Olivier Koos Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 http://olivierkoos.blogspot.com/2010/04/ca...-pl-lenses.html What are your thoughts? I am actually impressed that the difference is not huge. Oli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 http://olivierkoos.blogspot.com/2010/04/ca...-pl-lenses.html What are your thoughts? I am actually impressed that the difference is not huge. Oli Why would there be? The big differences are when you rack focus, zoom, vignette, project in a theater, and flare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted April 15, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted April 15, 2010 (edited) Why would there be? The big differences are when you rack focus, zoom, vignette, project in a theater, and flare. and the difference to your focus puller is MASSIVE. With still lenses, you often don't know T-stops, can't hit the same focus mark twice, and end up avoiding pulls altogether because they breathe so much. Edited April 15, 2010 by Chris Keth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted April 15, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted April 15, 2010 Chris is right about the user interface and breathing issues. Tom's right that you have to see these in front projection on a big screen, not as a postage stamp on a computer, to tell anything. If they still match well under those conditions, we can conclude that all the lenses are better than the camera requires. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan knight Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 even the sharpest glass and best coatings won't help the CMOS' rolling shutter. though, canon's IS lenses do help a bit. maybe ARRI and COOKE should release primes with IS :rolleyes: lol... or just don't shoot DSLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olivier Koos Posted April 15, 2010 Author Share Posted April 15, 2010 even the sharpest glass and best coatings won't help the CMOS' rolling shutter. though, canon's IS lenses do help a bit. maybe ARRI and COOKE should release primes with IS :rolleyes: lol... or just don't shoot DSLR. Let s please stay on the topic and not fall into a DSLR vs everything else discussion again ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Let s please stay on the topic and not fall into a DSLR vs everything else discussion again ;-) Sorry, this is pretty meaningless. What stops were you using? Even on the small photos all the primes out performed the canon zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olivier Koos Posted April 15, 2010 Author Share Posted April 15, 2010 Sorry, this is pretty meaningless. What stops were you using? Even on the small photos all the primes out performed the canon zoom. What is meaningless? f/t: 2.8 on the ultra prime and Zeiss ZF , f/t: 4 on the canon and cooke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 What is meaningless?f/t: 2.8 on the ultra prime and Zeiss ZF , f/t: 4 on the canon and cooke The primes should all be on the same stop and ideally a range of stops, including wide open. We can't check for any drop off in edge sharpness and all these lenses resolve way more than a DSLR does in video mode anyway. That means that the limiting factor is the camera itself, so it's hardly surprising that they all look pretty similar. The Zeiss ZF are good performers and the optics is used in the new Zeiss compact cine lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olivier Koos Posted April 16, 2010 Author Share Posted April 16, 2010 (edited) The primes should all be on the same stop and ideally a range of stops, including wide open. We can't check for any drop off in edge sharpness and all these lenses resolve way more than a DSLR does in video mode anyway. That means that the limiting factor is the camera itself, so it's hardly surprising that they all look pretty similar. The Zeiss ZF are good performers and the optics is used in the new Zeiss compact cine lenses. The lenses were at the same stop, but T lenses are calibrated the other lenses are not so that makes the difference. Next time I will try to have them completely the same by calibrating them with the waveform. This was supposed to be a subjective test, I ll try to do a line chart test next time. Still, I am amazed that there is not really a huge difference of look, and how it handles the out of focus (i don t mean the DOF). Edited April 16, 2010 by Olivier Koos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Trevor Swaim Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 (edited) http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=191781 This test is on a GH1 but the point is the same. In video mode these cameras resolve about 700 lines. Their is a point of diminishing returns on all cameras, on DSLRs it happens really quickly. I am always amazed when I recommend a Tokina 11-16 to people for a wide lens I get poo-pooed. Its a pretty darn good lens for stills and for video purposes its brilliant. Edited April 16, 2010 by Trevor Swaim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 The lenses were at the same stop, but T lenses are calibrated the other lenses are not so that makes the difference. Next time I will try to have them completely the same by calibrating them with the waveform. This was supposed to be a subjective test, I ll try to do a line chart test next time. Still, I am amazed that there is not really a huge difference of look, and how it handles the out of focus (i don t mean the DOF). I thought you had used 2.8 on the Zeiss lenses and 4 on the Cooke and Canon. Regarding the bokeh, I'd have kept the same focal lengths if comparing different makes and also experimented with different lighting conditions eg night exteriors with lights in the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olivier Koos Posted April 16, 2010 Author Share Posted April 16, 2010 I thought you had used 2.8 on the Zeiss lenses and 4 on the Cooke and Canon. Regarding the bokeh, I'd have kept the same focal lengths if comparing different makes and also experimented with different lighting conditions eg night exteriors with lights in the background. This was just a small spontaneous test, I did not had a 40mm on the Zeiss ZF, 35mm was the closed I had. I will repeat these tests tough and will make them more elaborated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Kim Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 What is meaningless?f/t: 2.8 on the ultra prime and Zeiss ZF , f/t: 4 on the canon and cooke f/t? canon still lenses don't have t stops on them do they? i've yet to see one. if you have the budget go cine lenses. if you don't go still lenses. in this case paying more gets you more. 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