Canon Introduces Two PL-Mount Digital Cine Zoom Lenses With Full 4K Image Format

[Steven-Marc C.]

Canon FK14.5-60 wide-angle cine zoom
Canon FK30-300 telephoto cine zoom

http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/News/2011/Canon-FK14.5-60-Wide-Angle-Cine-Zoom-Lens-FK30-300-Telephoto-Cine-Zoom-Lens.jpg

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Press-Release/Canon-FK14.5-60-Wide-Angle-Cine-Zoom-Lens-FK30-300-Telephoto-Cine-Zoom-Lens.aspx

Looks interesting...

[Martin Weiss]

Canon […] today introduced two advanced-design PL-mount lenses that address the emerging 4K production standards.

Now the competitors acknowledge RED as a standard.

[Robert Frank]

Now the competitors acknowledge RED as a standard.

Indeed.

[Steven-Marc C.]

I'm very curious about availability and price. It could potentially have a large impact on the market.
They will be on display at NAB. i expect people here who are going to check them out and ask all the right questions!

The FK14.5-60 is T2.6 btw...

[OptiTek]

they just don't get it, do they.... This "follow proven market and copy" philosophy may be safer, but it won't give them any advantage over competition. Other than maybe the price. But then again, Canon has never been a true lens company, they just make great cameras and need glass to put on them......
I wonder who's gonna be the first to do the right thing- the signs for what's needed are all around....

[Sanjin Jukic]

Absolutely fantastic!!!

Just in the case that 14.5-60 is lighter than competitor zoom lenses then it's a pure winner, also the same for 30-300mm...

And I do have already some of non-breathing FF35mm zooms from Canon...

[Kwan Khan]

competing Fujinon?

[Jonathan Stevenson]

I'd be very very interested. Hopefully they'll release price and weight specs soon. It'd be a huge drag if they don't work on Epics, since they state that they're made to cover 4K (never mention Full Frame or 5K).

[OptiTek]

Specs
Weight -15lbs+
price- $30K+
These are very optimistic:001_cool:
Just speculating FYI

[Sven Seynaeve]

hope the weight is on our side.

would be nice if they could eliminate breathing amap.

I could certainly see a use of the 30-300 for sports, this will stop me using canon electronic zooms for sure on Epic. I suppose the pricetag will also be nice.

[Jonathan Stevenson]

Specs
Weight -15lbs+
price- $30K+
These are very optimistic:001_cool:

Similar to an Optimo in size, I suppose.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Interesting focal range on the tele. Forces a lens swap for wides, but supa-long.


The FK14.5-60 is T2.6 btw...


...anything on the tele's speed? The 30mm wide limit tells me they may have chosen not to try to go really wide to keep the speed and quality high even though they were going for 300mm... any thoughts?

[Robert Frank]

Isn't saying a lens will cover 4K incomplete information? Wouldn't a more accurate description describe the sensor size the image circle would cover?

Maybe this is obvious to everyone else, but I'm just a regular guy, so don't beat me up too much. :huh:

[Roberto Lequeux]

You are absolutely right. Saying that it covers 4k says next to nothing. Other than perhaps, the ability to resolve at least 4k vertical lines..... I also want to know the image circle, Canon!

Design is probably far from locked anyway. (unless I missed something saying otherwise)

[OptiTek]

It looks like 4K has become nothing more than a buzz word unfortunately. Definitely not Red's intention but here we go...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I just can't find a reason to get excited over these lenses. :-(

They're both frickin' huge and will probably be heavy. The 14.5-60 has an integrated support... Unless they can be significantly cheaper than the Angie 16-42 or Arri LWZ, no one is going to be interested. Not with the size and weight of this wide zoom.

The 30-300 has a very appealing range. It may do well for that reason alone and it does have my interest for that reason. I shoot quite a bit of outdoor events / EFP type stuff, so one lens to do it all would be welcome. OTOH, I'm not too wild about the size. I'll check these out at NAB, but unless something truly unexpected comes along with these lenses, I have already written off the 14.5-60 wide zoom as a crappy "me too" product.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that these lenses could be more conceptual than ready for production. Canon may be fishing for an industry response.... So here's my response: It sucks, try again.

[Jonathan Stevenson]

Jeff, you have a way with words haha!

[Tom.Wong]

they really just need to extract the optics from their famous L series still zooms, and rehouse it top to bottom for PL full cinema use, with proper focus marks, etc. if they end up being the size of a DP rouge or if must be just slightly bigger, they would freakin kill. full frame PL zooms.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

they really just need to extract the optics from their famous L series still zooms, and rehouse it top to bottom for PL full cinema use, with proper focus marks, etc. if they end up being the size of a DP rouge or if must be just slightly bigger, they would freakin kill. full frame PL zooms.

