P6K: the best EF lenses

[Emanuel]

What's your fav take?

[kye]

I've been thinking a lot about lenses recently, and my take is that the best lenses for the P6K will be the usual FF/S35 suspects, skewing to the more modern end of that range.

ie, the Sigma 18-35, Canon F2.8 zooms (especially the 16-35), and fast/modern primes.

Here's why:

• Anyone shooting 6K will be interested in resolution and detail, so will be interested in higher-resolution glass
• The P4K can get similar framing with similar lenses by adding the Metabones SB, and there's even a new one now, so the older one might drop in value
• Anyone wanting to adapt lots of older lenses will want the shorter flange-distance of the P4K MFT mount
• Anyone shooting older more 'vintage looking' glass won't care about 6K and the P4K would be enough for them

[mercer]

1 minute ago, kye said:

I've been thinking a lot about lenses recently, and my take is that the best lenses for the P6K will be the usual FF/S35 suspects, skewing to the more modern end of that range.

ie, the Sigma 18-35, Canon F2.8 zooms (especially the 16-35), and fast/modern primes.

Here's why:

• Anyone shooting 6K will be interested in resolution and detail, so will be interested in higher-resolution glass
• The P4K can get similar framing with similar lenses by adding the Metabones SB, and there's even a new one now, so the older one might drop in value
• Anyone wanting to adapt lots of older lenses will want the shorter flange-distance of the P4K MFT mount
• Anyone shooting older more 'vintage looking' glass won't care about 6K and the P4K would be enough for them

The EF Mount and the 2.8K mode on the P6K is the only interesting aspect of this camera to me.

As a side note, Metabones must be pissed off tonight. 

To add, the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 with it’s IS will be a good option... of course the benefit of an IS Lens will be negated by the battery lasting about 30 minutes or less now.

[kye]

6 minutes ago, mercer said:

The EF Mount and the 2.8K mode on the P6K is the only interesting aspect of this camera to me.

As a side note, Metabones must be pissed off tonight. 

To add, the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 with it’s IS will be a good option... of course the benefit of an IS Lens will be negated by the battery lasting about 30 minutes or less now.

A 6K downscale to 2.8K would be a pretty lovely looking image, especially if you use a good codec like BRAW or Prores HQ, but is it a downscale or is it a crop?  Prores is only offered in DCI4K, UHD, and 1080.

In terms of battery life, I wonder if the target audience for a 6K camera might be the more serious shooters amongst us, who are more likely to have a rig and external power anyway.  I know the EF mount makes it appealing to those with lenses, but there's a reasonable price differential too, so you'd have to want it!

[Jonesy Jones]

3 hours ago, mercer said:

As a side note, Metabones must be pissed off tonight. 

Maybe, but I’m not sure they have too much to worry about. $2500 is waaay different than $1300. Personally, without seeing footage, I’d still choose the P4K, and that’s not even based on price. I just like m43. 6K means more data. Def faster cards. And then there’s the xtra $1200. 

Maybe my mind will change once I see footage, but I’m thrilled with the P4K still.

[Shell64]

If you are tight on budget the sigma 17-50 2.8 is solid. Sigma 18-35 is better if you can afford it. 

[1Ale82]

 

5 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

6K means more data. Def faster cards. And then there’s the xtra $1200. 

Which means also a computer with more horsepower, more money to invest.

Keeping the subject of this discussion, if you don't need AF, personally I would choose 3-5 Zeiss ZF/ZE primes, good lenses and some of them are quite cheap. Which is also my strategy so far, keep some good lenses and see the camera body as the first part to be changed/upgraded. In this case Nikon F and Leica R mounts are more universal.

Considering Canon lenses, I don't know them well, but optics like the 100mm f2, the 135mm f2, the 400mm f5,6, the 300mm ones are well regarded. The 100mm f2 is also quite cheap on ebay.

[Volumetrik]

52 minutes ago, Shell64 said:

If you are tight on budget the sigma 17-50 2.8 is solid. Sigma 18-35 is better if you can afford it. 

The image quality of that lens was nice, but the focus ring has such a small rotation amount, that it makes manual focusing pretty hard.

