In case you're wondering if still lenses can cut it on Red...

[evinsky]

I know some of you may know this already but the movie "Corpse Bride"
by Tim Burton was shot using DSLRs (Stop motion) and exclusively Nikon still lenses. Everyone seemed to be very pleased with the result on the big screen.

http://www.stopmotionworks.com/articles/cbrdstrpdbare.htm
http://www.stopmotionworks.com/corpsebride/cbmaghdr4.jpg

[bpotter]

They're not REAL?!

[Jarred Land]

This is a testament to Nikkor glass... I wonder what glass would be people's favorite. TIME FOR A POLL!

[Emanuel]

I agree Jarred.

Nice post Evin. And thanks for your contribution to the indie filmmaking movement.

[Jaime Valles]

They're not REAL?!

They're real, and they're spectacular!

[Owen]

Canon camera with Nikon glass? Won't that cause a rift in the space time continuum and destroy the very fabric of the universe?! ...apparently not.

That's a cute little matte box they've got on the front of that SLR.

[Jarred Land]

Canon camera with Nikon glass? Won't that cause a rift in the space time continuum and destroy the very fabric of the universe?! ...apparently not.

That's a cute little matte box they've got on the front of that SLR.
ha ha yeah. Im a Canon Guy and Evin is a Nikon guy. Its nice to see them play together as I think Canon makes better cameras and Nikkor makes better glass.

[filmmaker1977]

Nikkor makes better glass.our hope

:dankk2: for your help evin..

[Jarred Land]

our hope

ha ha true enough.. but then Schneider beats Nikkor, Leica beats Schneider.

I wonder where the Red glass will fall in that scale.

[filmmaker1977]

I wonder where the Red glass will fall in that scale.
me too but my bet is oakley is oakley and red is oakley too

[Blaine]

They're real, and they're spectacular!
Great Seinfeld reference! :grin:

[evinsky]

Every optical house has it's gems and duds, except Leica. My experience has led me to this list as far as my prefrence for still camera glass.

#1 Leica
#2 Zeiss
#3 (Tie) Nikon/Schneider
#4 (Tie) Pentax/Olympus
#5 Canon
#6 Tokina
#7 Minolta
#8 (Tie) Sigma/Tamron

[acrochordon]

I like Tamron, except I had a 28-200 lens and its electronics died on me. Humidity got inside and shorted it out. The aperture died. RIP. So I would rate Tamron last too. I want RED to make some cheap glass, but not cheap quality. I guess you get what you pay for. The Tamron only costs $300. It will not work on RED anyways.

[acrochordon]

I am tempted by the Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 LD Aspherical IF Super Manual Focus Adaptall Lens. But I know it is junk. The glass is good for a zoom, but my AF one broke. Once bitten, twice shy.

B&H# TA2820038A $270

Maybe I should do claymation untill RED ONE is ready. I could get a Canon EOS D30 and start working right away. I already have a 100mm macro. Hummm. How much money did they spend on clay to make the bride movie?

[evinsky]

How much money did they spend on clay to make the bride movie?

None. It's a plasticine process, the models are actually a soft vynl with sophisticated amatures inside that you manipulate with tiny screwdrivers.
Wallace and Grommit are claymation, and they rock!

http://www.animationartconservation.com/images/arm1.jpg
http://www.animationartconservation.com/images/vhead.jpg

[Jarred Land]

i dont know if your counting zeiss cine glass.. if so im gonna introduce Cooke as a high #1.

[evinsky]

Previous was still glass only.

In Cinema/HD:
#1 Cooke (S4s)
#2 Zeiss (Master primes + digi)
#3 Fujinon Cinema Series
#4 Panavision
#5 Angenieux
#6 Canon HD Cinema

[Jarred Land]

ha ha thank god you rate Angenieux as poorly as i do.. Ive had a few people lately swear by it and i thought i was going nuts.

