i missed that question, but also, that question is too vague. Zooms are almost always a form of compromise, so you really have to have a function or specific use in mind before choosing one. Nothing worse than trying to make a 20-120 work on s35, when you need at least an 18
Canon Cine Servo 15-120
- Thread starter Run&Gun
- Start date
i missed that question, but also, that question is too vague. Zooms are almost always a form of compromise, so you really have to have a function or specific use in mind before choosing one. Nothing worse than trying to make a 20-120 work on s35, when you need at least an 18
ahalpert
Major Contributor
^^ It was this. So yeah, obviously there are a lot of open questions about the most frequent scenarios the lens will face
cpreston
Veteran
My L zooms come out for quick interview setups. I also use the 24-105mm and sometimes even the 18-135stm lens on a gimbal for b-roll. Obviously, the cn-e zooms aren't going to be used on a small gimbal, so that isn't really in consideration. I use the compact servo zooms for my quick handheld b-roll. The 15-120mm would replace the compact servo zooms, but I'm not sure if I can handhold it. Mostly, I'm really tired of the fact that the L zooms ramp exposure while zooming when they aren't wide open. I end up finding that I only use the L zooms wide open for this reason. I'm thinking the new 45-130mm full frame zooms might be the solution for quick interview setups, but it hasn't actually been released yet.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
well, the canon 17-120 weighs 1lb less than the 15-120 and the 45-130. And it's only about half a stop slower than the 45-130 up to 90ish mm, which is a pretty useful range for S35 interview focal lengths. (although it's true that the 45-130 is FF, so actually about 1.5 stops shallower and faster than the 17-120 if in FF). but maybe the 17-120 could be both your interview lens and your handheld lens? And used, it's half the cost of the 45-130
We’re in a time where small size, light weight, and OMB/small crew are really what people want, but also fewer lens changes. and works for s35 and VV….oh, and less than $30k….
Idk what the answer is. I think with LPL or M43 we could see improvements in zoom options. I love how M43 would be perfect for fast long range cine zooms, but what do they make? 25mm f.95….. as if bish. 14–140mm f5.6…. biiiish! 10-20mm F2.9 biiish please, stop.
One nice thing though, is since camera bodies are cheap and relatively universally good now, you can buy more bodies and a couple zooms. A short zoom like the Canon 18-80mm T4.4 for gimbal work, or perhaps the Tokina 11-20mm f2.8, if that’s more your style for those shots, and then get a DZO FF35 cattura? as a short zoom for A cam. Then one more longer short zoom for B cam.
The only light weightish cine zoom lens that does it all seems to be this new Canon 15-120mm +1.5x though
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
There are situations when recording (or broadcasting) live action and maybe the camera is on a crane where lens changes are not an option and you need to swap from a wide views to picking out folk
again two cameras built with mics and shoulder rigs dont work - you cant carry them or swap “live”
this is a dream lens for those working in the situations that demand it.
—
Yhe xf 605 is also a thing that comes close at 1/10 ofvthe cost?
again two cameras built with mics and shoulder rigs dont work - you cant carry them or swap “live”
this is a dream lens for those working in the situations that demand it.
—
Yhe xf 605 is also a thing that comes close at 1/10 ofvthe cost?
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Ive workes (six week shoot) with the 17-120 -its amazing but also a little lacking
length width and close focus
i cant remember was it lacking the 1.4 converter?
but every step to no lens changes is big for the right shoot
length width and close focus
i cant remember was it lacking the 1.4 converter?
but every step to no lens changes is big for the right shoot
indiawilds
Veteran
Nice lens with the 1.4x converter. It will come in handy for run n gun situations and events. However, beyond my budget at the moment. Wish it becomes available in the rentals nearby. Since moving into the R5C, I am looking at all RF mount lenses. I understand canon's rationale for going EF and PL mount though. It would have been really awesome if the lens would have covered full frame in native rather than while using the 1.4x. I find the R5C a decent performer so waiting for the next RF mount version of higher end cinema cameras from canon.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the extender can be engaged remotely?
Run&Gun
Veteran
No sir. At least not without some custom mechanical actuation device being rigged to it, which I’m sure could be done, if someone(like SMM) felt there was enough need to design and build it.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Pardon me, boys, while I step in to do some trolling . . .
Trying to turn a big sensor camera into a an ENG workhorse is always going to lead to frustration and compromise. If you need/want to shoot ENG style . . . use an 2/3" ENG camera. For about the same price as this new Canon lens, you can get much better bang for the buck from some pretty nice B4 lenses. For example, Fujinon's magnificent UA18x5.5.
