Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: ChristopherBarrett on December 12, 2011, 08:49:55 pm
-
I just got in from Portland where a few RedUsers put together a big Lens Shootout at Tim Whitcomb's studio there. We had a number of Epics on hand and some very interesting lenses. We used my camera (with Canon Eos mount) to test Matthew Duclos' set of Leica R Cine Mod'd glass. We had three test stations... outdoor, indoor and flare. Results will start showing up at RedUser over the next week. This is our list of Test Glass...
1. RED PRO PRIMES - Shawn Nelson
2. Illumina S35 - Paul Nordlin
3. Cooke Panchros - Christopher Barret
4. UniQoptics Signature Series- Paul Engstrom
5. Schneider Cine-Xenars - Illya Friedman - Hot Rod Cameras
6. Leica R (Duclos Mod) - Matthew Duclos
7. Zeiss Compact Primes (V2) - Justin Alpern - Illya Friedman
These sets range from about 15k to 46k. I totally fell in love with the little Leica's and plan to outfit a set of at least the fast ones to augment my Cookes. It was really kind of a blast and I'm anxious to see footage. I'll post links to this thread as they become available.
CB
-
This is definitely interesting. Thanks for sharing. I'm rooting for Leica-R!
-
I didn't even know LL had a forum until Chris mentioned it the other day. It was great meeting you at the test Chris. I plan on frequenting this forum for a little more exposure to still photography topics as opposed to the cinema forums I've wandered for the past five years.
-
I'm also really interested to see those Leica R. They already work very well with the 5D2 in stills.
But gentlemen, couldn't we use a code ? for example that the Leica R could be "LRL" or "LORL" (leica-optic-r-lens), or "LOL"
because the thing is that if they work brilliantly, ebay and shops are going to be in flame and in a question of hours prices will rise-up to the ridiculous...
Discretion, discretion...we will all benefit.
Then the question is if a R owner can send the R lenses to Duclos for the adaptation?
-
I dunno Fred. I've been scouring eBay and the prices are already ridiculous for used glass.
;)
-
Gosh ! yeah...
I've looked and made phone calls.
I should have bought some units a year or so ago when I saw them ridiculously cheap (german summilux included) in some Madrid shops. Now the R party is over, welcome to speculative trade.
And it remains to be seen if they would bring superior quality in motion to the Ts, STs, and ZOMs (if you want the codes keys ::) mail me )
-
We tested a lot of lenses . . . most lenses and though I like Leica glass, I don't think you'll see a nickle's difference between the Zeiss nikon mount lenses and a Leica R lens.
We are now buying some RED Primes and I like there primes, but nothing I've seen is sharper than those little Zeiss lenses in a Nikon mount.
IMO
BC
-
If you like the Zeiss, you'll dig the RPP's. They're on the big/heavy side and the focus marks tend to be off, but the glass is supposed to be awesome, cool and sharp like Zeiss. Our testing will pit the Leicas against the Compact Primes which are the same glass as the ZFs. Killer thing about Cine cameras... so many lens options!
CB
-
If you like the Zeiss, you'll dig the RPP's. They're on the big/heavy side and the focus marks tend to be off, but the glass is supposed to be awesome, cool and sharp like Zeiss. Our testing will pit the Leicas against the Compact Primes which are the same glass as the ZFs. Killer thing about Cine cameras... so many lens options!
CB
Maybe I'm missing it but what's the point of a heavier lens that cost more money with the same results?
-
LoL... You've always got a point to make, don't ya? Of course it's usually a pretty solid point. Still, the CPs do have fans because of their cine housing. Somebody brought (or sent) a set to test, so we tested 'em. Actually, though... if you're running a full cine rig, then the CPs give you common front elements and geared focus, so lens swaps are painless, and believe it or not this drives almost all the design of every cine lens being manufactured. When I'm swapping out the Cookes I never have to move the follow focus or change the matte box. That makes for more fluid shooting.
Personally, I would go with the ZF's over the CP's. You can get the 35/50/85 in f/1.4 where they are limited to 2.1 in CP design. I also love their form factor. I have the 35mm and 85mm (sort of randomly). I can throw either on the Epic and have a sub 10lbs 5k cine camera. That rocks. I love the little glass for jib work and handheld too. I started buying the Leicas this morning. My ZFs will be for sale. I really need to have a Gear Garage Sale.
I'm rambling, the wine is taking hold. Better put down the laptop and pour another glass.
CB
by the way... if you are adapting any glass to Canon Eos mount... use these (http://www.leitax.com/). Don't touch anything else! This shit (http://www.leitax.com/) is the shit!
