FAQ like Info about 35mm lenses [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

TimurCivan

03-31-2006, 07:06 PM

OK, THis board is becoming filled with the following question, and comments.

Q1: When is the G35 coming out?

Q2: Which 35mm Adapter is best?

Q3: What lenses should i get?

The answers to 1 and 2 i dont think anyone can answer.....

But Question 3 is infact answerable, to some degree. As most of you know, the whole idea of this 35mm adpater thing, is to be able to use the 35mm Film camera lenses, and get their DOF charachteristics on DV tape. It lets you pull out specific lenses, to geth their effect for specific shots.

But many people are torn between Lens manufacturers, Focal lengths, and what the Fstop really means in the end.

I know a thing or two about lenses, as my dad was a shutter bug, and i took more than a few photography courses in my 14 years at various art schools. As you all know my word is not law, Thats John Hudsons job. Now each 35mm adapter has its own charachteristics, Some soften the image more than others, some lose more light than others.

After you descide which 35mm adapter you want to buy; whether its, an SGPRO, Brevis35, Go35, Letus35, M2, Cinemek (G35), Homedepot35, Mini35, micro35.... (The list goes on), the time comes to start assembling a collection of lenses. Many people who have not had the oppertunity to shoot with a manual 35mm camera, may not have the slightest clue where to begin or what to expect form these lenses.

Lets start at what you may want to use it for. The most common answer is Shallow Depth of field. Now you hear Shallow Depth of Field (ShDOF), and you get excited!!! ( i know i do) But what alotof people dont understand is the limitations and drawbacks of ShDOF.

If you have Razor thing DOF, moving the camera, then the talent becomes increasingly difficult. ITs really only possible i you have a dedicated Focus puller.
But lets not get ahead of ourselves. lets start at the lenses.

This is what everyone should have in the bag, a bare bones list.

50mm lens

The basic lens, is the 50mm lens. it is the lens that matches best the way you see with your eye. It is pretty much neutral, not telephoto, not a wide angle.

This is the lens thats gonna give you the bulk of your shots. Its easily available, in any brand, and geting one with a fast apeture is very easy. The most common being F1.2, F1.4, F1.8. Now the fast lens is a double edged sword. It lets you shoot with natural light, ( again depending on how much light the adapter itself loses) becaus it lets in so mcuh, but, the by product of shooting at F1.2/F1.4 is a DOF of only a few inches. meaning if your subject is sitting still, and your filling the frame, top of the head to the armpits, you will be able to choose literally to the inch, whether the ears or nose are in focus. Now hey that sounds great! BUT! if the actor while delivering a line happens to lean in, a few inches, he goes blurry. ESPECIALLY IN HD. SD cameras can hide this somewhat, but this is why Movie studios hire a guy whose whole job is to focus teh camera while the actors move.

This brings me to another point, that will answer in the next segment. DOF controll. *

28mm Lens

THis is your basic wide. its a nice focal length because it is wide enough to use in tight spaces, without too much distortion. Now at about this focal length is where optics start to get expensive to manufactire with any degree of quality. So what winds up happening, is the Maximum size of the apeture starts to get smaller. Down to F2.0 F2.8 F2.5 etc. Here is some where where its honestly worth it to spend some money on Good quality brandname lenses, ( CANON FD, NIKON F ). You can find no name brands, that offer F1.8 but at F1.8 theres significant barrel distortion, or LOADS of resolution loss ot the edges. Money is what counteracts these effects. Dont get cheap on a wide lens, seriously. You can save a couple bucks on the 50mm, but dont scrimp here, because you will use this one alot.

The SHORT ZOOM.

This is your typical 30mm-100mm Zoom lens.

All sorts of comapnies make them, Good ones, bad ones, even ones with spots...

But a Zoom lenses for still photogrpahy are not ment to be used for Video/film or moving image applications. Because of this there are not "BackFocus" provisions made. IE like on a DVX, when you zoom in, Focus, then zoom out, the image is now perfectly focused. This is not the case in Photo lenses. the cost of engineering a backfocusing, zoom lens, for the 35mm frame size is quite high. many companies jsut make the lenses and forgo that feature infavor of a over all faster lense, or better optics. So what winds up happening is, you buy your nifty new zoom lens, focus, zoom in and suddenly its a blurry mess. Which means you either have to focus as you zoom in, which is VERY difficult, because the focal plane/ to focus position is not linear like video servo assisted lenses, the more you zoom in you have to logarythmically turn the focus knob faster to keep the subject in focus ( in other words its really fricken hard).

These lenses tend to come with very limited apetures, F2.8 is a Bright one, F3.5 is more normal. Now another problem, is that when you zoom in, the Apeture rating is lower, like in the DVX, at wide its F1.6, but at Zoom its at F2.8. This means your apeture can drop as low as F5.6 at full telephoto. Now thats not very bright, so if youre using it around dusk, or indoors it can be VERY challenging to get a good picture out of it.

These lenses are still valuable though, sometimes a 28 is too wide, and sometimes a 50 mm is too short. these lenses can be great for filling in the gaps in focal length.

The long telephotot
200mm
150mm

Pickone, you dont really need both. ITs plenty long, and most of them tend to come in the Fstop range of about F3.5 and up. THis again is a place where a more expensive lens will offer you better performance. They tend to be brighter, sharper and of higher quality, with no vignetting. But you dont need to spend a fortune on this lens because, if you need to get range this long, use the DVX's(xl2 pd170, ....) stock lens and go long. You will get the sharpest picture this way anyway. plus you can get plenty shallow DOF from a DV camera on the long end of the lens.

TRICK LENSES:

Trick lenses. Now this is where it gets interesting, and in my opinion what a 35mm adapter is all about. you can use some very interesting trick lenseswith these adapters, like focalplane shifting lenses, or super wide fish eyes.

These would be great for music videos, and special effects.

Controlling DOF:

As i stated above, you may be tempted to just get the fastest lens possible, and just run from there. But when you run in to the problem of "everytime my actor breathes he goes out of focus" you will realise, hmmm maybe is should close my apeture down a little to deepen the DOF. However, now you have another problem. The camera cant see anything. One of the hidden curses(blessings?) of 35mm adapters is that you have to learn to light properly. Suddenly you need 2K watts of light to make a useable image indoors. So, you need F3.5 to keep the actor and his nose in focus, but now my adapter which loses 2 stops, incombination with the lens which is losing 3 stops, and my DVX which is losing another stop, means i need sunlight in a can to pull the shot off.

So learn to light. IT will be invaluable. (it will be invaluable anyway).

Where to get lenses? What to look for?

Go to pawn shops, Old vintage camera dealers, flea markets, garagesales, and even regualr camera repair shops. I wouldnt trust Ebay to much, cause one mans "great condition" is another mans unacceptable. You need to inspect the lens. And teh way to do this is to look through the back side of the lens..... this will reveal all its faults. look for Dirt suspended between the glass elements, air bubbles in the glass ( these cause little colored spots to appear in one place all the time on the film or GG), Scratches, and mold.

Now dirt or VERY small scratches on the outer surface of the front glass actually isnt too big of a deal unless you get a Lens flare from direct light. they wontshow up on the finihsed product. The light dispersion negates their effect quite a bit. However if you see any scrates on the back lens element, or even worse inside the lens thats bad.

Tiny tiny imperfections wont be too big of an issue, but just be aware of chips, cracks, and huge deep scratches.

Care and Cleaning:

Most of these lenses especially the brand name ones have special anti glare, anti color seperation coatings on them. Canon FD have them, i am not sure about Nikons. ( canon always boasts about its lens coatings). You CANNOT wipe these lenses with normal tissue paper. You need either special lens cleaning solution, ( read: Alchohol and water, mostly water) and a micro fiber cloth. the kind the Eye doctor gives you for you new anti glare Eye glasses. Be SUPER gentle. Avoid Finger prints on teh lenses, because the acids in your skin oil will eat at these coatings. I ahve a permaninet Finger print on my 50mm 1.4, because some one touched the lens, and i didin clean it for a couple weeks. It doesnt affect image quality too much, but its just annoying to have a tiny finger print you can never ge rid of.

Canon or Nikon?:

Ok both lens manufacturers are AWESOME. but canons have a switch that must be activated for the iris to be adjusted, other wise they jsut sit at open. Some FD lenses have a Apeture lock setting on the lens itself so you can set it where ever you like. You have to check that.

I dont know Too much about Nikons. but i know they were the professional standard for liek 30 years... so they are probably amazing.

EDIT*:

OK you guys, heres an update. After having used a Letus 35 on a shoot, with Nikon lenses. I have to say, i would now change my reccomendation of lese manufacturer, to nikon. The ability to stop down quickly and easily with the 35mm lens is VERY usefull, and too much of a pain with the CAnon lenses. Stick with Nikon Lenses.

ok im tired now. i will update this with Grabs from my soon to be SGpro, illustrating the strengths and weaknesses of the various lenses i have.

28mm F2.8 (no name)
50mmF1.4 CAnon FD
125mmF2.0 Canon FD
200mmF3.5 Zenith
30-100Zoom F4.0-6.8 Konica

*************NEW SECTION************

The Lens, The Adapter and the DVX:

As stated before i was fortunate enough to sample two different 35mm adapters this past week. As far as settings go, Heres what i found make the most natural image.

Deatail: +3 (+7 if you want it nice and crisp)
Vdeatail: +5 (+7 " " " " " " " )
Chromalevel: -5 ( this makes it more old film Put the chroma in + numbers for MTV like saturation)
CineGamma D

The Cinegamma D is very important because of the Bokeh. ( the out of focus area) WHat happens is if in the background something is over exposed, and youre running Cinegamma, the tones go suddenly form bright to PURE white, and in a blurry part of the picture that looks awful having a sharp edge. The CineGamma D gives you some KNee protection and smooths out the trandsition in the Out Of Focus areas, making it look more natural.

**********UPDATE***************

OK everyone, heres a big suggestion. IF your 35 adapter can handle it, try to Shoot with all your lenes at about the same Fstop. for exapmle, if the brightest 24mm lens you can find is F2.8, Match all your lenses by turning the apetures down to about F2.8 when youre shooting. Now i know youre thingking, but wait i will lose light? WEll yes you will but if youre apetures ( well what you really need is matching Tstops) are similar, when you light your scene, your different lenses will produce a similar "brightness" across the different shots. trust me is a pain when youre wide angle shots are 3 stops darker than your MEd cu and CU. Even though it seems counter intuative, over light and make sure the exposures are matched up. it will look better and more "polished"

Im out.

************************************************** *********
UPDATE:

Monitoring. There are many issues that people need to overcome when using 35 adapters, additional lighting, focus pulling and framing upside down. ( on certain adapters).

However, regardless of your adapter choice, lens choice, or camera, you need to monitor your footage. I recently came in to the blessed world of MArshall HD monitoring. I got one of thoes Marshall HDA analog 7" 480P monitors. IT is a true godsend. despite being kinda bulky and heavy, the ability to pull exact focus, frame, and move the camera without having to learn to think backawards and upside down is truly relieving and makes shooting a pleasure. Anyone teetering on the edge, and wondering if they "need" a monitor, the answer is a RESOUNDING YES!!!!!

I cant believe i worked without one before. i must have been insane. This however, leads me to my next point. the 35 adapter system is a seductive one. Promises of attractive footage, and instant "MOJO" lure you in to buying one. Spending upwards of a 1,000$ on the adapter alone! Then comes the cost of lenses, support system if neccesary, Follow Focus, and then finally the monitor. All in all, a proper 35adapter setup can cost you almost $4,500. Thats nearly as much as an HVX200!

I think people need to be aware of the "hidden" costs associated with the 35 system. Suddenly, film starts seeming cheaper and cheaper........ :D

All my best hope this was helpfull!

-Timur

Norm Sanders

03-31-2006, 07:55 PM

Timur, this was really quite enlightening! Thanks for posting all this stuff ... I love it when I actually learn something. :thumbsup:

Once you get up some grabs (or even before), this may be worth having one of the mods turning this into a sticky?

Sacksnack

03-31-2006, 08:23 PM

Excellent post. I just started looking for lenses, you're going to save people a lot of time by pointing them in the right direction.

Shane Realm

03-31-2006, 08:54 PM

Just wanted to add:

P+S Technik Mini 35 and the LETUS35XL are the only two 35mm Adaptors that connect directly into the CANON XL series camera bodies.

Great post Timur!

TimurCivan

03-31-2006, 11:44 PM

so many people seem lost, i just wanna help.

blondell

04-01-2006, 12:20 AM

First post but been checking these boards for quite awhile. Thanks for all the info on lenses.

andyfedak

04-01-2006, 12:47 AM

This is great stuff. Perhaps a sticky is in order? Something the gurus could add to:) Thanks for putting it up!

twocik23

04-01-2006, 01:41 AM

Hi TimurCivan,
I agree on most of the stuff you said, but I definitely think that the best adapter is the one that fits your needs.

"If you have Razor thing DOF, moving the camera, then the talent becomes increasingly difficult. It's really only possible if you have a dedicated Focus puller."

This can be a problem, but there are ways to get around it.

"Where to get lenses? What to look for?

Go to pawn shops, old vintage camera dealers, flea markets, garage sales, and even regular camera repair shops. I wouldn't trust Ebay too much, cause one mans "great condition" is another mans "unacceptable". You need to inspect the lens. The way to do this is to look through the back side of the lens..... this will reveal all its faults. Look for dirt suspended between the glass elements, and air bubbles in the glass, GG, scratches, and mold. These cause little colored spots to appear in one place all the time on the film.

The ebay thing is very true!! I just had a guy send me a lens that didn't look anything like the picture and the focusing gear was really poor. So now I'm having to deal with paypal to resolve the issue. What a headache. Ebay beware!!!

By the way my friend said the Currents album will be released in a couple of months.

TimurCivan

04-01-2006, 02:40 AM

oh cool, i will definitly buy it when it becomes available. i listen to their songs alot. i really like them.

Hi TimurCivan,
I agree on most of the stuff you said, but I definitely think that the best adapter is the one that fits your needs.

I didint say any one was better than any other though........ My preference is irrelevant. It's up to YOU to choose youre favorite adapter.

x-angel

04-01-2006, 05:03 AM

about damn time someone wrote this up

ChainSmoker

04-01-2006, 05:45 AM

Very informative! Outstanding job Timur!

Rich

Gordon JL

04-01-2006, 06:07 AM

I have this really old PENTAX photography lens from my dad when he had his own camera. The lens is a prime lens (non-zoom), and I'm assuming the focal length of it is 50mm. Now, I've noticed that the lens hood says 49mm; and the UV filter it has on also says 49mm -- this leads me to think that maybe the 50mm on the lens actually refers to the diameter of the lens, not the focal length (since 49mm fits 50mm). How the hell do I tell what the focal length of the lens is? Also; any way to check to see the value of the lens (so I could tell how the quality is)? And, how would someone come about cleaning the lens? Should I use microfiber cloths, with regular glasses-cleaner liquid, or just an air-blower? It's a really old lens (10-30 years ago); but the lens part itself seems to be in good shape, although I see a lot of dust. I'm thinking that because the lens is so old, that it wouldn't be as crisp or sharp as the newer lenses. Should I just upgrade to new ones?

TimurCivan

04-01-2006, 10:56 AM

the focal length should be written on the inner lip of the lense in the front. Next to its Fstop rating. it should say something like "PENTAX--Opticamax---50mm F1.8 ----" etc. ( i made up the opticamax part just to give an example o whats probably on it.)

the 49mm is the filter thread size. the focal length is different.

Pentax lenses, (my dad had, and still swears by Pentax) are really good. if its a brand name one, like the pentax company made it, its probably very good. But like i said look through it backwarsds to see if the dust and crap is inside the lens or outside the lens. Or take a picture with it, if your dad still has the body and then examine the prints, see if the sharpness is acceptable. Or go buy a body, and use it for stills too. ( nothing makes your composition better than taking lots of pictures)

You see once you build up a collection of lenses, and you buy a decent camera body to go with it, suddenly youre a very well equipt Photographer.

Enjoy

Bobaristheguy

04-01-2006, 01:03 PM

my guess is that your pentax is a bayonet mount not their screw mount. If that is the case I recommend picking up a K1000 body to test the lenses out. It is cheap, has one of the best light meters ever in a camera, (I know professionals who still have a couple k1000s as backup cameras because of this), and that camera is a tank (meaning you can throw it up against a brick wall, put the lens back on and take a picture with it). Why I say this is because it is the perfect first camera because of its simplicity. It will allow you to learn the basics of exposure and dof that alot of newer cameras automatically do for ya. This will also help you out when you transition that lens into video.