[Gibby]

Evin, Greg, Jarred, or whoever-

I'm looking for a wide angle prime lens that is fairly lightweight, and has excellent glass, for use with RED in a custom lightweight aluminum housing for shooting action sports on the water surface, aerial shooting, and POV mounts.

The RED body, internal battery, and RED FLASH will be the rest of the setup in the housing.

I have my own notions about what I'd use, but I'd like some input.

Suggestions for a good photo lens for those applications (assuming RED or someone else makes an adapter for use of photo lenses)?

Suggestions for a good PL mount cine prime for those applications?

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[evinsky]

Nikon 14mm 2.8 $1420
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/201421.jpg
Zeiss Ikon 15mm 2.8 (Leica M) $4000
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/361526.jpg
Zeiss 14mm T2 PL mount $5,200 (Used)
http://www.isaia.com/images/products/127614280032343750.jpg
Zeiss 16mm T2 PL mount $2800 (Used)
http://www.used-filmequipment.com/img/usedproducts/01_wZa7wikaBmO5CRjX.jpg
Nikon 18mm 2.8 $1000
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/36893.jpg

[taubkin]

ha ha thank god you rate Angenieux as poorly as i do.. Ive had a few people lately swear by it and i thought i was going nuts.

The Angenieux 25-250 Cine Zoom is pretty popular, though...

[Gibby]

Thanks Evin...some of those lenses were already on my short list of possible solutions, but getting a second opinion on them validates the line of thinking. I couldn't go too wrong with any of those...

Problem is...I want them all!!! I guess that's natural...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[evinsky]

Amen.

[stephen natanson]

While we are talking about wish lists and now that finally we are being promised a wonderful WYSIWYG viewing screen instead of horribly poky optical viewfinders, now everyone is going to jump on me again but people sometimes forget that they have the incredible opportunity to have what is the equivelent of dailies on set and instead insist on having what they are used to. One type of lens that I have always wanted to work with are those, sometimes called architectural lenses, where you can move the optics off center to the film (sensor) surface. You can use them to change the perspective of a shot but most of all, and this is what I would like to us them for, you can use them to "slant" the focal plane, in other words you can use them to selectivly throw objects at the same distance out of focus. What you do with large plate cameras by slanting the front or back. Dion Beebe in the Jane Campion movie "In the cut" used a similar lens to great effect in many of the shots. I believe he just winged it on set when operating by tweaking the lens during the shot. Pot luck I would think. Looks wonderfull however. Should be a lot easier on a Red camera.
So getting back to the question, I believe that several of these still camera lenses have been modified for cinema work by Clairmont or others. Which of these lenses were used in that film? How were they modified? Probably s35 being a smaller area than 35mm photo you could shift the lens more out of wack, did they do that? Which still camera lens would you suggest to start off with? Thanks!

[Greg Lowry]

You're referring to tilt focus lenses. This technique is borrowed from photographic view cameras, and is as old as photography itself.

There are a few different types for motion picture cameras, with different degrees of complexity from a few different makers, including Clairmont.

ARRI makes excellent Tilt Focus Lenses and also a more flexible but complex Shift & Tilt System which is more like a view camera setup.

Due to the way the ARRI website is designed, I can't give you a direct link.
Go to: http://www.arri.com/entry/products.htm
Then: click on Lenses & Accessories
Then: Scroll down and look for Tilt Focus Lenses and Shift & Tilt System.

There are a variety of manuals you can download. But if you want background on shift/tilt/swing techniques, consult wikipedia. You could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_camera

There are some disadvantages to using shift and tilt techniques. The lenses tend to be slow as they cover a large image circle and shots take a while to set up, but it's amazing what one can achieve with this technique, but it's not for every shot. The web is full of tilt/shift/swing info and photos.

Oh, and surprise, surprise, the motion picture version is EXPENSIVE.

There are special tilt focus SLR lenses and versions of tilt/shift/swing systems for 35mm still photography that could be used.