Focal length range (in S35 terms):
Canon: 15 - 180mm
Fujinon: 14 - 500mm
Focal length range with extender:
Canon: 22 - 120mm
Fujinon: 28 - 1000mm
Max. aperture range:
Canon: f/3 - f/4
Fujinon: f1.8 - f/2.8
A lot of the DoF advantages that exist between a S35 camera and a 2/3" camera are pretty much negated by the slower lens. Plus the 2/3" camera provides better ergonomics, slot-in wireless receiver, etc. Okay, okay, I know all the arguments for choosing a S35 or FF camera over a 2/3" camera, so you can save your breath. I just wanted to point out that there are other options available besides trying to force a camera to do what it wasn't really designed to do in the first place.
Trying to turn a big sensor camera into a an ENG workhorse is always going to lead to frustration and compromise. If you need/want to shoot ENG style . . . use an 2/3" ENG camera. For about the same price as this new Canon lens, you can get much better bang for the buck from some pretty nice B4 lenses. For example, Fujinon's magnificent UA18x5.5.
Focal length range (in S35 terms):
Canon: 15 - 180mm
Fujinon: 14 - 500mm
Focal length range with extender:
Canon: 22 - 120mm
Fujinon: 28 - 1000mm
Max. aperture range:
Canon: f/3 - f/4
Fujinon: f1.8 - f/2.8
A lot of the DoF advantages that exist between a S35 camera and a 2/3" camera are pretty much negated by the slower lens. Plus the 2/3" camera provides better ergonomics, slot-in wireless receiver, etc. Okay, okay, I know all the arguments for choosing a S35 or FF camera over a 2/3" camera, so you can save your breath. I just wanted to point out that there are other options available besides trying to force a camera to do what it wasn't really designed to do in the first place.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
It should be remembered that 2 on 2/3 looks like 5.6 on full-frame or suchlike
ususally light sensitivity and thin dof boil down to the size of the front element
usually pro 2/3 zooms actually win this (vs 18-200 kit lenses) until lenses like this which is clearly a proper pro lens
ususally light sensitivity and thin dof boil down to the size of the front element
usually pro 2/3 zooms actually win this (vs 18-200 kit lenses) until lenses like this which is clearly a proper pro lens
The Canon likely has an f/2.8 to f3.5 or so. It is pretty difficult to get such a high transmission rate with so many elements. I know we’re splitting hairs, as it could be as high as f/2.9
That means you’re getting a stop and a half advantage on the 2/3” B4 zoom, and that doesn’t really help it enough to beat the s35 format. You’d have a hard enough time convincing someone to switch to M43 much less 2/3” with those numbers.
The Canon is likely sharper wide open as well. and the s35 sensor likely has a 2 stop cleaner advantage and be sharper with generally better colors and latitude too.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Likely you don't know what the hell you're talking about . . . once again. You should keep your opinions about performance to yourself unless you have actually done some testing. Canon says the lens is "T2.95-T3.95" That's f/3 and f/4 in my book.
As for sharpness, let's see your evidence the Canon is sharper because my experience with both types of lenses tells me you are most likely wrong. But having not tested them, I'll keep my opinions to myself. Since I doubt you have zero experience with any B4 lens in your life, you might consider keeping your opinions to yourself as well.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
So, are you getting one? Trading in your 17-120? Or just adding this to the quiver?
A little late for that.
If anyone could utilize this lens, i’d assume it might be him. One of the worst things about the advent of C300 onto the ENG and Sports world was the lack of a good wide zoom that also has some reach. Sure, shooting the talent we’re in the middle, but broll is often wide and telephoto. Isn’t even always a creative choice, it just ends up being that way.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I was under the impression that the T stop of a lens is always equal to or higher than its f/stop. Frequently, you see an f/1.4 photo lens become a T1.5 in its cine version. Or you see the sigma cine primes maintain their f/stop in the "classic" line but with a much higher T stop
https://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2020/len...-primes/?amp=1
I would totally expect the 15-120 to be an f/2.8 on the wide end. But the fact is that we can't know what the f/stop is just by knowing the T stop
Last edited:
It is amazing what coatings are allowing zooms to do these days. if this were an older zoom, i’d speculate f/2.5 lol maybe f/2 haha
Older lenses had enough discrepency between the f and T stop that they occasionally needed to list both numbers for DoF considerations. But for the Canon Zoom, it might be close enough that they don’t need to list it. They have a whole dof chart, but the fstop number is not readily available.
Last edited:
nutmegger
Well-known member
Doug, were you referring to something like this?
Attachments
Last edited: