Red lenses

[evinsky]

This would be very hard to engineer given everything else Red is trying to accomplish. Breathing is present in some still lenses but it's not nearly as distracting as some people say. Look for IF (Internal Focus) lenses for the best breathing performance.

 

[Emanuel]

I agree indeed Evin. You and Gibby you're the best mods that we can or could have here. Your indie POV is ours too. :dankk2: for your support.

 

[mike the beginner]

Quote from evinsky: Look for IF (Internal Focus) lenses for the best breathing performance.
____________________________________________

We must be getting close now to having a complete list of lenses. types/uses/ costs/ and the many pointers to watch out when buying, all in this one thread .....unbelievable and quite brilliant.

One simple one liner like that above is worth thousands of my words. I hope we can keep this thread going once Red comes out and the testing gets done with many of the lenses mentioned. I suppose it is enevitable that some of the lenses mentioned might not work well with the Red.

I just hope Gibby, Greg and evinsky are invloved in a lot of the testing then we will be in safe hands indeed. Thank you guys you have really added substance beyond the dozen or so books i have read thus far.

With guys like you on this site we are all very lucky to have such in depth knowledge and experience so readily to hand. :dankk2:

 

[JTmoney]

I have a set of Zeiss superspeeds (no big deal) not one but two RED cameras on the way! Are you kidding? Should we all be so lucky!

 

[Jarred Land]

We must be getting close now to having a complete list of lenses.

dont worry.. ill make sure me and Evin get together and grab every single piece of glass we can get our hands on, plus maybe take a trip to Clairmont for a day and do one of the biggest glass showdowns you have ever seen.

Evin himself has 10s of thousands of dollars in Nikkon glass alone.

 

[evinsky]

I do have a glass fetish.
I also need to amend my earlier post, there are actually two types of internal focus, rear focus and true IF. Rear focus lenses seem to display slightly less breathing than traditional front focus lenses. True IF lenses (Mostly zooms) actually change the focal length to focus. This is more noticable than either front or rear focus.

Another intersting thing I noticed is that longer lenses seem to breath less given to the fact that the change in focal length is proportionally smaller to the length of the lens. However it does seem that one primary reason for the expense of modern cinema glass is the breathing correction that Zeiss and Cooke have engineered into them.

Some Nikon RF lenses:
28mm 1.4 AF
85mm 1.4 & 1.8 AF
105mm 2.0 AF DC
135mm 2.0 AF DC
180mm 2.8 AF

True IF lenses:
70 & 80-200 F2.8 AFS+VR versions
New 18-200 3.5-5.6 AF VR
28-70mm 2.8 AFS
17-35mm 2.8 AFS (This one still does pretty well though)

All in all still glass seems to breathe, it's just the price you pay for not having to pay the price of cinema glass. Use them till you can afford a set of S4s or Master Primes.:beer:

 

[toke lahti]

If you move the CCDs block, you would eventually be able to focus. But you would change the framing too. You would notice it for sure. In fact, the more distance you make, the more macro the lense will become.
Just as large format studio cameras do.
I think you are wrong at some point.

Well ask camera manufacturers if you don't believe me.
(And while you're at that, can you also ask, why we are not getting manual focusing ring with sensor focusing cameras? The ring could just be located at sensor level comparing at the front of the lens.)

Most lenses with internal focusing do breathe and so does cameras with sensor focusing, what's the big difference?

 

[mike the beginner]

I read this little bit over at DV info Quote:- as part of that interchangeable lens capability, how about designing a one piece adapter that can be used in place of the prime lens to create a relay lens system to give us more control of
depth of field.
__________________________________________________

Now first off they were talking about a Sony FX1 with a fixed lens just to be clear on that! They were also probably talking about getting shallow DOF.

I just wonder if this could be doable with Red for the opposite reasons (to get more deep DOF i,e increased DOF rather than shalow DOF

I haven't a clue so throw it open to Greg Gibby or evinsky (the lens experts). My thoughts are that with all the lens talk on 35mm lenses and the low cost of many of these lenses i kinda get saddened when i know i really need a 2/3rds style zoom lens and the cost of these is likely to be similar to the new s35mm zoom that Red will come out with (i think). Could something like this be possible with Red for the opposite reasons as stated with the FX1 topic i

Also it has been stated by others that 90% of people using Red will probably be doing 2k or less. Maybe i have read this kinda wrong and with the windowed mode of Red it would do this anyway? You see i keep reminding myself that it is the LENS that gives us the DOF and not the sensor would this kind of thing change that? I wondered just curious...........