[Jarred Land]

yeah check out the lensbaby.. an odd little focus shift lens that is somewhat more affordable.

[filmmaker1977]

The Angenieux 25-250 Cine Zoom is pretty popular, though...its weight.. heavy..

[Greg Lowry]

its weight.. heavy..

I would say it WAS popular, not so much anymore.

[filmmaker1977]

please add affordable and lightweight examples..

and run & gun zoom specialties too..

[Greg Lowry]

please add affordable and lightweight examples..

and run & gun zoom specialties too..

of what?

[Greg Lowry]

http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/lenses/0801sb_tilt/

http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=985&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1

http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=991&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1

http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=1003&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1

[filmmaker1977]

:dankk2: greg.. useful.. nikkor too?

[evinsky]

Just an 85mm.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/186251.jpg

[filmmaker1977]

zoom evin?

[filmmaker1977]

zoom evin?again mr. jannard: dates about your affordable and lightweight zoom?

[Greg Lowry]

Couldn't find a Nikkor currently listed on the Nikon site, but my search wasn't exhaustive. Dare I ask why you don't do a search? I try to provide info to get people pointed in the right direction, and then it's up to them to fill in the blanks. Google is your friend, my friend.

[filmmaker1977]

yeah but you're the cinematography experts.. :laugh:

evin, for instance, he's my hero! but you 2 following your special hints.

[evinsky]

Hmm, all of Nikon's latest zooms are "G" no aperture ring, even though the DX format would be perfect for Red, like this 18-200 ED,AFS-VR.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/408518.jpg

The known good two ring zooms with aperture rings are...
AF 17-35mm F2.8 (Best wide lens for the money, better than most primes)
http://www.keh.com/ProductImages/fullSize/NA07999038640.jpg
MF 25-50mm F4 (Older design, but very sharp and affordable)
http://www.keh.com/ProductImages/fullSize/NK07999034059.jpg
MF 35-70mm F3.5 (Sharp, compact)
http://www.keh.com/ProductImages/fullSize/NK07010201012.jpg
Longer zooms...
AF-D 80-200 2.8 two ring
http://www.keh.com/ProductImages/fullSize/NA07999045197.jpg
MF 50-300 F4.5 ED (Very sharp, but heavy and slow)
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ais50300.jpg

[filmmaker1977]

thanks my friend..

[Jarred Land]

its not impossible to put digital iris controls into the lens mount.. if not controlled by camera then can be controlled on the mount manually.

[stephen natanson]

Thank you very much Greg, Jarred and Evin. Much appreciate the various links and also the photos. Very interesting and quite a lot of choice. Goes to show that I have been shooting too much video as I didn't have any idea that Arri had a tilt shift mechanism for PL mount lenses. I presume, although it is not clear in the documentation they give, that you have to remove the original PL mount of the camera to be able to use it. Otherwise it would only be usable for macro work.

Wonderfull if Red could build something similar. Simple, cheap tilt shift front lens mount. I guess asking too much. Fancy bit of machining.

Lensbaby is just the sort of simple, optically horrible thing, which can produce wonderfull results in particular situations. Cheap and simple. Fascinating, definatedly something to play around with. Just the sort of thing that one would not use shooting 35mm where experiments are very expensive. This is where RED will shine. Freedom to do things that previously were impossible or at least very difficult.

Another blow for freedom are those small, reasonably fast, light zooms that you have posted. The 17-35mm F2.8 looks like a perfect solution for most of the s35 shooting. Wonder what the Tstop value is (what is the effective maximum aperture) and how sharp they are compared to primes? You are going to lose something, but how much and in which part of the zoom range?

