to see that the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 has bad corners even when stopped down to f/5.6. f/8 looks a bit nicer.

So shooting a pattern that covered from middle to the edges wide open, or something with high frequency detail all over, and I'd start to worry... Of course many subjects won't show it to be a problem, and you may even love the way it pulls you to the center. But worth noting.

Good sample to look at corners: http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/sigma_20mm_1-8_review/sigma_20_1-8_sample-large.jpg
Unfortunately there is quite a bit of noise in the image, but I would say this one also has a bit softer corners on the left.

Other than that is seems there is "only" some CA, and it flares a bit too much.

Probably some necessary evils considering the speed and lenght, and its price! But I don't think I would buy one for inter-cutting narrative with other sharper and all around better lenses like the L's. It seems it might stick out a bit too much unless you blurred the corners on the others, even if you used the 20mm stopped down. Then again, you might need a fast 20mm at some point, and if you do... $520 at B&H... mhhh...

[OptiTek]

The Sigma 20mm f1.8 is a full frame lens. I use it a lot on my 5D2 and it looks great and is a fairly cheap lens considering the speed and focal length.
It's better than I thought then. I have a 30mm f1.4 and it's a great EF-s lens...
and 20 for a full frame? strange...

[Andrew Walker]

It's better than I thought then. I have a 30mm f1.4 and it's a great EF-s lens...
and 20 for a full frame? strange...

Maybe they make one for the smaller sensor but the one I have works great on the 5D2. Can't wait to get it on Epic as its super sharp on the RED MX.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Maybe they make one for the smaller sensor but the one I have works great on the 5D2. Can't wait to get it on Epic as its super sharp on the RED MX.

4.5k M-X doesn't get into the soft part of the image circle as much. Though 5k will do so only a bit more and will still avoid the corners we see in samples taken with FF35. Yea... forgot about that... mhhhhhh....

Could you please post an M-X sample and tell us a bit about the focus ring?

[Stephen Pruitt]

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 (we had the Nikon version) is a KILLER lens. Just terrific! I'd like to see the 20mm f1.8 in person. I'd like it if it wasn't too soft.

Anyone really have this lens to try it out?

Stephen

[Roberto Lequeux]

I hope I didn't screw up the math on this quick mock-up, but I think this is about what Epic will use. Which seems like it would basically be the sweet spot of the lens and little else.

Look at the original sample from Juza Nature Photography (http://www.juzaphoto.com/) to judge IQ and pixel peep, which can be found here: http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/sigma_20mm_1-8_review/sigma_20_1-8_sample-large.jpg (make sure to click on it to zoom in)

Wish there wasn't so much noise on it.

[Julio Quintana]

So are people thinking this lens would cut well with the rest of the Canon L-Series? If so, this is a pretty decent little package:

Canon Lens Package - $10450 (this includes $250/lens for the Duclos Cine-Mod)
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8_______$850
Sigma 20mm f1.8__________$750
Canon 24mm f1.4L II_______$2050
Canon 35mm f1.4L_________$1650
Canon 50mm f1.2L_________$1850
Canon 85mm f1.2L II_______$2050
Canon 135mm f2__________$1250

Very fast, very light, with full electronic controls with the Epic Canon mount. All with de-clicked irises and focus gears installed by Sir Duclos himself.
My only concern is with the Sigma 20mm is that apparently when you switch the lens to auto focus, it disengages the focus wheel and lets it spin freely. Do you guys think that might be a problem if you want to use auto focus but still be able to use the follow focus in shot? How do you deal with that?

[OptiTek]

This is going to be pretty hard since none of these lenses have iris. Gears will not be necessary either since the Redmote pro will let you pull focus.
Really the Red system is made for off the shelf lenses...

[Paul Nordin]

it disengages the focus wheel and lets it spin freely. Do you guys think that might be a problem if you want to use auto focus but still be able to use the follow focus in shot? How do you deal with that?

Unfortunately, thats what all the Canon lenses do as well...freely spin, no min-max focus stops. Its the sinlgle biggest issue when using these lenses to capture motion pictures. The most common way I've dealt with this is to buy a FF or a wireless FF which allows you to set hard stops just short of infinity an min-focus. In my case I use a Bartech digital wireless FF. My 1AC has to grip the lens gears when the focus motor goes through its self calibration just as the lens hits infinity and again as it hits min-focus. Its a kludge of massive proportions and takes several tries before he is happy. But is works.

