Normal lenses compared...
 

Hi,

I'm paring down my odd assortment of lenses - somehow ended up with 5 "normals" (for full-frame sensors) and just want to keep two. So I shot a very unscientific test:

Normal Lenses Compared - Page 1

Just tried to keep everything as consistent as possible -100% crops, ISO 200, lenses wide open. I didn't correct for exposure. From the perspective of how they feel and operate I'm leaning toward the Pentax 1.2 and the Nikon 1.4...

Man I didn't even know Pentax had a 1.2 lens! Very neat test and all of them seem pretty sharp. Are you by any chance coming to WEVA next week? You have a pretty sweet lens collection from what I've seen. Take care and thanks for taking the time to do that.

Hi Chris,

That Pentax 50 1.2 was a very lucky auction win. I'd been lowball bidding on those and the Olympus 50 and 55mm f1.2 for months. Somehow that one came through. Only $119 + a decent shipping charge as it was from Singapore. After a season on the T2i's I've finally got a handle on what lenses I use on a regular basis and am paring down. I picked up a used Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS and sold my f4 version of that lens. That made it possible to sell a Nikon 180 2.8 I needed for darker ceremonies. Also sold the Canon 24-105 f4 in favor of the Canon 17-55 f2.8. The (final - hopefully) traveling set consists of:

Canon 70-200/2.8 IS
Tokina 80-210/2.8
Porst 135/1.8
Rokinon 85/1.4
Pentax 50/1.2
Sigma 28/1.8
Vivitar 24/f2
Canon 17-55/2.8 IS
Tokina 11-16/f2.8

I'd love to come to WEVA - it'd be my first convention. Just not a good time to get away. I'm in Minneapolis on the 21st and out in CA to shoot a fellow wedding videographer's daughter's wedding on the 28th.

I am jealous of every single one of those lenses. In terms of balancing budget and requirements, just about perfect. Congratulations.

Ack. Thanks. Sort of sad the lens hunt is done for now. Kind of enjoy it. What we all need is an 11-300 f1.4 so we can just worry about shooting like we did with real video cameras.

I know how you feel. Been going through lens buying withdrawl for about a month or two since me and my wife's lens suites are pretty well sorted out. There should be an LBA support group for guys like us. Anyway, great lens set you have there. I think you are pretty well covered!

could not agree more its strange that so many lenses are needed to achieve less than a good camcorder lens can.

If that was actually true, people would simply not be using DSLR's in the way they are, and the 'revolution' would not have happened.

The ability to have interchangable fast glass ranks pretty high on the list of desirable features. Camcorder lenses are typically mediocre at best, and tend not to be fixed aperture, which is quite a nice thing to have for film makers.

Here is the lens you're after. Well, except that it is not 11-300, but 9.3-930mm. Only $200,000 too! You only need to sell your house and all your possessions, and have an adapter made, and you're off :)

Canon BCTV Lenses: HDTV Lenses: DIGISUPER 100 xs

Everyone does not want to carry a lot of lenses around, i stand by the fact cams like sonys FX1000 and its replacement have great lenses with a zoom range that costs a fortune to match in DSLR lenses.

At longest focal range, the aperture is f4.7. *sad face*

To have constant f1.4 across the zoom range would have the lens costing over $12 million, plus the fact you'll need to alter the laws of physics to pull it off. LOL.

Maybe someday - lens technology will forever push forward - even though imaging has gone digital, you will always need to funnel the light to the sensor. Satellites undoubtedly have some optics that will never see commercial release. Even Pentax had a 300mm f2.0 prototype that they never produced, probably because they wouldn't sell enough of them to recoup the tooling costs. Canon's 300 f2 you can buy, if you have $120,000 to spend on a lens.

Yes, that is a GREAT camcorder, with an amazing range on the zoom. I take your point about camcorders. The smaller sensor actually allows you to have a much longer 35mm equivalent reach at the long end, without producing a lens of ridiculous proportions.

On the flip-side, the smaller the sensor, the harder it is to go wide and stay rectilinear. For instance, I can slap on a Tokina 11-16mm and beat out the FX1000 (unless you cheat with a conveter - more glass, less light, more distortions)

But it's not "strange" as you said earlier, it's just physics. There are pros and cons of the large sensor.

I am lucky to have a camcorder and a DSLR, so I get the best of both worlds, which everyone serious should in my humble opinion.

James i have both as well but what is making me shirty is the fact i cant afford many of the lenses as yet,ps you are more into VDSLRs i struggle with focus outdoors with my 550 and the hoodloupe i bought was useless do you know of any magnetic types that are a resonable price,

My video background is very much with camcorders, and I am not ready to abandon them yet. If you have to have one camera to shoot with, it would still be a camcorder.

I have also always been into DSLR, from way before video was possible. The 550d is my third Canon DSLR, so I have built up my collection of lenses via this route over a reasonably long period. Even before video DSLRs I had an obsession with fast glass, which has stood me in good stead.

I also cannot afford to go out and buy the Tokina 11-16mm and the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 yet, but I make do with my range of manual primes which I bought very cheaply from ebay. I have about 15 primes, and I've never spent more than £100 on any one, and usually much less. I love them all!. You don't need 15 mind you, you could get the job done with a 28, a 50 and an 85 for about £250 in total.