The other DX lens 18-200 ED,AFS-VR is an incredible range for such a tiny lens so I presume the quality is not up to scratch, does any one know or have used one or read a review? I found one negative review (Weaknesses = NONE !?!? How about severe light fall-off up to at least f/8, which Nikon Capture cannot correct (PTLens can)? How about strong pin cushion distorsion above 30mm? How about loss of sharpness in the corners (nothing can correct that)? Compare with your 80-400 VR to see what I mean. With my 80-400 VR I never had to fix distorsion or vignetting, nor did I notice corner softness on digital. The 18-200 has its strengths and I'm keeping mine, but "no weaknesses" I think is a strong exaggeration.) and several positive ones. I wonder what the actual size of the DX format is compared to S35mm film should be considerably smaller, maybe someone con provide that off the top of their head? Probably the difference would fix the vignetting problem the review talks about and may also resolve the corner softness and some of the pincushion distortion. I checked the Fstops 3.5-5.6 not bad considering it sells for around €900. Using or adapting lenses like these for run of the mill work and renting lenses for special higher budget projects looks like the way to go.

Depending how sensitive the sensor is (this is crucial for the RED camera) a lot could be done with these lenses. If the sensor is not very sensitive than the saving on lenses will not be worth the extra cost and time of extra lighting equipment and crew needed for interiors and night work where you wouldn't be able to depend on available light much.

Appropos for those who are worried about the DOF in 35mm, (besides the fact that people used to work this way for years and not worry too much about it) it is only really a problem with fast medium to longer focal length lenses. So the more the sensitive the sensor the more you can stop down the lens to a comfortable DOF. In fact slow zooms such as the DX above are quite difficult to use to send the background completely out of focus.

Thanks again for the information. I for one would like to avoid having to spend a fortune on expensive, heavy, large cinema lenses for my day to day work. Less cost, less weight, less people more freedom is what I want.

[taubkin]

I would say it WAS popular, not so much anymore.

Cool!
I forget things are quite different in the US. Plenty of jobs, a LOT of equipment, and always (or, at least, frequently) the top products to choose. Around here in latin america, where we're some time behind, the angenieux, still is quite popular. For instance, I don't think I ever seen a Cooke S4 set in person... :)

Anyway, it's a heavy lens, but it mounts on heavy cameras...

Cheers! :beer:

[Greg Lowry]

Thank you very much Greg, Jarred and Evin. Much appreciate the various links and also the photos. Very interesting and quite a lot of choice. Goes to show that I have been shooting too much video as I didn't have any idea that Arri had a tilt shift mechanism for PL mount lenses. I presume, although it is not clear in the documentation they give, that you have to remove the original PL mount of the camera to be able to use it. Otherwise it would only be usable for macro work.

The camera PL mount certainly is NOT removed (how inconvenient would THAT be!). The Shift and Tilt system is PL mount (to the camera).

Another blow for freedom are those small, reasonably fast, light zooms that you have posted. The 17-35mm F2.8 looks like a perfect solution for most of the s35 shooting. Wonder what the Tstop value is (what is the effective maximum aperture) and how sharp they are compared to primes? You are going to lose something, but how much and in which part of the zoom range?

Zooms are never as sharp as primes. And as these lenses were not designed for motion picture work, they don't necessarily hold perfect focus when zooming and are, therefore, best used as variable focal length lenses. The extensive motion picture adaptations of these lenses correct the focus drift problem, but are many times more expensive than the "stock" lens. These days with advanced design and coatings, the T-stop is likely to be very close to the f-stop. In this case maybe T3. Just a guess, but probably close. This isn't so slow that it would be problem for many applications, but it's about 2 stops slower than a T1.4.

The other DX lens 18-200 ED,AFS-VR is an incredible range for such a tiny lens so I presume the quality is not up to scratch, does any one know or have used one or read a review?

A review of a lens for still camera use may understandably ignore many things that that are relevant for motion picture use. A still camera lens with a high zoom range is unlikely to hold focus through the zoom range and may exhibit lots of undesirable traits for motion picture work (tracking, breathing, etc.). On the other hand, it may surprise (in a positive way).The only way to know for sure is to test one.