Cheers,
Paul

[Julio Quintana]

This is going to be pretty hard since none of these lenses have iris. Gears will not be necessary either since the Redmote pro will let you pull focus.
Really the Red system is made for off the shelf lenses...

Yikes! I didn't realize that. So we would be completely relying on the new Canon mount to smoothly control the iris while we're shooting? Does that make anyone else nervous? I'm so used to operating manual lenses myself and just adjusting the iris gear while rolling, I think it would be weird to have to go into a menu to change that. Well, I really have to say that for me, that is one more strong argument for the Red Pro primes. Maybe I just need to embrace this whole DSLR thing, but this just doesn't feel as professional to me all of the sudden.

[Julio Quintana]

Unfortunately, thats what all the Canon lenses do as well...freely spin, no min-max focus stops... My 1AC has to grip the lens gears when the focus motor goes through its self calibration just as the lens hits infinity and again as it hits min-focus. Its a kludge of massive proportions and takes several tries before he is happy. But is works.

Okay, now these lenses really don't feel like they are worth $10,000 to me.

[Stephen Pruitt]

They are amazing lenses. . . no doubt about it. But they do entail compromises. . . just like everything else in life.

As for us, we are Canon and will stay Canon. . . and will have very, very few regrets.

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

As far as I know, the iris motors in Canon lenses are small stepper motors that only move in large increments, like f/1.4 to f/1.6 to f/1.8 to f/2 to f/2.8 or whatever the stops are. It's not like a declicked manual iris you can pull in the middle of a shot. Maybe Jarred can give us some idea about how smooth these iris pulls are in the middle of a shot?

[Julio Quintana]

As far as I know, the iris motors in Canon lenses are small stepper motors that only move in large increments, like f/1.4 to f/1.6 to f/1.8 to f/2 to f/2.8 or whatever the stops are. It's not like a declicked manual iris you can pull in the middle of a shot.

Stephen, I'm sure these lenses can produce some awesome images, but these little details would probably be enough for me to not want to use my own lenses for my own projects!

I would love to hear what Jarred thinks about the electronic controls on the new Canon mount.

[Roberto Lequeux]

From reviews it seems the 20mm has an overly loud focus motor... so not a good option for dialogue if focused wirelessly it with the RedMote's capabilities, and that is if turned out to have smooth focusing action, and if Red took it upon themselves to include it in their long list to program (which I guess it would mean it is a pretty bad-ass lens in of itself).

Let's also keep in mind that there will be some differences in the T-Stops of these, even if they are all equal aperture primes from the same company and line up, even at different focal lengths of some aperture-constant zooms. The 24-70mm L is significantly brighter on the wide end.

[paul engstrom]

The iris on the Canon lenses cannot be "de-clicked". The stops are broken down into 1/3rd increments, which are noticeable when stop up or down. So you really can't pull iris with them.

Again, for narrative -- most people will find it best to spend another $10K and get a PL mount RED set or set of Zeiss standard speeds or zoom/prime combo or, etc. etc.

But...you can film a feature on Canon still lenses and get excellent results provided you have an open minded Director, DP and 1st AC (that won't ask for iris pulls and that understand you can't shoot 18mm faster than 2.8).

[paul engstrom]

If you're really interested in using Canon lenses on feature films talk to Stephen Pruitt; he's doing his 2nd feature on them right now--a 2 camera shoot I think. My impression is that the lenses/Birger mount/Impero FF have worked very, very well.

[paul engstrom]

re: lens motor noise. I have a pretty large hunch that the Sigma lens would still be quieter than a Bartech or Preston--in other words, fine for our purposes. If I'm not mistaken, the Sigma 20mm covers full frame while the Sigma 30mm only covers the smaller APc size (it is an EPs type lens). Both are supposed to be pretty good. I have no idea how they cut with the Canon lenses.

[Julio Quintana]

If you're really interested in using Canon lenses on feature films talk to Stephen Pruitt; he's doing his 2nd feature on them right now--a 2 camera shoot I think. My impression is that the lenses/Birger mount/Impero FF have worked very, very well.

