Evin Grant's NAB 2011 lens roundup...

[Evin Grant]

I came, I saw, I kicked some glass...

Ok puns aside, I did my best to hit all the new lens options out there in one day since I have a few projects going on this week. I'm pretty sure I got all the newly announced lenses but if anyone here saw something I didn't please feel free to add it below.

In the order I encountered them...

Canon:
http://www.evingrant.com/pics/NAB2011/CanonZooms.jpg

The new 14.5-60 and 30-300 Canon zooms were interesting, they were definitely light for their size (12.4 Lbs for the 30-300) the breathing was not quite as well controlled as the 24-290 Optimo but it wasn't distracting, the lenses seemed sharp on the Alexa and I don't doubt they'll resolve to 4K but they did not seem to me to have the same snap as other zooms I've used. All the mechanics reminded me of a scaled up Canon 2/3" lens, there's nothing really wrong with that but I think wether these lenses are a real winner will all depend on price. The 14.5-60 may be under $40K according to a retailer I spoke to but I expect the 30-300 to be over $60K. No price was given by Canon themselves.


Angenieux:
http://www.evingrant.com/pics/NAB2011/Angie45_120.jpg

The new Angie 45-120 is a gem, I already own the two short DP Optimos so if you sense a little bias you're not imagining things. The new 45-120 T2.8 is not a DP (Digital Production) lens but a regular film Optimo and as such carries a film price tag of $53K. If you have the scratch or are a rental house it's totally worth it. This lens is really gorgeous, no breathing at all, and crisp without being harsh. I've used the entire Optimo line for years now and this lens fills a very nice niche especially for B cam handheld shots where you need to get that little bit farther in than the 28-76, it only weighs 4 lbs.

http://www.evingrant.com/pics/NAB2011/Angie_75x.jpg

This little baby is a new .75x wide angle attachement lens for the 15-40 & 16-42 Optimos. It essentially turns your lens into a 12mm prime with some minor barrel distortion and a 6' minimum focus distance. I think this is a very nice solution for those wanting to travel as light as possible and still have an extreme wide angle option. $3500 list price.

Leica:
http://www.evingrant.com/pics/NAB2011/LeicaC.jpg

Again not trying to hide my bias here (I used a Leica X1 to shoot these photos) the Leica Sumilux-C primes are my end all be all prime set. You just don't get how small and light they are till you hold one in your hand. I got to watch some footage shot with them by Tom Lowe and Randy Werrick and it's stunning.
These are the first lenses I've seen that manage to create not just a technically superb image with extremely even field illumination and corner sharpness but also manage to maintain an organic even classic look. And the flares, oh my are the flares wonderful. $180K for a 8 lens set. There will also be a five lens set available for Epic owners but no price has been specified.

Duclos/Nikkor
http://www.evingrant.com/pics/NAB2011/Duclos70-200.jpg

The Duclos/Nikkor 70-200mm T3 was the lens I was most looking forward to seeing, again just to be clear on my bias I've ordered one already even though there is no actual delivery date. Paul and Matt Duclos are the father and son team behind one of the most highly regarded optical houses on the west coast Duclos lenses, and also remounted and cinevised the 11-16 Tokina that has found so much favor here. This is their next project, a complete rehouse of the superb Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. If you've used this lens on a DSLR you know it's of Nikon's new breed on "N" nano-coat lenses and is IMHO the best 70-200 made so far by any manufacturer. It does breath a tad more than the Optimo but it's not distracting or even close to as bad as a 10:1 HR. The complete rehouse by the Ducloses is impressively smooth on both focus and zoom (Iris wasn't working yet as this a prototype). It has a proper direction, ample 180º focus rotation with built in gears and the final unit will have witness marks on both sides of the lens body. A 95mm front diameter will allow for clip on shades and a lens support will be available for vehicle mounts and DLR use. Speaking of DSLRs one of the best features is a user interchangeable mount for PL, Nikon-F and Canon EOS. Expected price $11K,

[Evin Grant]

Reserved.

[Martin Stevens]

Awesome post Evin.

Thanks for sharing. I'm just sad that I couldn't make it to NAB this year.

[Norbert Niederacher]

Thanks for the Update.

[Steven-Marc C.]

Thanks Evin. I wonder if you (or someone else) managed to get a look at the Illumina lenses which have supposedly been updated recently?

[Julio Quintana]

Thanks, Evin. It would be great if you could mention pricing wherever applicable.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Evin!!!

Great report!!!

[Evin Grant]

Updated with more price info.

I did check out the Illuminas, they are very nice lenses and now have final markings. I've always liked the Lomo look and these seem to be pretty solid lenses.

I also checked out the Cooke Panchros, they are really just S4s on a diet, pretty great little lenses.

[Meryem Ersoz]

Evin to the rescue!

Thanks for the great pics! I'm might curious about the performance of those Canon lenses...guess we will have to wait for a few user reports, down the road.

[James Brundige]

Evin to the rescue!

Thanks for the great pics! I'm might curious about the performance of those Canon lenses...guess we will have to wait for a few user reports, down the road.

I don't believe they will cover Epic. (from an early post by Duclos - 33 mm image circle - any beta on that?)

[KETCH ROSSi]

Yeah the Duclos 11-16 is a sweet lens, agreed... ;)

[Jeff Kieffer]

Thanks Evin!

The new Optimo and the rehoused Duclos are my most anticipated lenses.

[Mike McEntire]

I saw that Duclos 70-200 as well. Put my name on the list right away. So cool with the interchangeable mounts. You can change the mount in about 10 seconds. Very smooth mechanics and great markings. Just like its little brother the Duclos Tokina 11-16 this lens will be a money maker.

[Tom.Wong]

the original 70-200 they are rehousing is a electronic lens right? so they are literally removing all that stuff and building a new housing around the optics? if so that explains the big jump in price point compared to the 11-16. gonna be worth every penny. I hear the MTF on that lens is out of control.

[Lee Saxon]

the original 70-200 they are rehousing is a electronic lens right?

Nope, real focus/zoom rings.

[Billy Summers]

Yeah the Duclos 11-16 is a sweet lens, agreed... ;)

And it covers 5K!!!!!

[Sven Seynaeve]

Thanks Evin, the optimo and canon 30-300 seems pretty interesting for me. the Duclos might be as well

thx a lot for sharing. have a nice stay over there.

[Ivan G]

The Canon will not cover 5k specifically designed for 4k only. I must say I think these lenses are amazing! I saw no breathing what so ever. Canon says they are working o covering 5k but were not aware of the format. Priced to be around 48k from Abelcine. Should be out by end of the year.

[James Brundige]

So how similar is the Nikon 70-200 to it's predecessor, the 80-200 2.8 AFD ED? I used that a bunch on my Red One, with great results, built like a tank.
Is it a total redesign, or a little tweak?

[Evin Grant]

So how similar is the Nikon 70-200 to it's predecessor, the 80-200 2.8 AFD ED? I used that a bunch on my Red One, with great results, built like a tank.
Is it a total redesign, or a little tweak?

Total redesign, better overall performance across the board. Much better field illumination, much better corner sharpness performance and much less veiling flare wide open thanks to the Nano Crystal coat.
It's the best 70-200MM lens ever designed IMHO.

[Larry McKee]

Thanks for the report, Evin. Been wondering about the pricing on the Duclos 70-200.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Yeahh baby... I knew I didn't have to drive my ass up to Vegas. ;)

(I wanted to go but couldn't get around work)

Reading now...

Edit: OK, right off the bat, the Canons look like you are on a Broadcast camera. Not just the look, but the size of the darn things!
Edit2: OK, big the 30-300 is light!! The 24-290 is 24lbs!
Edit3:
And the [Leica] flares, oh my are the flares wonderful. QFT

Edit4:
It [the 70-200mm Nikkor does breath a tad more than the Optimo but it's not distracting or even close to as bad as a 10:1 HR. How does the breathing stack up to the Canon 30-300mm?


It has a proper direction, ample 180º focus rotation with built in gears and the final unit will have witness marks on both sides of the lens body. A 95mm front diameter will allow for clip on shades and a lens support will be available for vehicle mounts and DLR use. Speaking of DSLRs one of the best features is a user interchangeable mount for PL, Nikon-F and Canon EOS. Expected price $11K

Not so crazy about the Nikon and Canon mounts though I bet that will make it a hot seller. But the focus ring being ready is awesome! Focusing the right way is key. But is there any chance the throw will be made longer? 180 degrees doesn't sound like a lot for the focal range. I would probably be happier with closer to a full turn, like 270.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Total redesign, better overall performance across the board. Much better field illumination, much better corner sharpness performance and much less veiling flare wide open thanks to the Nano Crystal coat.
It's the best 70-200MM lens ever designed IMHO.

