C100: Any way to get a PL Lens on a c100?

R

RZE

Active member
Any good solutions for getting a PL lens on a C100, I would rather not go cheap, I'm looking for a reliable that will work with the majority of pl lenses.

Also what is the underlying problem why there is not a common ef to pl adaptor on the market? Emount to PL, MFT to PL have industry standard mounts, but I don't see a safe purchase for ef to pl. I know the flange distance doesn't spare much room, but is that the main reason?
 
Because none of the adapters out there get far focus right...the more expensive ones ($3K) do a better job but still don't get it right.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
RZE said:
Any good solutions for getting a PL lens on a C100, I would rather not go cheap, I'm looking for a reliable that will work with the majority of pl lenses.

Also what is the underlying problem why there is not a common ef to pl adaptor on the market? Emount to PL, MFT to PL have industry standard mounts, but I don't see a safe purchase for ef to pl. I know the flange distance doesn't spare much room, but is that the main reason?
Click to expand...

Flange Distance and porthole diameter, rear elements of a lot of cinema glass are massive. Take Ultra PRimes for example, I may be wrong but I HIGHLY doubt any PL mount that's not custom carved into the camera would accept an Ultra Prime, let alone a master.

However, certain modern zooms have EF adapters, like the DP Rouge's etc. And, I believe that you CAN get the Canon Cinema Primes rented in EF right? Wasn't that the primary reason they were created?

Some adapters will work with a very limited range of old lenses.

That's all I knows!
 
Kholi said:
Flange Distance and porthole diameter, rear elements of a lot of cinema glass are massive. Take Ultra PRimes for example, I may be wrong but I HIGHLY doubt any PL mount that's not custom carved into the camera would accept an Ultra Prime, let alone a master.

However, certain modern zooms have EF adapters, like the DP Rouge's etc. And, I believe that you CAN get the Canon Cinema Primes rented in EF right? Wasn't that the primary reason they were created?

Some adapters will work with a very limited range of old lenses.

That's all I knows!
Click to expand...


just a little off topic, so its more practical if buying a camera with PL mount then have a EF adapter?
 
Shawnvfx said:
just a little off topic, so its more practical if buying a camera with PL mount then have a EF adapter?
Click to expand...

Sadly, it's more practical to buy a camera than can change mounts (Or if that's what you're saying, then yes!)

I still cannot figure out why Canon and Blackmagic decided to create camera bodies, within the last two years, that do not feature interchangeable mounts but I am sure that there're good reasons. In BMD's case, weather sealed body and it might've been cheaper, and in Canon's case it may have had to do with ND assembly? I don't know, just thinking out loud here.

It's hard to really say, one way or another, which glass you will use: one month it may be EF and you're perfectly fine, the next you need cinema glass and you have to scramble to make it work. Sony's gone about it the right way, and mirror less/MFT applications are really great for this.
 
RZE said:
Any good solutions for getting a PL lens on a C100, I would rather not go cheap, I'm looking for a reliable that will work with the majority of pl lenses.
Click to expand...
Not really. You can get an adapter that will let you mount some zooms, but prime lenses are a problem. If you really want PL lenses on a Canon "C" camera, best to step up to the PL-mount C300.

Also what is the underlying problem why there is not a common ef to pl adaptor on the market? Emount to PL, MFT to PL have industry standard mounts, but I don't see a safe purchase for ef to pl. I know the flange distance doesn't spare much room, but is that the main reason?
Click to expand...
Because it can't be done. The EF mount is one of the worst for adapting lenses TO. It has a deep flange distance and a very narrow throat. PL mount is actually deeper, so you'd think it'd be possible, but in fact it really isn't, because the throat of the EF mount is so narrow, and the back of PL lenses (especially primes) are so wide, they just physically cannot fit in there.

MFT, E-mount, etc., all have relatively tiny flange distances, which gives the adapter makers tons of room to work with. EF doesn't.

Someday Canon may make their EF-M mount more prevalent, and when they do, that will have the same advantages that MFT and E-mount have. But regular EF mount will never be widely adaptable.

Again, there are some zooms that you can use with an EF->PL adapter ring, so it's not a complete "you can't do that" situation, but -- it's far from ideal.
 