I have shot an entire feature film on my RED with Nikons, and it's manageable. But at least those Nikons were all manual. Electronic irises and free spinning focus wheels just feel sketchy to me on a zero compromise digital cinema camera. I don't know. I do admire that Stephen is producing awesome content with them. I'm sure this is a great alternative for a lot of people out there.

[Julio Quintana]

Hey guys. I can't seem to find this info anywhere. Exactly how much do the various RED Pro Primes weigh?

[Alexander Christ]

My guess is there will be programmable hard stops with the REDMOTE Pro and RED Canon Mount, this feature already comes with the Impero/ Birger combo. With the Impero the focus throw is 360°, 720° or 1440°.

[Alexander Christ]

Hey guys. I can't seem to find this info anywhere. Exactly how much do the various RED Pro Primes weigh?

Tech Specs: http://www.red.com/products/lenses

[Roberto Lequeux]

They are about as heavy as Master Primes (http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/master_primes.html#_blank). But I wouldn't worry about that if you plan to use them with Epic.

The only thing to keep in mind is that you will need to balance it out with something in the back for shoulder work. That won't be hard at all.

They will be heavy for long takes hand held a'la DSLR, but I think still very manageable for those shots if you feel the need.

[joshua csehak]

the 17-55 is a very, very good lens with Image Stabilization and exceptional, L level optics. You could shoot an entire film on that lens.

100% agree. At $1k, prolly best bang for the buck out there (well, maybe besides the $99 1.8). The only thing I'm not crazy about is the bokeh (see attached). And of course, it's pretty annoying that it doesn't fit on my FF camera.


One note as a previous owner of the beautiful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens: it is optically gorgeous but the zoom mechanics do leave something to be desired when used on a Red.


How so? You mean the barrel sticking out getting in the way of a matte box?

[Tom Lowe]

A little off topic here, but can anyone tell me what it would cost by buy a Master Prime 14mm or 12mm?

[Tom.Wong]

a Master Prime costs from 20k to 30k a lens, somewhere in between there. It's on the Abel site for certain lenses. The 12 and 14 mm should be closer to 30k.

[Tom Lowe]

Sorry, another slightly off topic question: will the 12mm Master Prime cover the Epic X's sensor?

[Tom.Wong]

Sorry, another slightly off topic question: will the 12mm Master Prime cover the Epic X's sensor?

educated guess, i know for a fact all the master primes 16 mm and up cover epics 30 mm sensor, and an ultra prime 10 mm covers it too (31 mm) so I see no reason why a 12 mm master prime wouldn't cover it...

[Tom.Wong]

http://web.me.com/ducloslenses/DataRef/ImgCir.html

doesn't have the 12 mm, but again, if all the ultra primes even at 10 mm cover it, and every other Master prime covers it, i see no reason why the 12 mm MP won't. it won't exactly be much of a matched set...

[Tom Lowe]

Hhhmmm. Seems like something worth looking into. I think Pawel has said that the 14mm MP will cover Epic X. One thing about Epic X to consider is that it can overcrank to 96 - 120 at full res, so the need for ultra-wide lenses is not as great as it is for the Red One. Right now, if you want to overcrank the Red One to 3K, for example, you need a super wide lens to get a wide lens effect. Not so with the Epic X. Perhaps a 14mm MP would do.

But I still find myself in this position where it seems like the best bet is to have both EF and PL mounts on hand. I just hope the process to switch them is easy.

[Tom.Wong]

well there are plenty of optics that will be wide, and sharp for your needs, EF or PL otherwise. but the real question is, how important is that t1.3? that would be the reason for getting a MP IMHO.

[Tom Lowe]

Exactly. There are fast, high-quality lenses available for Canon and Nikon mounts from 24mm up (although there is some coma on the new Canon 24mm 1.4 Maybe the Nikon 24 1.4 is better?). For me, the lens I would really be missing from a Canon/Epic kit would be one wide, fast lens, thus my interest in the 12mm or 14mm Master Primes.

This is probably going to sound crazy, but I wonder if it would be worthwhile to consider having a 12mm MP converted to Canon EF mount?? The lens would obviously only work as a manual lens, but then I could also use the 12mm MP on my Canon DSLR cameras for astro timelapse! One concern I would have, though, is that the EF mount is very flimsy and the MPs are very heavy. I don't know if the 5D2 body (or an Epic X with Canon mount) would even support a Master Prime without rod support?

