canon zoom - ok?

Olivier Egli · July 8, 2004

so on my upcoming musicvid I chose the canon 8-64 2.4 lens as it might give me more freedom when setting the frame size. The tight budget does not allow for a set of ultraprimes but I have access to this lens in PL mount for the S16 Arri SRII dentz.

Has anyone any experience in the use of this zoom? is it as hard as they say? I know Japanese lenses tend to be harder than others. How about breathing when pulling focus even at extreme focal lengths? Is the lower end of the length usable at all? aberration? barrel distortion?

I know I should be testing it extensively myslef, but the budget and the time are tight tight tight...

Mitch Gross · July 10, 2004

Hey gang, back after a month on location and answering the same questions from the past five years!

The Canon 8-64 is an excellent lens, with great sharpness and contrast. It exhibits very little image breathing and can focus down to two feet. Like all lenses (especially zooms), you should test the individual lenses as they can vary from one to the next. I own one and intercut itwith my primes all the time.

Mitch

Matt Pacini · July 14, 2004

Hey Mitch, welcome back!

Tell us about your shoot.

I'm just curious, how would you compare this lens to my Canon 12.5-120 T2.8, and how would you compare it to the CP Ultra Primes? (I've got the 9mm & 12.5mm, now I'm looking for the 16mm & 25mm).

If it's as sharp as the CP Ultra's, maybe I'll look for one of these instead.

Matt

July 15, 2004

I really appreciate the expert information provided with great attitudes from the sharing minds on this forum.

My question of the moment: What does breathing mean in relation to zoom lenses? I've seen this term thrown around here like it's common knowledge and I've seen others inquire as to what 'breathing' means. However, even with all these references... no one has bothered to answer that question.

David Mullen ASC · July 15, 2004

When you rack-focus a zoom lens, often it slightly zooms as well, by a few millimeters (even though the zoom ring does not move.) This makes your focus shifts more obvious, like the image is "breathing" in or out, expanding or contracting the view slightly.

Mitch Gross · July 15, 2004

Hey Matt--

Nothing about my shoot that I particuarly feel like reporting back on, which may suffice as an answer <_< I start my long-delayed anamorphic 35 feature soon so I'm diving into the proproduction there suddenly.

Your old Canon is from a far earlier generation of lenses, and the 8-64 is far superior. But here's a great tip: the Canon 8-64 is essentially the same lens as the Canon 7-56 with a larger rear element to cover Super-16. So you can buy a 7-56 now for around $2k and for another $4k later on have it converted to S-16 use if you ever upgrade your camera. This is the history behind my personal 8-64, which I had converted in England. The 8-64 sells used for a lot more and even if you leave the lens as 7-56 it's still an excellent piece of glass for a great price. I know that Jeff Krienes uses one as one of his testing lenses for the Kinetta.

July 16, 2004

Thanks for the explanation, David. I really enjoy reading your informational posts.

Mitch - I've enjoyed reading your posts, as well. I've read and re-read your mention of the 2 Canon zooms and I'm still confused. Which one are you saying is Super 16-ready? Is it the 8-64?

Are you saying you had a 7-56mm converted to a 8-64mm? Is this process cheaper than just buying a 8-64mm?

What do either of these lenses sell for on average?

Mitch Gross · July 16, 2004

Sorry, wrote it quickly with a baby on my lap. The Canon 8-64 covers Super-16, the 7-56 does not. The 8-64 generally sells for around $8k while the 7-56 sells for around $3k and can be converted to an 8-64 for another $5k. So in the end it ends up costing about the same, but if you don't need a S-16 lens right now then you can spread out the cost. The 7-56 is not that well known because Canon realized fairly early into the production run that they could alter it slightly and have a S-16 lens in an 8-64, so consequently not all that many 7-56 models were made. But they are excellent glass and since they sell for so little make a great investment. Better than a Cooke 9-50 in my opinion with a greater range and sells for about the same price. I believe Visual Products has one on its site at the moment.

Mike Welle · July 16, 2004

Take a look at the Cinematechnic site. Here is what they say about the Canon 7-56: T2.1 Internal focus zoom. Covers Super 16 at 16:9 transmitted aperture size from 8.5-56mm. Slight vignetting below 8.5mm.

I wonder if the lens covers Super-16 at 8.5mm when it is focused at 1'6", or if it vignettes.

July 25, 2004

Thanks for the clarification, Mitch. Now, take care of that young 'un. ;) <-- that's supposed to be a wink, but I'm not so sure it looks like one...

Matt Pacini · July 25, 2004

Mitch, how old is my old Canon 12.5-120?

Still, it looks pretty good, and I think i got a decent deal for $167., eh?

Matt

Mitch Gross · July 26, 2004

Mitch, how old is my old Canon 12.5-120?

Still, it looks pretty good, and I think i got a decent deal for $167., eh?

Matt

I'm guessing at least 30 years. Any functioning cinematography gear purchased under $200 has to be considered a hell of a deal.

Matt Pacini · July 26, 2004

The guy had it listed on ebay under "video", incorrectly calling it a "Scoopic Lens", which obviously, is in error, since the Scoopic doesn't have a removable lens!

It was a good deal for sure!

How would you rate the 8-64 against the CP Ultra Primes in sharpness?

Matt Pacini