-
LoL... You've always got a point to make, don't ya? Of course it's usually a pretty solid point. Still, the CPs do have fans because of their cine housing. Somebody brought (or sent) a set to test, so we tested 'em. Actually, though... if you're running a full cine rig, then the CPs give you common front elements and geared focus, so lens swaps are painless, and believe it or not this drives almost all the design of every cine lens being manufactured. When I'm swapping out the Cookes I never have to move the follow focus or change the matte box. That makes for more fluid shooting.
Personally, I would go with the ZF's over the CP's. You can get the 35/50/85 in f/1.4 where they are limited to 2.1 in CP design. I also love their form factor. I have the 35mm and 85mm (sort of randomly). I can throw either on the Epic and have a sub 10lbs 5k cine camera. That rocks. I love the little glass for jib work and handheld too. I started buying the Leicas this morning. My ZFs will be for sale. I really need to have a Gear Garage Sale.
I'm rambling, the wine is taking hold. Better put down the laptop and pour another glass.
CB
by the way... if you are adapting any glass to Canon Eos mount... use these (http://www.leitax.com/). Don't touch anything else! This shit (http://www.leitax.com/) is the shit!
I only use the little Zf's if I'm pulling focus myself when shooting. It's not possible to pull your own focus on most cine housing lenses with a subject crossing a street and passing the camera as the focus pull is over a full turn and with the little zf's it's about 1" of turn.
I like the CP's, but we went with the RED's for PL mount primes because the one's I tested were sharp and they are fast at 1.9.
We run one RED with a nikon mount, 1 with a PL mount.
IMO
BC
-
I wish someone would compare all the
All the lower end still to cine glass.
I'd like to see the canons FD, EF,
Against the Nikors and the Ziess, CP2
ZE . And, leica R
Wide to 85mm.
Anyone every done it?
I have been gathering Leica R, and I can
Say. That the 28 is incredibly good.
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net
-
In general you can't go wrong with the Summilux. I like a lot the 35mm 1.4.
The fast FD lenses perform very well IMO. I like a lot the mount system.
I think that in video HD the performances of the top "vintage" lenses tend to be very similar whatever the brand is. I've heard very good reports on some Rokkor, OM glasses perform very well included the recent Zuikos digital that have a superb quality IMO on par with the good Leicas etc...
In general, what was/is recognized as a very good lens will deliver great results. But then it's more a matter of construction design. For ex, if the focussing ring has a short or long range has consequences. If the aperture is continuous or not has also consequences. What I like with the GH2 is that the sensor size allows certain M39 without vigneting, and on this line there are really cool glasses if do not need wide.
And of course no need to say that the zooms with a non continuous aperture are problematics in motion etc...
-
Here are the Blind Tests if you'd like to have a look.
The Lenses will be revealed in one week.
Interior test with model (tungsten) (http://vimeo.com/ryanewalters/portlandlenstest01)
Flare test and low light skin tones (tungsten) (http://vimeo.com/ryanewalters/portlandlenstest02)
Exterior with model (perfect overcast day) (http://vimeo.com/ryanewalters/portlandlenstest03)
-
Geee...informative but...
after the set number 3, I was starting to fall literally asleep.
I mean, you guys just found a product that would solve millions of people ww who can't find their sleep or have high arterial blood pressure. Efficiency guarantee!
The Boudhists and Zen meditation hardcore movies for high-end practicionners are a sweet joke compare to that.
That should be a standard medication applied for all the overstressed individuals of the first world. 5 minutes of this movie each day before sleeping
and the cost of social security will go down miraculously.
Couldn't you do that the model reading the newspaper were in bikini, like a bathing suits 2012 summer collection?
Instead of (highly depressing) Portland bloody Oregon in the winter, a lens test in the Bahamas?
Or in Las Vegas to keep-up with Red habits.
My advice is that the next time you do a lens testing, hire Hywel with his bd models. You'll see how the audience curve is going to rise-up.
That's the way testing should be done, and the color chart could be printed on the bathing suit, one color chart in the right chest and a
b&W wheel in the left one. And between the legs, a moiré pattern?
My favs indoors are sets 1 and 4, but all those glasses are pretty damn close.
-
I see your point, Fred, but so did the model. And also the photographer. Those delightful out-of-focus seconds between shifts in area coverage were exactly how I feel when I judge the time has come to switch off and go to bed.
Poor girl sould be given a medal for pretending to read. Or an Oscar.
I never got beyond T/5.6, so maybe I missed the moment. But anyway, I don't really think bikinis are the answer if they are going to be sitting reading El Dia - you need movement, even as in Baywatch, perhaps? It's a strange thing: I've never actually seen Baywatch, only those constant reruns of the ladies running along the beach in slomo that are shown as the essence of it...