[macgregor]

Definately using Nikon DX lenses could be a really nice idea.

[mike the beginner]

Quote:Appropos for those who are worried about the DOF in 35mm, (besides the fact that people used to work this way for years and not worry too much about it) it is only really a problem with fast medium to longer focal length lenses. So the more the sensitive the sensor the more you can stop down the lens to a comfortable DOF. In fact slow zooms such as the DX above are quite difficult to use to send the background completely out of focus.
_______________________________________
Thanks for that Stephen. Both yourself and Proteus have indicated that in certain conditions we should be able to stop down to give us more DOF. I have been learning more about DOF in general and i must say it is little wonder there is confusion. Several books say one thing and others say the opposite? I think it has a lot to do with not being specific:(

What about focusing with a s35mm lens period, how difficult? We also have the exact opposite of the problems with 1/3rd camera's in that with a s35mm we have a format that easily gets you a shallow DOF. Many in the 1/3rd camp revert to 35mm adapters to solve their problems. What other solutions can you do with the s35mm camera's to solve the opposite problem (too shallow a DOF) and significantly increase the DOF (should you wish to!)

We have discussed the real difficulties of focusing with a 35mm format and that follow focus devices are essential. To get round this others have suggested the use of smaller lenses and so we have been going in the opposite direction!! I can see the logic behind it and it makes sense. I have taken heed of good advice from Greg and Gibby regarding the use of smaller lens such as a 2/3rds or s16mm light zoom for my outdoor work. But i would also like to try and get a s35mm lens to take advantage of the the wonderful extra low light qualities that will come from using a large s35mm sensor. The extra FOV was also a real bonus and that would be greatly reduced by a smaller lens.

So i gather what you are saying Stephen is that a slower zoom will give you more DOF. Is this solely due to the aperture being not as wide to begin with compared to a much faster zoom....right? These slower zooms will reduce the available light but with a much larger s35mm format/sensor to begin with are we still much better off using a slow zoom than using a smaller format lens s16mm with reduced light. I am still trying to get my head round this aspect from an outdoor sports/nature situation when i will not want a shallow depth of field that often but will need great low light qualities. FOV is another item of concern because being new to all this i worry that the extra FOV would make framing more difficult given that any video i do will be used on TV and not the big screen.

I suppose whatever camera you get you have to know it's strengths and weakneses and if the camera suits you, then work round the problems. Sorry to others for taking up time and space with these questions and thoughts but it is a massive investment to make so jumping in and hoping is not an option for me.

Are you aware that Jim Jannard has already answered a question on low light qualities regards Red ( i think it was on DV info). "We expect the low light qualities of Red to be one of it's major strengths" or something like that. So no worries there we hope.
Michael

[evinsky]

Here is a positive review of the 18-200. Not a perfect lens, but much better than it has any right to be with this zoom range and price.
http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm
Although Greg is right on just about every count the 17-35mm F2.8 (T3) is one of the exceptions, it holds focus very well during zooming and performs better than any prime in it's zoom range short of the Zeiss 21mm Distagon.

Most of the lenses I mentioned earlier are "True" zooms but of course they are not built for cinema so be understanding, you get what you pay for.

[Greg Lowry]

Here is a positive review of the 18-200. Not a perfect lens, but much better than it has any right to be with this zoom range and price.
http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm
Although Greg is right on just about every count the 17-35mm F2.8 (T3) is one of the exceptions, it holds focus very well during zooming and performs better than any prime in it's zoom range short of the Zeiss 21mm Distagon.

I'm not challenging you on this assertion but I am curious where you got that information because it's a bold statement and not a common view.

[stephen natanson]

"The camera PL mount certainly is NOT removed (how inconvenient would THAT be!). The Shift and Tilt system is PL mount (to the camera)."