[Julio Quintana]

Tech Specs: http://www.red.com/products/lenses

Thanks Alexander. Holy crap, 6.45 lbs for the 18mm RPP? That really is huge.


They are about as heavy as Master Primes (http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/master_primes.html#_blank). But I wouldn't worry about that if you plan to use them with Epic.

An 18mm Master Prime only weighs 4.85 lbs. Robert, I agree that the extra weight will be less problematic on the Epic, but even though the Epic brain is half the weight of the RED ONE body (5 lbs vs. 10), that still only shaves 5 lbs off the overall weight of a complete kit.

This size question takes the discussion in a new direction for me. The RED Pro 17-50mm f2.8 weighs less than half of the 18mm at 3.2 lbs. So for $6000 you can cover all your wide to medium focal lengths with a professional, light weight PL lens. This seems like a totally decent kit:

RED 17-50mm f2.9______$6000
RED PP 85mm f1.8______$4250

The obvious compromises being the slower f-stop in the wides and the lack of coverage in the extreme wide and telephoto. But the package could eventually be supplemented with something like this:

Duclos 11-16 f2.8_______$3500
RED 17-50 f2.9_________$6000
RED PP 85mm f1.8______$4250
RED PP 100mm f1.8_____$4250
TOTAL________________$18,000

So for $1000 less than the 25-100 RPP set, you get full PL coverage from 11-100mm with lightweight cinema lenses. The only drawback, again, is the slower f-stops in the wides. But that sounds like much less of a compromise than the Canon route.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Add the 25mm RPP.

The 25 is one of the best RPPs, and it will be pretty wide at 5k! You can get quite a bit of usage beyond just long shots out of it. Medium shots work well at 25mm, and you can always crop into the 5k image and get pretty nice loose CUs if you absolutely needed the light and want to avoid the wide angle look. 0.02

[Julio Quintana]

Add the 25mm RPP and you are set. And it is one of the best RPPs. It will be pretty wide for 5k, and you can still get quite a bit of usage beyond just long shots. Medium shots would work very well. And you can always crop in with a 5k image and get pretty nice loose CUs. 0.02

What would be the advantage of the 25mm RPP besides the extra stop? The 25mm is twice the weight so that doesn't help.

[Roberto Lequeux]

That is it. The speed. It is a very sharp lens wide open. Very usable at T1.8. It will be a great performer if you need it.


The only drawback, again, is the slower f-stops in the wides.

I was going off of this. I agree with you.

[Stephen Pruitt]

Yeah, but those slow speeds! I can't imagine shooting at 2.8 all the time. We probably shot half of this new film (and it is, as noted above, a two-camera shoot that is still on-going) at night. We're at f1.2 or f1.4 on almost every shot. In our case, it's either buy fast lenses or buy an enormous amount of new lights. (Rentals aren't an option in our case, as we shoot over such a huge an enormous amount of time.)

But, we certainly do give up the ability to change iris settings during a shot. I wish we could, but we can't.

Wish we had more money!

Stephen

[Roberto Lequeux]

The other route is to get the set you listed and rent fast primes as needed. Probably the best investment as you'll get even faster speeds and lenses that perform as if they weren't wide open.

[Stephen Pruitt]

Rentals just don't work for us at all, Roberto. Our entire budget for our films is in the quarter-million range, and that includes everything. . . cast. . . crew. . . meals. . . insurance. . . etc. And since we shoot over about six months at a time, you can only imagine how quickly rentals like that would consume our budget.

On the other hand, we sure are getting a great look. One national film critic said our first film, "Works in Progress," as "a jewel," and "a marvel," and "may be be one of the best-looking [low-budget] first films ever." And that was before we knew what we were doing. Frankly, the critics won't believe their eyes this time around.

:-)

Would I like a great set of PL-mount lenses? Absolutely? Will I EVER be able to afford one? Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Riches are just not in our future. Not making the kinds of films we're making, anyway.

Stephen

[paul engstrom]

re: hard stops.

The Birger/Impero does NOT have hard stops. I hope the RED solution(s) DO!

[paul engstrom]

Tom:

Re: ease of changing the RED Canon and PL mounts -- I'm pretty sure Jarred has stated this is a very easy swap -- a few allen screws is all it looks like. I'm under the impression it should be no problem to make that swap in the field.

