P6K: the best EF lenses

[maxmizer]

8 hours ago, kye said:

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.

I'm afraid that the magic of Arri (or Panavision) ... is in the sophisticated electronics behind the sensor ... and firmware..

after which any post processing is easier just in consideration of the raw matter ...

[kye]

1 hour ago, maxmizer said:

I'm afraid that the magic of Arri (or Panavision) ... is in the sophisticated electronics behind the sensor ... and firmware..

after which any post processing is easier just in consideration of the raw matter ...

The magic from a given camera starts with the sensor stack and RGB filter materials, and then sensor quality, but after that it's all mathematics, which can be learned, copied, emulated, and (with enough resolution and bit-depth) even undone.  We can't afford an ARRI but we can all afford Resolve, which essentially makes our own skill level the limitation on our images, rather than tech or our bank balance.  That's why I have focused so much on learning to colour grade.

[Jonesy Jones]

So my quest is to be able to shoot with one lens. Perhaps a few shots here and there will need something else, but I’m looking to keep one lens on the camera 98% of the time. Changing lens is just too time consuming.

With that said my 18-35 may still be a winner, but I am now gravitating toward the Canon 16-35 f4. Reasons are as follows:

1. I like having a wider option. The 16 end gives me closer to 25ish. 

B. The 16-35 has IS. Anyone tried this lens with video work?

Lastly, I don’t necessarily mind the drop in speed, though it’s pretty significant. I typically shoot closer to f4 anyway. 

I don’t know. I’m back and forth. It’s really more about speed vs IS.

i won’t have this camera for quite a while so I have plenty of time to figure it out.

[Kisaha]

21 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

So my quest is to be able to shoot with one lens. Perhaps a few shots here and there will need something else, but I’m looking to keep one lens on the camera 98% of the time. Changing lens is just too time consuming.

With that said my 18-35 may still be a winner, but I am now gravitating toward the Canon 16-35 f4. Reasons are as follows:

1. I like having a wider option. The 16 end gives me closer to 25ish. 

B. The 16-35 has IS. Anyone tried this lens with video work?

Lastly, I don’t necessarily mind the drop in speed, though it’s pretty significant. I typically shoot closer to f4 anyway. 

I don’t know. I’m back and forth. It’s really more about speed vs IS.

i won’t have this camera for quite a while so I have plenty of time to figure it out.

B. For sure. 18-35mm is too long for me, doesn't match my style at all. If you do the X1.55 or X1.6 maths then is almost a 29-30mm, not wide enough..

For the P4K the Olympus 12-100mm will be my run n gun.

For C cameras I use a lot the 18-135mm EF-S for run n gun.

[Jonesy Jones]

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

B. For sure.

Does this mean you have used this IS with video work? Please share.

[Kisaha]

1 hour ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Does this mean you have used this IS with video work? Please share.

Ofcourse not. I never mentioned IS.

I just said that I am avoiding the 18-35mm lens on most cameras because it is not wide enough for my style.

Mind you that I still use the NX1+16-50mm 2-2.8f combo. Starts wider and goes almost as far as the Sigma with just 0.2-0.5f less, while 15mm more at the tele end, plus IS.

[kye]

6 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

So my quest is to be able to shoot with one lens. Perhaps a few shots here and there will need something else, but I’m looking to keep one lens on the camera 98% of the time. Changing lens is just too time consuming.

With that said my 18-35 may still be a winner, but I am now gravitating toward the Canon 16-35 f4. Reasons are as follows:

1. I like having a wider option. The 16 end gives me closer to 25ish. 

B. The 16-35 has IS. Anyone tried this lens with video work?

Lastly, I don’t necessarily mind the drop in speed, though it’s pretty significant. I typically shoot closer to f4 anyway. 

I don’t know. I’m back and forth. It’s really more about speed vs IS.

i won’t have this camera for quite a while so I have plenty of time to figure it out.