Totally agree. For the Canon lovers out there who like to rave over their latest 70-200 lens (like Tom Lowe), it's a beautiful lens... But not as good as the latest Nikon. This Nikon zoom is pretty amazing, IMO.

As for the rest of the lens info, I have to concur with Evin as well. The Canon zooms were sized a bit differently and weighed less than I expected. The 30-300 still remains as a possible attractive option. It very well could be a good alternative to the Optimo 12X. I could not get any pricing info when I crashed through there on monday. The 14.5-60 to me is still a bit of an oddball lens. Almost as big as the Cooke or Optimo "workhorse" zooms like the 17-80. Weighs less... It's huge compared to the Angenieux and Cooke wide zooms, but does offer 20mm more on the range. Pricing will be key, but from the rumors I don't think that the pricing will be that attractive. I was personally not that impressed with the image on these lenses. They just seemed "flat". Noticeable breathing -- similar, possibly a bit better, than the RED 17-50... Not enough better warrant the extra (estimated) price and bulk, IMO.

When Canon markets these as covering "4K", they're speaking from the standpoint of covering a 16:9 area within a typical APS-C or Super35 imager. It's enough resolving power to give us adequate "4K' from a variety of 4K (or close to that) cameras -- Alexa, F35, F65, the RED One of course. Larger areas like 5K on Epic or even full aperture S35 were obviously not a consideration when they designed the lenses. If the lenses do cover S35 full aperture, it would be only just...

The new Optimo 45-120 is made of pure sex... If I had $50K+ burning a hole in my pocket, which I don't, but if I did, that would have been the one thing I would've ordered ASAP from the show floor. That lens paired with the Optimo 15-40 would just be an awesome combo.

I didn't take pictures... I lugged my cheapie point n' shoot with me and used it all of 4 times in 2 days. why did I bother...

[Roberto Lequeux]

That Angie looks darn sexy. A bit of an odd range, so not getting a lot of attention, but if it is the sort of gem the others are, then it is great to be able to go longer while keeping some normal range and dropping 20lbs.?!!?! Are you sure the 4.3lbs weight is not a scam to get attention? Did you pick up the lens? Haha, that is in their levitating range.

Or course one could wonder, can't I get around to dealing with controlled breathing, 90 degrees less focus throw, T0.4 less, and swapping the 70-200 on and off a bit. But remain light, and keep lots of money in the budget.

Depends.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The Optimo 45-120 is very sleek and light. It's very similar in size/weight compared to the Optimo 15-40. Just a bit longer and only 0.1 lbs heavier. Like I said, pure sex.

I also really liked what I saw from the 1.4X and 2X PL doublers. Sexy.

[Tom Lowe]

Somehow I missed running into Matt on the floor. I'm dying to try out that Duclos 70-200 on the Epic! It's going to be such a useful lens. I do indeed love my Canon 70-200mm IS 2.8 II. It's my sharpest EF lens. If the Nikon optics are equal or even better, than this Duclos 70-200 is going to be a major winner, IMHO.

The Canon zooms seemed pretty solid. They are not exotic, super-high-end cinema glass, like the Leicas, for example, but they will probably be solid workhorse lenses.

Previously, I had been thinking about using EF glass on my Epic, and I will get the EF mount for the Epic when it's available, but the more I think about it, the more I want to keep using PL lenses on my Epic.

Jeff, what PL 2x have you seen? I need a new one... need it to be very sharp.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Having the same non-compromising company provide their own doublers or adapters to make the 24-290 cover 5k, that's priceless.

[Evin Grant]

How does the breathing stack up to the Canon 30-300mm?

I'd put the 70-200 just below the 30-300 Canon but it all depends on focal length, the breathing characteristics of both lenses were different depending on the MM. Neither of them is as breathless as the Optimos.



Not so crazy about the Nikon and Canon mounts though I bet that will make it a hot seller. But the focus ring being ready is awesome! Focusing the right way is key. But is there any chance the throw will be made longer? 180 degrees doesn't sound like a lot for the focal range. I would probably be happier with closer to a full turn, like 270.

First off, according to Matt they designed it so that the focus throw would match one full rotation on a standard follow focus (FF4?) secondly the minimum focus is 4.6' which is a bit far compared to most cinema lenses that usually go to 2', so you actually don't need quite as much rotation to get adequate accuracy. Here is a photo of the other side of the focus scale...
http://www.evingrant.com/pics/NAB2011/DuclosFocus.jpg

As you can see there are plenty of marks and rotation for the closer distances, this is also not the final marking, there may still be some tweaking done before the final lenses ship.

[Roberto Lequeux]

secondly the minimum focus is 4.6'

Ouch, I did not know that about the Nikkor. Well, at that price it is still an amazing beast! And sexy might I add.

I guess the focus throw is ready for prime-time then! Good news! Wonder how long he'll need to finish up the iris ring.

[D Fuller]

Total redesign, better overall performance across the board. Much better field illumination, much better corner sharpness performance and much less veiling flare wide open thanks to the Nano Crystal coat.
It's the best 70-200MM lens ever designed IMHO.

Nikon has been really pulling out all the stops with it's recent releases. I'm a big fan of the look their lenses have at their best. Im so happy that I'll be able to use them on Epic, but I'd be even happier if they could all be given the Duclos treatment.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Here is a vote for Duclos skipping the normal zoom for now and starting the G-Primes after the 70-200mm. First up, 50mm. Then 35mm, 24mm and 75mm in that order. And hopefully by then there will be a new Nikkor normal zoom to crown the Duclos Nikkor rehouse set.

[John Chater]

Evin wrote : "The 14.5-60 may be under $40K according to a retailer I spoke to but I expect the 30-300 to be over $60K. No price was given by Canon themselves"

Hi Evin

I heard $47k list for the 30-300mm. Street price will be lower. So a pretty good price for a lens like this when used 25-250HRs are priced around $25k. Its a focal range in demand.
Im not sure I could tell very much about most lenses in the NAB environment. The monitors that display the images are so far from adequate that I cant tell what Im seeing beyond functional characteristics. I was impressed by the minimal breathing of the 30-300mm across the whole range.

Best
John Chater
Chater Camera
San Francisco

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Im not sure I could tell very much about most lenses in the NAB environment. The monitors that display the images are so far from adequate that I cant tell what Im seeing beyond functional characteristics. I was impressed by the minimal breathing of the 30-300mm across the whole range.

That is something we always have to consider. It really is hard to tell anything about lenses on the tradeshow floor. You can get a feel for size, weight, mechanics, etc.. But you can't analyze the image characteristics or most of the properties of what comes through the glass itself.

If you're right about the 30-300 and it's around $47K.... While still significantly more than picking up a 25-250HR, it's nearly 45% less than an Optimo 12X... I'm still interested. Good chance it covers 5K on the Epic at a good bit of the focal length range too. Of course, we would have to mount it on a projector or an Epic to see for sure.

[John Chater]

If you're right about the 30-300 and it's around $47K.... While still significantly more than picking up a 25-250HR, it's nearly 45% less than an Optimo 12X... I'm still interested.

Im fairly confident about the price. Came from my favorite Canon sales rep I have been buying lenses from for 15years. Unless he heard wrong.

John Chater

[Vladimir Eugene]

Im fairly confident about the price. Came from my favorite Canon sales rep I have been buying lenses from for 15years. Unless he heard wrong.

John Chater

I heard the same thing. 47k for the 30-300 and 45k for the other

[Tim Duran]

Evin, I thought the sleeper announcement was the teaming of ARRI and Zeiss to make anamorphic lenses, which they've been working on according to the Zeiss booth. Unfortunately, as of now, only for rental houses.

[Evin Grant]

Evin, I thought the sleeper announcement was the teaming of ARRI and Zeiss to make anamorphic lenses, which they've been working on according to the Zeiss booth. Unfortunately, as of now, only for rental houses.

I went to the Arri booth but did not see that announcement. Very cool but not actually their first attempt, there was an ill gotten attempt in the 90s called Arriscope with ISCO these should be much better though. Also the guys behind the Illuminas are supposedly working on anamorphics.

47K for the Canon is definitely in the right direction, I'm still not sure that would persuade me to not save up the extra 20K for an Optimo, but I'd strongly consider it if I was in the market for a hubble.
As far as what can be gathered from a trade show floor, of course it's not meant to be a final judgement but after spending thousands of hours of my life looking through lenses I did develop an eye for the subtle optical cues that inform me about the character of a particular design. Again, I don't think the Canons will be unsharp, or breath even close to that of a still lens, but then pretty much all Canon lenses leave me wanting. I've just never been too fond of their color character or contrast, which is why I've always shot with Leica, Nikon, Angenieux, Cooke & Zeiss.