[Alexander Christ]

re: hard stops.

The Birger/Impero does NOT have hard stops. I hope the RED solution(s) DO!

The lens stops, but not the Impero.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Rentals just don't work for us at all, Roberto. Our entire budget for our films is in the quarter-million range, and that includes everything. . . cast. . . crew. . . meals. . . insurance. . . etc. And since we shoot over about six months at a time, you can only imagine how quickly rentals like that would consume our budget.

On the other hand, we sure are getting a great look. One national film critic said our first film, "Works in Progress," as "a jewel," and "a marvel," and "may be be one of the best-looking [low-budget] first films ever." And that was before we knew what we were doing. Frankly, the critics won't believe their eyes this time around.

:-)

Would I like a great set of PL-mount lenses? Absolutely? Will I EVER be able to afford one? Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Riches are just not in our future. Not making the kinds of films we're making, anyway.

Stephen

Of course. I totally get it Stephen. I was only hitting the little rental reminder gong cause it doesn't hurt to hear the ring every so often. : )

Now consider this: Say there is one scene you envisioned that completes the film in an important way. Say to make it happen you will need wider and faster. Say you work on this production hurdle for a long time, and arrive to this decision after meticulous consideration of all possible sets, the way these could be lit to achieve that visual, AND after considering various re-writes... Then say that after considering the rental route you also realized that all you would really only need one MP, for one day (in addition to your great package). Then, say you pull some favors and get someone to let you rent one prime, for one day, at the normal rate. In this scenario you would spend $300 to make the climax magic possible...

...and I would still call it a "rental". ;)

[Steve Das]

Rentals just don't work for us at all, Roberto. Our entire budget for our films is in the quarter-million range, and that includes everything. . . cast. . . crew. . . meals. . . insurance. . . etc. And since we shoot over about six months at a time, you can only imagine how quickly rentals like that would consume our budget.

On the other hand, we sure are getting a great look...

Stephen..wow..great that you're taking advantage of the opportunity
these cameras allow for lower budgeted types of production. Actually
Kubrick did some long scheduled/small crew films as well...
hard work..but very rewarding the times when it finally comes together..

But how do you find it pulling focus with your Canon lenses..?
do the primes perform better w/this than the zooms..?
..also do you have to avoid certain kinds of blocking with your actors
to compensate at all..?

[Derek S.]

16-35/2.8 II is great lens. I would buy it and forget all other lenses from that range. 2.8 is fast enough for that range anyways IMO. Plus you don't have to swap lenses that much.

50/1.2 is overkill IMO. Sure, it has a bit better focusing ring than 1.4, but I would suggest the 1.4. It is sharp and it has great bokeh too. In 1.2 bokeh is a bit better, but not that much as the difference between 1.4 and 1.8. These comments apply to 85/1.2 too.

But if you have money you don't know where to spend otherwise, buy everything L.

[Stephen Pruitt]

Hi there, Steve. . .

We don't have even the tiniest issue with pulling focus with or Canon glass, and we do HUGE pulls all the time. . . I mean, really massive pulls in some cases (say from 20 feet to 1 foot at f1.2), and whereas we miss these pulls a lot of time (due to insufficient marks or just plain old operator error), we NEVER have had an issue with not being able to pull perfect focus when we've got accurate marks and are actually paying attention. This thing just never drifts.

I know they aren't for everyone, but the Canon glass has served us so well and faithfully it's amazing. We used Nikon glass before that, but that glass didn't allow a remote focus puller. With the Birger, that's no issue at all.

I agree, Roberto. . . I like your style. . . I just haven't found the need, to this point, to even covet that great PL glass. Sure my pups breathe a little more than some PL glass, but I actually like breathing under certain circumstances.

I WOULD love to be able to do a smooth iris change, but that doesn't happen very often in our shooting.

Thanks.

Stephen

[Mike Van Laanen]

Sorry if I missed this, but doesn't red have some new zooms coming out that have AF and IS?