Also people are very quick to dismiss the entry level zooms, but if you do your research, they do a great job where light is not an issue, like most outdoor scenarios. The original non IS 18-55mm was truly a crap and unusable lens, and most people seem to base their opinion on this. The newer IS version is slow but otherwise brilliant. See the photozone.de tests of the 18-55mm IS and the 55-250mm IS kit lenses.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - Review / Test Report

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - Review / Test Report

Here is a quote from the 18-55 IS review:

"There were a few moments when I considered not to publish the results due to "political correctness" because to date it was a quite absurd thought that such a cheap, or better "affordable", lens can perform this good and I'm sure that some will not believe the findings even though they're supported by the published field images"

These lense are a stop gap, and if bought at a price where they can be sold without too much loss, can do a job until you can afford better, provided you are covered with fast primes for indoor work.

Regarding focusing, do you have the hoodmag too? The hoodloupe doesn't do much on it's own as far as I'm aware. You really need magnification to assist with focus. I have heard good reports from people with the Hoodmag. Some say 3x is too much as you can see pixels, but seeing pixels has never been an impediment to focusing for me, the opposite in fact.

I don't know of any magnetic solution that is affordable. I bought a zacuto mounting plate for £6 which gives a nice clip on frame for the camera. I then made my own loupe from a food container and a £5 radio shack magnifying glass. I have compared my focus accuracy with this to using a professional loupe, and I get the job done to the same standard with my cheap crap.

yes i have the ef-s 18-55mm and a tamron 28-300mm this lens is only a cheapie but seems ok but i will have to get a wide angle even if its only the tamron 10-24.

I got a super nice Vivitar Series 1 28 1.9 a few weeks ago. wasn't cheap at $275, but what a nice lens, including internal focus ! works great with a matte box. the only thing weird about it is that it has a tapered lens barrel making it tricky to keep the focus gear on it. I'm probably going to mod a lens gear to match the slope, or maybe just add a fat O ring onto the barrel to make up the difference.

I've got some really nice OM glass too, the 35-70mm F4 is nice, and cheap... but there is also a F3.5 out there as well, when the come around.

the problem with the dslr revolution is that its driven the price of the old glass up thru the roof. lenses that wouldn't of sold, or went for under $100 2-3 years ago are now fetching as much or more then their modern counterparts. this is in part due to 160-180 deg focus rotation, and real iris rings.

What the digital revolution SHOULD be spawning is an awakening by lens manufacturers that there is a REAL need for GOOD manual focus EF mount glass. People are snapping up screw-mount, kmount, f-mount, and other vintage glass very quickly. I could buy a razor sharp Nikon 1.8mm manual lens for a couple hundred bucks right now, new. But I'll pay nearly that much for a pristine vintage lens because of it's other qualities.

And modern AF glass is just the pits for use with follow-focus units. So I'll keep after it with the vintage glass until manufacturers wake up a bit and realize AF is NOT the answer for video.

Steve, I can't resist bragging about this now, but I found one of those at a market stall in London for £25, and couldn't believe my luck when I checked the eBay going rate.

The only down side is that my copy suffers from low contrast, and a general slightly washed out look.

How is yours?

Right, quick update, I am jealous of every single one of those lenses minus the Porst 135 f/1.8, which I just snagged on eBay.

I must admit, I probably paid more than I would have hoped (£206), but I'm confident that the prices for fast vintage glass are going in one direction - up.

I will probably have to say goodbye to the Takumar 135mm f/2.5 and the Pentacon 135 f/2.8, that is, as long as the Porst doesn't disappoint. I reckon I'll make back most of that money.

seems fine. old glass will be lower in contrast then new lenses because of the older technology, and because film back then was so contrasty, a lower contrast lens worked for better pix. if it seems really off... I don't know, maybe some one scrubbed off the "funny blue color" on the lens :(

I shot this with it....

Thanks very much for sharing that. I should qualify my comments about contrast. I was comparing the contrast in the f/1.9 to other vintage lenses I own. The closest one is the Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 close focus, which has much better contrast and saturation, as do most of the Takumars I own, which have great contrast, despite being old.

Your f/1.9 shares a similar look, but maybe a bit better than my one, hard to tell. I have seen a number of productions where the image is manipulated to look more like this lens, so it's not all bad. It has it's own style. Like a slight layer of white dust on the image. I think it's a usable look, and your footage looks nice. Regardless, the wide aperture is a must have in certain situations, and has on occasion produced a usable shot which would have otherwise been impossible.

I just checked mine to check your point about coating, and it looks like the coating on mine, which has a green tinge, is not worn or damaged, so it's a mystery.

Interesting that you filtered the lens anyway... Looks terrific by the way. I do find it somewhat ironic that the audio switch to the Sanken absolutely sounded LESS full and rich, though we do know it's a better mic. Sounds like someone pulled down the bottom two octaves when you switched! :)

Steve, I took a second look at your video, and the image has grown on me a lot. There is a lovely 3d quality to the rendering and the muted colours are very classy looking. So I stuck my copy of the lens back on and did some more test shots, and it seems I had judged my one too harshly, it looks great in the right light - really great. I feel like I have a new lens!