I shoot hand-held so weight is important to me, but if I shot using a tripod then I might still be using my 18-35, it's an absolutely gorgeous lens.  I've never used the 16-35 but I would imagine it to be similar.

In terms of F1.8 vs F4, I'd suggest taking whatever camera you have and whatever lenses you have and doing some aperture tests.  Get an understanding about how shallow the DoF is for the typical things you shoot, remembering to take into account the distance from camera -> subject and subject -> background.

Also, this is a handy tool to calculate equivalent DoF numbers for different camera/lens combinations: http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

[LeftHandMedia]

On 8/9/2019 at 10:47 AM, billdoubleu said:

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.

It's actually 1.63. 

[Kisaha]

20 hours ago, Kisaha said:

B. For sure. 18-35mm is too long for me, doesn't match my style at all. If you do the X1.55 or X1.6 maths then is almost a 29-30mm, not wide enough..

For the P4K the Olympus 12-100mm will be my run n gun.

For C cameras I use a lot the 18-135mm EF-S for run n gun.

If you would like, I can elaborate a little;

Sensors are doing miracles these days. Higher ISO is not an issue anynore, in most cases. I mean, 3200 native is just an unbelievable number.

When run n gunning I want a dependable lens with a good selection of focal lengths and IS, which is my first and preferable solution for stabilization (tripod, IS, monopod, gymbal, IBIS - in that order for me). I do also care for size and weight. Bigger productions include more people, for lower ones I am most of those people in one body!

I already explained why my NX1+16-50S is alive and kicking. Just too convinient to throw away..also have 4 cameras in total and 8 lenses, so I am covered in most circumstances.

When I shoot C cameras the EF have so many limitations for the price (95% of the time I use those though, because they are "industry standard" here from the C100/C300 popular days, so production companies ask a lot for C200/C300mkII + a bag full of L lenses).

The UWZ is too short. Also, when you have 4f on such a wide and very short zoom, you can not really zoom in to create tele subject seperation.

The 24-70mm is just not wide at all, 36 on a C camera, 38mm on a P6K/Canon APS-C. Terrible!

24-105mm 4f, could be, but still 36-38mm at the wide end, and for some reason I do not particularly like this lens. Too mediocre in everything for me.

70-200mm is good for tele anyway and everyone has to own at least one white lens! I have the 70-200mm 4f, because I am not crazy about 2.8 aperture anyway, and I really value weight and size, the lack of them.

I bought the 18-135mm nano for a more convinient solution when I can not change lenses. I am thinking to get the EF-PZ1 (or whatever its called) mechanism to "emulate" a normal broadcast lens. It is not particular cheap though, I am not using the 18-135mm as much anymore (actually the one I own is still brand new!).

For someone that want to go on the cheap:

EF S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5

EF S 17-55 f/2.8

EF 70-200 f/4 L IS if you want white, or the exceptional 70-300mm nano. Nano is the most modern and fastest AF mechanism by the way, so these nano lenses have some extra value.

For m43 the 12-100mm 4f is exceptional for me. A little more expensive than I would like, but it is a workhorse. It is only 4f,  but you zoom in a bit and you can shoot portraits or details, wide open you have 24mm which is the golden focal length for me, wide enough for establishing shots and scenary and groups of people, such a versarile focal length. I shoot some car TV shows and this lens for fast action is Godsend.

I am also waiting for a bag of Samyangs and have a set of FD (haven't used them for 3-4 years now) and a smaller set of M42 (mainly Pentax).

And that is why I am tempted to go P4K more than the 6K!

There are just so many options with the 4K, I have a lens regain (X0.75), I can get the no-glass Viltrox (X1.9) for dead cheap, and maybe the P4K Speedbooster (X0.64) just to be safe for my wider primes.

1 lens almost 3 different lenses!

Also, consider skipping the 6K resolution altogether, there will be a lot of 8K options in a year..better save the extra 1400€ for then..