Greg you are often right and well informed but not always. The manual for the arri tilt and shift system specify that it is for normal not specific PL mount lenses and that it can be used to correct perspective (parallax) shift in architectural shots (focus close or near to infinity). It also does not appear to have any optical elements so therefore has to be mounted instead of the standard (fixed) PL mount.
Evin and Proteus I understand from the format thread that the DX sensor area is almost identical in size to the Mysterium sensor s35mm film area, is that right?
Mike I will try to answer your post after dinner. Now sunset in Rome.

[Greg Lowry]

Stephen: The special set of lenses for the Shift and Tllt system doesn't have PL mounts. I never said they did. The PL camera mount is definitely not removed and the Shift and Tilt rig itself has a PL mount for mounting to the camera. I specifically corrected you on your misstatement regarding the camera PL mount being "removed". (In fact, these lenses were never PL mount). Perhaps you meant to say lens mount. I've used the system, I know it inside out. With respect, your understanding of the system based on reading the manual is understandably weak.

Not being antagonistic, just trying to keep the facts straight, and the details do matter.

[Gibby]

Mike the beginner,

As you know, one of my specialty areas is shooting nature, travel, and sports in natural light, in film (35 & 16), video (HD & SD), and stills (digital and film). Since you've expressed an interest in using RED for those genres, let me give you some insight to shooting them.

For those genres of shooting you'll need a camera (cameras) and lenses that enable an extreme range of depth of field, from very shallow DOF when isolating animals, people, or objects for viewer attention direction, to the deepest DOF you can get for panoramic scenic shots, establishing shots, etc, and every gradient of DOF in between, depending on the shots needed.

So, how do you do that? First, as many have noted, S35 & 35mm in motion film, and 35mm in stills, when used with appropriate "fast" lenses, will enable the shallowest DOF possible. RED will use an S35 sized sensor, so using S35mm lenses with RED, at 2540p or 4K image formats will utilize the whole sensor area and readily give you very shallow DOF, assuming you're using the fastest S35 lenses available. You're right; Jim Jannard has said that RED's low light capability should be one of it's strongest features. Shallow DOF from RED in S35 with a fast S35 lens should be easy to get. As you want deeper and deeper DOF for those outdoor shots, you'll need to be able to stop the lens down progressively, until you get to backlit shots (sun on water, etc.) where you may have the lens stopped all the way down to near closure. Good (and expensive!) lenses will usually have more stops available on the lens so doing this is not a problem. If you're using a "slower" lens you'll have to work a bit more to get shallow DOF. Depending on the lens type, you might back the camera up from the subject, or use ND filters, etc.

Cinematic-oriented shooters always talk a lot about shallow DOF and 24p - pet subjects, but there is a whole giant world of film and video production genres out there that, for subject matter and production values reasons, don't necessarily call for shallow DOF and/or 24p. A lot of nature, travel, and sports (non-action sequences) production is done in 24p, but when we shoot anything fast moving, the higher the frame rate, the better, and the DOF is usually medium or deep in those instances. Most sports and nature production, especially where tight follow of fast-moving objects in needed, are shot with medium to deep DOF at around f8 to f11, depending on the available light. In natural light shooting, the amount of sunlight available is the X factor. We also use fast shutter speeds quite often for nature, sports, and travel shooting, so the trick is to use a fast enough shutter seed, but constantly evaluate its effect on f stops and DOF. We also use a lot of zooms in nature, travel, and sports production because you have rapidly changing setups, fast moving subjects, and quite often it is virtually impossible or downright dangerous to walk up or back to change the focal length of a shot. The clarity of primes just isn’t needed for those types of shots. We also don’t have a big crew of helpers available in those genres of shooting – quite often you’re shooting alone, or at best with one assistant.

Keeping the above in mind, why would us nature, travel and sports shooters opt for S16 and 2/3" lenses at times? Final output needs, weight, cost, mobility, shallow DOF not critical, already own those lenses, network or client guidelines, storage requirements & limitations (4:4:4 RAW not needed for a particular production, because 4:2:2 to RED Drive or RED Flash will do), and many, many more reasons.