Great investment! You'll notice a slight softening wide open - appears most visibly with backlit subjects as a slight halation. This completely disappears one notch closed down at 2.8, but in my opinion the extra 1 1/3 stop gained at 1.8 and the resulting lower ISO more than makes up for the slight loss of sharpness.

The only reason I can see for keeping the slower 135's is that they are so much more compact and weigh considerably less. With the Canon adapter ring and a UV filter the Porst 135 f1.8 gets very close to 2lbs.

Thanks for the feedback. I will probably only use it wide open in indoor or night shots to avoid the halation you describe. A new word for me, thanks. I now have a word for that wide open white fuzz I see a lot. Seems that it is slightly less of a problem with video than stills.

I may well keep the other lenses. I have to tell my wife I will be selling lenses to justify the new purchases. Sometimes I forget that it's just a story, knowing full well that I 'won't get round to it'

Anyway, I don't see them losing value any time soon, so really I am thinking of our future..

Try the LCDVF. They make one to fit the 5D/7D and one to fit the Rebel. I've used mine all round the world in a variety of shooting conditions and it's worked really well.

And don't get wound up by all these people buying every lens going - I once shot an entire documentary on a single prime lens.

Hi James,

Fast glass is always a good investment. Just came across another lens to lust over - the Vivitar 135mm f1.5. Sharpens up at f2.0

DSC_7024 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

4lbs!

I soooo wish they wouldn't have that "Rebel" name sticking around. I almost bought 55D's instead of the T2i just so I wouldn't have to have the Rebel badge.

Having an arsenal of lenses is mandatory for event videography - you practically never have control of lighting or how close you can be to your subject.

What does event videography have to do with anything??

Liam, Event Video is what Joel does most often.

The forum is for users of the camera in the title regardless of the content they produce. I'd love to be able to carry one lens around all day, but my clients wouldn't get the best coverage I am capable of.

Yes, I realize he does weddings, I was responding to another poster who had written that they didn't want to carry around a lot of lenses and couldn't afford to buy a lot either. I didn't understand why he was quoting me - maybe our wires were crossed:)

The fact is most people can get along just fine with three lenses or less, there's really no need to buy the contents of your local camera shop. Newbies in particular should just get a couple of lenses and go out and shoot.

True, which is usually the second step after experimenting with a low-cost zoom. There are many examples of one-lens productions in the samples gallery - shorts, music videos, even a few one-camera weddings. I'm dealing with three and four-camera shoots, and each dslr has a different angle within a situation that I have virtually no control over, including lighting, hence my preoccupation with fast lenses. While doing all that I am trying to remain discreet. In a way its like the cinema verite days of film production - something I've studied. The equipment had to be portable and able to gather images in every environment without supplemental lighting. If you can't get the shot you won't be able to tell the story.

Joel, I didn't realize you were the OP. I now understand why you quoted me earlier! My bad!

Anyway, I took a gander at your lens test. Why do the test wide open? I can't imagine you'd often shoot a wedding at f1.2.

Hey,

Wider apertures mean a lower ISO/less grain. Focusing on a moving subject with a really fast lens takes practice, but its worth the time spent.

The beast has arrived from Germany. Absolutely lovely condition - a really beautiful lens.

The halation is less pronounced than most of my fast lenses wide open - a surprise. The only obvious things were as you say, a slight drop off in sharpness, and I have noticed a touch of vignetting. Agree, extremely usable wide open, and it beats the crap out of my other 135's at f/2.8.

This is going to get more use than I thought, especially as a still lens. It is pretty cool to be able to occupy the frame with a sharp, well exposed image a of a face in low light from 10-15 feet away. It really creates an intimate shot because of the shallow DOF and the fact that the distance of the camera is not a threat to the subject.

Just so you know Joel, I would never have know there was an affordable 135 f/1.8 out there, had I not your read the post you made when you got your Porst, a name I hadn't heard of. Keep sharing the knowledge!

Hi Joe, I'm looking to get the Canon 70-200 F2.8... it's $1300 without IS and the new version is $2300 with IS. Do you think it worths the extra $1000 for it? Thanks

thank you Steve!
 

Because seeing your video made me bought the Vivitar 28mm 1.9 today.

I won't say the price I paid for it (only if some of you insist) because it was like buying an old 70s mustang from a grandmother who did not drive it for 25 years and kept the car in a barn, I feel a little bit ashamed.

But that maybe my reward or compensation for buying a Canon EF 17-85mm which broke 1 week after I bought it (lots of how to repair this lens video's on youtube about this one).

Its funny to see the price of the 60s 70s 80s lenses these day, they cost the same as they were sold back then. Just buy a few 80s magazine like shutterbug, or popular photography and check the prices at B&H in the last pages. Maybe in 10 years from now the value of those lenses will have double. So look for old lenses before there is 3 time more video Dslr users.

I said thank you Steve for the video but I don't know If I should thank you for the audio on your video, because hearing it and seeing your set up might cost me a lot of dollar in the next few month.