Shooting Macro with RED

CamDiver

CamDiver

Active member
Hi Guys.
Well I think I have my head around the lens theory thus far. My head hurts !! No one said the transition would be simple.......but I'm lovin' it.

OK, sometimes for real close macro in the past I've been using single element diopter lenses, sometimes multiple lenses stacked. Now obviously as I increase the magnification factor and stack the lenses the resulting images have a lot of chromatic abberation around the edges.

As some of my underwater photographer buddies when shooting macro do would it be viable to screw a +2 or a +3.5 Century Optics achromatic diopter in the end of a 100mm lens, in the case of RED for example the Cooke 20-100mm T3,1 to achieve full screen clarity on Macro filming shoots? What would the considerations be for such type of application?

As an example of single lens diopters I've added a shot of an underwater snail, Flabellina exoptata, which was shot with a VX1000 using stacked diopters +4 and a +2. You can clearly see the distortion around the edges.

Cheers,
Mark.

1163024551.jpg
 
THe more glass you add the more chance of chromatic abberation and the softer teh image is probably going to get especially around the edges. If you buy a good quality glass you will get better results butt eh best bet is to just buya macro lens. You shouldn't even worry about getting a pl mount lens. I have a wonderfull vivitar 100mm macro lens that I picked up used for $80 and it works great. Pay a little more and get a faster macro lens mine is f3.5. On the red camera that lens turns into a 150mm.
 
I'll be starting with Nikon slr primes; for me it will be a 55 macro wich gets you within about an inch of subject.
Aloha
-A
 
I tend to think SLR lenses would be a brilliant option for Macro shooting. Macro Cine lenses seem in short supply or very expensive, and make up a small proportion of most peoples shooting (Although in your case Mark I dare say you might use it a whole lot more than others). For shots that I would consider specialist shots that cannot be achieved with any cine lense i have I will certainly go for the cheaper option with SLR lenses everytime. Like I say though if you are going to be doing macro shooting on a daily basis then my points are moot!
 
I concur, SLR lenses would be ideal for this...

..That way you can breathe underwater. (Cringe!)

But seriously, macro shots rarely envolve drastic movement. They are by nature very photographic so still lenses would be the only choice in my opinion for this sorta stuff.
 
You know, this gets me to thinking. It's not that the raw costs for Cooke and Zeis to produce lenses is astronimical, it's that the market for the lenses is limited and the shelf life is decades. Which is why they're so expensive.

I wonder if RED will open a new market for companies like Cooke and Zeiss to produce more reasonably priced lenses specifically for RED-like customers?
 
Unfortunately, Macro or tight shots seem to be the "Meat and Veg" of most natural history productions. Viewers have to see the behavior of the beast, now if that beast happens to be a 15ft Great White an 18mm macro would be fine, haha !!!

I obviously wouldn't want to compromise image quality with vignetting or distortion of the framed image so will do some shopping around for what could potentially be my best deal.

I seem to be hooked on the Cooke 20-100mm T3,1, seems like I could cover a good range of items with that. Its not the fastest though as for the wide I'd prefer something in the f1.6 to f2 range.

Cheers,
Mark.
 
CamDiver said:
I seem to be hooked on the Cooke 20-100mm T3,1, seems like I could cover a good range of items with that. Its not the fastest though as for the wide I'd prefer something in the f1.6 to f2 range.

Cheers,
Mark.
Click to expand...

Hi,

You can get quite close with the Cooke lens, it's T3.1 throughout the range, & F2.8 which is, I believe the same as the new zoom from Red.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top