Lens Recommendation

[Kenn Christenson]

I'm going to be purchasing one of the HPX500 packages as soon as they are available. Is there any lens in these packages that is clearly better in sharpness than the others?

Thanks

[Jan_Crittenden]

From my observation, the Canon with 2X was sharper, but it is the most expensive. But they all made nice pictures.

Best,

jan

[Kenn Christenson]

Thanks, Jan. I was thinking that would be the lens to get.

[Terry_Lasater]

Of course, it is sharpest when the 2x is not in use...

[Jan_Crittenden]

Terry,

Unless you have tested this particular lens you really cannot say that. I found it to be very nice.

Best,

jan

[Terry_Lasater]

I haven't tested this lens nor am I passing judgment on it. I totally respect Canon glass as could be evidenced by my purchase of a Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens for my DSLR just last week.
http://www.entique.com.au/canon_70-200_2.8L_usm_lens_big.jpg

I'm just making a general comment that lenses with extenders in use are not as sharp as they are when the extender is not in use.

Is that not true with this lens?

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi Terry,

Now I am intriqued and will have to test more carefully when I get the lens back. The looksee that I did do seemed like it was very good, but will explore at the end of next week when I get the lens back.

Best,

Jan

[gustavotg]

Hi
How about the Fujinon lenses (XA17X7.6BRM-M58B ), the 2X, any comments on it?

Any noticeable difference in performance compared to the Canon 2x (KJ16x7.7B-IRSD)?

Thanks.

BR.

Gustavo

[Jan_Crittenden]

The Fujinon 2X is noticeably sharper than the non-2X. It is a nice lens but it is not as sharp as the Canon, close, but then I was looking at a res chart on a 37" HD monitor, not an LCD or plasma.

Best,

Jan

[baremis]

Hi everyone, I was thinking about using 16mm cine lens on hpx500. They are the 2/3 ccd and 16mm film is almost the same size. Does anyone know if that's possible ? Thank you guys in advance.
Hope to hear from you soon.

Best regards.
Paulo Emilio Baremis
www.brokolis.com.br

[Noel Evans]

Hi everyone, I was thinking about using 16mm cine lens on hpx500. They are the 2/3 ccd and 16mm film is almost the same size. Does anyone know if that's possible ? Thank you guys in advance.
Hope to hear from you soon.

Best regards.
Paulo Emilio Baremis
www.brokolis.com.br

Thinking something similar. But was actually wondering if the Red cine lenses with the B4 to pl mount would be useable.

[Alex Leith]

Aside from the problems of mounting them, 16mm cine lenses are designed to focus on a flat piece of film and not go through beam splitters - so I doubt you'd get a great image out of a cine lens.

[mikepl]

What would be the best sd cine lenses or cine "looking" lens to use with the 500? Something that is priced "fairly" like used PL lenses ebay. 50prime or 24-50/80 zoom. I use a HVX currently but want control the DOF and not use a big adapter like my redrock micro.

I'm not worried about sharpness because I rather the look be more film than HD.

[Alex Leith]

The DOF is not a function of the lens... it's due to the size of the sensor and the F-stop. So choosing a cine lens over a video lens will make very little difference to DOF on this camera.

[joe 1008]

Sure? A prime lens with more aperture than a zoom lens should produce a more shallow DOF. I just don´t know how strong that effect is with 2/3" primes.

[pdsage10]

I am considering getting one of these, but does anyone know if there is a lense mount adapter that will let me use my slr canon lenses? I know that the camera is a bayonet mount. Who makes or sells an adapter like this?

[snodart]

The DOF is not a function of the lens... it's due to the size of the sensor and the F-stop. So choosing a cine lens over a video lens will make very little difference to DOF on this camera.
DOF is in fact a function of the lens, and is not altered by the size of the sensor. Aperture, focal length, and subject-to-camera distance are three key factors that effect DOF... all of which are properties determined by the lens and its location. The size of the sensor only determines how much of the frame we can see. If you were able to move a given lens from a 35mm camera to a 1/3 CCD camera, the DOF would not change at all. The only thing that would change is that we would be seeing a smaller area of the the frame. That of course is why people use 35mm adapters... to increase the size of the projection area (ground glass) so that we can use longer focal length lenses and not be limited to seeing only a small fraction of the frame (or be forced to shoot from 100ft away).
:)

[TimurCivan]

But dont forget its realtionship to FOV. so in a way sensor size is Somewhat realted.

[joe 1008]

Just curious: How much more DOF can you get with a 2/3" camera and a prime lens with significantly more f stops than a zoom lens?

I have a clear idea - at least from what I've seen in many occasions - how big the difference between a zoom lens and a prime lens is in the case of 35 mm.

