PDA

View Full Version : A niftier fifty; 30-300


Doug Kerr
November 4th, 2011, 01:10 PM
Canon EOS shooters fond of the 50mm focal length should be excited by the announcement of the Canon CN-E 50mm T1.3 L F.

http://cdn.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/cine50-2.jpg

Image from Canon via CanonRumors

Although intended for cinematographic use, it has an EF mount, and should be perfectly happy aboard any EOS body, frame size FF-35, 1.3X (remember that size?), or 1.6X.

Its maximum aperture is T1.3 (probably about f/1.2).

I presume all controls are Manuel (or Rick, or whoever your favorite focus puller is).

Expected list price is $6,800.

There are similar 24 mm (T1.5) and 85 mm (T1.3) lenses, at the same price.

Now, for you super-zoomers out there, there is the CN-E 30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L S:

http://cdn.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/cine30300-2.jpg

Image from Canon via CanonRumors

This is the EF-mount version of this lens (also available with a PL mount for "traditional" cinema cameras). Although intended for cinematographic use, it will work on EOS bodies with the 1.6X sensor size. List price is expected to be $45,000.

Don't worry about the weight - that's what grips and 2nd ACs are for.

Best regards,

Doug

Ben Rubinstein
November 6th, 2011, 04:10 AM
Are you sure these lenses cover FF?

In any case, that's one heck of a lot of dough for a prime lens if you want to shoot stills!

Doug Kerr
November 6th, 2011, 05:19 AM
Hi, Ben,

Are you sure these lenses cover FF?
With regard to the fixed focal length ones, that's what the information from Canon, recited on the CanonRumors site, seems to say.

In any case, that's one heck of a lot of dough for a prime lens if you want to shoot stills!
Yes, and of course I am not conversant enough with the requirements of cinematography to recognize exactly what they need to do that leads to such a cost. Certainly the size of the market is part of it. And they do have rather large apertures (about f/1.2 and f/1.4).

But when you tell a chick on the beach, "Why yes, I am a filmmaker", that metallic red hind end on the lens has got to be a plus (once word of its significance gets around).

And with regard to the snatch-and-grab thieves on their Vespas in Rome, that will make a lens even more dangerous than "L white".

By the way, these lenses all have the letter "L" in their designations (free-standing right after the maximum aperture) and a red ring somewhere up front.

Note that in cinematographic jargon, all these lenses (fixed focal length or otherwise) are "prime" lenses, a term that there means the main objective lens as distinguished from auxiliary lenses added to it, such as focal length convertors, "squeeze" adapters for anamorphic wide angle systems, and so forth. Or at least that is how it used to work. Perhaps the inane hijacking of the term to mean "fixed focal length" has today corrupted the cinema industry as well.

Best regards,

Doug

StuartRae
November 6th, 2011, 09:53 AM
Hi Doug,

Here's (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1111/11110310canoneoscinema.asp) the camera to go with them.

Regards,

Stuart

Asher Kelman
November 6th, 2011, 01:29 PM
I'm not sure it's resolution is right for a modern Eos film camera. It seems from the specs it's just designed to resolve sufficiently for HDR. This is not a statement, but just a question, really. It's just not clear from the portion of the recent press release below:

"Wide-Angle and Telephoto Cinema Zoom Lenses for EF and PL Mounts

CN-E14.5–60mm T2.6 L S / CN-E14.5–60mm T2.6 L SP *
CN-E30–300mm T2.95–3.7 L S / CN-E30–300mm T2.95–3.7 L SP *
The four new Canon zoom cinema lenses comprise the CN-E14.5–60mm T2.6 L S (for EF mounts) and CN-E14.5–60mm T2.6 L SP (for PL mounts) wide-angle cinema zoom lenses, and the CN-E30–300mm T2.95–3.7 L S (for EF mounts) and CN-E30–300mm T2.95–3.7 L SP (for PL mounts) telephoto cinema zoom lenses. Each lens supports 4K (4096 x 2160 pixels) resolution, which delivers a pixel count four times that of Full HD (1920 x 1080 pixels), and offers compatibility with industry-standard Super 35 mm-equivalent cameras as well as APS-C cameras*."

So, What am I missing? It says what the lens supports, but not the limits. We need to find the MTF charts.

