For Those Who are Considering an SD Lens...

B

Bassman2003

Veteran
I recently aquired an HPX-500 and thought I would share my experience.

To save money and buy some time to decide the best course of action, I purchased a used Canon J15x9.5 lens to put on the camera.

The images looked good and were definately better than DV.

Well I found a good deal on a Canon HD 20x8.5 lens and it arrived today.

All I can say is you are selling the camera short by putting this type of lens in front of it imho.

The HD lens is much sharper, even wide open and the overall image appears to have less noise compared to the SD lens.

Granted, the SD lens I purchased was not the cream of the crop, but it is a J series broadcast lens.

I am very happy with the output of this camera and I can't wait to see the footage when my Flash XDR arrives.
 
Having done a few comparisons myslef with HD vs. SD lens, I definately agree with you, however I'm still waiting to recoop some cost before i jump on the HD lens.
 
A Canon lens that has a widest focal length of 9.5mm is a very old lens. Better to compare
newer broadcast SD glass to HD glass. Not sure how a lens can have noise.

I believe that a top of the line Fujinon or Canon SD lens is comparable to HD lenses of the same manufacturers. I own and have sub-rented Fujinon HA series lenses and my SD glass, such as my A8.5X5.5BERM wide angle lenses compare very favorably to my HA18X7.6 and rented HA13X4.5 and HA10X5.2 lenses. The A8.5X5.5BERM lenses cost $18,000 in mid-1990's money, so they should look pretty decent. In fact, corner sharpness is better and chromatic aberration is present on all.

I think the CAC circuit found in the HPX500 reaps benefits with CAC compatible lenses, which are typically HD lenses, but I remember when CCD cameras first came out and Fujinon was telling us that we had to have CCD series lenses, even putting a "CCD" logo on the lens. I think HD glass is a similar "marketing innovation".

Then, stepping up to the hugely expensive Zeiss Digizoom lenses has been a disappointment for two local rental facilities. Both sold their Digizooms because they were underwhelmed with them compared to Canon and Fujinon HD zooms--they couldn't see the difference.
 
I don't doubt you are correct.

I was faced with a budget and a choice.

To get a good SD lens with the range I need (at least 160mm on the long end) I was going to have to spend $5,000-$7000 for broadcast SD glass.

The HD lens came up for $5,000.

I don't know what to say about the noise issue, but after comparing the two lenses in the same environment, the HD lens produced a cleaner image. The overall noise level is lower with the HD glass.

Maybe I have a suspect SD lens to compare to, but I am only going by the image itself.

A Canon broadcast rep was very clear about SD glass not being machined to the same tolerances as HD and how you would lose performance at the extremes of the lens.

This is where the money shots are.

Just thought I would share as I was convinced I would go with an SD lens for this camera.
 
i have done the side by side comparison between my canon sd lens and a canon cac hd lens. note that my canon is the "yj" series which is a cheaper "professional" lens.

is there a difference in quality between my "pro" sd lens and the hd lens? yes.

is it enough to warrant spending an additional $8000? not to me. no way.

if i need the best quality possible, i will rent digi-primes or a cine zoom on the client's dime. haven't run into this situation yet as everyone goes gaga over the images i am getting with my current setup.
 
[but I remember when CCD cameras first came out and Fujinon was telling us that we had to have CCD series lenses, even putting a "CCD" logo on the lens. I think HD glass is a similar "marketing innovation".

Not true. I had a Sony tube M3 and the lens that came with it did NOT work on my new CCD M7. Could only focus to 12 feet. We tried back focus, etc., but would not focus properly. Had to buy a new lens. Sold the lens to a guy, and I said it wouldn't work with his new CCD cam. He said it should be fine. The next week he wanted his money back.

Can a SD lens be sharp enough for HD? Yes, but like I said some months ago, you have to be lucky. You might find a very sharp lens from the same model. The glass may have been better polished, aligned,etc. I have two identical Canon 8.5X15 broadcast lens and one is sharper than the other. Or is it, one is softer?

JohnnyD
 
JohnnyD said:
[but I remember when CCD cameras first came out and Fujinon was telling us that we had to have CCD series lenses, even putting a "CCD" logo on the lens. I think HD glass is a similar "marketing innovation".

Not true. I had a Sony tube M3 and the lens that came with it did NOT work on my new CCD M7. Could only focus to 12 feet. We tried back focus, etc., but would not focus properly. Had to buy a new lens. Sold the lens to a guy, and I said it wouldn't work with his new CCD cam. He said it should be fine. The next week he wanted his money back.
JohnnyD
Click to expand...

Any B4 bayonet mount lens has to have the same flange focal length, there is no difference between tube and CCD distances--or at least there isn't supposed to be.

I used non-"CCD" series broadcast Fujinon glass on CCD cameras with no issues back in the late '80's, early '90's.

I've been told by lens manufacturers that the difference between SD and HD lenses are, "different glass", "different coatings", "more polishing of the coatings", "you won't notice the difference until you use a native 1080 camera".

I don't think a non-native HD imager camera like an HPX500 requires HD glass,
if there is a difference, the only upside is the CAC circuit in my opinion.
 
Dino said:
Any B4 bayonet mount lens has to have the same flange focal length, there is no difference between tube and CCD distances--or at least there isn't supposed to be.

I used non-"CCD" series broadcast Fujinon glass on CCD cameras with no issues back in the late '80's, early '90's.

I've been told by lens manufacturers that the difference between SD and HD lenses are, "different glass", "different coatings", "more polishing of the coatings", "you won't notice the difference until you use a native 1080 camera".

I don't think a non-native HD imager camera like an HPX500 requires HD glass,
if there is a difference, the only upside is the CAC circuit in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I've also used non labeled CCD lens on CCD cameras. But this lens for the M3 was older and did not work on the M7. I can't remember the model number, but it was an older Canon and didn't work on mine or his CCD camera.

I've been shooting since 1976.

JohnnyD
 
I've been pleasantly surprised by many SD lenses.... the Canon lenses especially. When projected some SD lenses can produce the same resolution as HD lenses. The difference is all about tolerances in the manufacturing process. With the luck of the draw you may find an SD lens that just so happens to meet the same specs as HD glass. In fact in terms of Chromatic aberration the SD lenses will do much better than the CAC lenses.

An SD lens shouldn't produce more noise in the image at all. If the image is less sharp because of the lens then perhaps you are just noticing the noise more. The detail of the HD lens might make it less obvious.

Where you will really see the difference between the two is on the corners of the image and at the extreme ends of the lens. Even with a non-native HD image this can be a problem. My advise when buying a used piece of SD glass is to have it checked out before buying it. When projected you can see the high and low points.

Andy
 
Cheaper lens mystery!

Cheaper lens mystery!

I don't know much about glass mfg. But I can analyze. I want lower cost PRIMES for 2/3 Video cameras!!!!!!!!

A 35mm still camera has a resolution of about 12 million pixels in comparison to a quality 2.2 million pixel HD ccd. Yet canon and nikon and fujinon can make good glass for a 12 million pixel ccd still cam for around 200 to 1500 bucks. Glass engineering that has been around for a long time.

So why is it so hard for lens manufactures to give us PRIMES for 2/3 video cameras at similar costs of higher res still camera lenses?

I find it outrages I have to pay x4 more than a still photographer for lower grade lens. It pisses me off I have to pay for the RnD. Let's make the still photog pay for the RnD and we get the lower cost lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top