;-)
Rob C
-
I started answering but rambled so much I started a new topic!.. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60413
-
The results are in: http://www.ryanewalters.com/Videos/Tests/tests.html (http://www.ryanewalters.com/Videos/Tests/tests.html)
Long story > short... the Cookes did very well. Ahh, that makes my wallet feel better.
-
The results are in: http://www.ryanewalters.com/Videos/Tests/tests.html (http://www.ryanewalters.com/Videos/Tests/tests.html)
Long story > short... the Cookes did very well. Ahh, that makes my wallet feel better.
In the blind test #1 my favs were the Cookes and the Red primes.
But they all have their strenghs. All very good lenses. I'm not as hot hot with the Leicas wich on the blinds were the ones I liked less each time.
So I know at least it's not for me.
out-of-topic ps:
Just come back from set and I don't know you guys but everytime we have a break in a bar, every assistant are playing with their I.phones. "have you downloaded this or that?".
The all breaks are spent in I.phones conversations. Each time it's the same.
I'm just looking at that with absolutly zero interest, but as it's the only topic that seems to animate the plateaux on the pauses, I feel somewhere out-of-the-game.
Am I alone not being interested at all in the I.phone gadgetery on set?
Or have you beaten also to this fashion guys.
Anyway, I want to thank Chris and the others for bringing this testing. Always informative. I needed to take zillion coffees and Redbull drinks to be able to watch them from beginning to end without falling in deep hypnotic state,
and avoided successfully a depression with the outdoor background surrowndings, but I value the time spent on that by all those experienced pros.
-
Wow, what a surprise,the Cine lenses are best. You get what you pay for, I think i prefer the Red Pro Primes . The Leicas looked OK, but i don't think the focus racking looked too good at all.
-
A different test.
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/12/23/lens-test/
-
http://gizmodo.com/5894194/photographer-hacks-an-almost-100+year+old-lens-onto-his-canon-5d-mark-ii/gallery/1
-
lovely!
:)
-
If the other boys are absorbed in their iPhone world, talk to the girls in the bar. Sadly most of them are texting while the boys are playing with apps. BTW, I still use a Nokia 6210. If I show that the subject changes to all the old phones people were using in the past.
Best of luck,
Johannes
Not only are they all playing with their I-phone, but they are I-phone specific. I've seen someone pull out an Android and they sneer at it and make fun.
I carry two I-phones on the road, cause I'm always breaking one and all I have to do is switch sims, but I use it for biz, sometmes the maps, weather, and finding a location. Take a few snaps and for phone calls.
Last year I deactivated my facebook page because I just don't know if anyone would care if I had an omelet for breakfast, or if my feet standing next toa tripod looks like art.
Our first assistant get's over 60 yo 70 text messages from his girlfriend every day. You hear buzz, buzz, buzz. I told him he should put it in his pocket that way he could actually enjoy all that wasted vibration.
In fact three months ago my wife bought me a new I-pad and I've yet to take it out of the box. The old one works and I rarely use it because it's kinda fun for watching movie, or showing c-1 remotely, though we have a dedicated Ipad for our digital kit, so I just don't need it.
What I do use more than I care to admit is I have a Samsung netbook I use to tune two of my hot rods and I actually find myself using it all the time because I can do a spread sheet, actually save an attachment and the battery last about a week. Also it was a good primer for getting use to pc boxes and I know we'll soon have to move our editing stations to pcs (is peecees a word?) so I am now familiar with the microsoft os and don't find it near as bad as most people say.
When we shoot in studio and i want a break I go outside and look at my Iphone like I'm working, but i just do this to get a break and not to be interuppted.
Actually (though I probably won't do it) I think my next mobile phone will be a blackberry. Blackberries seem all business and every really powerful person I know carries one, which means they're usually too busy to play games. They look like their doing biz rather than farting around with angry birds.
IMO
BC
-
... buzz, buzz, buzz. I told him he should put it in his pocket that way he could actually enjoy all that wasted vibration.
;D ;D...
Last time I was in assistance with a big fish here, I heard this dark voice of the boss resonating like an old teacher in the primary school, 5 minutes after we all were starting to install the circus: "...and I don't want to see nor hear any I.phone during the shooting folks. Prohibited!" Le vieux (in french le vieux means "the old guy" and can be use for the boss) can't stand them anymore.
I was so pleased.
No need to say that on the coulisses, the main themes of conversations, not kidding, when it's not the I.phone apps are the facebook stuff...pathetic indeed. I don't know wich one I prefer to be honest...now that the i.phones are prohibited on set, I'm afraid the relacement is the facebook see-how-i-brush-my-teath (gosh, how do I write this theath, tith...anyway too lazy to open the digital dictionary)
Peecees now are NOT the peecees of before. I have an Imac that I would like to use as a monitor on a PC workstation. For me there are about the same stuff nowdays. I could pass from one to another with a safe neutrality. Actually I think that a studio equiped with both is more powerfull than one system only.