As for cleaning the the lens, use a microfiber cloth and a lens cleaning solution after you have removed as much dust as possible with blowers and compressed air. If you don't you can still make scratches with the microfiber. Also if they are fairly nice lenses you can take them to a camera shop and have them calibrated and polished, this can drastically improve the quality because old lenses that have been sitting unused can grow a haze from dust an oils and many other things. They can also check for any fungus and sometimes can treat it so it is less likely to spread. The camera shop in my area does all this for $15 a lens.

slinks

04-01-2006, 02:14 PM

timur! thank you so far! I'm one of those "somewhat lost" people on lenses lol.

Ed Kishel

04-01-2006, 04:10 PM

great info! :)

Brandon Rice

04-01-2006, 05:27 PM

Excellent read! I am in line to be getting a Brevis35... so all this info is very helpful for me.

dougspice

04-01-2006, 07:30 PM

Good post Timur. I just came back from lens shopping today, and I've been taking stock of my old gear, so I'll throw in a few notes. I used to do a lot of still photography, primarily with Nikon gear, so I feel like I have a pretty good handle on this.

Desireable optical characteristic

Definitely, not all lenses are created equally. In general, you are looking for the same characteristics in all lenses: SHARPNESS, SPEED, and image QUALITY. I've been a bit of a Leica snob from time to time, but the good news that for using these lenses with a video adapter, you don't really need to worry about SHARPNESS. Most lenses out there, even cheap Tamrons and Tokinas, will probably still resolve more sharply than your camera is capable of recognizing.

SPEED, on the other hand, becomes critical. How much light does the lens need? For this sort of application, you want the fastest lenses you can get. Realistically, this is an f/1.4, but for most lenses it'll be more like a f/2.8. In my opinion, anything slower than an f/4 or so risks being useless in anything but an outdoor setting with these cameras. Cheap zoom lenses will have variable speed... for instance quite a few will be f/3.5 at the wide end and more like f/4.5 at the telephoto end. This is something I like to avoid... I work strictly with constant-speed lenses. But on the other hand, variable speed lenses will often be MUCH cheaper.

QUALITY is a pretty broad term to describe all the other little things that go into the image. Chromatic Aberation is the big one: does the lens produce artificial color fringing when looking into highlights or under other circumstances? Some lenses (including the stock lenses on both the HVX and the HD100) will do this at the edges of the frame, but not the center, and it will also occur more often at the telephoto end. Generally, this is considered a bad thing, but it's also an aesthetic. Maybe you like it. There are cheap sorts of very long telephoto lenses known as Mirror Reflex, which operate differently from normal lenses. They are generally not of great quality, slow, and produce very curious focus bokeh. But I personally have used them on several projects, precisely because I thought that weird "bad" bokeh was good for it. This stuff is all subjective, really.

There's a few other serious considerations that have to be added in when adapting still lenses to motion pictures, which you would never have to worry about on your regular 35mm body. The first is breathing, which is the tendency for objects to shift size as they move in and out of focus. Lenses with bad breathing problems can look like you're doing a small zoom even when all you're doing is a focus rack. Everyone can pretty much agree this is a bad thing. So make sure you test out a lens you're thinking of buying and watch what happens to a subject carefully as you rack through the focus range. Some lenses breath a lot, some hardly at all.

Secondly, is the travel of the focus ring. Most modern lenses worth their salt will have internal focusing, meaning the lens doesn't change shape or size physically as you change zoom or focus. But others may actually significantly change length as you focus. That's bad because if you are trying to use your lens with a follow-focus, you can't! The focus ring moves not only rotationally, but also up and down along the length of the lens barrel... bad news. Today I was playing with two fairly identical Nikon 180mm lenses. Same lens, just a few years apart, but one had travel to the focus ring and the other did not. So even though the one with consistent focus ring position was in slightly worse condition, I had to buy it instead.

I guess the last thing to consider would be size and weight. If you have an adapter that's not rail-mounted, you'll probably be limited in how big and heavy the lenses you're getting can be, because you'll be putting a lot of strain on your camera's filter threads. I'd recommend you find a rail system.

That was a lot more than I intended to write, really. I'll talk about some of my own lenses in a second.

dougspice

04-01-2006, 07:37 PM

Here's my own collection of lenses at the moment, and some general comments:

Nikon 17-35mm AF-S f/2.8 - This is a top-notch lens. Way overkill for this sort of thing. Probably the sharpest lens I own for my Nikon, fast autofocus, and plenty of other features that are irrelevant to 35mm adapters. It cost over $1300. If you happen to also shoot stills, though, get one. It's great. The range is awesome and it doesn't have many of the weaknesses of zooms. It is a bit big and heavy (about 5x bigger than my 50mm, most non-photographers automatically assume it's the longer of the two!)

Nikon 50mm AF f/1.4 - This is the bread-and-butter standard lens. Fast, small, light, well-built, and with no distortion. It cost about $200 new. Everyone should have one. Mine is a few years old, and I'm told the new ones aren't as good. You might want to compare it with the current f/1.8 version, which is also cheaper. You could also save some money by going for an older manual focus version.

Nikon 55mm AI Micro f/2.8 - Awesome manual focus macro lens. I got this dirt cheap years ago. It's taken some serious abuse. I'm not sure it has much use on a 35mm adapter, but who knows?

Nikon 180mm AI f/2.8 - Very sharp manual focus telephoto. Much less breathing than the used 200mm lenses I compared it against. I got this one for about $300. Fixed-length, but other than that it's great. Fast and good feel to the focus.

Other lenses I have owned in the past or often borrow/rent:

Nikon 80-200mm AF f/2.8 - An absolutely great lens that I wouldn't hesistate to recommend to any photographer. The 70-200mm AF-S is essentially the same, but even nicer. Any of these lenses will run you well over $1000, though, even used, so if you're doing adapter work, I recommend an old manual focus or fixed-length lens.

Nikon 85mm AF f/2.0 - Really great lens for portraits. Tack-sharp, nice bokeh, nice feel to it. Not too cheap, though, and it's easy to find other lenses that will take you through similar focal lengths, so I might call it a bit of a luxury item. Check it out, though.

Nikon 20mm AF f/2.8 - A good sharp and fast wide-angle. It definitely causes some noticeable wide-angle distortion, but maybe you're into that. Once I got my 17-35mm, which seems to be superior in pretty much every regard, there was no reason for me to use this anymore.

Nikon 500mm f/8 Mirror Reflex - This is the most compact, lightweight 500mm lens you are likely to find. It is incredibly limited by the fact that it operates at a fixed slow speed of f/8... pretty much useless once it starts getting dark. It also has that quirky "halo" bokeh of reflex lenses which stands out. All that aside, it's the cheapest way to get this close to your subject, and it produces some interesting effects. I picked up a similar f/5.6 lens in Russia for about $200, which was unfortunately stolen. Note to amateur lens thieves: bigger doesn't necessarily mean better.

Tamron 28-200mm AF f/3.5-f/4.8 - This was the first SLR lens I ever owned. It's a piece of crap, as is any lens that goes from 28-200mm, but it was dirt cheap and great for travel when I didn't know any better. Aside from the huge focal range, there is nothing about this lens that would be called "good". The good news is, a lens this soft sucks for stills, but probably holds up just fine for video. Not that I'm recommending it, of course.

Pretty much everything else I've shot has been with Leica gear. Absolutely top-rate and absolutely overkill for this application, so I won't go into it here.

TimurCivan

04-01-2006, 11:05 PM

Thanks for the info on Nikons.
I really have little experience with them.

Beat Takeshi

04-03-2006, 07:43 AM

I too am waiting on the Brevis35 and this is the area that I have little knowledge so thanks a million for the info.

dougspice

04-03-2006, 01:33 PM

No problem, Timur. Good thread.

slinks

04-04-2006, 03:08 AM

hey u got a sticky! woohoo

edgebsl

04-04-2006, 05:59 PM

Allow me to point out this forum....
http://oomz.net/mf/

This is a manual lens forum.Lots of talk of manual lenses and a gallery that shows off many lenses. Canon,Nikon,Pentax screw mount are all over there.

Of course you cant see how they perform on an adapter but you can bet if a lens is especially sharp on still photography ,then it should work well on adapters for video.

Be sure to note the F stop notations so you know which lenses perform well wide open.

Slimothy

04-04-2006, 06:43 PM

Great article guys. Very insightful. I come away a smarter man. :thumbsup:

FlintMI

04-04-2006, 07:34 PM

"I don't know f stop from f troop" - Michael Moore (and me)

now I am a little smarter on the subject! thanks man!

sticky it!

davidpula

04-04-2006, 08:11 PM

flint what is this dvx user meeting about? i'm interested!!!!

TimurCivan

04-04-2006, 08:15 PM

ye you guys should pay attention to the part in Dougs reponse about lens breathing. The Fov changes slightly when focusing lower quality Static lenses. its not too bad, but it happens. It can be used to good effect though. Watch the Professional, with Jean Reno, Gary Oldman. THey basically only used like 5 lenses in that whole movie. Most of it looks like a 28mm Prime, just cause of the barrel distortion evident in most of the frames. but there is one scene , where thhy do an extreme rack focus, and the whole image shifts while they focus. ITs looked great, FOR THAT SHOT, butit could very well ruin yours. So be aware. Long lenses tend to do it less. Wide angle lenses do it more.

bklyndv

04-05-2006, 12:11 AM

Great little write-up -- thank you!

TimurCivan

04-05-2006, 01:47 AM

no prob BKlyn DV.

Dennis Wood

04-05-2006, 09:47 AM

Tim, thanks for throwing this together. As someone with a long history of SLR 35mm use, it's easy to take basic knowledge of these lenses for granted.

Given all the carefull examination of adapter bokeh, it's very important to note too, that different 35mm lenses have very different bokeh characteristics, and this varies with the f/stop used on the lens. One of the things that bothered me about my spinner design was the two f/stops of loss, and the inability to stop the 35mm lens down to it's sweet spot.

Ideally, we wouldn't be using our F1.4 50mm at f/1.4 ever. The extremely short DOF is very tough to manage, and the lens is certainly not at its optical best either.

wesley

04-05-2006, 02:51 PM

thx for this post i really needed it :D, i even recently made a topic asking about this so thx

Norm Sanders

04-05-2006, 08:17 PM

So how can one tell what the "sweet spot" is on a lens, with regards to the F Stop setting?

TimurCivan

04-05-2006, 11:20 PM

the sweet spot, is different on every lens. But a good rule of thumb is, If the lens is a 50mm F1.4 for example, the sweet spot would be like, F 2.8 - 5.6.

But the resolution, this lens gives you is so damn high, you really dont need to worry about that for DV. If youre shooting HD, maybe, it would be a good idea to stop down to 2.8 just be sure the shrapness is really up there.

but dont worry about it too much. Guskers and i are just nit picking because we shoot on SLR cameras, where the rez drop is somewhat noticable. but seriously, its not that big of a deal.

The bokeh ( i still want to know what this stands for) charachteristics, will be very different. as will the chrachteristics of different lenses.

For example, a friend of mine who is a succesful fashion photographer, shoots on a mamiya MEdium format camera. I asked him what lenses he shoots on, Zeiss? Contax? Leica?

he said, and i am paraphrasing,

"Zeiss lenses are so sharp..... too sharp..... just ....so sharp...... ....Zeiss....... so sharp... ( he mumbled for a few more minutes )" then he said, "i liek leica cause the dof is a little deeper, and theres really no super sharp point like zeiss lenses..."

he went on to say basically, that Zeiss lenses were SUPER sharp at one point, then just lose it immediatly before and after the focal point. the lenses apparently are enginerred to be ShallowDof. Where as the Leica lenses never really get a super sharp point. but the point of focus is some what wider deeper. ( could the leica lens be the source of DVX Mojo.....? if you dont get this, dont worry... )

This is just based upon his experince, i have never used Zeiss lenses... infact i cannot afford Zeiss lenses, i would have to sell my DVX, Tripod, and car to buy one good Zeiss lens..... But you get the point, different manufactureres desighn their lense with different chrachteristics.

dougspice

04-06-2006, 01:09 PM

"bokeh" is a Japanese word.

Norm Sanders

04-06-2006, 01:17 PM

Ahhh. Domowatigato!

basilisk

04-08-2006, 07:56 AM

Another detail to note - your chosen aperture affects the shape of your Bokeh highlights. On the whole if a lens is wide open the bokeh highlights will be more or less circular. As the aperture closes down the shape changes - depending on how many segments (blades? there must be a techy term) the aperture is composed of - so that you end up with octagonal highlights or whatever. Other factors also affect the appearance of the bokeh - as mentioned mirror lenses have a ring bokeh with a hole in the middle because of the small mirror suspended in the centre of the lens.

bklyndv

04-08-2006, 08:43 AM

Bokeh at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh). Another, uhm, illuminating article on the topic (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm).

bklyndv

04-08-2006, 09:01 AM

Oh, and let's not forget, since we're aggregating the helpful 35mm device links, the Wikipedia entry on shallow DOF adapters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field_adapter) -- I know it's old hat to many here, but newcomers will have a lot of questions answered just giving it a quick browse.

TimurCivan

04-08-2006, 02:42 PM

wow alot of people are on Wikkipedia.....

hpd

04-09-2006, 02:21 PM

P+S Technik Mini 35 and the LETUS35XL are the only two 35mm Adaptors that connect directly into the CANON XL series camera bodies.

Additional information:
i just studied indie35 options.
indie35 has direct mounts for all posssible filter threads. Only if camcorders MFD supports.

TimurCivan

04-09-2006, 03:40 PM

i just dont get the point of directly attaching it to an XL series camera. you get the multiplication factor, and you lose all the field of view.... there by losing the whole purpose of a 35mm adapter.

SalaTar

04-12-2006, 11:21 PM

I just found this thread...good read.

Some toys in the attic to:
28mm Minolta Celtic 2.8
50 mm Minolta/Rokkor-X 2.2 MC/PF
50 mm Minolta/Rokkor-X 1.4 MD
135 mm Minolta/Rokkor-X 3.5 MD
Some Milo Rings 1,2, and 4
a Reverse ring II
along with a XG7

Time to play I guess

http://www.salatar.com/attic/Picture 002.jpg
http://www.salatar.com/attic/Picture 003.jpg
http://www.salatar.com/attic/Picture 004.jpg
http://www.salatar.com/attic/Picture%20005.jpg

TimurCivan

04-13-2006, 05:09 PM

Ask Wayne kinney, of SGpro, fame, to see if he has a mount for it. I am pretty sure he can rig up a custom mount for thoes lenses.

http://waynekinney.iforumer.com/index.php?mforum=waynekinney

235 Studios

04-18-2006, 12:48 PM

Great read, thanks for the tips and the write up, very helpful.

Wayne Kinney

04-18-2006, 03:30 PM

Hi,

Yes, there is a Minolta MD mount availible for the SGpro.

Here is a list of availible mounts:

Canon FD
Canon EOS/EF
M42
Contax
Leica R
Leica M
Leica M39 Screwmount
Minolta MD
Nikon
Olympus OM
Pentax K
PL mount

TimurCivan

04-18-2006, 06:02 PM

Ohhhhhh leica lenses....... on 35mm adapter........ droool..........

marlenedegrood

04-18-2006, 08:26 PM

Ohhhhhh leica lenses....... on 35mm adapter........ droool..........
Damn......sold all my Leica lenses! Well.....actually, they belonged to my ex-husband and I couldn't resist. I knew I'd live to regret that impulse.

TimurCivan

04-18-2006, 09:24 PM

MArlene shoulda sent them to me!!!!! then i 'd buy a M7 body to go with the lenses.... and then... Drooling uncontrolably....

;)

dougspice

04-18-2006, 09:37 PM

I coulda bought an R4 / 50mm Summicron for $300. I didn't. I was stupid.

dan

04-18-2006, 10:29 PM

Damn......sold all my Leica lenses!
So what are you shooting with right now Marlene? Are you on medium format or SLR, or did you switched to digital? You made me curious in more than one way and confused at the same time by some of your posts. I looked at your photographs and I found a fine display of talent. I like most of them (some more than others) because I like nature (but I still have some question marks work related):)

PaPa

04-21-2006, 09:40 PM

so wait, is the the ##mm of the lens that changes the depth of field, or is it the f stop. and cant the fstop be changed of a certain lens, i thought the number fstop it comes with its the fstop at wide open.

dan

04-22-2006, 11:20 AM

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=893

Robert Pottorff

06-01-2006, 08:15 PM

:) I just pulled out my old minolta lenses and started playing.

thanks!

hisham

06-28-2006, 12:55 PM

Has anyone tried the new Voigtlander 35/1.2? Check it out at http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt3512.htm

Is the quality of bokeh achieved dependent on the lens only or the GG as well? Will getting this lens be futile if my GG will simply diffuse the "lovely bokeh" into mush?