But what kind of results will I get with a 2/3" sensor? I would appreciate a lot some visual examples.

[mikepl]

I assume something like Zeiss digiprimes would be the best lenses without an adapter? Just not the lease expensive option. I'm worried that one of these zoom's wont have a great overall cinematic look. Can you control the f-stops on the lens itself with these SD zooms?

[snodart]

But dont forget its realtionship to FOV. so in a way sensor size is Somewhat realted.

Agreed, somewhat. The sensor size is related to DOF in that different sized sensors require different focal length lenses (OR distances from the subject) to achieve an equal subject size within the frame. Of course, changing the focal length or distance from the subject alters the DOF (or apparent DOF).

But, one could also argue that shutter speed and ISO is related to DOF, since changing either will require a change in the aperture (to achieve the same exposure)... which would then change the DOF.

I guess the point is that a 50mm lens set at f/2.8, 5 feet from a subject will have the same DOF no matter what size the sensor is.
:beer:

[joe 1008]

Right. As you can observe even 1/3" cameras have a nice DOF when it comes to shoot small items like cups, insects, model trains etc.

But that doesn't help at all when you have to shoot real actors. Then in most cases you are screwed with a 1/3" camera simply because a human head is so much bigger...
So we should refer in this discussion to a real world scenario with common objects like an actor's head.

Generally with a 2/3" you can achieve a quite shallow DOF but at the expenses of perspective - you still have to use a lot of focal length and thus the image looks somewhat "flat".

So I suppose that a prime for 2/3" cameras should create the shallowest DOF possible with a 2/3" sensor but I can´t tell how strong the effect of the additional f-stops would be.

[mikepl]

Has anyone experienced any of these lenses?

Canon FJs55 HD-EC 55mm 2/3" Prime Lens
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423661-REG/Canon_FJS55MM_Canon_FJs55_HDEC_2_3_.html

Canon FJs24 HD-EC 24mm 2/3"
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/393557-REG/Canon_FJS24MM_Canon_FJs24_HDEC_2_3_.html

Fujinon HAc18x7.6B 2/3" Compact Cinema Zoom
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/473487-REG/Fujinon_HAC18X76B_Fujinon_HAc18x76B_2_3_Compact.ht ml

Fujinon Super Cine Style Prime Len ( 54mm )
http://catalogs.infocommiq.com/AVCAT/CTL3939/index.cfm/mlc_id/3939/SID/18032201/pin_id/1817/ProdID/358252/T3/871.htm

[pdsage10]

I am considering getting one of these, but does anyone know if there is a lense mount adapter that will let me use my slr canon lenses? I know that the camera is a bayonet mount. Who makes or sells an adapter like this?

Anyone?

[Kenn Christenson]

You might want to contact Schneider Optics. I know, back when they were Century Precision Optics, they used to carry Nikon to B4 adapters.

Be aware that adding SLR lenses to your camera (if possible) will open up a whole new can of worms.

[pdsage10]

You might want to contact Schneider Optics. I know, back when they were Century Precision Optics, they used to carry Nikon to B4 adapters.

Be aware that adding SLR lenses to your camera (if possible) will open up a whole new can of worms.

Can of worms? Why? The Red one is going to be available with an option for SLR lenses. So why would using them on a 2/3 ccd camera be a problem?

[smelni]

here is a good explanantion from wiki

The image format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format) size also will affect the depth of field. The larger the format size, the longer a lens will need to be to capture the same framing as a smaller format. In motion pictures, for example, a frame with a 12 degree horizontal field of view will require a 50 mm lens on 16 mm film, a 100 mm lens on 35 mm film, and a 250 mm lens on 65 mm film. Conversely, using the same focal length lens with each of these formats will yield a progressively wider image as the film format gets larger: a 50 mm lens has a horizontal field of view of 12 degrees on 16 mm film, 23.6 degrees on 35 mm film, and 55.6 degrees on 65 mm film. What this all means is that because the larger formats require longer lenses than the smaller ones, they will accordingly have a smaller depth of field. Therefore, compensations in exposure, framing, or subject distance need to be made in order to make one format look like it was filmed in another format.

[Kenn Christenson]

Can of worms? Why? The Red one is going to be available with an option for SLR lenses. So why would using them on a 2/3 ccd camera be a problem?


Because SLR lenses do not have the long rear focal distance of video lenses and cannot be used on prism-based cameras without some sort of relay optics or aerial image converter. - That's what I meant by a can of worms.:thumbsup:

The Red One camera uses a single CMOS imager and is, therefore, able to (with a mount adapter, of course) use SLR lenses. Conversely, take a look at the price of the B4 lens adapter for Red. The B4 adapter has to take the long rear focal distance of a B4 lens and adapt it for the single, closer, imager.