Long telephotos on HDCam and Varicam

[Steve Phillipps]

Has anyone done a lot of shooting with long lenses like Canon 300mm, 150-600mm etc. on HDCam (Sony 750 etc) or Varicam? I did tests on an F900 a few years back but not enough to really make a firm judgement. I tested a Canon 300, 150-600 and a Leica 105-280 against an Optex/Canon HDEC lens, something like a 16x I think it was. The results from the stills lenses were all pretty good, but the HD lens was definitely marginally better - though it was saturation and colour depth rather than resolution where it won out. But I thought at the time that the other lenses were more than acceptable. Anybody got more experience, particularly in real-world situations, especially with wildlife shooting?

Cheers.

[Mitch Gross]

At Abel we have a Canon 10-400 with a doubler and it is just a sight to behold. Just lovely glass, and with a great image stabilizer as well. We also use a Fujinon 42x that is really nice. These lenses are considerably bigger than the cameras we mount to them and cost about as much, but boy are they worth it.

[Mike Brennan]

At Abel we have a Canon 10-400 with a doubler and it is just a sight to behold. Just lovely glass, and with a great image stabilizer as well. We also use a Fujinon 42x that is really nice. These lenses are considerably bigger than the cameras we mount to them and cost about as much, but boy are they worth it.

 

I have 1000mmm and 2000mm mirror lenses that are in the quite good categry (compared to a regular HD zoom) and 400mm.

 

I use an optical compensator. At Fstops below 5.6 you will start to get fringing due to different backfocus distance of RGB ccds.

Try out different lenses at the camera shop. Youll find some lightweight lenses that will not evenneed a lens support, try a sigma or nikon 400mm 5.6

 

Beats spending $60k on a 42x zoom when you only want the long end.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Steve Phillipps]

Thanks Mike,

I have lenses already which I've used for years on S16 and Digibeta, including Canon 300 f2.8, 150-600 f5.6 and 800 f5.6. They've always been great on the other formats and I don't see why they should be any different on HD - after all they're used on digital SLRs with a resolution a hell of a lot higher than HD. I'll be shooting a lot over the next 12 months on a Sony 750 and will be using an HJ22 together with the stills lenses so will report my findings. I know I used a J33 on Digibeta and found that it was hellish soft compared to my 150-600, but also know that the HJ40 has a lot good things said about it. Just seems to me that making an optic go all the way from wide angle to long tele then with a 2x is just pushing what's sensible otically. We'll see

Steve

[Mike Brennan]

Thanks Mike,

I have lenses already which I've used for years on S16 and Digibeta, including Canon 300 f2.8, 150-600 f5.6 and 800 f5.6. They've always been great on the other formats and I don't see why they should be any different on HD - after all they're used on digital SLRs with a resolution a hell of a lot higher than HD. I'll be shooting a lot over the next 12 months on a Sony 750 and will be using an HJ22 together with the stills lenses so will report my findings. I know I used a J33 on Digibeta and found that it was hellish soft compared to my 150-600, but also know that the HJ40 has a lot good things said about it. Just seems to me that making an optic go all the way from wide angle to long tele then with a 2x is just pushing what's sensible otically. We'll see

Steve

 

Steve, how about one of the new portable HD long zooms llenses that do not need lens supports?

They are lightweight (around 2.5kg) and would be cheaper to ship than a collection of still lenses. Obviously the zoom helps to frame out unwanted objects that are hard to deal with from 500 yards or would need hauling the camera 50 feet to change shot size.

 

Canon do a 18 x 28mm. (yes those numbers are the correct way around).

Fuji have a 25 x 11mm and 25x16mm

 

The canon is f2.8 at 286mm which is very handy.

If budget is an issue in some circumstances these lenses could replace the 22x. (although I would be nevous about that)

 

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[jan von krogh]

we bought the Angenieux 26x7.8 AIF HD after evaluating all long lenses on the market back in 2002.

 

Its weight is 1900 grams,

F/2.2, 7.8-203mm, 63.25°-2.66°,

F/4.4, 15.6-406mm, 34.25°-1.33° with extender

We shot quite a bit with it and are very happy with the image quality. Has been in Kenia, Kuba, South-Aftrica, U.A.E, Egypt, Spain, Germany, USA... deserts, speedboats on oceans, air, rainy forest and never let us down in the recent 4 years.

 

 

right now we are thinking of adding the Angenieux 40x15 or 40x11.

The 40x15 covers 15-600mm or 30-1200mm with 2x extender.

Starts with F/2.7(310mm), F/5.4(620mm) and F10.8(1200mm).

 

The 40x11 is 11-440mm, 22-880mm with extender.

Its F/2 (230mm), F/4(460mm), F/8(880mm)

 

Pay attention to the 6 kg both 40x Series beast weight.

 

We just tested the 40x at trade fairs, so i cannot comment precisely about their image quality yet. The 26x meanwhile is a favorite in quality of ours here. On the other Hand, breathing was minimal on the 40x, more on the 26x.