I do too confirm that powerfull people I know are mainly on Blackberry. I noticed that too.
-
The Olympus OM digital are very good lenses. Extremely well built and great glass. More compact than the equivalent. The pro-line is sealed and no distortions.
Generally on the vintage the OM are good oportunity for their qualities.
Another extremely good performer is the 28mm f2 Kino Precision from Kiron. It's vastly used in movie because it's a high performer lens, up to the top with the bests and also, important, you can focus very close, almost macro and the ring is short and precise. With one turn (no need a follow focus) you cover the all focussing range. I have one and it's incredibly easy and reliable to follow focus without ff, and certainly better than still autofocus lenses that aren't working. No surprise the cine industry is using it quite a lot, and IQ is very good. If you can find one in e-bay go for it because they don't last very long.
Also, some Vivitar serie 1, specially the ones made by Kiron (you have to know what you're buying) are great performers. These aren't zooms but varifocal lenses. I read complains about this by people with obviously limited experience and don't know the goodies (specially in motion) of a varifocal lens vs a proper zoom. It allows to do things impossible with a normal zoom but they require more craft experience and more training. These are top quality varifocal lenses. Highly recommended if you can get one by Kiron.
Make a research in internet about the way to recognise the top units, because then the production quality decreased.
-
Last year I deactivated my facebook page because I just don't know if anyone would care if ...
Analog is so more tactile.
www.tinyurl.com/d9zqkos
-
One of our assistants brags he has thousands of friends . . . on facebook.
My take is that's like having an ant farm and saying you have 2,000 pets.
Anyway, I did a page, like most people, never really used it, never checked it until one evening during a pro bono creative brief, one of the participants was insane. REALLY certifiable and all she could talk about was facebook.
She kept flitting around of space reading everything on everyone's desk, knocking things over, asking to take equipment (she said borrow) wanted a lesson in photoshop, then insulted everyone in the room. I said that's enough and it's time we call her a taxi and send her home.
A few hours later every bit of her social media lit up with insanity, mentioning everyone and some ended up on our page so I turned it off. Just didn't understand the risk vs. the result.
I think the facebook idea is good . . . well better put, I guess it's ok if I was starting and indie band, but it hit me that there wasn't any reason for me to talk about my switch to whole grain cereal vs. toast.
Maybe someday I'll need to use it and turn it back on, but with the mountains of e-mails I get that I don't want to open, much less read I didn't have the time and really who cares if I ride my bicycle 4 miles every morning. (I don't ride a bike I drive . . . heck I'd drive to the bathroom if my car would fit in the hallway). (I stole this line from Bern.)
insert smiley face.
IMO
BC
-
I'd go even further.
I think that now it's more profitable for the business to have a private website than a public one, zero presence in social networks and the more we're "difficult" to reach, the best.
-
I'd go even further.
I think that now it's more profitable for the business to have a private website than a public one, zero presence in social networks and the more we're "difficult" to reach, the best.
I think it's important nowdays to be careful what you show. Client's are too quick to label you, agencies pitching an account eill grap a clip or an image, drop in a logo and make it theirs, at least for the initial creative brief.
It's just the way the world works now.
problem is if you show what you do, it's gonna get used usually without you ever knowing it, which is no big deal cause when they do it for real they're going to use different talent, backgrounds, etc.
Still, you gotta show what you do.
IMO BC
-
Maybe showing short representative reels or displayed only the campaigns that have been closed and payed.
I think that showing very little, just the best, just the important campaigns (important I mean not necessarly the biggest but the
ones that went out best).
IMO, it's maybe not even necessary to have those displayed in a personal website but directly in prod-houses webs.
That's what Aveillan does. He doesn't even have a public website.
"I shoot-I take the money-they display-I am reachable through others".
Recuenco has another politics. He even display publicaly in HD almost everything he does.
My sensation is that the networks have reached such ridiculous levels that they start to be counter-productive for the serious people. I know more and more big fishes that tend to step away from the public noise
and their business aren't not affected the wrong way.
Ps: I found a vintage compendium. It works superbly. It's called "the shade +", made in New York USA. Well it's light, not built like a tank though (tht's why it's light) but good enough qualy to handle on set and takes 75x75mm gelatin filters and 6x6 inches to cut for the front. I think it was distributed by Hamma.
It's intertesting because you can mount filters in the front of the compendium that therefore can be used for water etc..."
It comes originaly with a 67mm thread mount and adapters are easy to find. I prefer those compendiums than the matteboxes or screw NDs.