A question specifically for John,
How much less would you charge to rent this lens than a 12:1 Optimo given the price difference? (A percentage is fine if you don't want to include a price)

[John Chater]

A question specifically for John,
How much less would you charge to rent this lens than a 12:1 Optimo given the price difference? (A percentage is fine if you don't want to include a price)

Hi Evin

Its got to be out the door for $400 or less after discounts.
I have a different attachment to Canon. I came up through the 16mm documentary world. Canon zooms were a marked functional improvement over the Zeiss 10-100mm. The 8-64mm was an excellent lens for its time.
I think Canon make good judgement of functional needs for 80% of users. Focal range, weight, size and price. The could have killed this lens at 200mm and said it doesnt ramp across the range. But I bet you on location that extra 100mm of reach will add up to way more functionality than concern for a small iris ramp. Which if you can trust the monitors in the Canon booth didnt seem at all bothersome.
All to be tested in the future becuase as is normal these days nothing will be seen until 2012.

John Chater
Chater Camera

[Evin Grant]

Interesting, thanks John.

[Michael Hardwick]

[QUOTE=Evin Grant;752438]I went to the Arri booth but did not see that announcement. Very cool but not actually their first attempt, there was an ill gotten attempt in the 90s called Arriscope with ISCO these should be much better though.


I shot a project with the Arriscopes about 8 years ago... Of course very big and heavy, but on the lens projector they were very good. Couldn't get them to flare very much, even looking into the sun. I don't know if I could qualify them as an ill-gotten attempt - it was my first anamorphic show and I remember being blown away in projected dailies. But I also remember the looks of pain on my steadicam operators face, and also on my focus puller's when using the 135mm. Last I heard Clairmont sold them to an Indian production company.

[John Fairstein]

Anyone check out the Illuminas?

[Matthew Riggieri]

Evin

Did you miss the Schneider Optics new Cine-Xenar set. 25mm, 35, 50 75, 95 with an 18 on the way. They will only cover super 35 so a 33mm circle. They are mostly T2 with the two wider ones being 2.1 and 2.2. Very even illumination and sharp with out being to sharp like the red primes. Didn't has a chance to check flare charistics but being that they are from the same company that makes B+W filters, it may be safe to assume they are going to flare nicely. Prob the best low end set of PL glass I saw. Under 30k for the set.

The new Angienioux is dead sexy and for only 9k I am seriously thinking about a deposit on the leica's. They were wow

Matt

[Rob Castiglione]

I would be interested in a more detailed examination of the 35mm Illuminas as well.

As for the newly designed Schneiders, do they still barrel forward when focusing? I was interested in these lenses but that is a real killer for me.

[Tim Duran]

Evin, I got my anamorphic info from Zeiss.

[Evin Grant]

I would be interested in a more detailed examination of the 35mm Illuminas as well.

As for the newly designed Schneiders, do they still barrel forward when focusing? I was interested in these lenses but that is a real killer for me.

Yes they do, and unfortunately they are huge just like the Uniqes & RPPs. I have to say all these lenses perform very well but size and weight really does matter as much as performance, at least to me. It looks real macho to have a huge lens on your cam but after the first few times you have to move them that wears off. The Leica Summilux-Cs and Zeiss Ultra Primes are the sweet spot for size and weight IMHO. Now if I could only find an extra $180K lying around :biggrin:

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I didn't really look at the Schneider primes... Or at least not more than a casual glance. To me, they looked like another "me too" set of decently performing, aggressively priced, big and heavy primes. I'm in full agreement with Evin about size and weight. I really like my RPP's, but the size/weight is often an issue. The 18mm is just as heavy as the 300mm and about as long. But they're what they have until I too stumble across $180K for those sexy Leicas. I like the Ultras, but now there's a long wait to get them. They're also not compelling enough for me to replace the RPPs with them, IMO. Better size/weight though. I almost bought Ultras more than once in the past, but kept stalling off waiting for the RPP's. In many ways I'm glad I waited. Then again, I probably would have done just as well to buy the Ultras 3 years ago. People want to rent the Ultras... People still treat RPPs as an unknown quantity and shy away from them. In my town, people would shoot with an old Coke bottle and talk about how amazing it is if only I could manage to put it on a PL mount and paint a Zeiss logo on it.

[Tonaci Tran]

I talked to the Canon Sales Rep on the NAB floor and he gave me the price quotes: 47,000 for the 30-300mm and 45,000 for the 14.5mm-60mm

[Evin Grant]

$47K is so right in the gray zone for me, once you pay tax, get braketry and a case it's $50K which is around the price of a 12:1 if you can find one used.
However it is light and that is a big deal. Although it didn't thrill me on the show floor I'm sure it's a fine performer and I'd get used to it quickly enough, the question is weather or not I can make the ROI work for me, Hmmmmm.

[Roberto Lequeux]

It sure is light... big hunk of levitating normal-telephoto range.

[paul engstrom]

Anyone check out the Illuminas?

On paper, the Illuminas are right there for price (very competitive) and for size (smaller than Leica, bigger than Ultra's) and speed.

But I'm concerned they won't do a good job with the marketing and sales and therefore market penetration and ease of upkeep. They seem somewhat mythological to me--like they're always going to be better on paper than in reality. Would love to hear/see some solid field reviews and projector comparisons, etc.

[Jason Diamond]

I saw the Illuminas and even had them on an EPIC. They are actually a little larger but not longer than the Leica's. All the lenses are essentially the same size and they've been recertified to T1.2 at $33K for the set of 5 primes 18-85mm.

They seemed very nice in the brief bit we got to play with them. We did shoot some footage with them so need to look at it and analyze, however imperfect the "Testing" was ;)

Outside of the Leica's I'm really looking forward to getting these up on the projector and Camera for some reasonable testing.

Jason

[Shawn Nelson]

I tried out the Schneider Cine-Xenar and wasn't impressed at all. The focus was super stiff and the lens actually telescoped whilst pulling focus!

[Sidney L. Plaut]

Did they change the design for the illuminas so the Iris ring is NOT up front but in the back like most lenses? - saw a photo of a "new" 25mm and it looked different than the lenses on their web site.

Do the illuminas also "barrel out" when pulling focus?

[Jason Diamond]

I forget but I think the iris was in back like normal but can't say for sure.

The Illuminas do barrel out but really only noticeable when going from close focus all the way to infinity which frankly is not a move performed very often. I think the total barrel out was less than 1/2" max.

Jason

[Tom Lowe]

So are there any MTF numbers, test charts photos, or anything for the Illuminas?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Not that it matters now, but where were the Illuminas at NAB? I managed to miss them this year and last year they were still not finished, IIRC...

[Paul Nordin]

So are there any MTF numbers, test charts photos, or anything for the Illuminas?

These lenses caught my eye at NAB as well, and I've since been scouring the web for any concrete info. So far no luck. There are some "tests" which were performed on an earlier version (Pre-release?) of the lenses, but I've only been able to read with Google's russian auto-translate and too many things are lost in the translation...particularly the charts which would be the most helpful. I'll probably rent a set from the distributor in Nashville and see how they stack up. Maybe take them over to Chater's who has MPs, UPs. If the quality is up there, they stack up well from a cost/size/speed perspective against the others in this range (RPP, Cine-Xenars, Cooke Panchros, CP2s, etc.). So they seem worthy of a serious look.

[Paul Nordin]

Not that it matters now, but where were the Illuminas at NAB? I managed to miss them this year and last year they were still not finished, IIRC...

THey were right next to Zeiss. You're eyes were probably too dassled by all the MP glass to notice them.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

THey were right next to Zeiss. You're eyes were probably too dassled by all the MP glass to notice them.

Wha??? How...?

I'm definitely going to spend more time at the show next year. I've done this to myself two years in a row now where I try to crash through everything in a day or two and it just doesn't work out so well. Especially when I run into other redusers and people I know when on the floor and chat a bit.

[Ivan G]

Canon specs just in case you missed them

[Paul Nordin]

Wha??? How...?

I've done this to myself two years in a row now where I try to crash through everything in a day or two and it just doesn't work out so well.


Don't feel too bad Jeff. I must have walked past their booth three times before I noticed the loose lenses on thier table. It was a pretty low-key and small booth. But the form factor of the lenses caught my eye.

[Stephen Williams]

the lens actually telescoped whilst pulling focus!

