Comments on: Canon CN-E Cinema Primes vs. Still Lenses on the C300, 5D Mark III, RED SCARLET, and AF100

By: Lenny Levy

Lenny Levy — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 06:27:52 +0000

I find the remarks about CA very attractive. The big difference I’ve found between still lenses ( including the Zeiss ZF’s and the CP’s) is that there is noticeable green and magenta CA around contrasty edges near the focius point when you are wide open. Its pretty much universal on still lenses. Getting rid of that is a real coup.
Aside form that I agree that not all still lenses are crap below f4 – certainly not Zeiss ZF’s, or even Nikon Zooms at 2.8

By: Eric Emerick

Eric Emerick — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:54:22 +0000

I have a bunch of L series Canon lenses for use with the C300 and RED Scarlet. I rented the Canon CN-e set for a short film and to compare/contrast the lenses. There is a very large difference in the image from these lenses and I will be getting a set soon. The L lenses are sharper to the point of being ultra-contrasty, not as cinematic as the nice luma roll-off in the CN-E series. The bokeh is much more pleasing and gives a real 3-D look to the image. Colors are richer and “rounder” if you will. These videos do not, in my opinion, show the real advantage of the CN-E lenses. I saw the images on my retina MBP in FCPX and later on my 60″ plasma TV and I was simply startled. You can do fine work with still lenses on these cameras but the CN-E’s really take it up a notch. Wether the price is worth it is up to each owner/operator to decide.

By: kam

kam — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:19:52 +0000

He means your statement “Stills lenses are sharp in the center and only really sharp at 4-5.6. Most stills lenses are crap at 2.0″ is a gross generalization that does not apply to “all” still lenses. Perhaps for Canon. But for example, Leica glass is designed to be sharp edge to edge at all apertures (one reason they are so expensive…).

By: Canon Cine Primes vs. L Series Lenses on the C300: a Delightfully Irreverent Shootout from Jonathan Yi - NoFilmSchool

Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:33:36 +0000

[...] We’ve already shared another test between theses sets of lenses thanks to Magnanimous Media, so be sure to check that one out as well. [...]

By: Daniel Mimura

Daniel Mimura — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:19:44 +0000

Yeah, I agree about that overly sharp Hobbit look. Don’t get me started on 48fps, but it exaggerated that perceived sharpness b/c there isn’t that natural and beautiful motion blur that helps keep that overly sharp look at bay a little bit at good old 24fps (1/48th of a second exposures).

By: Daniel Mimura

Daniel Mimura — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:16:41 +0000

Read Ken Rockwell’s thing about sharpness on his site. It’s awesome, and just re-reading it reminds me how easy it is to lose sight of what really matters—technical forums with technically minded people tend to just exaggerate the perceptions of these problems…

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

By: Daniel Mimura

Daniel Mimura — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 12:53:40 +0000

Yeah, there are plenty of big budget movies where the breathing is really apparent—anamorphic lenses tend to breathe more. The trick is to disguise the breathing with good timing (on both the operator and AC’s part). When it is particularly bad, planning it with a pan or tilt can avoid it being noticed. This is usually on the operator, but but its one of those situations where I bring it up with the director if it’s really bad. Then it’s up to them if they want the locked off symmetry, or if a move will be okay with them. It’s not telling them “how to direct”, it’s just pointing out potential flaws and letting them have options.

By: Leland

Leland — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:02:41 +0000

90% of the work I do is with PL lenses. My reasons for this is that they were designed for motion picture capture and really make all the world of a difference in a real production environment from everything to pulling focus to lens resolution. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Canon L Series but I mostly use them for still photos on the 5D Mark III. Although I plan to continue using PL lenses from Cooke, Angenieux, Ziess, Red, and Fujion, I hope the independent market finds it in themselves to walk away from cheap feeling plastic still lenses with incredible breathing for motion capture and embrace lenses such as these and the Zeiss CP.2s.

By: hansd

hansd — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:53:31 +0000

Yes…but…they call them ’4K Cinema’ lenses, woohoo!!