Michael

 

[tnle2]

I just wonder if this could be doable with Red for the opposite reasons (to get more deep DOF i,e increased DOF rather than shalow DOF

If you want deeper DOF you could mount 16mm lenses to RED and shoot in 2K windowed mode. The imaging area of 16mm lenses is just a little bigger then 2/3" lenses so the DOF should be similar. Another benefit to shooting in window mode is your max FPS goes up from 60 to 120.

Btw Mike, when quoting, you might want to use the ['QUOTE'] insert text here ['/QUOTE'] tags (remove the apostrophes) which makes it more clear what you are quoting.

 

[adaml]

Mike, if you use 35mm lenses and downres in camera to 2k then you maintain 35mm depth of field. If you use 16mm or 2/3" lenses then you would have to use windowed mode and you would have 16mm or 2/3" depth of field.

 

[mike the beginner]

Thanks tlne2 i shall try and use the quotes properly in future sorry

It was the price of 2/3rd/16mm or s16mm zoom lenses compared to a 35mm still camera zoom they are expensive. Just wondered if this item would allow just the one lens used but varying DOF. Photographic lenses are made in huge quantities these other lenses are made in much smaller quantities and thus higher prices right?

Its hard to put in print what i mean due to my lack of knowledge but if Red comes out with a Red zoom that is really light i want it, but i don't want the shallow DOF If some kinda mount could be used to make the lens become a 2/3rds lens when needed it would solve the issue and hopefuilly also give me the 120 FPS Is such an item possible???

Michael

 

[Greg Lowry]

Unfortunately, there is no physics-defying magical mount that will increase the depth of field of a lens without effecting anything else.

Depth of field control is possible with a tilt-shift system, but this requires special lenses (usually fixed focal length) with a larger than normal image circle (the area covered by the lens). These lenses are generally slow and effectively made slower by the light loss resulting from the tilt-shift bellows. But as I understand your question, a tilt-shift system won't accomplish what you want, especially for a zoom lens.

If I have misunderstood your question, please elaborate.

 

[mike the beginner]

Unfortunately, there is no physics-defying magical mount that will increase the depth of field of a lens without effecting anything else.

Depth of field control is possible with a tilt-shift system, but this requires special lenses (usually fixed focal length) with a larger than normal image circle and these lenses are generally slow.

Hope the quotes are right

Thanks Greg and yep you read it right I read about those tilt shift lenses but they sound quite complex and for me it would be just another item to learn about and add to all the rest. It was because i read about those type of lenses that i thought just maybe it could be done some other way hence this snippet of info..oh well never mind.
Michael

 

[adaml]

Here's a new depth-of-field question:

How does the depth-of-field on a fast lens stopped down a little compare to a slower lens wide open. For instance, would a 50mm 1.4 stopped down to 2.8 have the same or more depth-of-field as a 50mm 2.8 wide open? My limited, informal experience is that the 1.4 at 2.8 might have a little more, but I'm curious what the technical answer is. Anyone?

 

[Jannard]

same focal length (50mm) and both at F2.8 have identical depth of field. Although you may find the better lens (f1.4) to be sharper stopped down to f2.8. This is usually the case, but not always.

Jim

 

[adaml]

Thanks Jim.

Another question: Should we have any concerns about the auto-irises on these still lenses we're discussing? Although I'm not clear on how they operate, it seems to me that we'll be subjecting them to a type of use they're not designed for - 24 exposures a second (or more) for long periods of time.

 

[Jarred Land]

for B4 lenses your not SOL... you can always use a lens control grip like this for focus zoom iris etc..

http://www.prosourcebmi.com/products_zif.cfm


If RED has no lens controls, Im sure it will have external power, so you have alot of options.

 

[Greg Lowry]

it seems to me that we'll be subjecting them to a type of use they're not designed for - 24 exposures a second (or more) for long periods of time.

As there is no coupling of the aperture to the camera to stop down the lens at the time each frame is captured, frame rate is of no consequence to the lens and does not result in any unusual mechanical or optical wear and tear.

 

[Jarred Land]

ha ha ha that was a very elegant sophisticated way of saying "it doesnt matter" Greg.. love it.

 

[adaml]

Thanks guys. I was confused by the mention of the 17-35, but in doing further research I see it has an aperture ring.

I also see that 1/4 turn takes you through the full focus range.