[Julio Quintana]

Hey guys. So I went ahead and compiled the potential lens sets that can be used on the Epic. I left off the low end still glass and stuck to RED PL glass since that's the most affordable option. I also took the $250/lens Duclos Cine Mod off of the Canons since they don't have an iris wheel to de-click. Here's what I got:

CANON PRIME SET
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 600
Canon 24mm f1.4L II 1800
Canon 35mm f1.4L 1400
Canon 50mm f1.2L 1600
Canon 85mm f1.2L II 1800
Canon 135mm f2 1000
TOTAL 1
$8,200

CANON ZOOM SET
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 600
Canon 16-35mm f2.8 1400
Canon 24-70mm f2.8 1300
Canon 70-200mm f2.8L II 2250
TOTAL 2
$5,550

PL PRIME SET
Duclos 11-16mm f2.8 PL Mount 3,500
RED Prime 18mm f1.9 3,800
RED Prime Set (25-100mm) f1.9 19,000
TOTAL 3
$26,300

PL ZOOM SET
Duclos 11-16mm f2.8 PL Mount 3,500
RED Pro 17-50mm f2.9 6000
RED 50-150mm f3 8500
TOTAL 4
$18,000

As expected, zooms are significantly cheaper in both cases, and in the PL category, also significantly lighter in weight. And of course, the primes are faster than the zooms in both cases, although in PL lenses it is only 1 stop, whereas with the Canons the primes buy you an extra two stops over the zooms.

[Julio Quintana]

And a Tokina 11-16mm update from Jarred:


The Tokina Hood vignettes at around 12mm.. if you take it off you are fine.

We have Iris control on the 11-16mm already completed as well.

[Roberto Lequeux]

(...)but I actually like breathing under certain circumstances.(...)

Couldn't agree more with you, again. :)

[Julio Quintana]

Sure my pups breathe a little more than some PL glass, but I actually like breathing under certain circumstances.

Interesting. I've never heard that one before.

[Stephen Pruitt]

Hey there, Julio. . . there are a lot of us around here who feel that the whole breathing debate is really overblown. As for me, in cases where I'm moving the emphasis from far to near and the near object increases slightly in size as we pull, I think it really adds to the feel of the shot. It's definitely less effective when you pull to something and the thing pulled to decreases slightly in size, but it honestly has to be a pretty wicked and fast pull to be visible to anyone other than ACs and DPs.

Your table of Canon primes at $9000 (I'm including the 200mm, as well, as that's a great lens, too) versus $26,000 for the RED primes really tells the tale for me. The expense differential is just too great for us at the present time, and that doesn't include the purchase of a remote lens controller, which would cost several thousand dollars more. Unfortunately, there's just no way to control a lens on a big dolly move or up on a jib without a remote controller. And we do those sorts of moves quite often.

Once the RED EF lenses come out, with any luck they'll be at a price point that actually makes sense for this indie filmmaker.

Stephen

[Julio Quintana]

Your table of Canon primes at $9000 (I'm including the 200mm, as well, as that's a great lens, too) versus $26,000 for the RED primes really tells the tale for me...and that doesn't include the purchase of a remote lens controller, which would cost several thousand dollars more. Unfortunately, there's just no way to control a lens on a big dolly move or up on a jib without a remote controller. And we do those sorts of moves quite often.

This is a really good point, and something to definitely take into account. I have yet to ever see a working (or even non-CG) RedMote Pro. Could Jarred chime in as to the progress with this item? And if you guys have a working one, how reliable is it as an electronic follow focus with a Canon mount?

[paul engstrom]

My electronic ff has been pretty reliable.

I would expect RED's to be even more so because they're ff and camera firmware will be from the same vendor (themselves).

[paul engstrom]

It occurs to me that relevant questions for me are:

1. Which PL lenses to the Canon lenses we've been discussing cut best with?
2. Which PL lenses to the following Nikon lenses cut best with: 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200?

[Julio Quintana]

It occurs to me that relevant questions for me are:

1. Which PL lenses to the Canon lenses we've been discussing cut best with?
2. Which PL lenses to the following Nikon lenses cut best with: 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200?

Hey Paul. I'm not sure I understand either of your questions. Is this what you're asking?

1. Which PL lenses cut best with the Canon lenses we've been discussing?
2. Which PL lenses cut best with the following Nikon lenses: 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200?

[paul engstrom]

Yes!! Woops!

I had to run right as I was writing that...

Reason I'm interested is that it might influence how I 'grow' into the PL sets and/or allow for more economical multi-camera shooting.