Reminds me of another lens you own! Optically they are both quite good

[Meryem Ersoz]

That Angienieux 45-120mm on the EPIC - an unreal combination. That lens is so unbelievably beautiful and compact.

Me want. Me can't afford. Me want, anyway....

[paul engstrom]

I saw the Illuminas and even had them on an EPIC. They are actually a little larger but not longer than the Leica's. All the lenses are essentially the same size and they've been recertified to T1.2 at $33K for the set of 5 primes 18-85mm.

They seemed very nice in the brief bit we got to play with them. We did shoot some footage with them so need to look at it and analyze, however imperfect the "Testing" was ;)

Outside of the Leica's I'm really looking forward to getting these up on the projector and Camera for some reasonable testing.

Jason

The specs I've seen quoted have them a little lighter and shorter than the Leicas while sharing the same 95mm fronts (so too Ultra Primes). Definitely nicely sized.

There was an early set up here that had some problems, which I hear have been fixed with the latest lenses. I know they've thickened the metal on the barrels and made some other tweaks (just as Leica has apparently altered the coating on their initial lenses).

Lomo/Illumina would do themselves a huge favor with RED people to simply send a set to Evin and hope he thinks they're good ... That's my 2c. If they could equal the quality of RED's lenses while offering much nicer size and one more stop of light I would see those virtues as being worth the extra $10k over a RED set ... provided they sell enough sets in N. America to not just be a novelty item.

[AnthonyFlores]

Here is a vote for Duclos skipping the normal zoom for now and starting the G-Primes after the 70-200mm. First up, 50mm. Then 35mm, 24mm and 75mm in that order. And hopefully by then there will be a new Nikkor normal zoom to crown the Duclos Nikkor rehouse set.

Agree with this 1,000%. Given what Evin has posted about them ... the rehoused versions of the new Nikon primes could almost be like superior versions of the RPP's -- smaller, lighter and sharper wide open. And that is saying something because the RPP's are pretty darn good. Duclos should maybe conduct a survey and see how many people are interested in this. If he can keep the price in the RPP range or even $5k I think he would have quite a few buyers.

I guess the only drawback would be losing the AF ability, but perhaps a worthwhile tradeoff :)

Anthony

[Roberto Lequeux]

24mm x 13.5mm doesn't even cover Mysterium... fail.

Am I getting this wrong?

[jaadgy akanni]

24mm x 13.5mm doesn't even cover Mysterium... fail.

Am I getting this wrong?

If you're referring to the FX lenses being discussed (which cover 36mmx24mm), then yes you're wrong.

[Roberto Lequeux]

No. I am referring to the Canon zooms.

Look at Ivan's shot of the specs poster at the Canon booth.

[jaadgy akanni]

Oh my bad. I see where you're coming from; It claims 4K performance, but image format size is 24mmx13.5mms. What 4k camera's sensor would that cover?

[AnthonyFlores]

The Optimo 45-120 is very sleek and light. It's very similar in size/weight compared to the Optimo 15-40. Just a bit longer and only 0.1 lbs heavier. Like I said, pure sex.

I also really liked what I saw from the 1.4X and 2X PL doublers. Sexy.

Quick question for Evin and Jeff, given that the 45-120 is the film zoom model ... how do you think it will intercut with the 16-42 Rouge? I'm going to be getting the Rouge set, but because the 15-40 is so much pricier and doesn't even cover 5k without an adaptor, I don't think that's ever going to be an option for me.

So I'm curious if you think the look/performance of the 16-42 is close enough to the 15-40 to intercut perfectly with the new 45-120.

Like you guys, I saw it's small size and fantastic range and was pretty blown away.

Actually Evin, since you own the Rouge set ... if you were to do it all over again, would you just save the $20k from the 30-80 and put it toward the 45-120 instead?

I guess that depends on how it pairs with the 16-42.

Thanks again for the help :)

Anthony

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I think it would intercut just fine. I have mixed footage shot with the 15-40 with stuff shot on the 30-80 Rouge. I asked the guys at the Angenieux booth if there were any plans for a longer DP series zoom in the near future. "No" was pretty much the answer, but they are always working on new things. I would expect one at some point, but I think they're going to ride the 45-120 train for a while. I would be very tempted to pair the 16-42 with the 45-120 if my budget allowed. And I would probably do a rental and make sure I was getting exactly what I wanted before spending that amount of money on a single lens.

[paul engstrom]

And for what its worth, I'm pretty sure the 15-40 covers 5k without an adapter. I think its the 2 heavy lenses that vignette.

[Evin Grant]

Anthony, like Jeff I have never seen any matching issues with any of the Optimo line, they really are some of the most consistent lenses ever made. I really can't tell the difference between my Rouges at the the overlapping focal lengths. As to weather I would go 16-42 and 45-120? Well if I could afford it yes, but only if I could also get a 24-290. Otherwise 120mm is not long enough to cover all the tele I generally need (Although I do have a 200mm F2 Nikkor) but for me right now the
16-42/30-80/70-200 combo is pretty hard to beat both in price, performance and especially weight. Just to make your mouth water here are two grabs from a short I just shot with them...
http://www.evingrant.com/pics/Fe1.jpg
http://www.evingrant.com/pics/Fe2.jpg

[AnthonyFlores]

I think it would intercut just fine. I have mixed footage shot with the 15-40 with stuff shot on the 30-80 Rouge. I asked the guys at the Angenieux booth if there were any plans for a longer DP series zoom in the near future. "No" was pretty much the answer, but they are always working on new things. I would expect one at some point, but I think they're going to ride the 45-120 train for a while. I would be very tempted to pair the 16-42 with the 45-120 if my budget allowed. And I would probably do a rental and make sure I was getting exactly what I wanted before spending that amount of money on a single lens.

Thanks Jeff, this helps. Yah as sexy as the 16-42 + 45-120 combo would be, it's $75k ... and I have a feeling Bandpro's 5 Leica set could land in the $100k neighborhood when you subtract the cost of the included Epic. Obviously, primes and zooms fill completely different needs but all things being equal -- taking a bit more money and throwing them at the Leicas might be hard to resist :)

Anthony

[AnthonyFlores]

Anthony, like Jeff I have never seen any matching issues with any of the Optimo line, they really are some of the most consistent lenses ever made. I really can't tell the difference between my Rouges at the the overlapping focal lengths. As to weather I would go 16-42 and 45-120? Well if I could afford it yes, but only if I could also get a 24-290. Otherwise 120mm is not long enough to cover all the tele I generally need (Although I do have a 200mm F2 Nikkor) but for me right now the
16-42/30-80/70-200 combo is pretty hard to beat both in price, performance and especially weight. Just to make your mouth water here are two grabs from a short I just shot with them...
http://www.evingrant.com/pics/Fe1.jpg
http://www.evingrant.com/pics/Fe2.jpg

Thanks for this Evin, they look great. I'm glad I stopped at their booth and darn, that 45-120 was nice. I still couldn't believe how compact it was.
I'm definitely eager to hear more of your impressions from the Duclos zooms as well, as they seem to be king on the budget vs performance continuum.

Thanks for this thread, I love it :)

Anthony

[Roberto Lequeux]

Anthony, though it pains me a little, I would probably get the 16-42mm and 45-120mm first. I would only go with the Leicas if you can get an early set, which might give you a speedier ROI due to their limited availability.

But this is a very important decision so you should ignore my suggestion and analyze your market carefully. What would your clients prefer? ...the best zooms, or the best primes? It is a tough call man. Best of luck with it.

[AnthonyFlores]

Anthony, though it pains me a little, I would probably get the 16-42mm and 45-120mm first. I would only go with the Leicas if you can get an early set, which might give you a speedier ROI due to their limited availability.

But this is a very important decision so you should ignore my suggestion and analyze your market carefully. What would your clients prefer? ...the best zooms, or the best primes? It is a tough call man. Best of luck with it.

Yah I agree Robert, everyone seems to say that the Optimos ROI super fast -- they work well with the Epic and are used on so many sets. Also, you're right in the sense that for my coming projects (mostly marketing/commercial/informercial and docu type stuff) super duper primes like the Leicas are not absolutely 100% necessary. Optimo zooms are sharp enough and I don't even need much in the way of shallow DOF -- or much shot at night -- so 2.8 is fine as well.

The Leicas would just be a more emotional/passion decision than a financial one.

Still, does that make me so wrong to want them???

Maybe one of my projects will strike gold and then .... :)

Anthony

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Here's to hoping Angie makes a 45-120 DP Rouge version of the new Optimo. At around $25K vs $53K it becomes a more viable owner/operator option and paired with the 16-42 DP you would have a brilliant set for under $50K. In the meantime, any lens that goes for $53K seems like a rental house only item to me. Pity.

