XDCAM HD lenses [Archive] - b-roll.net FORUM

SimonW

07-06-2006, 08:17 AM

Has Canon increased their range of 1/2" XDCAM HD lenses? There now seems to be five lenses.

KH21ex5.7 IRSE HDgc HDTV
KH10ex3.6 IRSE HDgc HDTV
KJ20x8.5B KRS HDgc HDTV
KH20x6.4 KRS HDgc HDTV
KH19x6.7 KAS HDgc HDTV

Matt Box

07-06-2006, 09:16 AM

Hey Simon, not sure about your question. You use the 350 correct? If so what do you think of the current 1/2 lenses. A friend of mine just tried out the 350 and loved it but the one thing he said was that the lens was really bad. Sorry I have no idea which lens that was but if anyone out there has any input/reviews on the 1/2 inch lenses please let us know.

Baltimore Shooter

07-06-2006, 09:27 AM

Fujinon is making several. They have them listed on their website.

Warren

SimonW

07-06-2006, 09:56 AM

I just looked more closely. They mixed in a KJ lens in there which is 2/3". So they actually have a total of four 1/2" lenses, three of which are manual, and one which is servo driven.

Hey Simon, not sure about your question. You use the 350 correct? If so what do you think of the current 1/2 lenses. A friend of mine just tried out the 350 and loved it but the one thing he said was that the lens was really bad. Sorry I have no idea which lens that was but if anyone out there has any input/reviews on the 1/2 inch lenses please let us know.

I own and operate a 510, but I have used the 330 and 350 on two seperate shoots now. The stock lens that comes with the F330K package is pretty bad. It is solidly built and very smooth, but the servo focus ring is a big no-no for most operators.

The other 1/2" glass is actually of a good standard. Certainly the equal of the 2/3" (and prices to match those too). The only issue is whether to invest in 1/2" glass if you ever get a 2/3" HD camera in the future.

Nino

07-06-2006, 10:50 AM

A presentation about available lenses, something else that was missing form the Apple/Sony Seminars.

Does anyone know what the street prices are for the 1/2" lenses?

ED Scott

07-06-2006, 11:19 AM

Out of curiosity, and my own laziness of not seeking out the info, what is the cost of these lens'?

SimonW

07-06-2006, 11:45 AM

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/pdf/NAB%202006%20Price%20List%20General.pdf

Notice that they have introduced a budget 2/3" high def model in the form of the KJ20.

Shootblue

07-06-2006, 12:14 PM

For as much as they want, they had better be the same quality of glass as the normal 2/3 HD version.

must-c-tv

07-06-2006, 12:45 PM

Has anyone on the board used a SD 2/3 piece of glass on the 330 or 350 yet on a shoot in the field?

Comments on the adapter, look of the SD lens etc would be appreciated.

I know the range of vision is decreased with the adapter, but any first hand experiences would be good.

Cheers !!

SimonW

07-06-2006, 04:38 PM

I tried out a J11 on both cameras. Looked pretty good to my eye.

The 2/3" adapter is good, though focal length increases by 1.37x. Some people say there is light loss using it. I have not seen any evidence of this and would put good money on saying that there is no light loss using it.

For as much as they want, they had better be the same quality of glass as the normal 2/3 HD version.

Yep, the quality of the glass is the same. In fact better. It has to be to work for a 1/2" sensor.

Canonman

07-06-2006, 08:05 PM

Does anyone know what the street prices are for the 1/2" lenses?

On my F350, I have the Fujinon HSs18x5.5BRD(servo) lens (list price $15.6k, I paid $12.5k).

Don't know street prices for the other lenses.

cm

Douglas

07-06-2006, 11:46 PM

On my F350, I have the Fujinon HSs18x5.5BRD(servo) lens (list price $15.6k, I paid $12.5k).
cm

That's the lens I have, and it's excellent. I thought going down to a 1/2" lens would mean going down to a lens with a prosumer or industrial feel to it, but that's not the case. This is a better lens than my 2/3" Fujinon 15x8 on the Betacam.

The front element is the same size, so all my filters and matte box fit too. However, with a series 9 adapter, there's some vignetting around the edges at full-wide. If you're going to use screw-in filters they've got to be low-profile models, and you can't stack them.

Doug

Stoney

09-15-2006, 05:02 PM

Anyone using the Fujinon XS13x3.3brm-m38 lens for the XDHD 350? I am currently using this lens and I never thought that a lens could be too wide.... but this one might. Not for the visual aesthetic of wide angles but for the amount of lens flaring that occurs.

The stock lens hood is almost useless and I am getting flaring that is out of control! I haven't gone to a matte box set-up but I don't know what would work that isn't incredibly huge. The lens is so wide that anything that gets near the lens hood is in the shot... making eyebrows and related items difficult to rig up. Plus, we are shooting reality stuff and can't have all of the huge junk on the front in our way.