I'm thinking Canon leans more toward Cooke and that Nikon leans more toward Zeiss. I find it interesting that Angenieuxs are used by everybody--meaning they seem to cut pretty well with Cook and Zeiss. I've heard that RED's primes are tweeners too -- in between. But I've never actually tested how the still lenses are cutting with the PL lenses--been too big a hassle to change the mounts.

[Paul Leeming]

How so? You mean the barrel sticking out getting in the way of a matte box?
Re: 17-55 zoom mechanics - it's not a smooth pull from 17 to 55mm. If you're used to the smooth action of L lenses you won't like the 17-55mm action at all.

I guess the other issue is the barrel moving in and out, but with my RedRockMicro Matte Box and the neoprene rings it's not a problem. Set the lens to maximum extension, fit the neoprene rubber ring around it and into the matte box groove, and you'll have no issues with vignetting at 17mm. Works fine in that regard and the flexible ring ensures no light leakage.

HTH

Paul

[Justin McAleece]

The canon lenses have internal iris stops of 1/2 or 1/3 when on a canon camera body. When on the Birger mount the lenses use quarter stop increments which although small are certainly noticeable

[Sanjin Jukic]

Hhhmmm. Seems like something worth looking into. I think Pawel has said that the 14mm MP will cover Epic X. One thing about Epic X to consider is that it can overcrank to 96 - 120 at full res, so the need for ultra-wide lenses is not as great as it is for the Red One. Right now, if you want to overcrank the Red One to 3K, for example, you need a super wide lens to get a wide lens effect. Not so with the Epic X. Perhaps a 14mm MP would do.

But I still find myself in this position where it seems like the best bet is to have both EF and PL mounts on hand. I just hope the process to switch them is easy.

Tom,

in the case of MP 14mm or even 12mm that can cover Epic 5K I'm pretty skeptical about it.

If you follow the image circle numbers with MPs it rules that wider MP lens you get then the lens image circle is shrinking to a smaller size:

Zeiss Master Prime

16mm 34 Diameter/mm
25mm 35 Diameter/mm
32mm 36 Diameter/mm
50mm 40 Diameter/mm
75mm 42+ Diameter/mm
100mm 42+ Diameter/mm

[joshua csehak]

Re: 17-55 zoom mechanics - it's not a smooth pull from 17 to 55mm. If you're used to the smooth action of L lenses you won't like the 17-55mm action at all.

I think I see what you mean. My L zoom feels smoother, but not by a lot. Neither is anywhere near a Cooke or RPZ.

[keith morton]

you should consider the 100 mm macro too, that lens is WICKED awesome.

I 2nd that!!!!!

[konstantinos stagikas]

So is it confirmed that the epic will have the option of coming with an electronic ef mount ?In that case a dump pl mount adapter should be easy to add on when needed and the option of pl glass remains

Also Julio Quintana you might want to take a look at this:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=297

since you are considering still glass.They have excellent reviews and publish mtf charts for the lenses they test.This particular 35 is full manual does come in canon mount and seems to be better overal than canon's

[Paul Nordin]

One thing to consider when looking at non-Canon lenses for Epic. Jarred has mentioned a few times how they are profiling all the Canon L glass and that is a part of the system approach they are taking with their Red Canon Lens Mount. Getting non-Canon L glass will probably fall outside those lenses they have profiled. I'm not sure how much that will impact performance, but I am guessing it will impact it to some degree.

[konstantinos stagikas]

I do not understand what you are saying exactly.In a fully manual lens that does not have any sort of communication with the body the only connection would be the mechanical mount that should be exactly the same.What am i missing.

[Steve Dent]

You can't overlook the 14mm f2.8 L II Canon lens. We just bought it and it's killer. The lack of distortion and CA are superior to almost anything out there in an ultrawide.

[Stephen Pruitt]

That's one wicked expensive lens, Steve. . .

Have you compared the look of that 14mm to the Tokina at 14mm??? I seldom ever want to be that wide, but I'd love to know the difference.

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

You can't overlook the 14mm f2.8 L II Canon lens. We just bought it and it's killer. The lack of distortion and CA are superior to almost anything out there in an ultrawide.

To me, the EF 14mm 2.8 II has tons of distortion, and is not very sharp. I love the lens, and I use it a lot, but one of the reasons I like it is because of its distortion. It helps to sell the motion of moves, whether crane, dolly, steadicam, etc. The Nikon 14-24 destroys the Canon 14mm in terms of sharpness and image quality.