TimurCivan

06-28-2006, 01:00 PM

it has more to do with the lens. and the GG helps define the look a little. but its how the lens renders the out of focus image is most of what of determines bokeh. i also dont get why people are so concerned about bokeh to begin with. every lens on the planet will render it differently. Theres really no reason to care. you cant controll it too much. And if yo uwant it to look like "film" bokeh, you have to buy $100,000 worth of Panavision lenses to get the same looking bokeh.

TimurCivan

06-28-2006, 01:03 PM

thats propably a beautiful lens.

obendega

07-01-2006, 04:44 PM

@TimurCivan

As far as I know you can only rent Panavision lenses. But it may cost $100,000 to rent them, I dunno. :)

TimurCivan

07-01-2006, 10:25 PM

yea probably somehting like that.

Thoes are expensive pieces of glass.

ASG

07-02-2006, 01:04 AM

As I said on the bokeh thread the GG has a far greater influence on bokeh than the lens with an adapter. I've also found there's no increase in brightness between f1.4 and f1.2, and the bokeh looks quite hazy with such a large aperture, so IMO you're better off buying a less expensive f1.4 rather than an f1.2 when it comes to 50mm lenses.

TimurCivan

07-02-2006, 01:38 AM

The F1.2 is just a half stop faster. ( hardly noticaebale unless they are Directly compared split screen) But the Canon FD 55mm s.s.c. F1.2 is a much sharper lens than the 50mm s.s.c. F1.4.

Kyle Stebbins

09-14-2006, 08:12 PM

235 Studios

09-14-2006, 08:30 PM

That's correct- the adapter is what allows you to connect 35mm lenses to your DVX.

TimurCivan

09-14-2006, 11:53 PM

yea but you need an assortment of high quality lenses to get all the different fields of view. Telephoto lenses for long shots, wide angel elnses for closeups in small spaces. etc. Its not cheap and it complicates your shoots. think hard before making the leap.

snodart

09-15-2006, 01:03 AM

im having a really hard time understanding what type of lens i need to get to attach to a letus35a adapter. i am going to buy a 72mm threaded letus35a so i can attach it right on to my dvx, and then it is my understanding that i will need to get another lens. so, in other words: DVX --> ADAPTER --> LENS is this right? i'm really confused.

Take a look at wikipedia's explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field_adapter

I'm seriously not trying to push the Snod35 DVD on you, but the "depth of field explained" and "35mm adapters explained" chapters will clear your confusion. :)

I think that before you get the adapter, you should spend some time learning about depth of field and 35mm lenses. I don't mean this in a bad way at all. To get the most out of an adapter, you will need to have a pretty good understanding of both. If you google around, there are tons of sights with good info.

To answer you question..

DVX > 35mm adapter > 35mm lens

The adapter will screw right onto the front of your DVX (with 72mm threads). The adapter will not come with a 35mm lens, so you will have to buy one (to start with). These are the lenses that are made for 35mm cameras. Different brand lenses have different types of mounts. A lens mount is simply a circular piece that the 35mm lens is screwed or locked into. When you buy your adapter you will need to choose a style of lens mount. So for example, if you want to use Nikon 35mm lenses, you will most likely want to get the adapter with an F mount... which most all Nikon lenses use. Canon has several different types of mounts, so this might require some more research.

Don't rush yourself into buying a 35mm adapter... there is plenty of other equipment that should come first (in my opinion).... dolly, jib, field monitor, lights, etc.

hatsoff2halford

09-16-2006, 01:23 AM

I didn't want to start a new thread, so i'm using this one. Would this lense be pretty bad quality on my Ed 1.5 adaptor, or would it be worth investing in.

http://cgi.ebay.com/28mm-f-2-0-FAST-MC-WIDE-ANGLE-LENS-for-CANON-FD-CAMERAS_W0QQitemZ140016267741QQihZ004QQcategoryZ48 552QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

thanks in advance

-Logan

TimurCivan

09-16-2006, 01:55 AM

dunno hence the dangers of ebay you cant see the lens or test it before you buy.

snodart

09-16-2006, 02:08 AM

hatsoff2halford, you might want to ask Ed specifically... but from my experiences it will mostly depend on what Ground Glass you are using. The lens you linked to is a wide angle lens. The thing to keep in mind with wide lenses is that the aperture is much smaller for a given f/stop when compared to a 50mm focal length (aka "normal" lens) or telephoto lens.

Aperture size = focal length / f-stop number

If you input the numbers into this equation, you will find that f/2 on a 50mm lens creates an aperture that is 25mm in diameter while f/2 on a 28mm lens creates a aperture that is only 16mm in diameter.

This smaller aperture can create a pretty nasty hot spot in your images... even with a plano-convex. If you get the hot spot or not (or how bad) will depend on how well your GG diffuses the light.

The lens itself is a Vivitar. Myself, I would only buy Canon or Nikon. I bought a canon 2.8 28mm from ebay not too long ago for around $40. A faster lens than 2.8 would be better, but the price will make a pretty big jump.

EDIT: I agree with Timur... ebay is risky. So far, I am 4 for 4 when it come to getting good lenses from ebay sellers. Make sure they have 99.9% positive feedback. Ebay is always a gamble I suppose.

hatsoff2halford

09-16-2006, 01:01 PM

I'm using a Nikon D focusing screen as my GG. I'll probably just get a Canon fd lense, even if it is slower.

Thanks a ton for the replies.

-Logan

snodart

09-16-2006, 01:23 PM

I'm using a Canon FD f/2.8 28mm and an FD f/1.4 50mm. f/2.8 is a little slow for the 28mm, but can still produce nice images.

Keep in mind that "fast" and "slow" just refers to the lowest f/stop setting. So a lens with a minimum f/stop setting of f/2.8 is considered "slower" than a lens with a minimum f/stop setting of f/2. It doesn't mean much more that that.

If you do end up going with Canon FD, there is a little "trick" you will need to do with some FD lenses to engage the f/stop lock lever.

http://www.snodart.com/snodpublic/f_stop.jpg

The lever above is normally engaged when attached to a camera. I just cut a small piece from some from brass flat stock (hobby stores), cut it to length, slid the lever over, and inserted the brass piece. Easy fix and works fine. I had forgotten it was even there until you mentioned FD lenses.

Good luck

hatsoff2halford

09-16-2006, 02:05 PM

Awesome, thanks for that. My other lense is a Canon FD 50mm 1.4.

Thanks a ton,

-Logan

jgastelb

11-14-2006, 02:09 PM

snodart

11-14-2006, 04:04 PM

jgastelb

11-14-2006, 06:47 PM

The aperture will not function unless that lever is slide over and held in place. The goal with using the small piece to keep the lever in the engaged position is so that the aperture will function normally. This way, when you adjust the f/stop, the aperture will react accordingly.

You want to be able to adjust the f/stop of the lens as it is an important tool in setting up your images. It will allow you to alter the DOF and fine tune your exposure. Also, with most lenses... wide open is not the "sweet spot" so the images may not be as sharp as is possible with a given lens.

Would it be ok to deal with the aperture in cam. Does it not also affect the sweet spot this way? I'm not trying to argue -- just curious. If I stop more on the lens then that means I lose more light. i.e. if the sweet spot for in cam is f5.6 or so and f2.8 or more in lens then 'Oh, My God' I will need more lights than a scene in CSI Vegas.
Jgastelb

jgastelb

11-14-2006, 06:49 PM

I put a piece of a paper clip sustained by some gaffer tape and it seems to hold. I'll have to test it out during the day when I have plenty of light. Should I try to offset exposure in cam as well then besides the nd filters?
Jgastelb

wjm

11-15-2006, 07:54 AM

jgastelb

11-15-2006, 08:50 AM

Hey J.G. It's Matt from the DVXUser.com meeting in Denver a couple weeks back.

Here's what I understand:

Try to keep BOTH lenses at their own sweet spot - that is, a stop or two closed down from full open. For the DVX, this is about F4.0, and for your SLR lens, that varies. I have an F1.2 50mm, and I try to keep it at F2 to F2.8.

Hope that helps. Take it easy.

Hey Matt,
Thanks for the reply. I'll try that. I really am eager to see a difference on that shallow depth. Because right now I'm probably not getting more than an inch of in focus with what I have been doing. It's either the nose or the ears that will stay sharp. From what I have seen your adapter doesn't seem to lose much light. Your natural light tea clip was not as underexposed as some of my stuff. And, raising the luminance in post brings way too much grain. I guess I just need more lighting to fix this issue.

BTW, Ken is having a lighting lecture at KBDI this Saturday. Email back if you're interested.
Jgastelb

snodart

11-15-2006, 09:00 AM

jgastelb, wjm is correct. Ideally, you want to keep both the DVX (or whatever camera you are using) and the SLR lens close to the "sweet spot" (I'm pretty sure that Barry Green had said it is f/5 for the DVX). On my Canon 1.4 50mm, the sweet spot is f/5.6. This does not prevent me from using other f/stop settings on the SLR lens, but it is good to keep in mind. There are times when I want the take advantage of all the sharpness available and then other times where altering the DOF is more critical.

I do try to keep the DVX close to f/5 as much as possible. So for example, if I want a very shallow DOF, I might set my SRL lens to f/2 or 2.8. If I am using 1250 total Watts of lights, the chances are that I will need to use an ND filter so that I can get the DVX to around f/5. Without the ND filter, The DVX might have to be set to something more like f/11 (not the sweet spot). One the other hand, if I want a longer DOF or if I am using a wide lens, then the chances are that I will need more light. So let’s say that there is going to be a good deal of movement by the actor, I might set my 50mm SLR lens to F/8 (for a slightly longer DOF). So to do this I might either have to settle for an f/stop on the DVX that is < f/5 or add more light to the scene.

Lighting is a huge factor... not just for adapters, but for DV in general and for the overall cinematic value. If you are looking at a scene (with your eyes and not through the camera), and it looks way too bright... then the chances are that it will look just about right through the camera. Keep in mind that this situation is not just specific to adapters. It also holds true with straight DV images. Good lighting is a challenge with and without 35mm adapters. 35mm adapters really don't change things all that much as far as lighting goes. You just need a little extra light or you just have to settle for a little less than f/5 on the DVX at times. Of course this all depends on just how much light is lost with the SLR lens and adapter that you are using.

jgastelb

11-15-2006, 09:15 AM

So what adapter are you using? I keep hearing people say that you need at least 2k (indoors) of total light for most adapters. I have the letus and it loses so much light. I do have about 2k at home but some of it is work lights. One of them is
a softbox (500watts). I know, I know... work lights are not ideal and I'm working on getting a 1k with barndoors. I'm not worried about close ups since I can simply light close enough to the subject and the inverse law works real sweet. I'm mostly concerned about those medium shots. The wide shots are usually brief anyways.
Jgastelb

snodart

11-15-2006, 09:37 AM

I'm using a DIY vibrating adapter (Snod35). I have yet to officially test the light loss (there is some of course). Both Cache and The Seeing were shot with it. The average total amount of light used for Cache (http://snodart.com/cache/index.htm) (excluding exterior/day shots) was around 750 - 1000W. For The Seeing (http://snodart.com/seeing/index.htm), the average was more like 1250 - 1500W (it had more wide shots).

I have yet to try out the Letus, so I don't know if there would be that much of a difference in light loss between the Snod35 and the Letus.

jgastelb

11-15-2006, 09:45 AM

snodart

11-15-2006, 09:51 AM

No sweat. I'm talking about the average total Watts. So a given shot for Cache might have had one, 500W w/ barn doors and a 250W w/ barn doors. Or one, 500W w/ softbox; one, 500W w/ barn doors; and one, 250W kicker. That sort of thing.

jgastelb

11-15-2006, 10:00 AM

Gotcha! I really want to see what I can light at night while using the adapter. Thanks for all of the info.
Jgastelb

wesley

11-20-2006, 03:05 PM

anybody got some good online stores to buy lenses? (nikon, canon)

i'm from holland and the retail prices here are always a lot higher than when i order something from the US even with shipping.

Kino Eye

11-20-2006, 11:25 PM

Noob Question: Can you use digital lenses. For examples lenses on a Nikon d80 camera?

TimurCivan

11-22-2006, 01:59 AM

yes but you need a Digital SLR to change the apeture.

TimurCivan

11-27-2006, 08:09 PM

i Updated the INfo.

235 Studios

11-28-2006, 09:40 AM

Thanks for the update - very informative! :beer:

jgastelb

12-05-2006, 08:27 AM

Has anyone noticed the ground glass particles being more prominent when shooting with a high shutter speed of 1/125 and more? Is really getting on my nerves. I think I'll have to shoot all high stuff without the letus.
Jgastelb

TimurCivan

12-05-2006, 09:12 AM

what adapter are you using?

jgastelb

12-05-2006, 10:14 AM

what adapter are you using?

Letus 35 flip enhanced.

TimurCivan

12-05-2006, 10:35 AM

the gg movement probably isnt fast enough. its aliasing against the grain.

jgastelb

12-05-2006, 10:42 AM

the gg movement probably isnt fast enough. its aliasing against the grain.

Is there something wrong with it then? Something I can do to help that?

TimurCivan

12-05-2006, 10:45 AM

thats the way the motor is designed. if the Letus offers an adjustable GG speed, turn it way up.

If you wanna aviod this, get an SGpro or an M2 they have a Vairable GGspeed. The Sgpro at fullspeed doesnt show grain even at 1/1000. At 1/2000 however it does show grain.

jgastelb

12-05-2006, 11:11 AM

Reese-015

12-06-2006, 03:08 PM

As i stated above, you may be tempted to just get the fastest lens possible, and just run from there. But when you run in to the problem of "everytime my actor breathes he goes out of focus" you will realise, hmmm maybe is should close my apeture down a little to deepen the DOF. However, now you have another problem. The camera cant see anything.

I understand all of this but I might be misinterpreting the point you're making. Would it actually be smarter to not go for the fastest lens or does the fastest lens in any case encompass all the possibilities that the slower lenses have too?

TimurCivan

12-06-2006, 04:31 PM

the faster lens can always go down. Get the fastest lens possible. but functionally while shooting, you often will find that you need to close down a bit to get the lens at its sharpest and to make the DOF deep enough to be safe.

snodart

12-06-2006, 11:41 PM

I was talking with a lens guy at Sammy's camera in LA. He was telling me that older wides (Canon and Nikon) had a spherical element whereas now most wides have an aspherical element. The switch to the aspherical design, so he told me, was to prevent vignetting/hot spots that the older wides caused. Just curious if any of you know anything about this or how to tell if a lens is spherical or aspherical.

I am getting some slight vignetting with a Canon 28mm f/2.8. The vignetting seems to remain the same no matter what size the aperture is (whereas from my various test with adapters... I would expect the vignetting to get worse as the aperture was smaller). I was hoping that trying a few different PCX lenses would correct the problem, but no luck. I wonder if the the spherical shape of the lens is the problem. I suppose I should rent a nice wide and see if I still get the vignetting.

Reese-015

12-07-2006, 05:03 AM

Also, are there really no 'backfocus' capable zoom lenses to put on the adapter (other than perhap extremely expensive ones)?

Reese-015

12-07-2006, 08:37 AM

I have no experience at all yet with Canon FD/Nikon AI lenses (or any sort of full manual photography lenses) so I have a few questions:

A zoom lens has 3 rings that I can control, focus, aperture and zoom, right?

When I zoom, the aperture is automatically affected? Is this 'absolute'? With that I mean, if I zoom in and my aperture becomes smaller because of it, can I still open it up a bit more without zooming out? (even though I can't open it as much as I could when I was zoomed out)

If I do small zooms but my aperture isn't all the way open, would this circumvent the 'zooming into a blurry mess' problem because my zoom remains within my focal range?

TimurCivan

12-07-2006, 09:24 AM

wpd108

12-10-2006, 11:53 AM

Thank you all for the great information.

