EF Lens Quality for 4K at DVinfo.net

Haitham Lawati · May 30th, 2012, 01:21 PM

Now that Canon has released C500 with the capability of shooting scenes up to 4K resolution using either PL lens or Canon EF series lenses, do you think that Canon's EF lenses have the ability to deliver high quality images at 4K resolution fairly like PL lenses or not?

Andy Wilkinson · May 30th, 2012, 02:10 PM

Forgive me for stating what to me is obvious but if they are good enough for 18-22 Megapixel stills on the various Canon bodies out there then 4K resolution should be no problem at all for EF lenses.

Haitham Lawati · May 30th, 2012, 03:27 PM

Thanks for the reply. In fact, my knowledge about cinema cameras and other hardwares are extremely theoretical. However, my practical experience is very much close to zero.

John Wiley · May 30th, 2012, 05:26 PM

Keep in mind also that with any L lenses or full-frame lenses used on the C500, you're cropping out the edges of the lens and only using the centre of the lens, where the glass is sharpest.

The Red Epic/Scarlet is available with an EF mount, so you might want to read up on what lenses people have been using with it and what results they've been getting. I've edited some stuff shot on a Red Epic with a Canon FD 400mm 2.8L converted to PL mount (this is a permanent conversion, not just an add-on adapter). The lens had no issues whatsoever regarding sharpness, even in the 2K crop mode which is nearing 1:1 pixel magnification on a 1080p timeline.

Warren Kawamoto · May 30th, 2012, 07:04 PM

Focusing manually is more difficult with EF lenses because of it's tiny distance scale. Trying to follow focus could be challenging as compared to PL mounted lens. Secondly, there are no iris stops on the lens barrel. Some factors to consider....

Haitham Lawati · June 4th, 2012, 09:42 AM

Then what makes PL lenses unbelievably expensive compared to Canon EF lenses. Is it a quality difference? Or any other difference?

Graeme Sutherland · June 5th, 2012, 07:12 AM

Cine lenses are engineered to a different standard than stills lenses. They're generally sturdier (e.g. a Cooke lens is machined out of a fairly substantial piece of aluminium), more precise and more durable. They're also built in much smaller series, so there's not the same scale of economies.

As an example of this, a stills lens's speed will be rated on its F number, which is the size of the aperture it can open. A cine lens has a T (transmission) number, which will have been individually calibrated for that particular lens, and corresponds to the light passing through the optical elements.

Furthermore things like focusing and iris control have a longer travel, allowing for more precise control.

What I never get is why people spend $20K on a camera, and then bolt cheap glass onto it. Given the pace of change, most things are obsolete within a couple of years, I think that putting money into glass, which has a longer lifespan, and renting a body when needed makes an awful lot of sense.

If I was looking at a C500, I'd be after a set of Cooke Panchros (£25K / $40K), or the forthcoming Canon Cine primes that are due later this year.

Cooke Optics Limited : Products : Panchro

May 30th, 2012, 01:21 PM	#1
Haitham Lawati Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: OMAN Posts: 107	EF Lens Quality for 4K Now that Canon has released C500 with the capability of shooting scenes up to 4K resolution using either PL lens or Canon EF series lenses, do you think that Canon's EF lenses have the ability to deliver high quality images at 4K resolution fairly like PL lenses or not?

May 30th, 2012, 02:10 PM	#2
Andy Wilkinson Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Cambridge UK Posts: 2,853	Re: EF Lens Quality for 4K Forgive me for stating what to me is obvious but if they are good enough for 18-22 Megapixel stills on the various Canon bodies out there then 4K resolution should be no problem at all for EF lenses. __________________ Andy K Wilkinson - https://www.shootingimage.co.uk Cambridge (UK) Corporate Video Production

May 30th, 2012, 03:27 PM	#3
Haitham Lawati Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: OMAN Posts: 107	Re: EF Lens Quality for 4K Thanks for the reply. In fact, my knowledge about cinema cameras and other hardwares are extremely theoretical. However, my practical experience is very much close to zero.

May 30th, 2012, 05:26 PM	#4
John Wiley Trustee Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Byron Bay, Australia Posts: 1,155	Re: EF Lens Quality for 4K Keep in mind also that with any L lenses or full-frame lenses used on the C500, you're cropping out the edges of the lens and only using the centre of the lens, where the glass is sharpest. The Red Epic/Scarlet is available with an EF mount, so you might want to read up on what lenses people have been using with it and what results they've been getting. I've edited some stuff shot on a Red Epic with a Canon FD 400mm 2.8L converted to PL mount (this is a permanent conversion, not just an add-on adapter). The lens had no issues whatsoever regarding sharpness, even in the 2K crop mode which is nearing 1:1 pixel magnification on a 1080p timeline.

May 30th, 2012, 07:04 PM	#5
Warren Kawamoto Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,435	Re: EF Lens Quality for 4K Focusing manually is more difficult with EF lenses because of it's tiny distance scale. Trying to follow focus could be challenging as compared to PL mounted lens. Secondly, there are no iris stops on the lens barrel. Some factors to consider....

June 4th, 2012, 09:42 AM	#6
Haitham Lawati Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: OMAN Posts: 107	Re: EF Lens Quality for 4K Then what makes PL lenses unbelievably expensive compared to Canon EF lenses. Is it a quality difference? Or any other difference?

June 5th, 2012, 07:12 AM	#7
Graeme Sutherland New Boot Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: London, UK Posts: 20	Re: EF Lens Quality for 4K Cine lenses are engineered to a different standard than stills lenses. They're generally sturdier (e.g. a Cooke lens is machined out of a fairly substantial piece of aluminium), more precise and more durable. They're also built in much smaller series, so there's not the same scale of economies. As an example of this, a stills lens's speed will be rated on its F number, which is the size of the aperture it can open. A cine lens has a T (transmission) number, which will have been individually calibrated for that particular lens, and corresponds to the light passing through the optical elements. Furthermore things like focusing and iris control have a longer travel, allowing for more precise control. What I never get is why people spend $20K on a camera, and then bolt cheap glass onto it. Given the pace of change, most things are obsolete within a couple of years, I think that putting money into glass, which has a longer lifespan, and renting a body when needed makes an awful lot of sense. If I was looking at a C500, I'd be after a set of Cooke Panchros (£25K / $40K), or the forthcoming Canon Cine primes that are due later this year. Cooke Optics Limited : Products : Panchro