Cheers - #19

[Roberto Lequeux]

Totally agree Anthony. Allow me to add that an early set of Leicas sounds like THE solid financial decision. 0.02


Here's to hoping Angie makes a 45-120 DP Rouge version of the new Optimo. At around $25K vs $53K it becomes a more viable owner/operator option and paired with the 16-42 DP you would have a brilliant set for under $50K. In the meantime, any lens that goes for $53K seems like a rental house only item to me. Pity.

Cheers - #19

But it should make the set much more active for rental. So I'd bet it would be worth the price difference.

If the 15-40mm and 16-42mm in fact do cover 5k with no added circular distortion, CA, etc, etc, blah, blah... If you combine T2.8 and Epic's clean ISO2000 (+!) for 2k, you are not really gonna be "concerned" about low-light, right? Even for a 4k finish, Epic has a bit of a "super-speed easy button". ;) You might have to rent a set of MP, 5/i, RPP, Ultras, or Leicas here and there --but only for special occasions. And for those who already own sets of RPPs already have up to T1.9 as a killer back-up. Shoot some inter-cutting tests (post them if you do please).

One also would have to consider that the f2.6 of the zooms provides plenty-shallow DoF for almost every need if you don't mind doing it on the long end of the 45-120mm. What you don't get is the shallower at wider focal length. Though again, f2.6 at 42mm is pretty darn shallow already, and you would have lots of separation all the way into the deep wide end. It all depends on the shot, of course.

I'd wager a full set of Leicas would work 365 days, 24hs, with no coffee breaks, for a minimum of 3 years straight. :) And while a five prime Red-Leica set should also work pretty much non-stop for ever, I would consider the more affordable and versatile "T2.8 15-120mm Optimo two-small-Zoom set" if I had to choose. Unless you are getting both, which might be the best combo ever to leave with from the rental house.

I think the Leicas are going to be the best yet. But thing is, the Angee zoom set should also rent like a total beast! And would be a bit more indie friendly, which is now about 90% of films or whatever. The 45-120mm's range will go beautifully with 15-40mm, or 16-42. It gives you a range equivalent of a "full standard" set of cine primes (~ from 16mm to 135mm IMO), all you need is long teles and the 8R.

The Optimo's 100mm vs. 120mm difference needs to be at least mentioned. The Leicas and the 16-42mm Angee Zoom are matched at the wide end, with the 15-40mm (T0.2 faster) zooms edging out the primes by 1mm --however in the future, it will be the Leica 16mm it will provide the widest FOV thanks to the larger coverage. Both options would require additional rentals for long telephoto, but knowing you will pretty much automatically match with the zooms with a 24-290 is also a plus.

I would also try to consider that the Optimos might come early enough to get a good head start. Maybe one can draw up some useful rental numbers based on that.

And just to be an annoying meticulous OCD (genius ;) bastard... I personally wouldn't consider it a "compromise" if what you are doing is getting the best of a different fruit. The Angies are zooms. Zooms that pass for top-shelf primes! :D They just aren't super-speed. :kicks some dirt: But they will look flippen' awesome.

0.002

[Steve Wake]

Just in regard to the Nikon 70-200 nanocoat version, aka VRII. One of the first things stills shooters noticed about this highly anticipated lens was the pretty extreme breathing at maximum zoom. So at the minimum focus distance, the actual maximum focal length is about 135mm. I.e. as you focus from infinity to 1.4m with zoom set at 200mm, the focal length actually shrinks to 135mm. Refer to lens specifications here at Roland Vink's highly regarded peer-reviewed site. http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#70-xxPro Magnification is 1/8.3, which for the close-focus distance of 1.4m works out to about a 135 mm focal length.

This is one of the compromises of designing an internal focus lens, and of keeping the price down. Great lens - but potential users should know its limits so they're not disappointed.

[AnthonyFlores]

As a side note Evin and guys, I really wish Panavision had a different business model and decided to manufacture and sell lenses. They could still be very premium-priced like Leicas or MP's, but I feel like they have such a treasure of designs that they could be selling and not just hoarding away for exclusive rentals.

For instance, since we are on the topic of zooms, I noticed this page:

http://www.panavision.com/content/primo-zooms?l=1&c=0&p=13

These are a bit heavy compared to Optimo Rouges, but if you click around they have some "advanced ones" such a 19-90mm at T2.8 that is only 7 pounds. Not bad! And their Digital Zoom line for 2/3 sensors has some T1.9 zooms that would rock on Scarlet -- never mind the amazing look and optical quality that comes with Panny glass. (I saw one at NAB, one of the smoothest focus rotations I've ever felt and it caught my eye because it was a zoom at T1.9).

Honestly, if I were in Jim's shoes (maybe this is dumb, there's a reason why he's a billionaire and I'm not) but just dreaming out loud, why not buy Panavision and then take over all their designs and manufacturing. I know Red is positioned more as "affordable" and perhaps doesn't want to steal thunder from it's high-end lens partners and distributors like BandPro -- but Jeff as you noted, camera tech is advancing faster than cine lenses are, and there's sadly not enough demand right now (maybe not ever) for high end brands like Leica or Arri to build high-end cine lenses designed for larger formats. It's just too small of a nice in terms of sales volume.

But by taking over Panavision (assuming they would ever sell, but then again everything has it's price) I think Red would have both the most advanced cameras and the most historically renown lenses -- with proven designs to match virtually every camera they offer or will ever offer. Seems like that would cut a lot of development time and I don't think Red customers would mind either ... I have a feeling those who could afford it would gladly welcome Red having ultra-premium lens line :)

Also, here's another thought -- what if this lens line, which would optically rival MP's or Leicas ... ranging from 2/3 all the way to 65 or 70mm formats, cost only $15-20k per prime? It's still premium but a big savings for Red customers versus other brands.

"Red Primo Primes" ... I like the sound of it! ;)

Anyway, this is a lot of thinking out loud -- hope I didn't sound too stupid.

Anthony

[Tim Duran]

Anthony, great idea for Red. I think the question would then be should Red remain known as "Red" or work off the primier status of the Panavision name and loose all the bad karma from early Red fumbles and negative baggage. All things being equal, I'd rather have a "Panavision" brand in my hand than "Red." But I'm the first to admit that I'm a bit more old school and a purist when working features. And all things are not equal.

[AnthonyFlores]

Anthony, great idea for Red. I think the question would then be should Red remain known as "Red" or work off the primier status of the Panavision name and loose all the bad karma from early Red fumbles and negative baggage. All things being equal, I'd rather have a "Panavision" brand in my hand than "Red." But I'm the first to admit that I'm a bit more old school and a purist when working features. And all things are not equal.

Okay, so it wasn't a totally insane idea :P ... well, it seems like co-branding (at least on the lenses) might be a good idea. That's where the name is most valuable, well that and film cameras. The Genesis doesn't carry that much cache. So no need to take over the entire name, Panavision is not a digital cinema company. But again, the primary reason would be for lenses, manufacturing and possibly Panavision's rental/distribution channels as demand for Epic/Scarlet explodes.

I did a little more research and discovered that while Panavision has a great brand name and assets, they might not be the most fiscally healthy company (this is from wikipedia, obviously might not be true):

In March 2010, citing a drop in production and difficulty servicing significant debt as a result of the 1998 Mafco transaction, shareholder MacAndrews & Forbes agreed to a debt restructuring arrangement with Panavision's creditors. Private equity firm Cerberus Capital was the lead investor in the deal, which involved a USD $140 million reduction in debt and a USD $40 million cash infusion.[47]

Anyway, tying this back to the purpose of this thread ... one of the things I think we all see is how difficult it is to design and manufacture high-end, optically phenomenal lenses. Look how long the Leicas are taking! Not only that, but even if you do ... customers are very attached to established brand names like Zeiss, Cooke, Panavision, Leica, etc. Many Red owners have seen this with RPP's being not as easy to rent out. So by taking over Panavision, Red would essentially be inheriting the best lens name, and some of the best lens designs ever created (and I also assume manufacturing capacities as well). I think this is an unbelievably huge asset, especially since the resolution race is created an increasingly high demand for lens quality across all formats.

I dunno ... maybe I'm being too simplistic. Or maybe Panavision is a sacred cow that can't be touched. Or maybe it would feel like "cheating" to Jim and he wants to do it all from the ground up and not cut corners like this.

Who knows, but it sure is interesting to think about.