I'm shooting a short film in a few weeks and need a package - adapter with variety of lenses - for the DVX-100a... pronto. I've been thinking about the SGPRO or even the MPIC, but I know there are others to consider, also. If I was able to pick up a package with the ones you suggest, TC, 28mm, 50mm and a 150mm or so, I'd be thrilled.

Has anyone seen an adapter with lenses for sale somewhere?

Thanks

TimurCivan

12-10-2006, 01:46 PM

buy the Sgpro, you wont be disappointed. the Mpic isnt out yet is it?

Sven

02-06-2007, 10:24 AM

Great thread! i've been using the M2 with nikon glass, no complaints here. The
Sgpro is nice too.

ifownlee41nite@mac.com

02-27-2007, 03:08 AM

Thanks for so much info man. It gives me a great feeling to know that I can go to dvxusers like you for some expert advice.

Thanks again

staygettin

04-11-2007, 10:02 PM

thanks for this post. i acually copied it to word for later reference........ reel cool of you

dvxusr

04-24-2007, 06:13 PM

just found this thread, great info! the digital slr issue was mentioned briefly but i was hoping someone could explain this to me, I have a nikon d80 with one of the digital VR zooms, nice lens, has AF/MF etc right on it. If i were to get a brevis lets say, could I get any nikon lenses that would work with both the adapter and the d80 (so i wouldnt have to buy 2 sets), for example a 50mm or a prime 200 or 300mm. from what i understand digital lenses shouldnt be used with a 35mm adapter because theyre made for a digital chip and also they dont have manual apertures? so the only option would be to try find nondigital AF or even MF lenses that would work with the d80 (but its a digital camera, so it only takes dslr lenses or only dslr lenses have all functions enabled?) sorry im confused...

Marshallarts

04-24-2007, 08:02 PM

Thank you so much for enlightening us with all your experience regarding this. You answered many questions of mine (and many more I probably would have eventually been curious of). This thread will be a great reference for myself and others.

Let me ask a curious question that may have an easy answer. When I first thought of 35 adapters, I was curious about getting a used 16mm Angenioux like the one we used in film school (17-125???). To answer my own question partially I guess this would negate the purpose of trying to get the 35mm DOF. But about the question of backfocus issues, wouldn't a 35mm or 16mm Angenioux or other cinema lens be fine? and why would you advise against using it? unnecessary cost?

Also, is there *ANY* other reason to use lenses on an adapter other than DOF? Sounds like any fast lens benefit would be negated by light loss in an adapter. And though I'm still too new to be convinced or understand the visual benefit of "the best glass", capturing any benefit through the not-as-great-glass after the adapter would loss that benefit. Am I correct?

Thanks again

TimurCivan

04-24-2007, 08:46 PM

the 16mm lens wont cover a large enough patch of the GG inside the adapter, and your footage would have an Evil vingette. unless thats what you want.... plus i dont think there are any 35 adapters now that have Angeniuex mounts.

Also, the Field Of View is what i seek mostly in the footage. The 35mm lenses, see differently that the tiny lens on the HVX does. Also, you can use things like, Tiltshift lenses, and lensababies, and nice distortion free 18mm Zeiss lenses, that have no barreldistortion, and can see practically 100degrees in an y direction. That and the color rendition and gamma curve that you cant quite get from the stock lens. the gg screens, have a tendancy to flatten the contrast a bit, to somethign that makes the video camera's recorded image seem more organic.

I think they just make the images prettier. plain and simple. I personally liek the look of 2 particular 35 adapters.... ( thoes of you know know me can guess my personal preferences.... haha) But the beauty of the 35 adpaters is that eacho f them responds to light differently, and act as a "film stock" of sorts. that and the combination of different lenses and their different light charachteristics, render images that cant quite be matched in "Magic bullet".

Marshallarts

04-25-2007, 09:05 AM

dvxusr

04-25-2007, 11:58 AM

anyone?

TimurCivan

04-25-2007, 02:00 PM

Thanks for the response. Your input really makes a lot of sense and
helps me out tremendously. Though my eye is not as trained as some, your description of what you see makes a lot of sense and puts perspective on what to look for.

I have many questions regarding lenses. Specifically I've had many many questions regarding optics that have gone unanswered. It appears you have an affinity towards the results obtained from 'bigger' lenses ("unlike the tiny one on the HVX"), what would your thoughts be on lenses intended for larger format cameras, cinema or still? I've tried to find information regarding the effects of lenses in different formats but haven't had much luck. Are there even 'bigger' lenses out there? Would they have an even more shallow DOF or is this simply a consequence of FOV? (That is a physics question, i'm not really trying to obtain a more shallow DOF)

It all gets confusing to me, I wish I could take time to create a detailed table for reference and learning for myself. Particularly I've been puzzled by why the perspective one gets looking at miniature models of a street like St.Marks place here in the city is hard to acheive in real life. There's definitely more to it than going wide and standing on the other side of the street. I'm learning about perspective correcting lenses and think an answer might be there but I have no money to test out theories.

I have one question you could answer very easily i'm sure. Here's the link to a post I made a few days ago. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=93873&page=3 This area of optics is of great interest to me and I really appreciate all your input. I'm definitely saving this thread. Thanks.

For someone who hasn't had the experience to "see" for himself

DOF is a function of the focal length, the Apeture and has a realtion ship with the field of view/imager size. 50mm Lenses, will have lets say, @ 5 feet, at F1.2 , 2" of DOF. Now if that 50mm lens is projecting on an imager the size of a 35mm film plane, like the GG of a 35 adapter, it appears to be a neutral standard field of view. However if the same 50mm lens is attached to an XLH1 for example that can use photographic lenses without a adapter, its recieving the same exact DOF, however the imager size is much smaller, only 1/3", so there fore the XLH1 is only reading a small patch from the middle of the larger projection area that the 50mm lens is capable of. So it SEEMS, as if the image is far more telephoto than its 35mm film plane counterpart. this is why Video camera lense have such short focal lengths, like 4.5mm. it needs a super super super Wideangle short focal length to "read a patch" that seems to look like normal wide angle field of view. its really confusiing, but once you wrap youre head around it, its like, "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh... now i get it...."

larger lenses, like medium format lenses, or "Vistavision"/Imax or military spy plane lenses, are HUGE, and presumably, would have a VERY shallow Dof for the same FOV, as its 35mm or Video counterpart. just because the lenses would have to be somuch bigger to ccomplish the same FOV.

My brain just imploded. so excuse me. :)

jgastelb

04-25-2007, 02:04 PM

I think they just make the images prettier. plain and simple. I personally liek the look of 2 particular 35 adapters.... ( thoes of you know know me can guess my personal preferences.... haha) But the beauty of the 35 adpaters is that eacho f them responds to light differently, and act as a "film stock" of sorts. that and the combination of different lenses and their different light charachteristics, render images that cant quite be matched in "Magic bullet".

I'm curious about which two you like the most. What do you think about the Letus in comparison with the M2 and Beavis?
Jgastelb

TimurCivan

04-25-2007, 03:18 PM

I'm curious about which two you like the most. [Jgastelb

Look down. :)

TimurCivan

04-25-2007, 03:32 PM

At this point they are all about the same. I look ateach one as having different charachteristics. Like film stocks. The m2 gives a "dark" moody feel to footage, a little bit of a vingette, kinda "soft", with a golden color feel. The Sgpro, has really great colors, bright and clear and is really sharp, it seems to have the least "effect" on the footage, it sort of is like, stock fottage, just with Shallow DOF. The letus is soft and feels like intentianally dammaged film, it has a few defects, and sometimes some CA, but ive only used older models. The newer ones may have less effect. The Brevis to me looks a tad like the M2 just without a Vingette. Its golden and "dreamy". The Go-35 looks alot like the "G35" that everyone talks about. its warm, sharp, and has a subtle vingette that adds lots of Texture to the image. i use that one when doing closeups. it makes people look AMAZING. its like a promist + (shdof)

I personally chose the SGpro because if its lack of "effect" on the footage. Like for example if im shooting a commercial, and the clients wants Clean clean clean..... The SgPro delivers unaltered footage. where as with the M2 im gonna have that subtle vingettte that the client may not like. Plus a vingette can always be added in post. However for personal film makers, i say pick the one that delivers the footage you like. for some its the M2, for some its the Brevis for others (aka Awesome people, jkjkjk) its the SgPro....

jgastelb

04-25-2007, 05:06 PM

Look down. :)

Sorry! I almost never look down. :-)

jgastelb

04-25-2007, 05:10 PM

The letus is soft and feels like intentianally dammaged film, it has a few defects, and sometimes some CA, but ive only used older models. The newer ones may have less effect.

I have the Letus35a and to me it doesn't look like damaged film but to each his own. I do like your footage though. I think it has a lot to do with the lighting as well. I would love to be able to see the same shot shot with the same camera, angle and lighting just changing the adapters and notice the differences.
Happy shootings!
Jgastelb

TimurCivan

04-25-2007, 09:58 PM

well thats the pont if a "35 adapter test" i wanna perform at somepoint. But im having trouble finding people with canon FD mounts. i wanna be able to use the same camera/lens/setting/lights and postition, and just change the adapter. a nice M2/Brevis/sgpro/go35/letus shoot out would be great fun.

jgastelb

04-26-2007, 09:09 AM

I find it really hard to go back to the stock lens now that I've used an adapter. It really brings its own set of elements that make the picture closer to film -- in my humble opinion.
Jgastelb

05-16-2007, 11:23 AM

Timur,

I appreciate all of your expertise and insight into the world of 35mm adaptors and lenses. I've just recently begun my journey with a Brevis & Nikkons. :)

D~C

TimurCivan

05-16-2007, 11:30 AM

Enjoy it man. ITs fun having to learn about optics.

malcolm man

05-17-2007, 04:17 PM

Thanks, I needed this. I'm about to buy an HVX200 and would like to snag an adapter and a lens to go with it. Now I'm one step closer.

TimurCivan

05-17-2007, 04:26 PM

youre welcome.

bruiserbox

05-18-2007, 06:16 PM

This is a great post. Wish you were local. I'd love to connect and see what you thought of the brevis vs. your sgpro. I don't think anyone is so much better than another but they are each strange in their own way and you have to be cool with the guys/companies selling them, too, which can be a bit different.

I'm happy with my brevis so far. I dug your flicks on your site. If you were local I'd recommend you for gigs. Either way, thanks for your generous post here. This was awesome.

ElektronBlue

05-21-2007, 12:34 AM

yes but you need a Digital SLR to change the apeture.

Hey TC ! Thanks for all the great info!

Would you be able to elaborate more on the Digital SLR lens subject?... I know one user asked several questions of...

just found this thread, great info! the digital slr issue was mentioned briefly but i was hoping someone could explain this to me, I have a nikon d80 with one of the digital VR zooms, nice lens, has AF/MF etc right on it. If i were to get a brevis lets say, could I get any nikon lenses that would work with both the adapter and the d80 (so i wouldnt have to buy 2 sets), for example a 50mm or a prime 200 or 300mm. from what i understand digital lenses shouldnt be used with a 35mm adapter because theyre made for a digital chip and also they dont have manual apertures? so the only option would be to try find nondigital AF or even MF lenses that would work with the d80 (but its a digital camera, so it only takes dslr lenses or only dslr lenses have all functions enabled?) sorry im confused...

For instance I have several Nikon lenses for my D70... but I've heard things about DSLR lens use w/ 35mm adaptor and AF lenses etc.

What things would you be looking when buying a Nikon 50mm lens? 1.2/4/8? etc?

Just today purchased a SGPRO.r3 - Wayne has a really nice setup - couldn't help it! Just too many positive things about his service and product.

Thanks in advanced! :dankk2:

Jason
(Jason Hebard on sgpro forums)

235 Studios

05-21-2007, 08:28 AM

What things would you be looking when buying a Nikon 50mm lens? 1.2/4/8? etc?

I did a little write up on Nikon lenses in general, which you can find at my blog: http://ryanewalters.235studios.com/ryanewalters/Indi-HD%20Blog/Indi-HD%20Blog.html hopefully that is helpful when it comes to Nikon lenses.

In short you do not want to get the digital lenses because of a couple of reasons- 1. They are designed for a smaller imager- the digital imager is smaller then the 35mm frame, so the lense puts out a smaller image then the 35mm lense does. And 2. A lot of the lenses have electronic controls which means that you will not be able to adjust the aperature and other settings when you have it attached to your 35mm adapter.

ElektronBlue

05-21-2007, 01:21 PM

I did a little write up on Nikon lenses in general, which you can find at my blog: http://ryanewalters.235studios.com/ryanewalters/Indi-HD%20Blog/Indi-HD%20Blog.html hopefully that is helpful when it comes to Nikon lenses.

In short you do not want to get the digital lenses because of a couple of reasons- 1. They are designed for a smaller imager- the digital imager is smaller then the 35mm frame, so the lense puts out a smaller image then the 35mm lense does. And 2. A lot of the lenses have electronic controls which means that you will not be able to adjust the aperature and other settings when you have it attached to your 35mm adapter.

Thank you for the reply! I later thought that about the digital lenses - just hopeful! Thank you for the blog - I'll take a look at it shortly.

TimurCivan

05-21-2007, 04:14 PM

digital lenses are more difficult to work with. though their quality is usually good. But mind you this only apllies to full frame 1:1 sensors.

ElektronBlue

05-24-2007, 03:27 PM

digital lenses are more difficult to work with. though their quality is usually good. But mind you this only apllies to full frame 1:1 sensors.

Thanks for the reply!

For my next purchase of a 50mm Nikon lens, I am looking at the 1.8s. I've read on the sgpro forums that this is a little smaller ap, but it allows a greater dof.

Now based on your article, would you recommend this 1.8 vs a 1.4 or event 1.2 to allow a little more breathing room - so when your subject movies a few inches things go out of focus?

Also what is your take on the necessity of the follow focus unit from Wayne for a newbie such as myself? How much benefit and ease would I receive from it? Or would I need it all at this point of time?

Thanks TC!

Jason

235 Studios

05-24-2007, 03:45 PM

would you recommend this 1.8 vs a 1.4 or event 1.2 to allow a little more breathing room - so when your subject movies a few inches things go out of focus?

I would recommend that you get the fastest lenses that you can afford. Doing so will allow you to stop the lens down. There are two benifits of stoping your lens down. The first is that most lenses are their sharpest 1 - 2 stops down from fully open, and the second is that the actors will have more room to act without going out of focus. This is especially important if you are working with new actors, or inexperienced actors. When your lense is completely open you only have a few inches where the actor needs to hit their mark. If they are not used to hitting it exactly each time, then this can be frustrating, as it may have been a good take, but you can't use is as it was out of focus do to them not hitting their mark.

Also what is your take on the necessity of the follow focus unit from Wayne for a newbie such as myself? How much benefit and ease would I receive from it? Or would I need it all at this point of time?

Do you absolutely need it? Depends on your perspective. I know people who are quite comfortable pulling focus with their hands and the lense - they produce good results, so they have not bought a FF yet. I would HIGHLY recommend that you get one. A good FF is a huge time saver, as you know that you will hit your marks everytime when you use it, this may or may not be the case if you are pulling by hand. (Especially if you are racking on a lense that is fully open) Also, there is the comfortability that the FF gives in operation. If you have the camera in an awkward position it may not be possible to use your hand on the lens.

ElektronBlue

05-24-2007, 07:30 PM

Ryan! Thank you for the great advice. Honestly, it seems endless with all the information and knowledge one can obtain regarding filming etc!

There is lighting equipment - lenses - sound - video - equipment - pre and post production. And each has it's own sub categories!

So when you speak of the fastest lens, a lens with the largest aperture or lowest f#, an example would be a 50 mm @ f1.2.

So @ 1.2 - it will give me a larger DOF? Where my subject can go in and out of their mark and still be in focus?

Where as the 1.8 it is a smaller DOF?

Can you explain to me when you state 'stopping down the lens"? I see on these manual lenses they have a ring where you can adjust the aperture. Is this where you can f-stop the lens? If you have a 1.2 - meaning you can go down to a 1.4 or 1.8. And you stated that most lenses have a sweet spot a couple f-stops down. Therefore, buying one with a fastest/largest aperture, allows me to get to that sweet spot w/o loosing light?

Re: the FF.

Thank you for the info! When you say a huge time saver - how does it work? Do you turn an external knob and that turns your lens? Basically gears? So you can position your hand with a turn knob vs. around the end of the lens? Like a micro focus knob?

If I were pulling focus myself - does this equal to pulling by hand? Focusing myself?

Also by saying 'huge time saver, as you now that you will hit your marks every time when you use it' - how so?