By: hansd

hansd — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:38:04 +0000

I’ve seen enormous lens breathing in multi-million dollar movies – if it’s not crucial for VFX shots, I couldn’t care less about lens breathing. I mean, really.

By: PeterK

PeterK — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:44:45 +0000

Just a reminder – clinical optical perfection is not always desired. For certain projects it may be a plus, but many other projects would actually benefit from lenses that have some ‘character’. Digital image of most cameras does not compare too well to film image. Some camera/lens combinations are too sharp for narrative cinema. The look is not pleasing. There are many tricks DPs use to bring the clinical digital image closer to film look (too bad Hobbit went exactly the opposite way). So why bother with post so much, if a lot can be achieved by using the right glass?

P.S. Anyone checked some older movies in HD? Noticed the optical imperfections? Did they bother you? Talking about imperfections, did you see some anamorphic movies? Seriously guys, if you can afford to pay 700-3000$ for a lens, sharpness is the last of your worries ;-)

By: PeterK

PeterK — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:11:44 +0000

As they say on the Internet – cool story bro.

FF lens that is really sharp at the edges is a rarity (it’s very expensive to manufacture). To improve performance of Canon still lenses would mean some serious re-engineering (you can’t just put in “better glass”, lens is a system of elements). Improving quality control (selecting best copies for sale) would help things a bit, but not that much.

Back to your story – please put some proof behind your words. No pictures/video and your words are just that.

By: JAY CHASE

JAY CHASE — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:10:44 +0000

Like Ryan mentioned above the Canon cinema lens do not resolve to full potential , which is key when you are trying to get sharp and squeeze the most out of your censor on a budget.

At the end of the day like 80% of people who may read this blog you are either RENTING GLASS, either rent the zeiss primes or if you want to own some sharp decent stills, go and get you some nikon glass, something preferably like the ai-s manuals are very sharp and have a warm contrast.

YOU can get a set of NIKON old primes with an adapter mount for each glass, never remove the mount from flass, because mount gets weaker with each removal. Nikon primes with a good color grade/correction can get damnnn near the same results as with zeiss.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:28:41 +0000

That might explain why in the REDucation course I took recently, we were seeing thin lines show up on the 50mm f/1.2 when shooting at 4k all the way open!

By: ryan

ryan — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:01:01 +0000

yes that is correct, only the new sonys are cheap super 35mm

By: dixter

dixter — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:38:45 +0000

Do I understand correctly that, on these Canon lenses, Zeiss CP2′s and Super Speeds, you should figure on a crop factor of 1.5 or 1.6 for Super 35 sensors?

By: ryan

ryan — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:05:09 +0000

my comments about CA was just pointing out a difference between the lenses. The fact that the cn-e is crisp and lacking CA artifacts wide open is impressive and I didn’t see it mentioned. Choosing the right lens for the project is significant. I was providing some information that distinguishes the lenses so people may make a more informed choice when deciding between CP2 and CN-E. Reality check not needed.

By: ryan

ryan — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:38:51 +0000

Not many canon lenses can resolve 3800 lines and most can only resolve it at the center of the frame. The resolving power drops off dramatically on the edges so no they are not 4k ready. You obviously can use them with a 4k camera, but you will not be resolving the full resolution of the image. Megapixels of the camera has nothing to do with resolving power of the lens.

By: ryan

ryan — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:35:25 +0000

what depends on the lens?

By: Christian

Christian — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:30:49 +0000

I have been in the Market for a new camera and will be purchasing a Sony F5. I also am interested in good glass, however it was not the case originally because I believe in high end glass and simply renting lets say Panavision or Older Zeiss super speeds is by far the ticket in indies for me. I have seen the Canon Cinema lenses and they are built very well but I thought the presentation and or testing of them in this artilce could have been done much better. I am going to do tests with the zeiss and canon lenses and would gladly like to share that with NFS. I feel the Canon lenses will offer a good standard package for those who can afford them. Keep the good work up Koo and Joe.