Normal lenses compared...

[Joel Peregrine]

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...

[Chris M. Watson]

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.

[Joel Peregrine]

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.

Originally Posted by Chris Watson

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.

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

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

[Joel Peregrine]

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.

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

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

[Chris M. Watson]

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!

[Martyn Hull]

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

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.

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

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Martyn Hull

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.

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

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.

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

[Martyn Hull]

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.

[Ian Holb]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

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

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.

[Joel Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Ian Holb

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.

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Martyn Hull

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.

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.

[Martyn Hull]

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,

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Martyn Hull

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.

[Martyn Hull]

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.