Thanks a bunch Ryan - passing forward your experience/knowledge is very much appreciated!

Jason

pcascio

05-24-2007, 07:46 PM

I currently have an SG35 Pro but am considering building a Nikon D based vibrating adapter that will be a bit more mobile. Is this style inherently better or worse than the spinning disk type?

TimurCivan

05-24-2007, 08:04 PM

ElektronBlue

05-24-2007, 11:30 PM

Pcascio- I personally believe the spinning disc type is better.

JAson- a F1.2 is a very wide apeture, and will give you a VERY narrow DOF where the subject will fall inand out of focus VERY easily.

Stopping downt he lens means making the apeture smaller. This increases the DOF and lowers the amount of light reaching the GG. However the lenses performance will increase. the Sharpness will go up, and focusing will be significantly easier.

TC -

That is what I thought, the lower the f# the narrower the DOF. However w/ a f1.2 you can stop it down to 1.4 or 1.8 right? And with those couple stops down it will hit the lens' so-called 'sweet spot' ?...

What would you suggest for my first 50mm Nikon lens of the apertures available.. 1.2 / 1.4 / 1.8.. ?

Thanks!

Jason

TimurCivan

05-25-2007, 12:02 AM

wide as you can get, that just means the apeture is sweet spotting at a brighter f stop.

ElektronBlue

05-25-2007, 12:05 AM

wide as you can get, that just means the apeture is sweet spotting at a brighter f stop.

So the 1.2 - then I can stop it down to a workable DOF as I need?

235 Studios

05-25-2007, 11:04 AM

Here is a work around for not having a FF-
A.K.A the poor mans FF:
Go down to your local expendables store (Usually the local place that rents or sells lighting equipment - some where like http://www.dtcgrip.com/ ) buy a roll of 1/4" tape (A.K.A Spike Tape). Now on your lense wrap two pieces around the lens - one that covers the distance markings, and one on the opposite side. So now, using a pen you can mark the lens with your focus points. You'll create one line on the side of the lens that does not move, and the other marking on the side that does move. It will be helpful to have different colored pens to use for different focus points. When the tape gets to marked up to use, you will need to retape the lens.
Total cost of this FF: $7.50

Re: the FF.

Thank you for the info! When you say a huge time saver - how does it work? Do you turn an external knob and that turns your lens? Basically gears? So you can position your hand with a turn knob vs. around the end of the lens? Like a micro focus knob?

A FF is a gear system- there is a gear around the lens, a gear on the FF, and then the knob that your hand turns. Around the knob is a disk that can be marked with a dry erase pen or grease pencil. Having a good FF is a time saver because you can feel confident that you are hitting your marks every time you pull focus. So you do not have to keep doing take after take because you were not quite sure if you were in focus or not. This is especially true if you are doing a large rack focus- if you use hard stops on the FF, you can operate it by hand, without even hanving to look at the disk. If you are skilled, and practice enough with the poormans FF, you can get away with it. I like having the assurance of the hard stops, as once they are set, you don't have to worry that you over or under shot the pull. It is also a time saver because you do not have to constantly tape and retape the lens.

Additionally it moves the position that your hand it in to a more erganomical position, making it easier one your arm, and on your line of site as your arm does not block your view. And depending on your camera placement, it might be very uncomfortable to pull from the end of the lens, having a FF would help minimize this for you. If you have an AC pulling for you, then they will thank you as you just made operating the focus much easier- allowing them to do their job better.

235 Studios

05-25-2007, 11:19 AM

If you are looking for a shallower DOF, then the longer you go on your lens the more pronounced the DOF will be. a 135mm lens has more SDOF to it then a 28mm lens for example.

So the 1.2 - then I can stop it down to a workable DOF as I need?

Basically you have a couple of factors that you are trying to juggle to get the best use out of your 35mm adapter: DOF, Sharpness, & Exposure. All of these are related, and play against each other- getting a fast lens will help you with all of these issues, and get you better results.

DOF: The faster the lens the shallower DOF you can get. A 1.2 will yield better results then a 5.6 for example, as at 5.6 your DOF is extended.

Sharpness: Most lenses are their sharpest starting at about 1 - 2 stops down from fully open. So your image may be a little soft if you are shooting wide open. Stoping down gets you to the place where the lens it working at its best. So if you have a 1.2 lense and you stop down to 2.8 the lens will be more sharp then if you were shooting with a 2.8 lens.

Exposure: To expose properly you need to have enough light coming in the lens. You will need roughly twice as much light if you are using a 2.8 lens then if you were using a 1.4 lens.

So if you get a faster lens, you will be able to get a SDOF, while keeping the lens sharp by stopping down, and you will need less light to expose your image properly. Which is the winning combination that you are after.

TimurCivan

05-25-2007, 11:22 AM

thank you ryan.

ElektronBlue

05-25-2007, 03:48 PM

If you are looking for a shallower DOF, then the longer you go on your lens the more pronounced the DOF will be. a 135mm lens has more SDOF to it then a 28mm lens for example.

Basically you have a couple of factors that you are trying to juggle to get the best use out of your 35mm adapter: DOF, Sharpness, & Exposure. All of these are related, and play against each other- getting a fast lens will help you with all of these issues, and get you better results.

DOF: The faster the lens the shallower DOF you can get. A 1.2 will yield better results then a 5.6 for example, as at 5.6 your DOF is extended.

Sharpness: Most lenses are their sharpest starting at about 1 - 2 stops down from fully open. So your image may be a little soft if you are shooting wide open. Stoping down gets you to the place where the lens it working at its best. So if you have a 1.2 lense and you stop down to 2.8 the lens will be more sharp then if you were shooting with a 2.8 lens.

Exposure: To expose properly you need to have enough light coming in the lens. You will need roughly twice as much light if you are using a 2.8 lens then if you were using a 1.4 lens.

So if you get a faster lens, you will be able to get a SDOF, while keeping the lens sharp by stopping down, and you will need less light to expose your image properly. Which is the winning combination that you are after.

Thank You! I appreciate the break down - I was somewhat getting confused w/ my own knowledge and what was before me. This definitely straighten it out!

As for the FF - thanks for the options - I'll keep all in mind with my further purchases!

Again, Thanks for all the help Ryan!

Jason

Isaac_Brody

05-25-2007, 05:33 PM

Better pick up or rent a kinoflo for that adaptor. Your actors will thank you for it.

235 Studios

05-25-2007, 06:51 PM

Glad to help any time! :)

One of the biggest lessons I've learned in filmmaking is that the more control you have, the better results you get- the less control, the more likely you will not get the results you are after.

Luna_Park

05-28-2007, 01:03 AM

Just wanted to say thanks for the article. Read it the other week and it was really helpful. Recently purchased:

50mm 1.4 SCC Canon FD
28 mm 1.8 SCC Canon FD
100 mm 2.8 SCC Canon FD

Now if only I could decide on which 35mm adapter! Leaning towards M2.

iDV8

05-28-2007, 03:23 AM

Recently purchased:

50mm 1.4 SCC Canon FD
28 mm 1.8 SCC Canon FD
100 mm 2.8 SCC Canon FD

Now if only I could decide on which 35mm adapter! Leaning towards M2.

Hey Luna Park,

Could you tell me how much your three lenses cost? I'm looking for the same kind of lense set.

pcascio

05-29-2007, 01:46 PM

235 Studios

05-29-2007, 02:09 PM

Hey 235 - regarding your el cheapo follow focus system. Do you feel that the indirect manipulation of the len's focus ring is not as much of a big deal as the markings and stops? I was always under the impression that because you are turning in a different axis and not directly touching the lens that people bought FFs.

If this is not correct, you saved me a bunch of money.

FF are very helpful in that it allows the 1st AC to do his/her job better and more accurately. Can you use a flat head screw driver with a philips head? Sure you can, but a philips head will do a better job. Having a FF also allows you to do things like attach whips and cranks to the FF to allow for different manipulation of the focus. I've 1st AC'd on several projects where even though the camera was on sticks, the operator was constantly moving the camera around, having the FF allowed me greater control of the focus, and the operator could move freely - both of which would have been extremely difficult if I had to follow with my hands. Also, the longer the lens gets, the more noticable little bumps to the lens become. If you bump a 28mm lens while pulling focus, you probably will not see it on screen- this is not the case if you are using a 135mm lens. Need less to say, a FF is an important tool in your tool kit - especially if you are using a 35mm adapter.

However, with that said- I started with the poormans FF until I had the budget to purchase the FF. So you can get the job done using the tape method, you just may run in to some tough focus pulls that wouldn't be as tough if you had a FF. So if you go with the poorman's FF- I would recommend practicing pulling focus as the more comfortable you feel in operating it, the better you'll preform. (Although this is true with the FF as well.)

TimurCivan

05-29-2007, 02:11 PM

28 mm 1.8 SCC Canon FD

Ohhhh where'd you find that?! i want one of thoes!

Bigdaddy B.

06-25-2007, 10:06 AM

I'm using a Canon FD f/2.8 28mm and an FD f/1.4 50mm. f/2.8 is a little slow for the 28mm, but can still produce nice images.

Keep in mind that "fast" and "slow" just refers to the lowest f/stop setting. So a lens with a minimum f/stop setting of f/2.8 is considered "slower" than a lens with a minimum f/stop setting of f/2. It doesn't mean much more that that.

If you do end up going with Canon FD, there is a little "trick" you will need to do with some FD lenses to engage the f/stop lock lever.

http://www.snodart.com/snodpublic/f_stop.jpg

> The lever above is normally engaged when attached to a camera. I just cut a small piece from some from brass flat stock (hobby stores), cut it to length, slid the lever over, and inserted the brass piece. Easy fix and works fine. I had forgotten it was even there until you mentioned FD lenses. <

Good luck

HUH ? I have no idea what that means. Could you use a more visual description ? Thanks.

snodart

06-25-2007, 03:58 PM

HUH ? I have no idea what that means. Could you use a more visual description ? Thanks.

Gladly. What exactly are you wanting to know?

Kholi

06-30-2007, 01:26 PM

So, the Sharpness and Vignette issue with the M2: wasn't that solved with a Hardmount? I haven't seen M2 Footage with darkened corners in quite some time. Once the Hardmount idea spread, M2 footage got a lot better.

Also, in regards to the slightly softer M2 footage... which I agree on... would that be because of the HD achromat? If you switched the M2 achromat out for the SGpro's newest Achromat, would you get the same SGpro sharpness in an M2 package?

TimurCivan

06-30-2007, 01:27 PM

its their diffuser, its super thick is what it looks like. and i still DEFININTYL see a vingette. the thick diffuser causes additional ightloss, and a really lush bokeh, but it also causes a slightly soft image.

Kholi

06-30-2007, 01:35 PM

Humm maybe I just don't see it, then.

Can you switch Diffusers or is it better just to get the one with the good diffuser?

That kinda sucks cause you can get used M2's quicker than you can get used SGpro's. =P

smurray333

09-10-2007, 01:52 PM

Where to get lenses? What to look for?

I wouldn't trust Ebay to much, cause one mans "great condition" is another mans unacceptable. You need to inspect the lens.

A few thoughts. This is true if you can find lenses to inspect... however, I've bought 27 lenses off eBay in the last 3 months and not a single one had a problem. Most were much better than I expected and all film tested sharp except for 2 and they were OK , just not as sharp wide open as I like. All were Canon FD mount. Most eBay people will take a lens back if it has a problem which they did not disclose in the listing. My suggestion: Only buy from people with good photos of the lens, who have at least 25 feedbacks and a 95% or better positive rating. Yes, you are taking a chance and yes, you may get burned, but if you read the listing carefully and trust your instincts you can get some great lenses and save 50% or more over Nikon prices. The issue here is cost not quality, I shot Nikon for 30 years and only switched to Canon last year because of the better digital cameras and wider zoom lenses (love my 16-35mm). I do not recommend zooms for the adapters because of the focus breathing issue. They can be as sharp as primes or even sharper.

One big thing -- lenses are like people, each one is unique. I have to laugh at the online lens reviews because those findings only apply to THAT lens. I always test my lenses, even new ones. When I switched to Canon EOS it took five, yes five 24-70mm zooms before I found one which was sharp enough at F2.8. And three different 16-35mm's. I think every lens you buy should be tested. I bought a $70.00 Canon FD camera (on eBay) and I shoot some slide film to check these lenses for sharpness, flair and any other issues. But then I'm a bit picky....

Note: These are the older FD lenses not the current EF / EOS lenses which do not even have an aperture ring and can only be used with a special computer mount to stop down on HD cameras. You can shoot them wide open with an EF mount on your adapter, but that will become a problem at some point when you need more of the image in focus.

Canon or Nikon?:

Ok both lens manufacturers are AWESOME. but canons have a switch that must be activated for the iris to be adjusted, other wise they jsut sit at open. Some FD lenses have a Apeture lock setting on the lens itself so you can set it where ever you like.

OK you guys, heres an update. After having used a Letus 35 on a shoot, with Nikon lenses. I have to say, i would now change my reccomendation of lens manufacturer, to nikon. The ability to stop down quickly and easily with the 35mm lens is VERY usefull, and too much of a pain with the Canon lenses. Stick with Nikon Lenses.

Canon or Nikon does not matter. The specific lenses in your hand matter. The real problem is that used Nikon lenses are very expensive, generally double Canon FD prices. And they are more rare to find used in good condition. Several of the Canon Fd lenses I bought look like they were never used. I found a great local camera repair guy who fixed the stop down issue AND removed the click stops for about $30.00 per lens. I now have 17 Canon FD lenses from 7.5 fisheye to 600mm F/4.5 which act like cine lenses, stop down smoothly and with the Red Rock Follow focus gear attached they almost seem like Ziess primes... well... almost. There is also a guy in Germany on the Red Rock forum who uses Q-tips cut to fit into the back of the lens mount to make it stop down, he even has a photo, but I like to have the click stops removed so I will continue to have the repair guy fix mine. I generally prefer the newer FD mount which is the one that is all black at the rear of the lens, not the really old ones with the silver ring in the back as they have better coatings and usually better design and higher quality glass. And buy the best, fastest lenses you can afford as it will be worth it in the long run.

Nikon or Canon these same lenses can be used on that Red One you are going to get soon....

My 2 cents on this subject. Good shooting.

PaPa

10-04-2007, 12:10 PM

for nikon mounted adapters, which of the nikon series are useable? And what who exactly are nikkor? I own a 50mm 1.4 that says nikon nikkor.

The reason i am asking is because i would like to look around for lenses when my extreme comes in and i don't want to purchase something that wont mount.

Is there a difference between Nikon AI and Nikon AI-S ? Are there other compatible mounts?

PaPa

10-13-2007, 09:29 AM

so im bidding now on an nikon 85mm 1.4 AIs on ebay. but it says the filter size is 72mm. will this cause any headaches with the adapter? Is it usable? I should have checked this before bidding...

tvimedia

10-15-2007, 02:09 AM

Same questions as PaPa...

I just ordered a RedRock Micro M2 with Nikon mount so I'm looking on eBay for lenses now, but have NO photography experience with lenses. I've come across many Nikon designations...what works (I have paid attention to basically staying away from digital SLR lenses) without modification or what mods are needed if any to 'better' lens to get? The faster the lens, the better---I understand that, but I'm just not informed enough about the AI, AI-S, non AI, etc...

Hopefully one of you gurus can enlighten us ignorant of this info :undecided

Thanks,
George

PS This may be off subject, but what Matte Box works well with this setup? Any additional rigging needed?

PaPa

10-17-2007, 08:43 PM

it seems that the AI and AIS or even the non AI are good to use. stay away from the AF. if you intend to use a follow focus, i would stick with the AI/s because the non ai have a strange hexagonal focus ring to them.

bvalente

10-26-2007, 12:20 PM

We did a short podcast on selecting 35mm lenses, particularly still lenses.

You can take a listen here: www.redrockmicro.com/podcasts.html - the 35mm lens podcast is the third one down.

AI, AIS, and non-AI designations are really only important as it relates to using them with your still 35mm camera - digital or film. AI and AI-S deal with lens-to-camera body communication.

An somewhat helpful thread on this is here: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A1o7

For M2 and 35mm adapters in general, AI, AI-S and non-AI don't make any difference. If you want to use them with your SLR camera, I'd definitely be looking for AI-S lenses, as they work great with still cameras and can perform double duty (I have a nikon D-200 and that's what I look for).