Anthony

P.S. -- I realize that Jim is ... um ... a pretty smart guy, to say the least. So I'm sure thoughts like this have crossed his mind and there are plenty of things he sees that I don't :)

[Peter Strietmann]

Question for Mr Chater. Did you have a look at the Leicas? Any thoughts on them?

[John Chater]

Mr Chater?? Geez Pete...I mean Mr Strietmann

My only thought when I saw them was that I wish Id put my order in earlier !

John
Chater Camera Inc
San Francisco

[Paul Nordin]

My only thought when I saw them was that I wish Id put my order in earlier !


Now thats good news indeed!

[John Fairstein]

I saw the Illuminas and even had them on an EPIC. They are actually a little larger but not longer than the Leica's. All the lenses are essentially the same size and they've been recertified to T1.2 at $33K for the set of 5 primes 18-85mm.

They seemed very nice in the brief bit we got to play with them. We did shoot some footage with them so need to look at it and analyze, however imperfect the "Testing" was ;)

Outside of the Leica's I'm really looking forward to getting these up on the projector and Camera for some reasonable testing.

Jason

I recently participated in a brief demo by Luma Tech of the Illuminas. They are smaller than the RED Primes and of comparable build quality. The iris is at the nodal point (not the front) as you would expect. We played with the 18mm and 25mm on my RED. No formal testing, but we looked at faces at 1.2 and 4, and shone a flashlight into the lens from about 25 ft. away. Flattering look to the faces, and very little flare. It was an LED flashlight so we couldn't fairly evaluate chromatic aberrations. The rep, Glenn Leibold informed us that the optical elements are first aligned, then the barrels are built around them. Not sure how that works, but it would certainly reduce breathing. We did not see any breathing.

Glenn also mentioned that the Illuminas are designed for ease of service, and I notice they've conducted several clinics around the country for lens techs.

I've also used the RED 18mm and 25mm lenses. Comparing the RED and the Illuminas, my impression is that the Illuminas give a warmer more Cooke like look. Plus you need a stop less light. For techies, Lomo did an optical comparison with Zeiss, Cooke, etc. Glenn mentioned they have a CD of the test results, but I have not looked at them. Their website is http://www.lumatechinc.com/2.html

I am in no way affiliated with Luma Tech, Illumina, or LOMO, and my comments are just personal impressions.

[John Fairstein]

...Honestly, if I were in Jim's shoes (maybe this is dumb, there's a reason why he's a billionaire and I'm not) but just dreaming out loud, why not buy Panavision and then take over all their designs and manufacturing. I know Red is positioned more as "affordable" and perhaps doesn't want to steal thunder from it's high-end lens partners and distributors like BandPro -- but Jeff as you noted, camera tech is advancing faster than cine lenses are, and there's sadly not enough demand right now (maybe not ever) for high end brands like Leica or Arri to build high-end cine lenses designed for larger formats. It's just too small of a nice in terms of sales volume. Anthony

I thought merging with Panavision or Arri or both was going to be the big NAB announcement. Maybe I need to cut back on beer. Another Panavision plus is their service department and on-set customer support. I think they also have a lot of custom design and fabrication capabilities. Even if none of the 3 companies ever merge, they seem to all be on good terms with each other.

[Peter Strietmann]

Mr Chater?? Geez Pete...I mean Mr Strietmann

My only thought when I saw them was that I wish Id put my order in earlier !

John
Chater Camera Inc
San Francisco

Johnny,

I sorta figured as much. I've been using leica glass since the 60s and it never seems to fail.

Best, Pete

[Roberto Lequeux]

(Anyhony, I quoted a bunch of different things from two of you posts. As you said, too interesting not to discuss. So I apologize for my "creative" organization)


Honestly, if I were in Jim's shoes (maybe this is dumb, there's a reason why he's a billionaire and I'm not) but just dreaming out loud, why not buy Panavision and then take over all their designs and manufacturing.

Perhaps because their assets and name add up to a pile of money even a billionaire doesn't spend lightly. But I don't think he would even if the numbers didn't matter.


I did a little more research and discovered that while Panavision has a great brand name and assets, they might not be the most fiscally healthy company (this is from wikipedia, obviously might not be true)

But when you say "Hollywood" you think "Panavision", and when you say "Panavision" you think "Hollywood". And there's the hard assets you mentioned.

Liquidity problems don't change that Panavision is still a major cash cow. Don't get me wrong, I am DOWN with the idea of Red buying out Panavision! We all love Panavision (and love to hate them for their hoarding traits), but it won't happen in a million years (please let me be wrong!).

Panavision knows what they have better than anyone. I bet they know they can turn it around and what it will take, so that they can move past this and have an other half a century of success that will more than cover any "recent" losses. It is all about the captain driving the ship. So Red will continue to catch up or at the very least remain level so long as Jannard wants to "keep playing" with his machined legos.

I would bet Jim would NEVER agree to let the name RED go. I wouldn't and I don't look half as bad-ass as Jim! :) But really, he doesn't seem the type at all, at least to me. And he's got Jarred pushing behind him, and Graeme, and an other few hundred "never-compromise" types that have been pushing back the front (and frontiers) since being brought onto the Red team.


But by taking over Panavision (assuming they would ever sell, but then again everything has it's price) I think Red would have both the most advanced cameras and the most historically renown lenses -- with proven designs to match virtually every camera they offer or will ever offer.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Leica provided most/all the Panavision glass, right? Though Panavision must be the owner of the designs.

It so, this means Red has what they need, and can create what they don't yet have: A more complete portfolio of revolutionary optical designs. And even just by supporting Leica, that alone should at least ensure that all they create will come in PL, and perhaps in Red's Electronic Mount once that comes out! Perhaps Leica will help with the production of Red's next optics generation, the Electronic Zooms, and eventually the anamorphic primes... I dunno, we'll chase our tail speculating! :) but what's most important we already know: Red and Leica are helping each other somehow!


"Red Primo Primes" ... I like the sound of it! ;)

Many people think RPPs have Leica glass, so I think you could get away with calling them that already if you want. It does sound good. :)


Anyway, tying this back to the purpose of this thread ... one of the things I think we all see is how difficult it is to design and manufacture high-end, optically phenomenal lenses. Look how long the Leicas are taking! Not only that, but even if you do ... customers are very attached to established brand names like Zeiss, Cooke, Panavision, Leica, etc. Many Red owners have seen this with RPP's being not as easy to rent out.

I would bet Jim is playing the long game. He will work hard, and build the name himself. Just look at the guy's attitude: "Fiji? Nah... I'm doing it again!" (not a direct quote)

By looking at the operating manual for Epic, and with everything else we know and saw the cameras can do, Jannard is already "there" for cameras. He is powering through all the grief he had to bare from haters misrepresenting the Red One, especially through its early development. He is punching through walls to get to where he needs, reminds me of that scene in "Che: Part One", only this is a technological revolution!

Let's say their new Electronic RPZs come in with IQ and size/weight that makes us have to compare them directly with the little mighty Angenieux zooms... plus electronic capabilities... If that happens (and I would bet it will!) Red will be well on their way to building an optics name for themselves.

Perhaps the coolest turning-point will be that once this happened, RPPs will be accepted and "discovered" (by those that didn't look or know what to look for other than the label).

[AnthonyFlores]

I thought merging with Panavision or Arri or both was going to be the big NAB announcement. Maybe I need to cut back on beer. Another Panavision plus is their service department and on-set customer support. I think they also have a lot of custom design and fabrication capabilities. Even if none of the 3 companies ever merge, they seem to all be on good terms with each other.

Seems like Arri and Red have some bad blood -- Arri is spreading a lot of misinformation about Red out in the industry and won't speak to Red from what I hear. So that's a merger that would never happen IMHO. But in Panavision's case, it's a good relationship and to be frank, I think they have an even stronger name ... especially when it comes to lenses. Also, Jarred once posted about how awesome Primos were on the Epic, it just seems like such a good fit. Especially since like I said, designing and making great zooms and primes is an Epic undertaking. By taking over those lens designs, manufacturing and the brand image -- I think Red would be getting the best of both worlds.

P.S. -- Robert, I never suggested giving up the name, I would never do that either. Red already has the most powerful name in digital cinema, and it's just getting warmed up.

All I was saying is that Panavision has some serious assets (lens name/rep, designs -- almost more than Optimo and Arri combined, manufacturing and distribution in terms of rentals (which Red could perhaps use for rentals/sales around the world once production is fixed). Anyway, imagine how excited people would be -- not just Red owners -- to finally be able to buy Panavision lenses? That alone would probably be worth the purchase price.

