adrianmpruett Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I'm currently gearing up for an indie feature shot on HD and have some questions about HD prime lenses. I've shot with the Zeiss digi primes but not with the Canon or Fuji 2/3in digital primes. I would love to get some feedback from anyone has shot with either Canon or Fuji in contrast to the Zeiss lenses. I'm getting ready to do some tests but budget constraints will not allow me to test all three side by side. I'm primarily looking at the 14mm, and 24mm lenses, trying to achieve a similar angle of view as a 28mm and 50mm lens in 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I've done features with both the Zeiss Digiprimes and the Canon HD primes. I've only briefly tested the Fujis so I couldn't really comment on them. The Digiprimes are truly outstanding glass. But the Canons are really not far behind. Excellent color and contrast, and little to no chromatic abberation, loss of sharpening on the edges, barrel distortion or other common optical defects. The set all matched extremely well -- I was prepared to set a shading for each lens but found that it wasn't necessary. The set is not as complete as the Digiprimes but it is very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandar Bracinac Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 When you are talking about HD primes... Are they have similar DOF to 35mm primes? Can you achieve more 16/35mm DOF look with them than with zoom HD lenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Nash Posted March 5, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 5, 2007 When you are talking about HD primes... Are they have similar DOF to 35mm primes? Can you achieve more 16/35mm DOF look with them than with zoom HD lenses? HD prime lenses are designed to work on 2/3" chip cameras, so they have the depth of field characteristics of that size format. When you say "16/35mm DOF look," I assume you're comparing that to 1/3" chip cameras. A 2/3" sensor is close to the size of a 16mm frame, so the focal lengths and depth of field of 2/3" HD are already similar to those in 16mm. HD primes have the same depth of field as HD zooms, except for the inherent optical differences between zooms and primes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Whitehouse Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 HD prime lenses are designed to work on 2/3" chip cameras, so they have the depth of field characteristics of that size format. When you say "16/35mm DOF look," I assume you're comparing that to 1/3" chip cameras. A 2/3" sensor is close to the size of a 16mm frame, so the focal lengths and depth of field of 2/3" HD are already similar to those in 16mm. HD primes have the same depth of field as HD zooms, except for the inherent optical differences between zooms and primes. I think he might be trying to ask whether because of the primes speed whether you notice a significant increase (or loss) of DOF when shooting wide open over the slower zooms. And whether it compares to 35mm or whether it is still too deep? Sasha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Nash Posted March 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2007 I didn't catch any reference to the speed of HD primes or zooms. Many HD primes and zooms open to the same T/1.6 or 1.8 anyway, although there are some slower zooms. But in any case, the depth of field characteristics of 2/3" optics are roughly equivalent to those of 16mm optics; you need to open up approx. 3 stops to achieve similar depth of field as 35mm optics with the same angle-of-view (not focal length). In other words, a 50mm HD prime at T/2.0 will have a depth-of-field and angle-of-view similar to a 100mm prime at T/5.6 in 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2007 I didn't catch any reference to the speed of HD primes or zooms. Many HD primes and zooms open to the same T/1.6 or 1.8 anyway, although there are some slower zooms. But in any case, the depth of field characteristics of 2/3" optics are roughly equivalent to those of 16mm optics; you need to open up approx. 3 stops to achieve similar depth of field as 35mm optics with the same angle-of-view (not focal length). In other words, a 50mm HD prime at T/2.0 will have a depth-of-field and angle-of-view similar to a 100mm prime at T/5.6 in 35mm. Hi All, Having shot for the last 3 weeks with a Viper + Fuji primes/zoom I felt the DOF to be far less than I would have expected. I was usually in the T1.5-2.8 range. I think this is resoloution related and not just a sensor size issue. 1/3 cameras have fairly low 'real' resoloution so there is little difference between what is sharp (nothing) and what is soft (everything). Just my 2c. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Nash Posted March 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2007 Hi All, Having shot for the last 3 weeks with a Viper + Fuji primes/zoom I felt the DOF to be far less than I would have expected. I was usually in the T1.5-2.8 range. I think this is resoloution related and not just a sensor size issue. 1/3 cameras have fairly low 'real' resoloution so there is little difference between what is sharp (nothing) and what is soft (everything). Just my 2c. Stephen Indeed. There are really four things that determine depth of field, not three: focal length, aperture, distance to subject, and circle of confusion. The higher the system's resolution, the less apparent depth of field there is when all other factors are equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member adam berk Posted March 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2007 Indeed. There are really four things that determine depth of field, not three: focal length, aperture, distance to subject, and circle of confusion. The higher the system's resolution, the less apparent depth of field there is when all other factors are equal. ha, interesting comment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Yes, this is why people stick on a MIni35 or Pro35 or MOVIEtube or whatever and then shoot at a T1.3. It's pretty uncommon to shoot in 35mm with a lens at T1.3 unless it is for night exterior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chad Stockfleth Posted March 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2007 The set all matched extremely well -- I was prepared to set a shading for each lens but found that it wasn't necessary. Could you explain a little what the shading is? I've seen it as a menu function, but am not clear on how it is used, and what for. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Different lenses have different color characteristics. Some can be a bit yellow, or maybe have a green cast, or perhaps are a bit less contrasty than others. The cameras can be set to compensate for these as long as you set a file for each lens and switch the file when you switch lenses. But the only way to set it properly is in the shop with a perfectly evenly illuminated lightbox (we actually have an "integration sphere" which is like a a white ball with a hole to stick the camera lens into) and a waeform & vectorscope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now