If you are only looking for lenses for the M2, non-AI is often times much less expensive

Brian

bvalente

10-26-2007, 12:21 PM

so im bidding now on an nikon 85mm 1.4 AIs on ebay. but it says the filter size is 72mm. will this cause any headaches with the adapter? Is it usable? I should have checked this before bidding...

PaPa - the filter size makes no difference to the adapter. It is simple the diameter of the 35mm lens. Many older nikon lenses have a 52mm. It only makes a difference when you consider filters for the front of the lens

Brian

TimurCivan

10-26-2007, 12:29 PM

Brian have there been any recent updates to the redrock M2? i would like to know what you guys are working on.

bvalente

10-27-2007, 10:25 AM

We have been working on quite a number of things, and when we're ready we will certainly let everyone know

Brian

USLatin

12-27-2007, 01:02 AM

subscribing

TimurCivan

12-27-2007, 01:19 AM

subscribing?

USLatin

12-27-2007, 01:31 AM

to the thread, by posting I now will know when there are new posts

BTW Timur, I tarted a little thread to ask specific questions about my needs and I would love if you could chime in :)

USLatin

12-28-2007, 12:06 AM

I am slowly getting through the thread (page 12) making sure not to miss anything as I am beginning my research on lenses... finally!
I will be buying a lens adapter soon if all goes well and I need to learn more about lenses before I make my purchase.

About the adapter... I am leaning towards the Brevis because I find the interchangeable GG's to be an amazing feature. I am a bit worried about shutter speed limitations but I am pleased with it's bokeh and most than anything it's speed. The Letus seems to e the other fast adapter but I didn't find the bokeh pleasing to my eyes... Timur please tell me which are your (2) favorites and why!

Lenses... I want to have a solid Nikon kit and possibly rent others with a second mount. But i need to make sure I have matching lenses that can cover 28mm though 120+ mm... and I need to be ok with low light conditions as my kit is limited to only 4 lights. They are a 500W kino, 1000W kino, 800W Alzo (hard) and will be getting one of Richard's 575 HMI's (Hard) which put out 1500W. I know this is not a shabby personal kit but I want to make sure to be able to get as much freedom on night shoots as I possibly can, especially with my next project which will have some wide exterior night shots... we'll see how that works.

My questions are then limited to Nikons and the HVX using the faster adapters which seem to lose about 1/3 to 1/2 stops themselves.

If I want to cover 28 though 150-ish then I though the only way to do that is to get two high quality zooms and match the F stops like you suggested earlier. It seems having primes would be a great addition no matter what especially for the specialty lenses. I think getting an excellent super wide would be great.

Still I find having all lengths available from the get-go will be a tremendous plus, especially since I will never zoom other than a once in a blue moon imperceptible zoom on a push. Also, I plan on getting Siniarch's on-camera LCD which will allow me to get perfect focus reliably time and time again at any length, and hopefully give me a good idea of the lens behaviour at each length. Add to that not having to switch lenses that often and I am sold!

But knowing as much as I know about lenses it is a scary thing to be responsible for putting together a two lens kit that you'll probably depend on for a long time.

So...

I am wondering if the 2.8f Nikon Zooms will be fast enough at the higher focal lengths that I am so fond of for those low light shots.

Are these the combo I am looking for? Should I consider other combinations? If so, which?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169589-GREY/Nikon_1961_Zoom_W_A_Telephoto_AF_S_Zoom.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-GREY/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html

or maybe this cheaper long one
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-GREY/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html

Sorry if those are dumb suggestions...
Thanks Timur and all of you who posted! I am learning a lot.

TimurCivan

12-28-2007, 01:14 AM

i like the SGpro, Letus EX and the Go35pro.

USLatin

12-28-2007, 11:43 AM

What about the lenses I posted Timur? And why not the Brevis?

I would really love to hear what you guys have to say about the 2.8f zooms... if they are over-kill and which to get instead or otherwise.

TimurCivan

12-28-2007, 12:05 PM

i know for a fact the 80-200 2.8 is supposed to be the sharpest lens around.... that and the canon L series 85mm F1.2.....

puredrifting

12-28-2007, 12:23 PM

In my experience, the Nikon 50mm 1.8 is one of the cheapest and sharpest lenses Nikon has ever made. Some other very sharp Nikons...

50mm 1.4 AIS
85mm 1.4 D
105mm 2.8 Micro NonVR D
180mm 2.8
200mm 2.0

In my 35 years of Nikon experience, I have never used a truly razor sharp zoom. Primes look better and are sharper, period. It's simple budet allocation. Primes are simpler design, fewer elements, have better coatings and glass quality. Zooms can look decent but since you are already 'dumbing down' your image by using 35mm still lenses versus true cinema lenses, why not get the best image you can? Zooms are for the lazy in most situations. Plus they are slower, there are no f1. anything zooms in Nikon.

I own the 12-24 Tokina F4, the Nikon 18-200 VR, 28mm 28 D, 50mm 1.8 D, 85mm 1.4 AIS, 50mm 1.4 AIS and the 105mm 2.8 Micro D. No comparsion between the zooms and the primes, I can tell instantly when viewing images on a computer or printed.

Just my experience, YMMV

Dan

TimurCivan

12-28-2007, 12:25 PM

yea my 5d's images seem a bit soft. i think its cause of the Zoom lens. i wanna rent a nice prime and see if theres a diffrence.

USLatin

12-28-2007, 05:04 PM

USLatin

12-28-2007, 05:38 PM

I am not so sure I could be hurt much by the amount of softening that those zooms I listed might add... I am still considering the Zooms. I want to check them out... maybe I can pick a pair up and test it for a few days...

Maybe get the 80-200 2.8f instead of the 70-200mm 2.8f since Timur hears it might be the sharpest... but which would be the sharpest for the short end Timur?

USLatin

12-28-2007, 05:48 PM

Timur do you mean this 80mm to 200mm:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-GREY/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html

It sounds VERY promising based on the reviews and about $600 cheaper!!!

:crossing fingers: I hope that's the one you like... and if so... which one for the low end?

puredrifting

12-28-2007, 06:27 PM

so I guess I really can't get a Zoom unless I plan to spend several thousands on each and probably will need "better" brands. Not that Nikon is bad by any means, but I'd probably have to go with lenses designed for film... and a MUCH bigger budget.

Ok... so I am guessing I will most likely end up with a set of primes... so...

When I look at Nikons... which are the types I can rely on? There seems to be different types which are differentiated by the letters such as "VR"... which are good and which aren't (hope it is that simple :))

And how does Pure's list plus a 28mm sound?

28mm (which?)
50mm 1.4 AIS
85mm 1.4 D
105mm 2.8 Micro NonVR D
180mm 2.8
200mm 2.0

What is that gonna cost me?

Hi U.S.:

I would consider something better than Nikons 28mm 2.8 on the wide end. I have one and it's not that great. This is better and not outrageously expensive http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36905-GREY/Nikon_1415_Super_Wide_Angle_20mm.html

50mm 1.4 AIS - I scored one in really good condition on Ebay for $185.00
85mm 1.4 AIS or D - these are expensive, around $600.00 to $1,000.00 usually, that's why I went for the 85mm 1.8 AIS - mint used for $185.00
105mm 2.8 D Micro - When they come on the market, they are around $500.00 to $600.00
180mm 2.8D - $659.00
200mm 2.0D - $3,789.00

Zooms are not the sharpest at all but can be useful. I only shoot with primes on my HVX though.

Dan

dougspice

12-28-2007, 07:00 PM

Zooms are not the sharpest at all but can be useful. I only shoot with primes on my HVX though.

That's a pretty misleading statement. It depends entirely on the quality of the glass. I have two AF-S zooms which are substantially sharper than most of the static glass that they replace. On an HVX, in any case, the lens' sharpness is probably not the limiting factor (unless you're shooting with a $50 Tokina or Tamron or whatever).

USLatin

12-28-2007, 09:35 PM

I am quite fixated on getting good enough zooms for the speed of production you can get out of them... I am used to working on many shows that try to keep 40-200mm panavision lenses on just for the time saved between setups... move the dolly set the lenght, focus, shoot...
Being a small company I am trying to set us up like these "smaller budget" shows to, like them, stay nimble as possibly so as to get the most our of each permit we pay for. If there is any way that I can get zooms and get an excellent film look out of the HVX, then I will do anything in my power to set myself up that way...

So I am not giving up on zooms just yet. But I think I will look at that 20mm prime and other specific primes if I can later on increase my "gunrack" :D

So I am quite exited about the long zoom Timur suggested and I think I might have found it's brother:

80-200mm 2.8f
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=124669&is=GREY

35-70mm 2.8f
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=36956&is=GREY
It sounds like it might not be equally sharp below 4f but maybe for only 1920 x 1080 images that mark can be lowered a bit and there for get quite close to 2.8f?
The only problem I might have is getting a good match to the 80-200mm which is supposed to be super sharp... what I need is for my wide stuff to look identical to my long stuff so as not to get a horrible jump in my cuts. I am praying I will hear good stuff about it or otherwise be pointed to something that will match the long one...

Later I might look at:

20mm 2.8f
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=36905&is=GREY

Hey PureDrifting, thanks for your posts man! Very helpful. Doug, I agree but I think Pure is trying to make sure I understand about lenses since I am just now reading up on them. Thank you too for your help, you guys are helping me a ton.

puredrifting

12-28-2007, 11:20 PM

That's a pretty misleading statement. It depends entirely on the quality of the glass. I have two AF-S zooms which are substantially sharper than most of the static glass that they replace. On an HVX, in any case, the lens' sharpness is probably not the limiting factor (unless you're shooting with a $50 Tokina or Tamron or whatever).

Hi Doug:

Not trying to mislead anyone, that's my experience after shooting with hundreds of Nikons lenses for the past 35 years. Yes, I have shot with the 80-200 and the 70-200 2.8, yes, they look decent but they are not as sharp as my 105mm 2.8 or my 85mm 1.8 or my 50mm 1.4 Ai-S. The 35-70 or 24-120? Not even close. Not to say that they cannot make great images, of course they can. It's all up to the artist to create great images and any of these lenses are technically capable of creating outstanding imagery.

Talk to an optical engineer and they will tell you the same, it all has to do with how deisgn and manufacturing budgets have to be allocated. When you get into cine lenses, I think that this basic rule in theory doesn't change but you do get into amazing Cooke, Zeiss and Panavision optics that are not nearly as constrained by budgets. Sure, a Cooke 10-100 looks amazing as do the Panavision 10:1 and 11:1 zooms. But we are then talking lenses that cost in the neighborhoods of $50,000.00 to $150,000.00. That is a whole different playing field where the engineers and designers are not constrained by size, weight and budget, they can pretty much do whatever needs to be done to make the optics work perfectly.

Versus trying to design consumer and professional still lenses, especially those in the sub-$1,750.00 range. Different results. Also, the main reason I use primes are so that I can use a smaller lighting package. Even a fast 2.8 zoom requires considerably more light than a 1.4 or 1.2 prime when shooting interiors with an already slow camera like the HVX.

If you have two lenses, both sell for $1,000.00 new. One is a prime that has four elements on two groups and one is a zoom that has thirteen elements in ten groups, which lens is more likely to have better pure optical quality?

I am sure that if U.S. has his heart set on zooms, he will buy them, nothing I say or you say will stop him from doing that, I just wanted to offer my experience and observations.

That's why we are all here for, right? To trade experiences and anecdotes? Definitely not here to mislead anyone.

Best,

Dan

USLatin

12-29-2007, 12:42 AM

Yes Dan, and we thank you for it. I really need to hear things like that to get a good grasp of the kit I am getting. I need to know what's out there and by posting detailed experiences and opinions I feel ten times more aware and therefor prepared for the job. And also, thanks to you Doug for keeping the conversation going. This way I also hear more about it and get an even better idea of the playing field. I am deeply grateful for all the help I get from users like you guys :thumbsup:

I think I will work on getting better glass as we all probably will, and then I will start building some primes for lower light situations or the sharpest image possible. Right now I am searching for that film look, and I hope these zooms together with the Brevis using the CF1Le element will not be over-shooting it (praying!). I might be ale to later get a cleaner GG if I need to shoot more more a sharp look... and of course if I get a nice little set of primes that will help an other bit too...

I m worried about the 35mm - 70mm 2.8f though... I have not heard anything about it other than from the reviews on B&H... it seems some might find it a bit soft at 2.8f, but probably someone shooting 5MP or higher... that's 3 million pixels less than 1080p... or to put it in better perspective: I'd be shooting an image only 40% as detailed... that's IF he is shooting 5MP... he might be shooting smaller but I seriously doubt that... and chances are he might be shooting a bit bigger than that...

:takes a deep breath:

Well... if anyone knows where to find more info regarding these lenses PLEASE let me know.

And please keep adding to the topic! There is SO much I don't know about optics!! It hurts to admit it.

se7en47

02-07-2008, 03:23 PM

Anyone have any experience using the Canon FD 1.8 50mm with the SGPro adaptor on an HVX-200? I've been using the HVX with a rented minipro35 but I have an opportunity to buy an SGPro with the Canon lens...

tatsuo

02-08-2008, 06:32 AM

I have heard that it is quite a good combo, i think marco on the sgpro website has some footage with the combo also you will be able to see other footage with the sgpro on there. Also Timur shoots with an sgpro and hvx200 so you should search for him here

musicprogirl

02-25-2008, 02:04 AM

Thank You so much!
You have no idea how much this helps make sense of an insane situation.
Now I finally feel headed in the right direction.
Thanks again

musicprogirl

02-25-2008, 02:04 AM

Your reel is gorgeous!
Major Kudos!

deankeo

02-27-2008, 06:14 AM

I have one question that I've been wanting to ask about lens, is it better to get a larger diametre of the front of the lens (that is the filter diametre area) say 72mm as to a 52mm? would it mean that the larger lens lets more light in incomparison to a smaller one despite the f-stop is the same?

DePalmoNewMedia

05-22-2008, 12:23 PM

The mm size of the lens determines how Wide or Telephoto the shot is going to be. If you want a wider angle shot then you would go with say a 28mm lens. If you desire a more telephoto angle (closeup) then something in likes of 135mm and up would suit you. When using a 35mm adapter it's important to keep in mind that a collection of lenses with different (mm) is ideal when shooting several different compositions requiring different focal lengths. In regards to f-stop I personally shell out money for the fastest (quality) lens I can find as all 35mm adapters lose light and pulling off certain shots requires alot more lighting. Hope this semi makes sense lol

Lenilenapi

05-23-2008, 01:20 AM

deanko,
I don't think it matters. It is probably the case that larger lenses do let in more light, but I wouldn't worry about it from that perspective - go by the f stop.

BTW - DePalmo above seems to have missed that your queston was about the front element size not the optical length of the lens in mms.

- Lenny Levy

bvalente

05-23-2008, 08:09 AM

Deankeo

Lenny is correct - the size of the front of the lens is not an indicator of the speed of the lens (i.e., the amount of light it lets in). For that you'll want to look at the maximum f-stop spec of the lens.

Generally speaking, for lenses of the same maximum f-stop, telephoto lenses will tend to be physically larger on the front than shorter lenses (take a look at the size of a 30mm f2.8 compared with an 85mm f2.8 - the 300 is huge!)

For 35mm adapters the front element size is really not an important factor in lens selection

Brian

Dingles

06-16-2008, 05:13 PM

Here are a few sites that have some nice info about adapters

http://35mmadapter.blogspot.com/

http://www.squidoo.com/35mm

Timw1889

07-17-2008, 12:03 PM

In an earlier post it was mentioned that with Canon FD lenses, you need to perform a hack to jam the aperture lock so that you can manually control the aperture.

Was I interpreting this correctly?

Does this mean that straight out of the box, I can't control aperture on the Canon FD when connected to the SGPro?

Sorry if this a n00b question, I'm just getting into lenses and stuff, and have spend the past couple weeks doing research. Still learning xD

bvalente

07-18-2008, 08:59 AM

That is true - FD lenses (and FL lenses) out of the box need to have their aperture pin lodged in the "open" position. It's quite simple though.

Brian

martindeman

07-25-2008, 03:56 AM

I am a total Noob on the 35mm lens adaptor for the hvx200. So this question is going to sound stupid to the most of you :). But my boss was curious if it is possible to mount Pro 35 mm film lenses to any adapter for the hvx? In other words: can you use the same lenses on these adaptors as you would use on the RED one for example?

Thanks! Martin

bvalente

07-26-2008, 09:01 AM

Not a stupid question at all. Yes, you can mount cinema lenses (aka 'motion picture lenses' aka 'academy 35mm lenses') provided the adapter has a PL mount.