Exactly. And Nikon too. They both make excellent glass products and have a lot of existing solutions that could be adapted to products that a lot of people would buy.

[Evin Grant]

These lenses have 136mm front diameter, they will be at least as big as an Angenieux 25-250 HR and probably closer to the 4.7x and 12x Optimos, and if the performance and coverage hold then you can expect the prices to be in line with them as well, so expect $50-70K per lens. I'll check them out at NAB, along with the new 40-120 Optimo and report back.

[Conrad Hunziker]

Since its been announced I suppose I can mention that I had the pleasure of working with the 14.5-60 a couple of weeks back. Its definitely not vaporware, as some suggest. It is physically a bit shorter the than Optimo 4.7x, I had them both in my possession at the same time but didnt do exact measurements. It also feels a bit lighter. The reps say they are aiming for a good price point, which I take to mean below the 4.7x price. My take on the images is overall very pleasing, definitely cleaner color rendition than the 4.7x. In the color correction I thought the colors were very faithful - nothing had to be 'tweaked' to produce pleasing images.

As a technician, one of the wonderful parts of this was all the engravings on one side are in glow paint, which means you dont need a lens light to hit your marks. I dont understand why all lenses arent made this way. Other than that its a very solidly built lens. I do find it a bit funny that they are keeping with the green band around the front, which Ive always associated with ENG lenses.

You can see the footage we shot for yourself at NAB, lensed by a couple of ASC members.

[David Baumber]

This is another prime example of 'Lensbians' naturally gathering together. It's a wonderful thing. These two Canon lenses look great.

[Evin Grant]

Well if the 30-300 is in the "affordable" category it'll definitely peak my interest, but if not I can't see a big draw over the 24-290 other than maybe weight. Remember the Canon ENG lenses are not generally cheaper than the Fujinons. Also the 4.7x Optimo is a 1/2 stop faster which might account for the weight difference.

[Conrad Hunziker]

The 30-300 was supposed to travel with us, but wasnt quite ready when we had to start shooting. It may be at NAB, I dont know. So unfortunately I dont know anything about the weight.

But to my eye the Canon ENGs generally have a better look than the Fuji ENG lenses, and to that same degree, this 14.5 was a better look than the 4.7xm Optimo. (My fav ENG lens is still the Canon 4.7x10) I didnt do a comparative lens test, and didnt even throw both on the same camera. But in my limited use of the lens, seeing it under the control of some ASC masters, I had a positive reaction. You are right, if the price point is in a good range, than the combo of price + better look would win me out over the Optimo.

I forgot to mention the brokah/flare - we purposefully had a couple of shots with the sun in the frame, and I dont recall seeing any unnatural flaring. It really seemed to hold its contrast even with the unprotected lens and bright sunlight at odd angles. Again, our job wasnt to do lens tests, so we didnt specifically do them.

[Shawn Nelson]

I see no reason why Canon couldn't sell these lenses for $9995 apiece.

They arent 2/3" with servos, and thus won't compete with their other lines.

[Pier Laurenza]

Conrad , which camera did you use ?

[Roberto Lequeux]

Great news Conrad. Thanks for the info! Smaller than the 24-290mm and bigger than the 15-40mm with lower cost would put them in two interesting spots.

I am not willing to bet against the wide Optimo till I see the images from the 14.5-60mm, and price, because size and weight are a BIG concern for such a Steadicam and 3D inviting range. And I am not willing to bet against the 24-290mm unless the 30-300mm costs a big chunk less, on top of being smaller and lighter, because the 24mm over 30mm perspective change is FAR more drastic than a mere 10mm more at that telephoto range. And as much as Canon knows about lenses, I don't see them feeling like they can simply jump in and dethrone the big guns from Argie on their first wade. But the wide Canon sounds like a nice zoom for a dolly in a stage, and the long zoom sounds like a promising tele if it is in fact both cheaper and smaller. One thing is for sure. They will have to measure up in terms of IQ, but Conrad's impressions are very positive.

Now, Canon, how about those image circles???


I see no reason why Canon couldn't sell these lenses for $9995 apiece.

They arent 2/3" with servos, and thus won't compete with their other lines.

That is overly hopeful pricing. They will not cost less than $20k each. There is only one company like Red right now. I am gonna guess, 25-30k.


Conrad , which camera did you use ?

Please let us know Conrad. This would give us at least a bit of coverage information. But it will likely be Alexa, making us have to wait for 5k coverage confirmation (which better be there or Canon has gone bananas).

[Shawn Nelson]

But this is Canon we are talking about! If any other small company tried to make a 5d mk2 it'd cost $10k, but Canon can do it for $2500 and make a profit. Ah well, lets see next week!

[Stephen Williams]

But this is Canon we are talking about! If any other small company tried to make a 5d mk2 it'd cost $10k, but Canon can do it for $2500 and make a profit. Ah well, lets see next week!