It was like 30 degrees IIRC, really short.

[nathlas]

9 hours ago, mercer said:

 

As a side note, Metabones must be pissed off tonight. 

It's never too late to cut off the price in half.

[Trek of Joy]

Seems like the Tokina 11-16, Sigma 17-50/18-35/12-24/30/1.4, Canon 17-55 and similar would be my first choices for AF lenses, plus some of them are stabilized which would serve my needs as I shoot handheld a lot. Adapted is wide open, but there are some good deals these days on Zeiss ZF lenses, the original ones without electronic contacts, which can easily be adapted.

Chris

9 hours ago, mercer said:

As a side note, Metabones must be pissed off tonight. 

I don't think that would be the case, the P4k has been pretty much constantly sold out since it started shipping. Its still an amazing value and the cost + adapter is still less than the new camera. If people start dumping P4k's and prices fall, it gets even better.

[Jonesy Jones]

I’m thinking Tokina 11-20 and the 18-35. I don’t shoot much on the long end so that gives me wide to portrait.

Btw, does anyone know the exact crop factor? 

Also, after seeing the footage it looks very very nice.

[billdoubleu]

14 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Btw, does anyone know the exact crop factor?

I sketched it out in AutoCad last night. It's a 1.54 crop against an A7III sensor. I'm not sure if that's a standard full frame size but it seems like it should be close enough.

[Danilo Del Tufo]

I've already asked if "EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM" and "EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS NANO USM" could vignette with P6K, in another forum someone told me that EF-S means they are meant for APS-C sensors which are smaller and you might have some vignetting. So can I have more confirmations about them?

[Kisaha]

59 minutes ago, Danilo Del Tufo said:

I've already asked if "EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM" and "EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS NANO USM" could vignette with P6K, in another forum someone told me that EF-S means they are meant for APS-C sensors which are smaller and you might have some vignetting. So can I have more confirmations about them?

I do not know the answer, but this sensor IS an APS-C sensor.

Canon C cameras have S35 sensors and  have a special option when you use EF-S lenses on them because Canon APS-C is X1.6, while others is X1.5-X1.55 (it is always a little bit more than X1.5, even if declared as X1.5).

We will only know for sure when someone gets the camera and put such a lens on it, because another thing is, cameras from same manufacturers can improve the performance of a lens with software, which I doubt BM does in any of its cameras, be it EF or M43.

[nathlas]

1 hour ago, Danilo Del Tufo said:

I've already asked if "EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM" and "EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS NANO USM" could vignette with P6K, in another forum someone told me that EF-S means they are meant for APS-C sensors which are smaller and you might have some vignetting. So can I have more confirmations about them?

 

 

BMPCC6K sensor is 23.10mm x 12.99mm  . Since Canon aps-c sensor is 22,2 x 14,8  there is small chance that there would be a vignette but I really doubt about that.

[Skip77]

APS-C is alive and well.  To bad BMD doesn't make lenses.  

[Jonesy Jones]

I changed my mind. The Angenieux EZ2 15-40 T2 is my preferred lens for this cam. ?

But seriously how awesome would that be. FF 23-60 equiv. T2. Size and weight are the only drawbacks. Well and price.

Tamron 15-30 could be nice too. Rear nd inserts. 4.5 stops of stabilization.

[billdoubleu]

To correct my above post with the information in @nathlas 's post, if 36mm is considered the standard full frame sensor width, the BMPCC6K is a 1.558 crop using the full sensor width.

I typically give zero fucks about crop factors and such, but this camera has peaked my interest. Though, if the Sigma FP is reasonably priced I might move into full frame.

To actually contribute to this thread, I would love to have this camera with some Xeen glass mounted to it. The 85mm Xeen on the used market is pretty reasonable and would no doubt make a beautiful image.

[Vintage Jimothy]

23 hours ago, kye said:

I've been thinking a lot about lenses recently, and my take is that the best lenses for the P6K will be the usual FF/S35 suspects, skewing to the more modern end of that range.

ie, the Sigma 18-35, Canon F2.8 zooms (especially the 16-35), and fast/modern primes.