PL (for "positive lock") mount is pretty much the standard lens mount for these types of lenses, though there are other mounting options available.

Hope that helps

Brian

tommetass

12-03-2008, 01:58 PM

Hey Timur. Could you help me out a little?

I'm shooting a shortfilm soon and we're discussing this one perticular scene right now.

It's a dolly shot..
A "half-total" of a girl sitting and reading a magazine and to a real close-up of her eyes... (slow mo of course :P )

Anyway.. what I'm wondering is this:

What kind of lens would be best suited for this scene?

I mean... Right now I only have a 35mm Canon FD and a Nikon 50mm..

I was maybe thinking of a nikon 70-210mm f4.0 with macro.

Do I need macro to get a good close-up like that?

I can probably show you a picture of "what kind of close-up" I mean..

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/24491/1228337865.jpg

TimurCivan

12-03-2008, 02:23 PM

emmm you may be able to get away with it with the 35mm that focuses pretty close.

tommetass

12-03-2008, 03:05 PM

emmm you may be able to get away with it with the 35mm that focuses pretty close.

aah.. well that picture might not have been exaclty like what I meant.. sorry bad example..

hmm.. I'm thinking a little closer than that..

"the closest my canon lens comes (see attatchment)"

TimurCivan

12-03-2008, 03:19 PM

try the macro then. Thats all i can think of without seeing the lens for myself. the MAcro should give you what you want.

tommetass

12-03-2008, 03:30 PM

It was a canon fd lens actually .. that 70-210mm macro lens.. it was canon, not nikon :P

but thanks:)

I think I might try it..

I found it at ebay for 50 dollars.. worth a try!

djinjis

12-11-2008, 01:55 PM

hi.

28 F2.8 AI (52) FILTER RING DAMAGE 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS WIDE ANGLE LENS

the filter ring damage how affects the use of the lens?

what means:AI, AIS, NON AI, non mfg?

MitchLewis

12-19-2008, 07:12 AM

what means:AI, AIS, NON AI, non mfg?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

djinjis

12-19-2008, 09:08 AM

thanks

luke e

12-26-2008, 12:56 PM

So I understand what 35mm adaptors do and I understand the main concepts of your main post, but i have a few questions.

When you talk about what apertures certain lenses shoot at, what exactly do you mean? Like I understand the effects of aperture change, but if a lens has an aperture range of say F3.5 to F1.8 is this bad? I just made up numbers but what exactly does it mean to have a range of apertures to shoot on? Like, does this mean that if you are using an hvx200 and you turn it on, and the 28mm lens is on, you can only have the hvx's aperture said anywhere in the range of the 28mm's aperture? Or is that limit just a guideline stating how the lens focuses according to a specific aperture?

like in your statement:
"These lenses tend to come with very limited apetures, F2.8 is a Bright one, F3.5 is more normal. Now another problem, is that when you zoom in, the Apeture rating is lower, like in the DVX, at wide its F1.6, but at Zoom its at F2.8. This means your apeture can drop as low as F5.6 at full telephoto. Now thats not very bright, so if youre using it around dusk, or indoors it can be VERY challenging to get a good picture out of it."

could you explain what this is saying?
This is how I am trying to interpret it:
When you are at full tele using your short zoom lens you can only keep focus with the DVX's aperter is F5.6 or higher? like on a stock zoom lens for my nikon DSLR there are apertures listed ont then lens itself, and they change when I focus? what do those mean?

I just am confused about the lens aspects and their apertures when it comes to 35mm adapters.

mvansomeren

12-26-2008, 01:38 PM

.....
I just am confused about the lens aspects and their apertures when it comes to 35mm adapters.

In simple terms, the "F" stop is a measurement of how much light the lens loses. The smaller the number, the less light it will lose. Another way to look at it is that a lower number lets in more light. Either way, its imporant, not so much to the focus, but to the brightness of the image. The 35mm adapter loses some light...usually from .5 to 2 stops depending upon the adapters. Add to that the amount of light the lens loses and suddenly, you might have a problem seeing the image.

In the paragraph that you quoted, many telephoto lenses lose more light the more you zoom in. So, it may have a begining apeture of f3.5 when it's set to wide angle, and go all the way to f5.6 when fully zoomed in. Constant apeture zoom lenses are able to maintain one f stop through the entire range of zooming.

When you're outdoors in sunlight, this won't cause you much grief, but when it's getting dark or you're inside, you'll need to add lights to get a good shot.

For this reason, people try to get lenses that have small f stops. A 50mm lens, for example, may come with maximum apetures of: f1.4, f1.8, f2. The f1.4 is the better choice, in general. And, the lower fstops usually means more expensive, as well.

MitchLewis

12-26-2008, 02:12 PM

35mm lenses (Nikon for example) are either a "prime" lens, which means you can zoom with it, it's just a fixed lens (ex: 28mm, 50mm, 85mm, etc...).

35mm lenses also come in a variety of apertures. For example an expensive 50mm "prime" lens may be available with an f-stop that opens as wide as f/1.2, but the cheaper ones may only open to f/1.8.

35mm lenses are also available as zoom lenses. This means you might be able change the focal length from say 80mm to 200mm. KEY POINT: But on the cheaper zoom lenses the f-stop will change when you zoom in. It might go from f/3.5 at 80mm to f/5.5 at 200mm....or something like that. Where as Nikon makse an expensive 80-200mm lens where you can use f/2.8 no matter if your at 80mm or 200mm. Because the low f/2.8 can be used at both 80mm and 200mm (and everywhere in between) it makes the lens much "brighter" for shooting in dark situations.

MitchLewis

12-26-2008, 02:12 PM

mvansomeren beat me to it! ;)

mvansomeren

12-26-2008, 02:38 PM

I type fast:2vrolijk_08:

luke e

12-26-2008, 07:01 PM

In simple terms, the "F" stop is a measurement of how much light the lens loses. The smaller the number, the less light it will lose. Another way to look at it is that a lower number lets in more light. Either way, its imporant, not so much to the focus, but to the brightness of the image. The 35mm adapter loses some light...usually from .5 to 2 stops depending upon the adapters. Add to that the amount of light the lens loses and suddenly, you might have a problem seeing the image.

In the paragraph that you quoted, many telephoto lenses lose more light the more you zoom in. So, it may have a begining apeture of f3.5 when it's set to wide angle, and go all the way to f5.6 when fully zoomed in. Constant apeture zoom lenses are able to maintain one f stop through the entire range of zooming.

When you're outdoors in sunlight, this won't cause you much grief, but when it's getting dark or you're inside, you'll need to add lights to get a good shot.

For this reason, people try to get lenses that have small f stops. A 50mm lens, for example, may come with maximum apetures of: f1.4, f1.8, f2. The f1.4 is the better choice, in general. And, the lower fstops usually means more expensive, as well.
I understand what aperture is and how it effects the image. I just don't understand what it means when you say the maximum aperture is f1.4. Like does that mean the lens won't focus if you open up the aperture any more?

This sentence confuses me: "So, it may have a begining apeture of f3.5 when it's set to wide angle, and go all the way to f5.6 when fully zoomed in."

What is the beginning aperture? are you saying that when it's fully wide angled, zoomed all the way out, you have a maximum aperture of 3.5? How does the aperture change automatically when it zooms in? This is what I don't understand? Are you just saying that it will have to open it up to f5.6 when you zoom in because it loses that much light from the aperture that is needed with the lens zoomed all the way out?

edit:

KEY POINT: But on the cheaper zoom lenses the f-stop will change when you zoom in. It might go from f/3.5 at 80mm to f/5.5 at 200mm....or something like that.

what do you mean it will change? I am thinking about this as someone who has shot only digital video[no adapters]. like is there an aperture on the lens along with the aperture in my dvx? That is what I don't understand.

davide

12-26-2008, 07:35 PM

I understand what aperture is and how it effects the image. I just don't understand what it means when you say the maximum aperture is f1.4. Like does that mean the lens won't focus if you open up the aperture any more?

This sentence confuses me: "So, it may have a begining apeture of f3.5 when it's set to wide angle, and go all the way to f5.6 when fully zoomed in."

What is the beginning aperture? are you saying that when it's fully wide angled, zoomed all the way out, you have a maximum aperture of 3.5? How does the aperture change automatically when it zooms in? This is what I don't understand? Are you just saying that it will have to open it up to f5.6 when you zoom in because it loses that much light from the aperture that is needed with the lens zoomed all the way out?

edit:

what do you mean it will change? I am thinking about this as someone who has shot only digital video[no adapters]. like is there an aperture on the lens along with the aperture in my dvx? That is what I don't understand.

Hi Luke,

Maximum aperture means that you can't physically open up the aperture anymore, that's as wide as it is going to get. Minimum aperture is when you can't physically make the aperture any smaller. At 1:25 of this video you can see the host opening and closing the aperture of the lens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8myC4-bhAY.

For some zoom (probably most) lenses the maximum aperture changes as you zoom in from wide to telephoto. I am not physically sure of why this is. It may have something to do with the fact that f-stop is a result of aperture and focal length so as the focal length changes the f-stop goes down for a given aperture width. The important thing to know is that it does happen. So if you're on a zoom lens at its widest setting and its widest aperture and you zoom in the picture is going to get darker.

What digital camera do you have because this happens on most digital cameras as well. On the DVX100 the maximum aperture is about 1.7, but if you zoom in to the full telephoto you'll lose about a stop of light. Try setting up your digital camera by zooming out and opening up the aperture all the way. Then, with an eye on the LCD screen, zoom in to the max telephoto. If the image gets any darker then your zoom lens ramps aperture as it zooms in to telephoto.

davide

MitchLewis

12-26-2008, 08:40 PM

Dang! Beat me to it again! :)

TimurCivan

12-26-2008, 09:04 PM

ok...lets start with what apeture is.

Its the ratio of the focal length to the width of the elements in the glass.

For example. a 50mm lens with a focal length of 50mm. Its internal build is a piece of glass that 50mm across. thats a F1.0 ( theoretically)

45mm and its something like a F1.2... 40mm F1.4..... Thats its maximum apeture. ITs the widest the glass can physically be. ( now its not that simple, and there are other factors, but this is the easiest way to understand it...) Esentially every time the apeture drops a stop, the area of its maximum opening is reduced by half.

Now imagine a lens thats a 200mm ... Imagine a lens thats 200 mm wide... thats HUGE. hence why most 200mm lenses are usually a F2.8 or about 50mm wide. They do make F2.0 200mm lenses but they cost 2500$.....

Now why a Zoom lens loses "stop" when ou zoom in is that the realtive maximum apeture of it at wide angle, lets say 35mm-105 Zoom. At 35mm the opening in proportion to its widest peice of glass is 20mm. Thats like a 2.8 for arguments sake. But when the Focal length becomes 105mm when you extend the lens out to zoom in, that same 20mm opening is proportionally a F5.6 to a 105mm lens.

get it?

mvansomeren

12-26-2008, 09:13 PM

In addition to what davide said...

I understand what aperture is and how it effects the image. I just don't understand what it means when you say the maximum aperture is f1.4. Like does that mean the lens won't focus if you open up the aperture any more?

I think you may be associating apeture with focus. It's true that if you open a lens up to the lowest f stop (maxium), let's assume it happens to be f1.4 on a particular lens, the image will tend to be a little "soft". And, as you stop-down the lens (close down the apeture) to say f4, the image will be slightly sharper. That said, it's important that you understand that apeture is directly related to the brightness of an image, not focus.

Are you just saying that it will have to open it up to f5.6 when you zoom in because it loses that much light from the aperture that is needed with the lens zoomed all the way out?

Actually, when you move from f3.5 to f5.6 you are closing the lens down, not opening it up.

Regardless of how it happens (nice explanation, Timur), look at it this way. If you have a zoom lens and set it's apeture to maxium, let's say on this lens it's f3.5 and the lens is set to the widest angle.... if you look through the lens, the image will be a certain brightness. As you start to zoom in, the image will get darker. so when you're fully zoomed in, even though your apeture is physically set to f3.5, the brightness of the picture will be as if it was set to f5.6. Since you are already set to the maxium apeture of f3.5, the only way you can compensate is to add more lights.

You can purchase zoom lenes that have constant apeture. These lenses keep the image the same brightness throughout the entire zoom range.

Oh, by the way, if you want to try this on your camera as davide suggested, make sure you set your camera to manual mode so the camera doesn't automatically compensate and try to keep the picture a certain brightness.

Dionisio

12-26-2008, 10:40 PM

Thanks a lot Tim,

Very appreciated info.
Saludos,

luke e

12-27-2008, 12:15 AM

ok, I may be thinking about things completely wrong. let us see..

I'm going to simply state what I understand and what is confusing me.

"It's true that if you open a lens up to the lowest f stop (maxium), let's assume it happens to be f1.4 on a particular lens, the image will tend to be a little "soft". And, as you stop-down the lens (close down the apeture) to say f4, the image will be slightly sharper. That said, it's important that you understand that apeture is directly related to the brightness of an image, not focus. "

I understand this completely. the whole concept and effect of aperture seems to be clear to me, I understand what it means and what it does to the image.

what i dont understand is the difference of aperture[same as exposure correct?] of my digital camcorder or of a 35mm adapter rig..

"Maximum aperture means that you can't physically open up the aperture anymore, that's as wide as it is going to get. Minimum aperture is when you can't physically make the aperture any smaller."

This makes complete sense to me, I understand what max and min aperture mean. the thing is, I think about this things from a standpoint of someone who has no experience with anything but digital. The thing I don't understand is pertaining to the 35mm options of video. So:

I have used a dvx and I know my way around the camera fairly well.
when you attach a 35mm adapter to the front of it, and you are setting up to shoot, how are you setting the aperture? Is there a dial on the 35mm lens that effects it's brightness? Because what I would think is that you set the aperture via exposure dial on the dvx. Now I know that could be the completely wrong thing to do but I'm trying to explain my standpoint. when you are opening the aperture on the lens like shown in that youtube video, what exactly will happen if the lens is attached to a 35mm adapter on a dvx100? will it affect the brightness of the image? Or do you change the exposure on the dvx?

so in a nutshell here is what I don't understand:

I don't understand exactly how you set the focus AND aperture of a 35mm lens when on my little experience of my d70, you change the aperture in camera and all that I am changing with my lens is the focus.

So it would be great if someone could explain to me step by step how they get the settings right if they are using a 35mm adapter rig with say a 50mm lens. Do you set exposure in camera or on the lens? PHYSICALLY SPEAKING, how is the focus different than aperture[i know how each of them effect the image]

I am really confused guys so thanks a bunch for talking me through this stuff. :dankk2:

TimurCivan

12-27-2008, 12:30 AM

well the beauty of the 35 adapter system is this. the 35mm lens, controls what the Video camera sees. if you are out doors and the amount of light is no worry, you can set the exposur with either the 35mm lens, or the HVX.

I prefer to stop down the 35mm lens first, then the HVX.

Shooter

12-27-2008, 01:11 AM

I am real curious Tim...why do it that way?

Surely one needs to set the HVX aperture to minimise the risk of focussing the adapter screen grain and to optimise the sensitivity of the sensor chip first.

Then treat the 35mm lens as one would if there were no other devices in the light path. ie 35mm lens directly mounted to the camera sans DOF Adapter.

TimurCivan

12-27-2008, 01:48 AM

you get better optical performance out of a stopped down 35mm lens. so long as you are not underexposing what the HVX can recieve at wide open on the HVX iris.... Stop down the 35mm glass to get the best performance there.

SGpro's are less sensitive to GG grain than letus adapter, or brevis adapters. though the light penalty is higher in exchance.

Stropping down up front has never been a problem for me.

bluesgeek

12-27-2008, 05:17 AM

For narrower DOF, decrease exposure in the camera while keeping the SLR lens more open (but stop the lens down just a bit because lenses are not as sharp when wide open). For wider DOF, keep the camera exposure open and stop down the lens more. Yes?

Here's a good DOF tutorial. (http://snodart.com/tutorials.php)

Kit_L

12-29-2008, 12:28 AM

Timur, great thread, but no one has mentioned that the latest Nikkor "G" lenses cannot be used as you describe, because they do not have an iris ring (on DSLRs, controlled electronically).

As well, stopping down a 35mm lens has limits, too; depending on the lens, stopping down more than ƒ11 can render the final image soft. Best if you can use the sweet spot of the lens and keep the aperture there in bright light by using an ND filter.