Asher

Doug Kerr
November 6th, 2011, 02:18 PM
The cinematographic use of "prime" I spoke of is seen in these extracts from the Wikipedia article on anamorphic format:

An anamorphic lens consists of a regular spherical lens, plus an anamorphic attachment (or integrated lens element) that does the anamorphosing. The anamorphic element operates at infinite focal length (so that it has little or no effect on the focus of the prime camera lens onto which it is mounted)

A third characteristic, particularly of simple anamorphic add-on attachments to prime lenses, is "anamorphic mumps".

The solution was to link the anamorphic squeeze of the add-on adapter to the focus position of the prime lens . . .
. . .linked by a mechanical system to the focus ring of the prime lens . . .


The use of "prime" here was not to assure us that the "base" lens was fixed focal length (although it most likely was); rather it was to refer to the "base" lens (the thing to which we attached an auxiliary lens).

Still, in the same article appears this:

Vantage Film, designers and manufacturers of Hawk Lenses. The entire Hawk lens system consists of 50 different prime lenses and 5 zoom lenses . . .

These are lenses that are anamorphic in their own right, not requiring an anamorphic ("squeeze") attachment.

So not even in the one article is the usage consistent.

By the way, when a "spherical" lens is spoken of (in the first citation, at the blue), that does not mean "with aspherical surfaces". It means "rotationally symmetrical; that is, with the same focal length in all directions (like all camera lenses we use). It may have all spherical surfaces, or some spherical surfaces and some aspherical surfaces (as with our own lens repertoires).

It is a term borrowed from the field of ophthalmic lenses, where it has that same meaning. There it is contrasted with cylindrical lenses, which have different focal lengths in different directions (used to correct for astigmatism). The description was adopted before there were lenses with aspherical surfaces (that is, when all rotationally-symmetrical lenses had spherical surfaces), and has held its meaning over the years.

Thus, in glasses for a person needing no astigmatism correction, and no bifocal configuration, but where the advantages of aspherical surfaces are employed (it helps with objects far off the lens axis, for one thing), we could have a lens described as "spherical (that is, rotationally symmetrical) and aspherical (meaning with surfaces that are not portions of spheres)".

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr
November 6th, 2011, 02:25 PM
Hi, Asher,

I'm not sure it's resolution is right for a modern Eos film camera.
Or even a higher-resolution EOS digital camera.

It seems from the specs it's just designed to resolve sufficiently for HDR.
Yes, seemingly for "4k" cinema video.

This is not a statement, but just a question, really. It's just not clear from the portion of the recent press release . . .

So, What am I missing? It says what the lens supports [for the telephoto ones], but not the limits. We need to find the MTF charts.
Indeed.

Or when Will buys one (he has to have everything Canon), we can have it tested.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr
November 6th, 2011, 03:32 PM
Regarding "prime" and such, note this language in the release from Canon concerning its new EF Cinema cinematographic lenses:

Canon’s new EF Cinema Lens lineup includes four top-end zoom lenses covering a zoom range from 14.5 mm to 300 mm-two models each for EF and PL lens mounts-and three single-focal-length lenses for EF mounts.

But Canon has long been generally scrupulous about this - after all, they have been prominent in the area of cinematographic lenses for some while (got some Academy Awards there, as I recall).

And on EOS product site, the taxonomy speaks of "zoom lenses" and "lenses".

But another part of their site says:

The family of EF- and PL-mount lenses offer stunning optical performance for cinematic applications. Available in fast primes and wide-tele zooms, and fully 4K ready.

I of course often use the term "prime", as when I tell Carla I'll be a little while getting to lunch since I have to do it to a new insulin syringe.

Or to refer to my EF 70-200 mm f/4.0L IS USM zoom lens in the context of putting an Extender EF 1.4 on it; the 70-200 is the prime lens in that situation.

Best regards,

Doug

Bart_van_der_Wolf
November 6th, 2011, 06:45 PM
I of course often use the term "prime", as when I tell Carla I'll be a little while getting to lunch since I have to do it to a new insulin syringe.

Or to refer to my EF 70-200 mm f/4.0L IS USM zoom lens in the context of putting an Extender EF 1.4 on it; the 70-200 is the prime lens in that situation.

Hi Doug,

I fully agree with your proper use of 'prime' (as in primary) with regards to (principal) lenses. As far as insulin, I'm fortunately no closer than my late dad priming on the required level for the time of day ...

Cheers,
Bart