They sell an awflul lot of 5dmk2's & they won't sell that many zooms. Are you sure they make a profit on the 5D body? they probably make way more on the lenses they hope to sell you.

[Conrad Hunziker]

Canon chose to shoot the footage on the Alexa. I dont know if it would cover the epic. All these lenses we are talking about - the 4.7x and 12x Optimos and these Canons are just too big for serious 3D work. That said, I did have this Canon and the Alexa on my Cammate Jib @21', no issues. Canon does have a long history with lenses, both still, ENG and pedestal TV lenses, so they do have a lot of optic knowledge behind them. If you are in the market for the Optimos, give these Canons a serious look.

[OptiTek]

It would have to be a hell of a lens to outperform the 17-80 Angie. Even with the Angie being 1/2 stop faster its the best performing wide zoom by a large margin.
Not many primes will even match the performance of the 4.7X

[Roberto Lequeux]

Yes, but the 15-40mm is going to near impossible to beat. Tiny, light, amazing IQ, fast, and it competes on the wide end with up to 40mm available. The Canon's extra 0.5mm on the wide end is nice, but not worth a lot of money or size-weight compromise, and 60mm is a very nice difference over 40mm, but again, not worth a whole lot of money and size-weight compromise... That wide Canon better be affordable if it wants to sway people away from the celestial 15-40mm. The 17-80 might be a gem, or the gem, but from a mobility standpoint I would rather go with primes and the 15-40mm, unless I shot everything in a stage.

Does the 4.7x cover 5k without an extender? What is the T-stop loss with the x1.4 on?

From Canon we need more info. Measured dimensions, weight, samples, coverage, and price. Guess NAB will answer most of those questions. Thank you again Conrad! Can't wait to see the gorgeous pictures. And thank you Jacek, Evin, Jeff and everyone else for chiming in with your knowledge and perspective as always.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I can't lie, I'm definitely interested in the Canon 30-300. It could give the Optimo 12X (24-290) a good run for the money I think, but it's a big and heavy lens. The Canon 14.5-60 seems like a misfit, me-too, WTF lens. It's a lot bigger and heavier than other wide offerings. It seems comparable in size/weight to the Optimo 4.7X (17-80). And to tell the truth, that sucks. For those not familiar with the 17-80, it's in good company with the Cooke 18-100, and other production lenses that weigh 13~15lbs once configured with mounting hardware. Angenieux offers the 15-40 and the 16-42 DP. Both are much smaller and lighter than what Canon is announcing with their 14.5-60. Arri/Zeiss have the LWZ, which is 14.5-45 and nice and compact.

So, the Canon wide zoom does have the others beat on zoom range with its 60mm max focal length. One has to wonder if it's really worth the extra weight to get that extra 15-20mm. And how will Canon's yet to be announced price factor into this? When it comes to size and weight, I would rather pack both the Optimo 16-42DP and 30-80DP lenses instead of the one 14.5-60 Canon. Those other two lenses will fit better into a large backpack or other camera case and will weigh less, while not needing additional support. I'm betting the Canon wide zoom weighs as much, and probably more, than the two Optimo DP lenses combined.

People shooting with an Alexa or RED One kit and a sizable crew are not going to mind the heft of the Canon wide... Indie shooters, mobile shooters, those looking to keep glass under control as a factor with a smaller Epic kit or smaller crews are not going to be interested.

Anyway... I'll check it on monday or tuesday and finalize my opinion then. If the image quality and price are appealing enough, I may find a way to like the lens. But I'm not eager to add any lens to my arsenal that weighs in at 10lbs or more unless it does something very special.

For narrative cinema types who usually lug around camera rigs that have all kinds of crap and cables connected, where a Cooke 18-100 or Angie 17-80 is a primary work-horse lens, this new wide zoom will feel right at home. So it's whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[Bryce O]

What do they even mean by 4k lens? Don't their still lenses resolve WAY more that 4k already?

[Roberto Lequeux]

Yup...

...which can only mean that they are marketing to people that don't know what 4k means.

Jeff, they are too big. Forget about them. Get some Leicas.

[James Brundige]

Check the image circle. Looks like these lenses will not cover Epic. I guess "4k" means "not 5K."

[Lee Saxon]

You think these things cover the Red One's 4K/12MP APS sensor, or my $200 compact's 4K/12MP 1/2.3" sensor?

-.-

[Roberto Lequeux]

If they only cover 4k we should see a converter like the one for the Optimo 24-290. Let's hope it is ready now so that they can compete.

Anyone know the light loss with the 24-290 5k converter on?

[KETCH ROSSi]

Tucked a look at the 14.5-60 at Abel Cine booth at the NAB floor today with Joseph Hutson, very nice lens,
but would be more interested int he 30-300.

But I fear that the Optimo 24-290 will be a very hard lens to beat... ;)