Dan, you wrote:

50mm 1.4 AIS - I scored one in really good condition on Ebay for $185.00
85mm 1.4 AIS or D - these are expensive, around $600.00 to $1,000.00 usually, that's why I went for the 85mm 1.8 AIS - mint used for $185.00
105mm 2.8 D Micro - When they come on the market, they are around $500.00 to $600.00
180mm 2.8D - $659.00
200mm 2.0D - $3,789.00

If I can just add a few remarks (also with ~35 year's shooting stills with pretty much all maker's glass!):

The Nikon 50/1.4 is just one of the great lenses, and great value for money. I also have the Zeiss ZF (Nikon mount version) of the 50/2 Makro-Planar; this is razor sharp wide open, and sharper at ƒ2 than the Nikon is at the same aperture, as well as having an absolutely flat field. The long throw of the focussing helicoid is a great blessing here too in some circumstances, too, but much more expensive, of course.

The 85/1.8 Nikkor is similarly outstanding value, and is sharp wide open. I have had two copies of the ƒ1,4 version, and each time sell them to buy the ƒ1.8 version. DOF is so thin at ƒ1.4 that missing the precise point of focus is easy. As an example, if making a head and shoulders image front on, at ƒ2.8 the top of the ears will be very soft---my preference at this distance is to shoot at ƒ4. The point? The ƒ1.8 version, at half the weight and similar sharpness, is the better lens for most people, and will be so in the context of the adapter/video camera application being discussed here.

The 105/2.8 Nikkor is a great lens; the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar is a *legend* of a lens, and is the best 35mm lens I have ever owned. The Out Of Focus (OOF, or 'bokeh') areas on this lens are truly painterly, but if you have the 85, you may not need it.

I would add just two lenses to your list: the humble Nikkor 35/2 (again, a good copy is sharp wide open, sharper at ƒ2,8 and very very sharp at ƒ4), and the Zeiss 28/2 Distagon---IMHO, better than any Nikkor 28 made, so far.

Re. zooms: a good copy of the 37-70/2.8 Nikkor is very sharp at ƒ4---this can be enough in some circumstances. The 80-200/2.8 I have shot wide open for brochure shots for John Deere many times, so will be fine on the adapter, IMHO. Similarly good copies of the 28-105/3.5-4.5 and a spectacular copy of the 24-85/3.5-4.5, but might be considered too slow by many here, but the 28-85 lives on my D700.

I agree, though, that a good prime usually looks better than the same focal length in a zoom---*except* for the 14-24/2.8: that is in a league of its own. Pity it's a G mount. Cheers, kl

As I work out how I am going to pay for a 35mm adapter for my HMC150, I am glad I still have most of my best lenses! Cheers all

ChrisHurn

02-08-2009, 06:24 PM

I'm very new to this, thanks for the posts, but just to clarify something. I'm looking at the Letus35 extreme and I notice there are different kinds of mounts, say I was to get a Nikkon AI mount, does this mean I can only use Nikkon Lenses? And what does the AI mean? Cheers. I apologize for the noob question, but I want to be double sure since the lens mounts are about $100 each.

MitchLewis

02-08-2009, 07:15 PM

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

Luis_

02-10-2009, 02:20 PM

All in all, a proper 35adapter setup can cost you almost $4,500. Thats nearly as much as an HVX200!

I think people need to be aware of the "hidden" costs associated with the 35 system. Suddenly, film starts seeming cheaper and cheaper........ :D

All my best hope this was helpfull!

-Timur

I'm not planning to make movies any time soon but I will shoot music videos and odds and ends like weddings and stuff like that.

I have the HVX200A.
I have a budget of $2,000 right now.
Can I get any kind of decent setup with that?
or am I going to have to shoot a few more sweet sixteens to get there? http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/icons/icon6.gif

USLatin

02-10-2009, 05:40 PM

Is there anyone in the Northern Minnesota area with a 35mm rig? If so please PM me!
I hope you guys don't mind me hacking a post here, and I apologize for it, but we need to find a few pieces we are missing to make a production happen at the end of the month and I would love to find someone out of the people posting on this thread. Maybe we get lucky and shoot on a Blade :D

BTW, I just saw Leo's rig on the show-off thread and man... what a sexy rig... :Drogar-Love(DBG):

I hope the footy will be rolling in soon. hint hint

bvalente

02-11-2009, 09:17 AM

Chris - "AI" is basically the technology that allowed the lens and camera to "talk" to each other so the camera could shoot in modes like Aperture priority. For 35mm adapters, it doesn't make any difference since there isn't any lens-camera communication (the LiveLens mount is an exception, but that relates to Canon EF lenses)

Luis - you may consider the newly announced Redrock M2 Encore Bundle: $1995 for a complete setup including baseplate, rods, and support. The only thing you need to add are lenses.

Brian

Luis_

02-27-2009, 05:38 PM

Does anyone know where I can find information on what the difference is between a 35mm lens to a............. let's say a............. 300mm? I'm a newbie learning lenses and currently in the market looking for something decent that won't break my pocket.

Your help is appreciated, thanks,
Luis

MitchLewis

02-27-2009, 10:06 PM

14mm = extremely wide
28mm = wide
35mm = sort of wide
50mm = normal (piece of glass)
85mm = a bit of a telephoto (also good for portraits)
100mm = a bit more telephoto (portraits)
200mm = telephoto
300mm = even more telephoto
800mm = extreme telephoto (wildlife photography)

If you want more info than that, check out the link on post #218

Luis_

02-27-2009, 10:14 PM

Luis_

03-08-2009, 08:00 PM

Ok, here I go again. But this is a valid question I promise. :violin:

I just read all 23 pages of this thread and I can actually say I know a whole lot about lenses now, or at least a whole lot more than I knew 23 pages ago!
So I'm going out to celebrate! :beer::dankk2:

My question is... I just ordered a 50mm f1.4 Manual Focus Nikon lens but after I ordered it I'm hoping I ordered it correctly because in all 23 pages of this post no-one really got into the topic of getting lenses of "Manual Focus" or "Auto Focus"

So is it ok that I ordered the "MF" lens? Would you guys recommend that for a first time starter lens? It's for an M2e, and would it be ok to order primes that are AF?

Basically, what is your experience of working with manual focus versus autofocus lenses? (specially if you have an M2)

(I’m so excited I know what a prime lens is now :2vrolijk_08::D)

Also.....
luke e,

I think I have to beat this one up just a little bit more...:kali::crybaby:

I don't think that there was ever a super clear answer as to why the lenses loose light as the zoom changes but in experimenting with my HVX200A I am going to assume (and this makes sense to me) that the reason the f-stop increases (or you receive less light in the camera or the focusing GG for this case) is not because the Aperture is gradually closing but because the lens pulls deeper into the barrel just like walking backwards through an open door into a dark room from a room that is normally lit.

So if the lens is in there deeper further away from the front first piece of glass (and further away from it inside the barrel) on the camera (or in this case the lens) then it will receive less light.
If I'm confused about this can someone clarify?

I also was thinking to have this cleared up for future readers and researchers as my self.

I want to sincerely thank everyone on this thread.
It is great knowledge and I appreciate it.
Thanks!

:dankk2:

Luis.

puredrifting

03-08-2009, 08:11 PM

Luis:

In Nikon at least, the manual focus lenses, mostly AI and AIS are what you will find on the market, are far superior in mechanical and optical quality as compared to the auto focus lenses. It works out great for us because most still shooters think that they MUST use auto focus lenses now because they are the norm for modern autofocus cameras.

I own ten Nikon lenses and my AI 50mm 1.4 and my AIS 85mm 1.8 are so superior mechanically to all of my D and AFS auto focus lenses, it is amazing. It makes sense. Auto focus lenses usually have sucky manual focusing mechanisms because few shooters manually focus with them.

Manual focus all of the way for any 35mm adapter usage.

Dan

Luis_

03-08-2009, 09:12 PM

I just got more excited about receiving my lens!
Thanks! Dan.

Luis

Ken Steadman

03-12-2009, 01:48 PM

This is not exactly a lens question but its pretty closely related.

I have ordered my adapter but I am still waiting on shipment. Meanwhile I'm preparing with everything else but I'm not sure about a couple things primarily, dealing with filters. I know indoors I will be fighting for light but outdoors I would think I will need some ND filters so I can keep an open aperture in broad daylight. My camera has internal ND filters but I assume I need them on the 35mm lens before the GG not after the GG. On the assumption that the filter should be in front of the 35mm lens I have a 4X4 mattebox (holds 2 filters); in regular use how much ND is practically needed to maintain open apertures on a sunny day. I was intending on getting a .3 and a .6 so I could block either 1,2, or 3 stops.

Is this good?

Am I totally wrong and should I just use the internal cam ND filters?

Also since my 35mm lenses are all the same diameter should I just buy screw in filters? (I figured that it would be much quicker to use the mattebox 4X4 filters on location.)

Lastly, I always use a UV filters for protection on all my lenses should I remove these? is all this extra glass going to cost me appreciable light?

What is everyone else doing about filters?

MitchLewis

03-12-2009, 01:55 PM

You can use the internal cam ND filters. But supposedly (I don't understand why) you should use a matte box with filters on the front of your rig. But I know lots of people who use the internnal ND filters without issue.

I don't know about your other questions....sorry.

bvalente

03-13-2009, 11:10 AM

Ken

there is a "sunny 16" rule that says on a sunny day outdoors generally for ISO 100 you will be shooting at f16 for proper exposure (this is from the still photo world). so if you want to shoot close to wide open (you don't want to shoot completely wide open as it denegrates image quality)

Therefore you want to pull down the exposure by approximately 4-5 stops, so you'll want a couple of .6 ND filters or possibly a 4 stop ND filter

Also regarding internal ND filters, if you have a choice I'd recommend steering away from them. They can degrade the image, with results varying depending on the manufcacturer and camera. Grab a test chart and you can try it for yourself.

Hope that helps

Cheers

Brian

Ken Steadman

03-13-2009, 11:53 AM

Brian
I was thinking I was going to lose so many stops through the 35mm lens and the adapter that I wouldn't need so much ND. I'll go ahead get 2X .6 and 1X .3 to be safe.

Thanks Brian!

bvalente

03-14-2009, 05:34 AM

The best way to think about calculating how much ND you'll need is to factor in the adapter and the camera's own aperture into the overall ISO. video cameras are generally around ISO 320, and the sunny 16 rule is for ISO 100, so you have about 1.5 stops of play in there.

Cheers

Brian

xha8

04-04-2009, 10:54 AM

Hi,

I have a quick question here. I did try searching already but can't find it. Is that any different to use SLR vs. dSLR lens with 35mm lens adapter?

MitchLewis

04-04-2009, 11:53 AM

Hi,

I have a quick question here. I did try searching already but can't find it. Is that any different to use SLR vs. dSLR lens with 35mm lens adapter?

Yes, you have to be careful when buying lenses for a 35mm adaptor. (did you really do a search?) The key is to buy lenses that have both a manual focus ring (most due) AND a manual aperture ring. That leaves out most modern lenses except the expensive Zeis lenses. Most people choose Nikon lenses (or cinema lenses if you have a lot of money) because Nikon kept their manual controls longer than Canon did.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=51963

Another good site to learn about Nikon lenses is: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

Thanks to Red Rock's new M2 adaptor you can now use Canon lenses that DON'T have an aperture ring. (thanks Brian!!) It's a pretty trick setup. They've designed an electronic control to talk to the aperture adjustment. You'll always have to manually adjust both focus and aperture (this is true with all 35mm adaptors) but at least now you can buy modern Canon lenses and use them if you desire.

The used Nikon lenses I bought have both manual and automatic controls on them. So I can use them on our Letus Ultimate 35mm adaptor AND with a Nikon D700 or D3 still photo camera if I ever save my pennies up to purchase one. :)

You could do the same thing with the new Red Rock M2 adaptor and Canon lenses.

Luis_

04-04-2009, 01:08 PM

Awesome!

I needed that answer as well.

Thanks Mitch!

MitchLewis

04-04-2009, 01:38 PM

You welcome. I'm glad I can finally repay the favor for all the people who helped me back in November/December 2008. :)

xha8

04-04-2009, 04:55 PM

Thank you so much MitchLewis!

BTW, I really tried the search function here. Maybe it's because I'm not familiar to which keyword to use.

EDIT:
Let me clear if I'm fully understand. I can use all Nikon lens except for those G and DX series. Lenses made for dSLR are compatible with 35mm lens adapter as well but it's more expensive that the old AI series. So that's why most people prefer to use Nikkor AI.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstood.

j.nguyen

04-05-2009, 05:36 AM

There are a number of reasons why people prefer older lenses, the most important one is due to the fact that older lenses had the adjustable aperture rings on the outside of the lens itself. Nowadays digital slr's control aperture through digitally through the camera, thus you can only adjust the aperture of newer lenses when the lens is connected to a dslr.

hope that helps.

now for a sort of a personal question for you prime lens users. I currently have some nikon ai-s primes. For the price do you think canon fd lenses are a better value for their money? Are they known to have any issues (across a series or just certain lenses)?
I might be consideing switching to fd lenses cause it seems to be more cost effective. Though i do enjoy nikon lenses, i prefer canon cameras, but this is in the realm of dslrs, so i guess it doesnt have as much weight. Anyways I'm rambling, what are you thoughts on this?

bvalente

04-05-2009, 09:22 AM

Hi everyone

just to clear up (or maybe restate) a few things about lenses. There are two separate issues here:

1. The lens should have a mechanical aperture.

This means it needs to have a little ring on the lens itself you can rotate to change the aperture. Ages ago when only manual focus lenses were available *all* lenses had this mechanical aperture. Canon had FD lenses, Minolta had M-mount lenses, and Nikon had F-mount lenses, and pentax had k-mount lenses. All these types of lenses have mechanical aperture rings (not quite true for nikon, but we'll cover that in a sec)

In 1987 Canon introduced EF lenses ("electr0-Focus") to replace their FD lenses. The idea was two-fold. First, auto focus was introduced. Second, to reduce the cost and complexity of the lenses, all the controls were put into the camera and all lens functions are then controlled through electrical contacts. In 2003 Canon later introduced EF-S lenses, but for this discussion they are identical.

More recently Nikon introduced "G" type lenses (G stndards for "gelded"). Lenses that are G-type also do not have a mechanical aperture and are controlled solely through the camera. The trend is towards these types of lens mounts, so it will only become more prevalent. The only exception is Zeiss Z type lenses which are the only new lenses of which I"m aware that provide a mechanical aperture on new lenses.

1b. Redrock's LiveLens allows you to use Canon EF lenses.

Redrock now provides the first active lens mount that controls Canon EF lenses electronically, allowing you to open and close the aperture ring of these lenses.

2. 35mm SLR size (aka FX size, "full frame", or 36x24mm) is twice as large as 35mm DSLR size (aka DX, APS-C, 18x24mm). Either can be used, but require different framing sizes for an adapter. You still need the aperture ring stated in 1. above.

As an entirely separate issue, when DSLRs were first introduced it was too expensive to release a full frame sensor, so both nikon and canon started with essentially half sized sensors. Nikon calls this DX and Canon refers to it as APS-C. these sensors are approximately 1/2 the size of full frame SLR which is 36x24mm (if you notice, 18mm is half of 36mm). However, SLR lenses were the only lens option available, and designed for the larger SLR sensor. When you put SLR lenses on these smaller chips, that is what results in the 1.5x crop/magnification factor (i.e., a 50mm lens becomes a 75mm lens)

As DSLRs grew in popularity, manufacturers looked for ways to reduce costs and hit on the idea that they could design lenses for the smaller sensor add it would dramatically save on costs. Therefore Canon introduced APS-C EF lenses and nikon introduced DX lenses (2003) which are lenses specifically designed for the smaller chip size. These sizes have come to be generally known as DSLR lenses. While that's not entirely correct, the name pretty much sticks (but be aware someone may refer to their DSLR lens and it could really be a full frame lens on their DSLR camera)

You can still use these lenses designed for the smaller chips on a 35mm adapter simply by zooming in more. The frame size of DX/ APS-C is actually about the same size as academy 35mm used in motion picture film (also known as 3 perf and is approximately 16x24mm. FYI SLR 35mm is approximately 4 perf in the cinema world)

HOWEVER, generally (but not always) the smaller format lenses also coincided with the same cost-cutting measures of removing the aperture ring, so you typically find DSLR lenses (smaller frame format and no mechanical aperture) to be combined, and therefore of little use to 35mm adapters. Of course with the exception of LiveLens

Phew! Hope that helped shed some light on things

Brian