Any thoughts?

freedom

09-15-2006, 06:09 PM

making eyebrows and related items difficult to rig up. Plus, we are shooting reality stuff and can't have all of the huge junk on the front in our way.

Any thoughts?

French flag is the only thing I can think of. I've used them on docs. Consider a soft edged one so as to not gouge somebody with a sharp metal flag.

Or rig some kind of stop on the lens so as to not zoom all the way out and then you can cut in on the lens with a lens hood.

Stoney

09-15-2006, 08:24 PM

French flag is the only thing I can think of. I've used them on docs. Consider a soft edged one so as to not gouge somebody with a sharp metal flag.

Or rig some kind of stop on the lens so as to not zoom all the way out and then you can cut in on the lens with a lens hood.

Yeah, I think the French flag might be the temporary solution... that and my hand as a flag! However, I would like to keep the functionality of the lens and wouldn't want to have it stop before full wide... but I can set that into the lens. There is a function in the grip that allows you to set zoom stops on both ends.

Hiding Under Here

09-15-2006, 10:40 PM

Maybe you could pay a grip to hold a black umbrella over the camera while you shot. No? Okay. I'll think of something else.

Lensmith

09-16-2006, 08:37 AM

Maybe you could pay a grip to hold a black umbrella over the camera while you shot.

Now you're starting to think like me!;)

dinosaur

09-16-2006, 11:39 AM

I've used the 3.3 on an F350 recently and its almost like using a fisheye. There's not much you're going to be able to do to cut lens flares at that focal length. You can try a small strip of 1/2" to 1" blackwrap attached to the shade and adjust it as needed.

This articulated flag: http://cinemasupplies.stores.yahoo.net/clamfrenflag.html might work clamped to the camera handle if it stretches high over the lens without getting in the shot.

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/cinemasupplies_1912_20132781

Shootblue

09-16-2006, 11:55 AM

All of this talk brings up an interesting thought...the conversion between 2/3 and 1/2 is 1.37. When you take the 3.3 and use that multiplier, it should be a 4.5 in 2/3rd. That's the same size as most wide angle zooms...unless I am missing something in the conversion or technical that I don't know about, it should be about as wide as you all are used to. Perhaps it is a badly designed lens and that is the problem.

Canonman

09-16-2006, 04:14 PM

SimonW

09-16-2006, 04:27 PM

Run&Gun

09-16-2006, 05:23 PM

Do you have a clear filter on the front? I have the HA 13x4.5 and I keep a clear filter on the front for protection and it does produce a lot of flare at times, especially at night in stadium type situations or if light sources are at the right(or more accurately, the wrong) angle. I will take it off in controlled or rare situations if the flare is too objectionable, but not in a situation where there is a chance of anything getting on the front element. If you do have a filter on there, pull it off and see if it helps(it does on mine), and if it's a production co.'s gear and not your's, go ahead and leave it off.

dinosaur

09-16-2006, 07:45 PM

I'm not sure that there is a 124mm filter that could even fit over that very convex front element. It would have to be a very thin filter ring to not vignette the frame. If Fuji is selling one they are not listing it as an accessory.

Stoney

09-18-2006, 12:38 AM

Yes, I am using a filter and yes, it produces more flaring. But the work I do, the lens would be dinged in a week without the protection. So, the filter stays.

The filters we found are, indeed, 124mm. I think they are Hoyas and they don't vignette but they are frickin' huge screw-in filters. They fit.

I will report on any solutions we come up with... the flex-flag arm is just way too unruly for the shooting we do.

Canonman

09-18-2006, 11:55 AM

Yes, but 3.3mm on a 1/2" chip is different from 3.3mm on a 2/3" chip. According to the Fijinon info the 3.3mm lens gives a 93 degree angle of view. This is almost exactly the same as a 4.5mm lens (ie an HJ11) on a 2/3" camera. The multiplier holds true.

Agreed. I was reading the post differently and was stating that the 3.3 mm stamped on the referenced lens is its true FD since it was designed for a 1/2 camera. Whereas, if you placed a lens designed for 2/3 imager on the camera, the lens markings have to be multiplied by 1.37.

Re-reading Shootblue's post, I see that he was indeed trying to relate the 3.3mm 1/2 lens to 2/3 equivalence FOV.

cm

freedom

09-20-2006, 04:59 PM

Stoney
"the flex-flag arm is just way too unruly for the shooting we do."
Something has to give and I think this is the only solution. I'd give it a try. One thing...don't use one of the clamp on types, they suck. Bolt one on to the handle real firmly so it stays where you put it.
I've done work in crowds and made the soft edged french work.