[Steve Dent]

The optics are obviously superb on the Nikon 14-24 f2.8, no question better than those on the Canon 14 f2.8 II (which are great). But if you're going for a Canon prime set, then you've got to look at the 14. I imagine the OP doesn't want to change his mount or use an adapter, so I assumed a Nikon lens was out of the question. Also, the 14-24 will be NFG on the epic, even with an adapter, until they have an electronic Nikon mount (no manual iris ring).

The Tokina is a great lens, although not FF (yes I know it covers the Epic sensor). Electronically, it's different than the Canon. The OP may not want to gamble on a different lens in his all-Canon L primes set, depending on how well the Epic ends up working electronically with Canon glass. (speed of AF, etc.).

It's expensive, but on par with the other L lenses he's looking at. So I assumed money was not necessarily an issue.

[Tom Lowe]

You can use the Nikon 14-24 G with the Canon mount and gain manual control over the iris: http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g

[Mark Crabtree]

You should try the olympus 21mm F2.

[Stephen Pruitt]

It has already been mentioned by Jarred (I believe) that the Tokina (Canon mount) works perfectly with the forthcoming electronic RED/Canon mount. I think he said that it begins vignetting only at 12mm.

One thing that is often not discussed during the whole Canon versus PL lens debate concerns the fact that Canon FF lenses use only the center of the lenses to cover 4.5/5K on the RED One and Epic, whereas this is not the case with PL mount glass. That means that FF lenses operate in a sweet-spot, far beneath how they would need to perform on a full-frame camera. They are, therefore, over-designed, as it were with respect to One/Epic requirements. This is one of the reasons they look so darn good vis-a-vis the money spent to buy them. As Ketch has shown, in a scene with reasonably constant light levels (where iris control is not an issue), it is very difficult to distinguish the quality of the best stills lenses from the best PL lenses.

My hope is that RED's electronic lenses will allow for smooth iris control and get us stills lens users that much closer to Nirvana on a Disney World budget.

Stephen

[Steve Dent]

One thing that is often not discussed during the whole Canon versus PL lens debate concerns the fact that Canon FF lenses use only the center of the lenses to cover 4.5/5K on the RED One and Epic, whereas this is not the case with PL mount glass. That means that FF lenses operate in a sweet-spot, far beneath how they would need to perform on a full-frame camera. They are, therefore, over-designed, as it were with respect to One/Epic requirements. This is one of the reasons they look so darn good vis-a-vis the money spent to buy them. As Ketch has shown, in a scene with reasonably constant light levels (where iris control is not an issue), it is very difficult to distinguish the quality of the best stills lenses from the best PL lenses.
Stephen

It's true that all the badness, especially wide open, is pushed to the corners of most lenses. Canon designs the lenses so they'll still test out well to the edges FF, so on a smaller sensor that stuff should be next to nothing. So there are definitely a few pluses to go along with the negatives next to cinema lenses.

This is not just cognitive disonance because I bought 6 Canon L lenses, I'm sure, at all.

[Kemalettin Sert]

You can use the Nikon 14-24 G with the Canon mount and gain manual control over the iris: http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g

why this is 10X expensive than other no name mounts ,whats so special about this makes it 200$ ?

[Stephen Pruitt]

Iris control. That's what makes it special. Those other Nikon to Canon mounts are just that. . . mounts. You don't get iris control with them. That, and the cheap ones really suck, too.

Stephen

[Kemalettin Sert]

Iris control. That's what makes it special. Those other Nikon to Canon mounts are just that. . . mounts. You don't get iris control with them. That, and the cheap ones really suck, too.

Stephen

thanks for the answer...its good to learn this before buying cheap mount from ebay

[Chris Trice]

Have any of you guys ever used the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 with a Red camera? I have one that I use for stills with my 5D and it's a pretty fantastic lens, very comparable to the Canon 50L.

[Bob Gruen]

Both the mid range 28mm f/1.8 and 80mm f/1.8 lenses work very well on the Red One / Birger combo (although Red seems to be focused on the L series for the Epic, if you'll forgive the pun). I have also used a 70-200 f/2.8 with very good results. I also like the 10~22 which is a lot more useable with the MX upgrade.

Bob