Here's why:

• Anyone shooting 6K will be interested in resolution and detail, so will be interested in higher-resolution glass
• The P4K can get similar framing with similar lenses by adding the Metabones SB, and there's even a new one now, so the older one might drop in value
• Anyone wanting to adapt lots of older lenses will want the shorter flange-distance of the P4K MFT mount
• Anyone shooting older more 'vintage looking' glass won't care about 6K and the P4K would be enough for them

Not necessarily, I can see a particularly huge advantage for going 6K over 4K if you're a narrative filmmaker. After all, there's more to using 6K/8K than just the higher resolution. It gives a larger picture to play around with for re-framing and adjusting shots in post for a smoother look. That's a big part of why David Fincher's been relying on RED for so long now. 

Heck, plenty of indie RED filmmakers swear by vintage SLR glass like Contax Zeiss, Leica R or Minolta Rokkor to help soften up their footage and give a more filmic look while shooting in 6K/8K RAW to have the largest amount of room to play with in post that they can get.

EDIT: That isn't to say that the modern FF/S35 glass made for the EF mount won't be super popular. Personally I'll probably mainly rely on a Sigma 18-35 (once I get one for myself), regardless of whether or not I get the Pocket 4K or 6K myself. Could even see the Canon EF L 24-105mm f4 being a popular match-up with the Pocket 6K too. My main point is that there's absolutely an argument to be made for going with the 6K model even if you primarily shoot with vintage SLR lenses.

[kye]

47 minutes ago, Vintage Jimothy said:

Not necessarily, I can see a particularly huge advantage for going 6K over 4K if you're a narrative filmmaker. After all, there's more to using 6K/8K than just the higher resolution. It gives a larger picture to play around with for re-framing and adjusting shots in post for a smoother look. That's a big part of why David Fincher's been relying on RED for so long now. 

Heck, plenty of indie RED filmmakers swear by vintage SLR glass like Contax Zeiss, Leica R or Minolta Rokkor to help soften up their footage and give a more filmic look while shooting in 6K/8K RAW to have the largest amount of room to play with in post that they can get.

EDIT: That isn't to say that the modern FF/S35 glass made for the EF mount won't be super popular. Personally I'll probably mainly rely on a Sigma 18-35 (once I get one for myself), regardless of whether or not I get the Pocket 4K or 6K myself. Could even see the Canon EF L 24-105mm f4 being a popular match-up with the Pocket 6K too. My main point is that there's absolutely an argument to be made for going with the 6K model even if you primarily shoot with vintage SLR lenses.

I agree.  Reading my post again I realise I was a bit loose with my language, sometimes saying 'best' when I was thinking 'more popular', and anticipating the likely customers for the camera.

I still think that those shooting vintage glass won't care as much about 6K, or at least shouldn't care that much.  What I mean is that I understand that 6K gives you all sorts of reframing options in post, and that's great, but those reframing options still exist in 4K if you're willing to crop into the image a bit.  This is where we hit the 'should' part of the situation - many people won't want to do that and will be thinking from a purist perspective and "I need to capture 4K pixels to output 4K pixels" and being kind of philosophically / religiously / fanatically opposed to up-scaling.

My point is that:

• Upscaling is actually way more popular than camera nerds on forums understand - case in point is the ARRI 3.2K mode which is regularly up-res'd to 4K for major cinema blockbuster movies (do people really think that what is good enough from ARRI for top-end cinema isn't good enough for them? what the hell are they shooting?!?!)
• People who choose to shoot vintage lenses due to aesthetic (rather than budget limitations) may do so because of the softer look they give, which is also accomplished by up-res'ing slightly after cropping in and reframing 4K footage
• Many/most of the people talking about this have never actually compared straight vs up-res'd footage themselves to see what the hell we're actually talking about - the 'downgrade' in quality they're religiously avoiding is subtle at best

There is actually a line of discussion that suggests that part of the cinematic magic that ARRI cameras create is the fact that they upscale from 3.2K and don't shoot 4K natively, putting this as a massive plus in the aesthetic rather than the liability some perceive it as.