Canon Lenses and upgrading to future cameras.

T

Thomas Church

Active member
One of the things that leave me a little uneasy about investing heavily in the 4/3 format is future proofing lenses.

We all know that eventually Scarlet S35 (or should I say Epic Lite), an APS-C offer from Canon and other S35 cameras will be out on the market.

With the future in mind perhaps wouldn't it be better to buy APS-C or "L" Series glass than 4/3?

Do the EF-S Lenses cover S35? What's the crop factor of an EF-S lens in the 4/3 sensor?

This seems like a good option for the AF100, though it wouldn't be very wide, would it?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html

With the new birger mount can you control the lens iris through the control in the camera?
 
That's my most used lens on my 7D, and will probably become the same on the AF-100. I think it would cover an S35 sensor but I am not positive. It would be moderately wide on the AF-100, and is sharp and fast and has IS (which I think will work with the Birger mount). This and the Tokina 11-16 will cover most of my zooming range. My guess is my 70-200 will get less use.
 
Thomas Church said:
Do the EF-S Lenses cover S35? What's the crop factor of an EF-S lens in the 4/3 sensor?
Click to expand...
EF-S is not quite as big as S35. It's very close, but S35 is 24mm wide, EF-S is 22.3mm wide. It is likely that most if not all EF-S lenses will have enough overlap to cover S35, but not guaranteed.
If you're thinking of Epic-S/Epic-Lite/Scarlet S35/whatever, then be aware that even though they called it "S35", its sensor was nothing like Super35. It was, IIRC, 30mm x 15mm, so it was an odd aspect ratio, much wider, and therefore no S35 lens on the planet is likely to have covered its frame, and certainly no normal-35mm or EF-S lens would.

With the new birger mount can you control the lens iris through the control in the camera?
Click to expand...
The mount is not yet released, but that is the general idea that we think it will do, yes.
 
Yes, it seems like the 17-55 and the Tokina 11-16 would be a perfect pair for use on the AF100.

My only question is if these lenses would cover an S35 sensor.

Something like the Sony F3 or the future Epic Lite.

Just in case if I rent one of these cameras I can use my lenses.
 
Barry_Green said:
If you're thinking of Epic-S/Epic-Lite/Scarlet S35/whatever, then be aware that even though they called it "S35", its sensor was nothing like Super35. It was, IIRC, 30mm x 15mm, so it was an odd aspect ratio, much wider, and therefore no S35 lens on the planet is likely to have covered its frame, and certainly no normal-35mm or EF-S lens would.
Click to expand...

This is strange. So even "regular" cine glass like the Ultra Primes won't cover it?

I think it all depends on the availability of the birger mount, but somehow it seems to me Canon glass is a better investment, considering they are probably going to come out with their EF-S camcorder in two years.

Will they sell this at B&H or will it be a special order product?

Barry, do you know what's the crop factor between Canon's APS-C and a 4/3 sensor?
 
Thomas Church said:
This is strange. So even "regular" cine glass like the Ultra Primes won't cover it?
Click to expand...
The 30mm wide sensor? Not likely, no. Cinema glass typically covers the S35 frame. So if Red offers some sort of "conventional S35" shooting mode, then yes they'd cover -- but then you'd be talking about using no more than 24mm wide of their sensor, at which points all the claims of "5k" and "6k" go out the window.

I really don't understand why they insist on their odd 2:1 aspect ratio and weird-sized sensors. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Unless maybe they engineered their Red Pro Primes to cover 30mm wide, and therefore were planning on everyone who bought an "Epic S" would have to buy Red lenses too?

Of course, with "everything subject to change", we of course now have no idea if that 30mm-wide sensor is still even a relevant specification.
I think it all depends on the availability of the birger mount, but somehow it seems to me Canon glass is a better investment, considering they are probably going to come out with their EF-S camcorder in two years.
Click to expand...
Nobody knows what Canon may or may not do, whether they will or will not come out with any large-sensor camcorder, and even if they do, whether it would use their stills glass or not, and even if they did, what time frame they'd be operating under. Canon glass is a safe bet because there are billions of stills photographers using it, so you can always buy used and sell used; there will always be a market for it. But stills glass on a cinema camera is not an ideal solution no matter how you slice it, anyway.