Or Red could limit lens sales just to Red owners -- one of the many exclusive perks to putting your chips down on Red :)

Oh well, the fantasy is over and I keep feeling guilty for hijacking Evin's already awesome thread.

I would love to hear others thoughts on this, am tempted to start another thread on this, but maybe the idea is so unattractive or impossible that it would just piss Jim or Jarred off. That's def not what I want.

Besides, nothing big like this could ever happen until manufacturing is straightened out and the demand for cameras is being met. But who knows, maybe after 10,000 Epics and 20,000 Scarlets ship and there's a billion or so in sales -- this is an idea that could be revisited ;)

Anthony

[Evin Grant]

The glass in the Primos comes from ELCAN, which used to be a division of Leica (Ernst Leitz Canada) but is now owned by Raytheon.
The majority of the Panavision Anamorphics are based on Nikon lenses.

[AnthonyFlores]

Yes, Evin I had heard that before in the storyline for the current Leica C's. But I'm curious -- do you think they are still manufacturing Primos and other Panny lenses? Or are all the ones for rent lenses that were produced some time ago?

Also, you mentioned anamorphics ... do you know anything about their zooms? Apart from the heavy weight, they seem really impressive.

Anthony

[Roberto Lequeux]

The glass in the Primos comes from ELCAN, which used to be a division of Leica (Ernst Leitz Canada) but is now owned by Raytheon.
The majority of the Panavision Anamorphics are based on Nikon lenses.

So mostly Nikon designs put together lovingly by Leica. See Anthony, you weren't hijacking anything. ;)

[Evin Grant]

My understanding is that Panavision designs and builds all the lenses with only the ground and polished elements coming from ELCAN, but I'm not a Panavision employee so I could be typing out of my ass ;)

[AnthonyFlores]

So mostly Nikon designs put together lovingly by Leica. See Anthony, you weren't hijacking anything. ;)

Haha. Too funny Roberto. Okay my last line on the subject in case anyone missed this:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?54398-Recap-January-22-2011...&p=741229

Wicked combo right there in the pics ;)

Anthony

[Roberto Lequeux]

only the ground and polished elements coming from ELCAN

I see. Though I would use an other word because "only" doesn't go with "grounding and polishing". ;)

Anthony, I'd shoot on Panavision anytime. But you know what would be fun? Looking through the really old ones (http://www.panavision.com/content/legacy-primes?l=1&c=0&p=13).


And can you imagine having a Epic 645, and using their 65mm lenses?

It'd be even better if Panavision had them re-coated and tuned, perhaps even performed a little barrel improvement.

Not that I think it might be necessary. As a deserved nod to Red (that will also work for Panavision), just in time for 645 release.

http://www.panavision.com/sites/default/files/01_SYSTEM_65_0_RGB_FLAT020911021411.jpg (http://www.panavision.com/content/65mm-prime?l=1&c=0&p=31)

[AnthonyFlores]

I see. Though I would use an other word because "only" doesn't go with "grounding and polishing". ;)

Anthony, I'd shoot on Panavision anytime. But you know what would be fun? Looking through the really old ones (http://www.panavision.com/content/legacy-primes?l=1&c=0&p=13).


And can you imagine having a Epic 645, and using their 65mm lenses?

It'd be even better if Panavision had them re-coated and tuned, perhaps even performed a little barrel improvement.

Not that I think it might be necessary. As a deserved nod to Red (that will also work for Panavision), just in time for 645 release.

http://www.panavision.com/sites/default/files/01_SYSTEM_65_0_RGB_FLAT020911021411.jpg (http://www.panavision.com/content/65mm-prime?l=1&c=0&p=31)

Yes!!! You rock Roberto. Here's to hoping that -- if Red doesn't buy/merge with Panavision ;) -- at least maybe they partner with them to produce sets of 645 lenses for
sale ... available exclusively to owners of that Epic 645 camera.

I mean did you see how many of those lenses in the set are T2 or T1.9??? It's unreal! (Yes, I know impractical 65mm/T2 lenses are, given how hard it is to pull focus on FF35 wide open ... but still!)

Doing this would make the release of that camera even more special :)

Anthony

[Ned Wilson]

Evin

Did you miss the Schneider Optics new Cine-Xenar set. 25mm, 35, 50 75, 95 with an 18 on the way. They will only cover super 35 so a 33mm circle. They are mostly T2 with the two wider ones being 2.1 and 2.2. Very even illumination and sharp with out being to sharp like the red primes. Didn't has a chance to check flare charistics but being that they are from the same company that makes B+W filters, it may be safe to assume they are going to flare nicely. Prob the best low end set of PL glass I saw. Under 30k for the set.

The new Angienioux is dead sexy and for only 9k I am seriously thinking about a deposit on the leica's. They were wow

Matt

I was not impressed with these lenses the one time I used them. Here's why:
- Despite what resellers say, the surge forward when you focus can be up to just shy of half an inch on some lenses. This necessitates a clip on. If you do us a rod mount MB (which in many cases prefer), you run into to fit and vignetting issues as the MB has to be mounted further forward. This trait alone is a deal breaker for me. If you're a purely clip on guy, then perhaps not.
- I found the flaring to be particularly bad compared to Mk3's or even RPP's for that matter. It would create some serious color distortions as well as secondary rings in the bottom corner that looked IMO completely inorganic. Like bad or uncoated optics.
- Build quality was good.
- Focus draw was a little steep once you get into the upper reaches. Didn't make for as progressive a pull with your standard cine lenses.
- Sharpness was quite excellent.

Overall, I see no reason to buy these over RPP's. Bad flaring and the surging lens element would keep me from using them again.

[AnthonyFlores]

I was not impressed with these lenses the one time I used them. Here's why:
- Despite what resellers say, the surge forward when you focus can be up to just shy of half an inch on some lenses. This necessitates a clip on. If you do us a rod mount MB (which in many cases prefer), you run into to fit and vignetting issues as the MB has to be mounted further forward. This trait alone is a deal breaker for me. If you're a purely clip on guy, then perhaps not.
- I found the flaring to be particularly bad compared to Mk3's or even RPP's for that matter. It would create some serious color distortions as well as secondary rings in the bottom corner that looked IMO completely inorganic. Like bad or uncoated optics.
- Build quality was good.
- Focus draw was a little steep once you get into the upper reaches. Didn't make for as progressive a pull with your standard cine lenses.
- Sharpness was quite excellent.

Overall, I see no reason to buy these over RPP's. Bad flaring and the surging lens element would keep me from using them again.

I think these were initially conceived as a competitor to Zeiss CP2's and also perhaps as an alternative for RPP's and others in the $4000-5000 range.

However, like you I believe the drawbacks are too much relative to the positives. Perhaps if they fix some of the flaws in later edition, reduce the
size a bit ... they will be worth another look.

Anthony

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip) I could be typing out of my ass ;)

That is not a mental image I really wanted in my head... ;-)

Cheers - #19

[Ned Wilson]

I think these were initially conceived as a competitor to Zeiss CP2's and also perhaps as an alternative for RPP's and others in the $4000-5000 range.

However, like you I believe the drawbacks are too much relative to the positives. Perhaps if they fix some of the flaws in later edition, reduce the
size a bit ... they will be worth another look.

Anthony

The size didn't bother me. They were no bigger than RPP's. As far as performance and build I'd take CP2's in a heartbeat. I'm not sure what Schneider is thinking with this design at that price. Love their polarizers though. Best in the biz.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Yes!!! You rock Roberto. Here's to hoping that -- if Red doesn't buy/merge with Panavision ;) -- at least maybe they partner with them to produce sets of 645 lenses for
sale ... available exclusively to owners of that Epic 645 camera.

I mean did you see how many of those lenses in the set are T2 or T1.9??? It's unreal! (Yes, I know impractical 65mm/T2 lenses are, given how hard it is to pull focus on FF35 wide open ... but still!)

Doing this would make the release of that camera even more special :)

Anthony

I would not bet a cent on Panavision changing their business model. But I would be happy if they made sure to have lots of 65mm sets in perfect working order and utilizing the latest technology.

PV mounts can suck it. But it is what it is. More power to them... really. It is up to the competition to pull us away from them by creating their own sets.

How 'bout a "Red-Leica 645 set"? :thumbsup:

[AnthonyFlores]

I would not bet a cent on Panavision changing their business model. But I would be happy if they made sure to have lots of 65mm sets in perfect working order and utilizing the latest technology.

PV mounts can suck it. But it is what it is. More power to them... really. It is up to the competition to pull us away from them by creating their own sets.

