Canon 17-120 Cine-Servo

bill totolo

bill totolo

Veteran
Looking forward to giving this lens a workout tomorrow.
Won't have time for a formal test, but I'll let you know how it holds up in the field.

photo 2(1).jpgphoto 1(1).jpg
 
Lens does indeed run off the Sony mount. Right now the record trigger on the lens is not activated so you have to press record on camera.
Specifically, a rocker cable plugs into the lens, which in turn is powered off the mount.

https://vimeo.com/112614454

Sony Silhoette.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ryan, both shots of the candle had the macro engaged.
The CF distance on the lens is about 2.6' ( the barrel rotates beyond the 2.8' mark). The first 'wide' macro shot was taken with the candle about 6" from the lens (see photo below), so you can engage the macro just to go beyond the m.o.d.

photo(5).jpg
 
Last edited:
Ah I see! Like the Cabrio 'macro'... simply means engaging a close focus ability outside of the normal CF of the lens, yes? On the cabrio, the macro mode minimum focus distance changes with focal length. Is this the same with canon? For instance the cabrio 'macro mode' at 90mm saves a couple inches off CF... but when at 19mm, it saves well over a foot.


Anyhow, I don't have jurisdiction on this forum section, but if you don't mind, I'd like to have it moved to the optics/lens forum in the cinematography section. :)
 
The Canon has a dedicated macro ring distinct from the back-focus adjustment. However, I found that I could use it in the way you described, to go beyond (closer) than the rated CF distance.
The candle stick inside the mason jar is about 1" tall, and that's the closest I could focus on it (as seen on the Vimeo clip).

And please, feel free to put this wherever it belongs.
 
Last edited:
Have you seen your footage on a decent sized monitor yet? What are your general impressions of the lens visually? Is it something ground breaking or merely a nice high end B4 lens?
 
puredrifting said:
Have you seen your footage on a decent sized monitor yet? What are your general impressions of the lens visually? Is it something ground breaking or merely a nice high end B4 lens?
Click to expand...

That's hard for me to answer, I went into it thinking it would be an adapted B4 ENG lens, but left with the feeling that this is a really great cine zoom.
I liked the color rendition, the focus and bokeh. The coatings resisted flaring quite well (until pointed straight at the sun).

Maybe someone like Ryan can point out some key differences in B4 and cine zooms, and what to look for. I've used both for years but optically, what would someone look for?

I've only viewed the footage on my 27" Dell IPS, Odyssey 7Q and MacBook Pro. There's no doubt, the footage is sharp, but that can be biased by the F5. I'd like to view it on a Flanders CM240, Sony OLED, or even an old Panasonic Plasma. Sadly, I only got to play with it for a day.
 
Thanks for sharing, Bill! I'm not so much interested in the distinction between B4/ENG or Cine, for my doc style projects, this looks like a winner.
Although it will get me out of my owner/operator comfort zone, this will be rental only for me. Please keep us posted when you can share more footage!
 
Cross posting here. Have used both lenses under discussion - in fact, side-by-side. I am currently having fun tweaking my C300 layout as I ease the 17-120 into use on a number of PBS Series. So far the focal range is ideal for doc work. I'm a Canon guy going way back so I'm not going to wade into the Fuji/Canon debate. I will say they play nicely together. As I mentioned on another thread, I'm hoping the Cine EOS camera engineers can get their innovative heads together with the cinema lens engineers so that EF cameras and lenses can communicate better too. Will keep y'all posted with my personal experiences.

Peace,

Stephen McCarthy
Director of Photography
Boston
IMG_22152.jpgIMG_2863lo.jpg
 
This is great, thanks for sharing your experiences Bill & Stephen! I'm really interested in hearing more about the optical qualities of the lens and seeing some footage. Wondering how the look stacks up to their compact cine zooms and even primes since I'm hoping to use this lens on my shows in 2015. I use the primes a lot for b-roll and recreations, and would love to see that quality of image shift over into my main footage. It's certainly an extremely attractive range with some great performance features.
 
bill totolo said:
That's hard for me to answer, I went into it thinking it would be an adapted B4 ENG lens, but left with the feeling that this is a really great cine zoom.
I liked the color rendition, the focus and bokeh. The coatings resisted flaring quite well (until pointed straight at the sun).

Maybe someone like Ryan can point out some key differences in B4 and cine zooms, and what to look for. I've used both for years but optically, what would someone look for?
Click to expand...

Bill, thats great to hear about the bokeh. I'm particularly interested in contrast and color - contrast particularly when wide open versus stopped down to 5.6 or 8. Also, how does the weight feel on your shoulder for extended periods of time? Color-wise, I'm really into the Canon look of their cinema line of lenses, and I'd love to know how this lens stacks up against their other products. Is skin rendered smoothly with the classic slight warmness, yet more neutral than standard EF lenses? Is the contrast rendered smoothly without harsh edges, but still maintaining crisp detail? These are things that I've really been enjoying from the Canon cine zooms and primes, and I'm hoping they didn't need to sacrifice too much in the image rendering qualities to make the range & brightness work.
 
I used the 17x120 this week in combo with Rokinon primes and the warmth and sharpness were very consistent. Haven't had a chance to put them up against anybody else's compact primes. Projection feedback I got from a local rental house suggests that, while the Canon is sharper than their Cabrios at the center of the image, There's some loss of sharpness/angular distortion at the edges when at the 17mm end of focal range - not surprising given the 2mm difference. My own experience in the field is that, if I'm wanting to use the full zoom range shooting on the fly, I want keep the aperture at 3.5 rather than 2.9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top