Will they sell this at B&H or will it be a special order product?
Click to expand...
Don't know. Should be hearing some update from them within the next few weeks, I'd imagine.
 
I'm sticking with Canon glass for my AF100 for a number of reasons.

1: I also shoot stills with my Canon DSLR and so therefore I can use the same glass for both.

2: Like Barry said, it's hard to go wrong with Canon because if you ever decide to sell them it's very easy to do and they hold their value really well.

3: Eventually Canon is going to come out with an AF100 competitor and when they do I'd bet it's going to be a great camera. It's also very possible that it will use a sensor larger than S35. Who knows? Whatever they come out with and whenever the do owning Canon glass will make switching to Canon really easy.

I love my Canon L series primes! I can't wait to use them on my AF100. I've never owned or used cine glass but I have a question for those who have. How do the Canon primes compare to the Zeiss cine glass? Again I have no idea and would love to hear from someone who has owned or used both. I love my Canon L primes and can't really imagine a Zeiss lens being much better if at all.

Also, IMO the Birger mount is one amazing piece of gear! I'm speaking of the Birger used with the Impero specifically. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Birger mount coupled with the Impero erase all the advantages that cine glass has over still lenses? At least in terms of using them? It seems to me that the ability to manual focus the Canons with the Impero will be more precise than even dedicated cinema lenses no?

Again, someone please correct me here if I'm wrong. Like I said I've never used true cine glass so perhaps I'm way off base here.

Anyway, Thomas, I tend to agree with you and I plan to go with Canon glass as well. My lens kit will consist of the L series primes from the 24 L II to the 200. Also I'm going with the Nikon 14-24 and the Tokina 11-16.

Just thought I'd share my 2 cents.
 
I'm personally contemplating the 17-55 and the Tokina 11-16, seems like a perfect match.

About Scarlet 35/Epic Lite, that is certainly disappointing, but yes, Canon glass should be easy to sell.

And if Canon does come out with their APS-C camcorder (to me it seems smarter than FF 35, I think it's completely impractical for motion) I'll be ready.

Is there any word on the birger mount pricing?

Sorry to ask again, but what's the crop factor between APS-C and 4/3?
 
Last edited:
aps-c I think is 1.6x and the AF100 is 2x roughly.

So 11mm on an AF100 would be like a 22mm on a 5d and the same 11mm on an APS-C like a 7d would be like a 18mm on a 5d.
 
This is a video using the 11-16 Tokina and the 16-50 Tokina on a 7D. Everything in the air in the helicopter is hpx170.

I really dig the quality of these shots, and it seems to me like they hold up really well. For the AF100, these lenses get basically 22mm-100mm in FF35 field of view, which in my eyes is really good. And the Tokina's aren't terribly expensive either...

 
Last edited:
derbrocks09 said:
I love my Canon L series primes! I can't wait to use them on my AF100. I've never owned or used cine glass but I have a question for those who have. How do the Canon primes compare to the Zeiss cine glass? Again I have no idea and would love to hear from someone who has owned or used both. I love my Canon L primes and can't really imagine a Zeiss lens being much better if at all.
Click to expand...

Barry provided a link the other day of a test between Canon primes and Zeiss. Can't find it now. Unfortunately the Canon glass wasn't as good with noticable diferences.
 
TheReverend said:
This is a video using the 11-16 Tokina and the 16-50 Tokina on a 7D. Everything in the air in the helicopter is hpx170.

I really dig the quality of these shots, and it seems to me like they hold up really well. For the AF100, these lenses get basically 22mm-100mm in FF35 field of view, which in my eyes is really good. And the Tokina's aren't terribly expensive either...