Kholi said:
I still cannot figure out why Canon and Blackmagic decided to create camera bodies, within the last two years, that do not feature interchangeable mounts but I am sure that there're good reasons. In BMD's case, weather sealed body and it might've been cheaper, and in Canon's case it may have had to do with ND assembly? I don't know, just thinking out loud here.
Click to expand...
Panasonic put NDs behind the tiny-flange MFT mount, and Sony managed to wedge them behind the tiny-flange E-mount on the FS700, so ... that shouldn't be a valid reason.

Frankly I have no idea why Canon did what they did, and I can say that them putting the EF mount out there with no interchangeability to PL, has cost them at least one sale (mine). As for BlackMagic, it's fairly obvious to me that they were aiming at appealing to DSLR shooters, and a huge huge chunk of them were Canon shooters, and so they just put out the lens mount that they thought would have the most widespread appeal. As we've discussed before, I think it's probably the most shortsighted decision they could have made as far as making the camera flexible and widely usable, as the EF mount is really restrictive especially for the BMC, but -- hey, they developed that BMC kind of in a vacuum, they certainly weren't on DVXUser asking us what we'd want in a camera, so ... for doing it on their own, they still did really well. And their future cameras will hopefully rectify the two big shortcomings on the existing model (being: OLPF and electronic m43 or, at least, EF-M mount).

It's hard to really say, one way or another, which glass you will use: one month it may be EF and you're perfectly fine, the next you need cinema glass and you have to scramble to make it work. Sony's gone about it the right way, and mirror less/MFT applications are really great for this.[/QUOTE]
 
Triad PL converter:

http://triad-mounts.com/PL-Mount-Converters/Triad-PL-C100-C300-C500-KIT

I know it makes people cringe, and it did the same to me at first, too - but I've actually seen the process done and it isn't a bad process at all if you're organized, prepared, & comfortable with tinkering. I'd say no more intense than doing work on an Apple laptop. I wouldn't hesitate to do it if I needed, but I've got a fair amount of experience with dismantling and repairing moderately complicated devices. In fact, I'll probably wind up doing this in a month or so for a project.

Here's a vid of the process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MfENG35pAM&feature=youtu.be
 
Canon had done the EF mount as a separate camera with longterm vision of making the EF mount to become the standard. So it doesn't care if a few shooters today don't buy the C300. Canon has decided on the basis of the total number of EF mount lenses available in the market. Now all the still EF mount lenses can be used to film and those are much more than the total universe of PL mount lenses.

They have to give some reason and hence they said that tolerances will not be right if they created an interchangeable EF and PL mount. They are forcing users to use the EF lenses and making them realise that the output is good. Earlier people used to think that IS (Image Stabilisation) is a bad idea. Now people realise that IS helps a lot.

Some of the quality of the EF lenses, especially the L series lenses are great. If you can bear with the quirks of the still lenses, then you can get great results. The 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens is very high quality lens. A similar quality cinema lens will cost a bomb.

Canon mostly sends its EF mount C300 for demo rather than the PL mount version. There are strict instructions to that effect so that more people can try the EF mount.

To keep the EF flock together, Canon created the C100 with only EF mount. It is a part of their strategy and they are doing fine.
 
cowpunk52 said:
I know it makes people cringe, and it did the same to me at first, too - but I've actually seen the process done and it isn't a bad process at all if you're organized, prepared, & comfortable with tinkering.
Click to expand...
Does it actually allow for primes to work?

It looks a little more like a real mount than a snap-on ring, so there's a chance, but I am curious if it gives the camera full PL compatibility with all primes.
 
indiawilds said:
If you can bear with the quirks of the still lenses, then you can get great results.
Click to expand...
I guess that's the point. Going PL isn't about the quality of the glass, it's about the usability in cinema situations. EF/stills lenses are something I just have no interest in trying to adapt to. Granted they're much cheaper than cinema lenses, but -- as RPO's article quite brilliantly put it, there are many reasons why we prefer cinema lenses over stills lenses. At the DSLR price point it's clear that the customer for a DSLR is not likely going to be in the market for genuine cinema glass, but at the C300/C500 price point cinema glass is a very real possibility.

Oh well, at least there is an option, the device that cowpunk linked to. Hopefully it will work for all lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top