How 'bout a "Red-Leica 645 set"? :thubmsup:

Well, if they can keep those same amazing specs as the Panasivion 65mm set with many lenses at t2 or 1.9 (why not, if their new designer was involved in the original Panny designs) ... and they can keep each lens at $30k or less, I definitely think they'll have some buyers. Whether it will be worth the cost of development and production for them, no one really knows. What's interesting is that -- while I would guess that 65mm digital filmmaking would be mostly limited to things being shot for the big screen ...... the biggest market for the 645 Monstro might be fashion photographers.

Think about it -- MF is king in their world, but they are increasingly in need of great motion footage as well. Hence the booming popularity of the Epic these guys. So if that sector picks up enough, and considering some the current shortcomings of MF glass -- Leica designing a special set to meet these 645 still/motion use might not be all that far-fetched.

I'm sure our good friend Ketch would be among the first in line, even at $250k for a set of eight :-P

Anthony

[Roberto Lequeux]

I agree, but for stills they will already have access to all MF still glass, Red will make sure of that via whatever mounts are necessary. The only way fashion photography would help the cause would be if they start getting really into the "new" motion side of fashion, and they started wanting to do a lot of big focus pulls that demanded no breathing. Then, some would ask for motion glass. But even then, if the IQ doesn't match their stills lenses they might pull out and simplify their motion shots, or just skip it all together and focus on the stills.

I think it will be all about how easy it is for us to pull focus, and how small the files are --in relation to how big storage solutions have gotten to at that point. If extremely shallow focus is the only factor, I think it will be a renaissance for large format (and an unprecedented explosion of it perhaps!).

Being able to shoot ISO2000 (+!) just to close down the lens will help a lot. Big lights helped them back then, and our lights are getting smaller and more efficient. There is always day exteriors.

The cool thing is that Epic's 645 frame will most likely be around 8k. Nobody knows just how big it will be, but I think Jannard is a very talented photographer/manufacturer/boat-captain when it comes to weighing pros and cons for things like this and picking the balance point. It has to be significantly larger than 5k, we all know that at least. And with this much sensor area, even if the 645 was designed with rather large photosites, there certainly will be a lot of resolution we'll be able to crop out and still get Stradivarius level imagery.

Between (higher than M-X!) sensitivity, cropping the sensor a little or a lot, and lights...

...I'd say 645 will go though a renascence once Red breaks down that barrier.
(The Phantom is great, but not high resolution so it doesn't compete for A-Cam)

[Michael Hastings]

I agree, but for stills they will already have access to all MF still glass, Red will make sure of that via whatever mounts are necessary. The only way fashion photography would help the cause would be if they start getting really into the "new" motion side of fashion, and they started wanting to do a lot of big focus pulls that demanded no breathing. Then, some would ask for motion glass. But even then, if the IQ doesn't match their stills lenses they might pull out and simplify their motion shots, or just skip it all together and focus on the stills.

I think it will be all about how easy it is for us to pull focus, and how small the files are --in relation to how big storage solutions have gotten to at that point. If extremely shallow focus is the only factor, I think it will be a renaissance for large format (and an unprecedented explosion of it perhaps!).

Being able to shoot ISO2000 (+!) just to close down the lens will help a lot. Big lights helped them back then, and our lights are getting smaller and more efficient. There is always day exteriors.

BTW for fun you can pick up the 645 bodies for about $100 and shoot 645 film - probably scans out to 50-60 megapixels worth.

The cool thing is that Epic's 645 frame will most likely be around 8k. Nobody knows just how big it will be, but I think Jannard is a very talented photographer/manufacturer/boat-captain when it comes to weighing pros and cons for things like this and picking the balance point. It has to be significantly larger than 5k, we all know that at least. And with this much sensor area, even if the 645 was designed with rather large photosites, there certainly will be a lot of resolution we'll be able to crop out and still get Stradivarius level imagery.

Between (higher than M-X!) sensitivity, cropping the sensor a little or a lot, and lights...

...I'd say 645 will go though a renascence once Red breaks down that barrier.
(The Phantom is great, but not high resolution so it doesn't compete for A-Cam)

I've already gathered up a full set of Pentax 645 lenses from 35mm (ultrawide on 645) through 400mm in anticipation of Epic 645 - remember it was supposed to be ready about now. Even these lenses - which are both sharp and pretty cheap on the used market - would be fine for the fashion type shoots. The wide to normal focal lengths have long focus throws and the mechanics are very smooth. If one had them modified with gears and maybe a stiffer lubricant they would work pretty well as cine lenses. Haven't checked breathing though.



The glass in the Primos comes from ELCAN, which used to be a division of Leica (Ernst Leitz Canada) but is now owned by Raytheon..

Interesting - didn't know that. My brother is a very senior guy at Raytheon in the electro-optical division (formerly Hughes) - but it makes sense - Raytheon with their defense/satellite businesses probably have the most advanced optics in the world.

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

So whats wrong with the ARRI/Zeiss LWZ-2 15,5mm-45mm? I have an Angie 30-80mm and it has served me well for a couple of years, but it is not of the best build quality and it has a pretty clear fall-off in the long end.
I want to buy a wider zoom to complement it, and was amazed the the LWZ-2 is almost the same price as the Angie 16-42.(LWZ 26K and Angie 16-42 20K) BTW my 30-80 flares in an unattractive way with its needlepoint/prick-flare(pun intended)
Why is no-one talking about the LWZ? Any opinions out there?
Thanks

Jens-Jakob

[Evin Grant]

I have yet to use the LWZ but I disagree on the Angies, I am consistently impressed with thier optical performance, regardless of cost. But I always prefered Zeiss T2.1s to Cooke S4s too :biggrin:

[Jiri Vrozina]

http://www.evingrant.com/pics/NAB2011/Angie_75x.jpg

This little baby is a new .75x wide angle attachement lens for the 15-40 & 16-42 Optimos. It essentially turns your lens into a 12mm prime with some minor barrel distortion and a 6' minimum focus distance. I think this is a very nice solution for those wanting to travel as light as possible and still have an extreme wide angle option. $3500 list price.


Hi Evin,
just one question regarding a new Angie .75x wide angle attachement lens.
Do you loose resolution with this .75x WAA?? Also are 1.4 and 2.0 x Adapters suitable for Optimo 16-42??

regards
jiri

[AnthonyFlores]

http://www.evingrant.com/pics/NAB2011/Angie_75x.jpg

This little baby is a new .75x wide angle attachement lens for the 15-40 & 16-42 Optimos. It essentially turns your lens into a 12mm prime with some minor barrel distortion and a 6' minimum focus distance. I think this is a very nice solution for those wanting to travel as light as possible and still have an extreme wide angle option. $3500 list price.


Hi Evin,
just one question regarding a new Angie .75x wide angle attachement lens.
Do you loose resolution with this .75x WAA?? Also are 1.4 and 2.0 x Adapters suitable for Optimo 16-42??

regards
jiri


I'm curious just how visible the distortion with this attachment. Is it only something pixel peepers would notice -- or would it be noticeable by typical members of the audience ...

[Evin Grant]

I did not get to view any actual footage but my impression from playing with it was it's sharp. I wouldn't hesitate using it for those instances where it would be needed, however it did show visible barrel distortion, think 35mm anamorphic lens and you're in the ballpark, so still totally useable but it's really tough when a Duclos 11-16 is the same price and extremely well corrected, even at 11mm.

[Jiri Vrozina]

Thanks for that.
Just final question: How does RED Pro 17-50mm and Duclos 11-16mm cut? Are the close for Color Match?
Thanks again.

[Taj Jackson]

Thanks for that.
Just final question: How does RED Pro 17-50mm and Duclos 11-16mm cut? Are the close for Color Match?
Thanks again.

I was wondering the exact same thing today. Curious to know as well.
Thanks

[AnthonyFlores]

I did not get to view any actual footage but my impression from playing with it was it's sharp. I wouldn't hesitate using it for those instances where it would be needed, however it did show visible barrel distortion, think 35mm anamorphic lens and you're in the ballpark, so still totally useable but it's really tough when a Duclos 11-16 is the same price and extremely well corrected, even at 11mm.

Thanks Evin, that helps me understand better :)

[Brian Anderson]

Anyone check out the Illuminas?

Check out this link from highendlenses.com. I really love the color of these lenses more tailored to the cooke warmth.

http://www.highendlenses.com/largedemo.html

[Dean Hasse]

Evin,
I am new to the Red users site and have a brand new Angenieux 24-290 may want to sell, I can't figure out navigation to post anything, can you help???
Dean@usedvideo.net

[Dean Hasse]

Can you give me a call regarding hi-end lens rentals tommorrow,

Thanks
Dean
818-888-7625
dean@usedvideo.net