Click to expand...
lol... Updated the post with video link which was absent in my original post.
 
ransom said:
Barry provided a link the other day of a test between Canon primes and Zeiss. Can't find it now. Unfortunately the Canon glass wasn't as good with noticable diferences.
Click to expand...



Yeah but someone pointed out that the reviewer compared a Canon zoom to a Zeiss prime! The same poster posted a link to a review with the opposite conclusion. So... Just wondering if anyone who has used both could chime in here.
 
derbrocks09 said:
I'm sticking with Canon glass for my AF100 for a number of reasons.

1: I also shoot stills with my Canon DSLR and so therefore I can use the same glass for both.

2: Like Barry said, it's hard to go wrong with Canon because if you ever decide to sell them it's very easy to do and they hold their value really well.

3: Eventually Canon is going to come out with an AF100 competitor and when they do I'd bet it's going to be a great camera. It's also very possible that it will use a sensor larger than S35. Who knows? Whatever they come out with and whenever the do owning Canon glass will make switching to Canon really easy.

I love my Canon L series primes! I can't wait to use them on my AF100. I've never owned or used cine glass but I have a question for those who have. How do the Canon primes compare to the Zeiss cine glass? Again I have no idea and would love to hear from someone who has owned or used both. I love my Canon L primes and can't really imagine a Zeiss lens being much better if at all.

Also, IMO the Birger mount is one amazing piece of gear! I'm speaking of the Birger used with the Impero specifically. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Birger mount coupled with the Impero erase all the advantages that cine glass has over still lenses? At least in terms of using them? It seems to me that the ability to manual focus the Canons with the Impero will be more precise than even dedicated cinema lenses no?

Again, someone please correct me here if I'm wrong. Like I said I've never used true cine glass so perhaps I'm way off base here.

Anyway, Thomas, I tend to agree with you and I plan to go with Canon glass as well. My lens kit will consist of the L series primes from the 24 L II to the 200. Also I'm going with the Nikon 14-24 and the Tokina 11-16.

Just thought I'd share my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

some professional photographer from national geographic did an extensive comparison (it's posted somewhere on this site) and wrote an article comparing canon L and zeiss primes. Zeiss annihilated the canon L it wasn't even a comparison.
 
TheReverend said:
This is a video using the 11-16 Tokina and the 16-50 Tokina on a 7D. Everything in the air in the helicopter is hpx170.

I really dig the quality of these shots, and it seems to me like they hold up really well. For the AF100, these lenses get basically 22mm-100mm in FF35 field of view, which in my eyes is really good. And the Tokina's aren't terribly expensive either...

Click to expand...

That was great! Ya just sold me on the Tokinas! I've been looking at those for a while now! Thanks!
 
Guys, sorry to be repetitive, but does anyone know what's the crop factor between APS-C and 4/3?

I'm sure it must be small, but there is some, isn't there?
 
Thanks Reverend for that footage. It's really beautiful. I was just going to ask if anyone had anything with the 11-16 Tokina, and there is is. That lens is right in my budget. I am going to be using a Nikon mount for my other lenses, but am less concerned about future proofing. My immediate future is with the AF100. Would it be better to buy a native DX mount lens or get the Tokina with the AF mount? I don't see (on B&H) a m4/3 mount version of that lens.
 
I also have the 17-55 f/2.8 and it's amazing (on my 60D). Love it. Fastest stabilized zoom in this range by any manufacturer?
Only thing is it's bit sticky in the zooming action -- but hey, it's designed for stills.
 
I wish that an electronic Canon mount was cheap and already available.

The selection of 4/3 lenses apropriate for video production is short.

There isn't a single, reasonably affordable 2.8 zoom.

The Olympus 14-35 is just too expensive.

I wonder which lens is better, the Tokina 16-50 or the Canon 15-55

So far I think there isn't a Canon mount version of the 16-50, but it would be nice to know.

If it's a good lens both Tokinas (11-16 and 16-50) would be all I need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top