Canon Cine Servo 15-120

I think the standout feature of the lens is the ability to switch between full-frame and s35 cameras by using the extender. That just makes it such a versatile performer and a super good investment. Not something I personally need, but very impressive nonetheless
 
ahalpert said:
I think the standout feature of the lens is the ability to switch between full-frame and s35 cameras by using the extender. That just makes it such a versatile performer and a super good investment. Not something I personally need, but very impressive nonetheless
Click to expand...

The built in extender will be very nice, but it seems like it might be a bit of a wash as far as compatibility with full frame cameras. I shoot 4K on the C500 MKII and the primary benefit full frame has is the oversampled 4K. The questions is whether the extender will cause enough image degradation that using the lens in full frame for the added resolution isn't actually a benefit. As it is, I regularly find myself switching to S35 mode on the C500 in order to get a bit more reach out of certain lenses.
 
cpreston said:
The built in extender will be very nice, but it seems like it might be a bit of a wash as far as compatibility with full frame cameras. I shoot 4K on the C500 MKII and the primary benefit full frame has is the oversampled 4K. The questions is whether the extender will cause enough image degradation that using the lens in full frame for the added resolution isn't actually a benefit. As it is, I regularly find myself switching to S35 mode on the C500 in order to get a bit more reach out of certain lenses.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what if you're shooting on a camera that doesn't have a 4K S35 mode. Or maybe the lens with extender can resolve 6K or 8K, and you can get a full 8K recording from using it in full-frame. Or maybe you're just working for a director who wants to shoot full-frame and can't be made to understand that the lens will look and behave identically in full-frame with the extender or in S35 without it.

I don't know how much the extender will degrade the image, but my guess is it will be negligible. Doug Jensen commented that the extenders Sony makes for their telephoto stills lenses have basically an imperceptible impact on image quality, and I would bet that this extender is at least as good. These are not your granddad's extenders
 
ahalpert said:
Or maybe you're just working for a director who wants to shoot full-frame and can't be made to understand that the lens will look and behave identically in full-frame with the extender or in S35 without it.
Click to expand...

This would probably be my most likely use case.

I am just sick of Canon L zooms and would like to step up to some cine zooms. Canon has quite a variety at this point and it is hard to find good tests comparing them. Is the 15-120mm worth about 3x more than a used 17-120mm. Or should I just buy the new full frame zooms? Or maybe save up for the 25-250 with 1.5x extender to go along with the 15-120? But Canon's older S35 zooms or the Angenieux EZ series might be a better bet for the money.
 
I don't have experience with these zooms, although I'm sure run&gun can offer insights. For my money, I would just get a 17-120 unless you really need 2mm more on the wide end or you know you'll need to cover a full-frame camera sooner or later or you want to have 180mm S35 reach on hand. That's a pretty wild telephoto option to have on a lens that can also go so wide, although it's probably most useful for doc/event coverage in large spaces/outdoors. But the 17-120 has a constant aperture and is faster on the long end, which would be more important to me personally

Probably want to avoid an older zoom and get something released in the last 10-15 years?
 
cpreston said:
The built in extender will be very nice, but it seems like it might be a bit of a wash as far as compatibility with full frame cameras. I shoot 4K on the C500 MKII and the primary benefit full frame has is the oversampled 4K. The questions is whether the extender will cause enough image degradation that using the lens in full frame for the added resolution isn't actually a benefit. As it is, I regularly find myself switching to S35 mode on the C500 in order to get a bit more reach out of certain lenses.
Click to expand...

I doubt there would be much deg noticeable on this Canon lens going by their previous recent products. Basically, it looks like they are doing in the one lens what Angenieux are doing with their EZ-1 and EZ-2 Zoom Full-Frame Rear Lens-Groups. Angenieux are also offering the PL, Sony E and Canon EF mounts.

Chris Young

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1376173-REG/angenieux_ez_advc_kit_ez_1_30_to_90mm.html
 
JimGao said:
in s35, that 2mm is a game changer for doco work
Click to expand...

Is it worth $20k? And the loss of a constant aperture?

My feeling is that anything 18mm and wider is kind of sufficient for doc. 16mm is preferable. 15mm even more so. But I could live with 18, so i could certainly live with 17
 
ahalpert said:
Is it worth $20k? And the loss of a constant aperture?

My feeling is that anything 18mm and wider is kind of sufficient for doc. 16mm is preferable. 15mm even more so. But I could live with 18, so i could certainly live with 17
Click to expand...

YES!!!!!*











(*unless production can’t afford it, then in which case it is worth **** all, lol)
 
cpreston said:
The 17-120mm ramps the transmission the exact same way that the 15-120mm ramps.
Click to expand...

My bad, I see that now. How odd that b&h et al correctly label the aperture of the 15-120 but not the 17-120 in the item description. I suppose that makes the 15-120 an even more impressive feat of engineering that it can match the 17-120. Ramping aperture sucks, but at least it's constant on both out to 90mm or so
 
JimGao said:
YES!!!!!*











(*unless production can’t afford it, then in which case it is worth **** all, lol)
Click to expand...

Yeah, the cost evaluation seems very much dependent on one's personal gear budget as well as how often one would go wider than 15 (or longer than 120 with the extender)
 
ahalpert said:
My bad, I see that now. How odd that b&h et al correctly label the aperture of the 15-120 but not the 17-120 in the item description. I suppose that makes the 15-120 an even more impressive feat of engineering that it can match the 17-120. Ramping aperture sucks, but at least it's constant on both out to 90mm or so
Click to expand...

Sucks unless you use your zoom a bit like a variable prime, and only using that range above 75mm during the day where you can live at T4, which is generally a more functional aperture. Then for special shots and beauty shots T2.9. It is not theoretically ideal, but in practice is more ideal than switching primes, paying twice as much for constant aperture, and having an even bigger and heavier lens.

with LPL, shorter flangies, we may see more T2.8 constan aperture super zooms.
 
ahalpert said:
Yeah, the cost evaluation seems very much dependent on one's personal gear budget as well as how often one would go wider than 15 (or longer than 120 with the extender)
Click to expand...

Thanks! Yeah, if a show costs more than $250K to make, and it requires a wide lens for the look of the show, but also has a fast pace and once in a life time moments to capture, you almost can’t not afford it. haha!
 
JimGao said:
Thanks! Yeah, if a show costs more than $250K to make, and it requires a wide lens for the look of the show, but also has a fast pace and once in a life time moments to capture, you almost can’t not afford it. haha!
Click to expand...

Thanks for what?

Well, the original question was which lens to buy if one wanted to step up from L series photo zooms, not which lens was the ultimate performer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top