The lens formats and image formats that RED has published are pretty comprehensive. Users need to analyze what their needs are and buy lenses to suit them - and rent the odd lenses that don't fit your usual work needs. Constantly shallow DOF may be the Holy Grail for a lot of shooters, but there is a big universe of production genres out there that need everything from shallow to deep DOF. Match your equipment to your needs and you'll be happy...

To tie back into this thread, good photo lenses, as mentioned earlier in this thread, are an exciting option for use with RED when you’re budget challenged, need some more lightness, and/or the production values of your project don’t demand cine lenses.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Greg Lowry]

Excellent, informative post Gibby (as usual). It's important that the perspectives of many different shooters are expressed here. Techniques and requirements vary considerably based on the type of production.

[Proteus]

Evin and Proteus I understand from the format thread that the DX sensor area is almost identical in size to the Mysterium sensor s35mm film area, is that right?

Yes stephen, DX should cover the entire S35 area but there is the problem of aperture control.

Now I just thought of an idea, more like a compromise, but that could turn a completely useless DX lens to atleast partially useable on RED!

Normally there are two options:
1. The RED team (or a third party) pays the royalties to Nikon so they can have their protocols and include electronic control for their lenses (I believe that Nikon should give the info free to RED and thank them, but that's another story...).

2. Because there is a slideable tooth at the back side of the lens, a mechanical control could be embedded to a nikon mount (as I have suggested in another thread) and I personally like this solution -as alternative and I believe that for e.g 1000 pieces and up, it would be very affordable.

3. Now this idea: When there is no control, or the lens is unscrewed, that tooth moves to the far end with an internal spring and stays there at the smaller aperture of the lens, eg f/32.
So, a last alternative compromised solution of very low cost, would be to make a small metal or non-metal part that could fix the aperture tooth to a desired f/stop eg f/4 and still be mountable to RED. I'm sure this is possible.
Also, this could be easily removable with a small tool (but not easy to drop), but the point is to be able to work -not for all situations, but at least for some of them.
You will have the same depth of field and you'll have to adjust the light via the shutter speed and/or ND filters but, you could use the lens.

[Greg Lowry]

I'm not really familiar with these lenses, nor am I sure that I understand what you are suggesting, but it seems to me that a lens tech could modify the lens at very little cost for full manual aperture control. For example, still camera lenses with click-stops are often modified so the aperture ring rotates smoothly, something that's necessary for pulling stops during a take. Cost: $100 or less ... usually less. Simple is best.

[Proteus]

I'm not really familiar with these lenses, nor am I sure that I understand what you are suggesting, but it seems to me that a lens tech could modify the lens at very little cost for full manual aperture control. For example, still camera lenses with click-stops are often modified so the aperture ring rotates smoothly, something that's necessary for pulling stops during a take. Cost: $100 or less ... usually less. Simple is best.

Greg, I also want the best control possible but, DX lenses don't even have a ring on their case! To add a ring, either cutting the lens' cover (if a ring addition to the body is feasible) or from the back of the lens via the tooth embedding the mechanism to the mount, is not the same thing like removing a little ball etc to make it rotating smoothly! I also bet that such a modification or special mount will cost much more than $100 -probably >$600 or even $1000 (for only a few pieces)!

[Greg Lowry]

Greg, I also want the best control possible but, DX lenses don't even have a ring on their case! To add a ring, either cutting the lens' cover (if a ring addition to the body is feasible) or from the back of the lens via the tooth embedding the mechanism to the mount, is not the same thing like removing a little ball etc to make it rotating smoothly! I also bet that such a modification or special mount will cost much more than $100 -probably >$600 or even $1000 (for only a few pieces)!

Ahhh, ok. I missed that key fact. No aperture ring does make it more complex. haha. Damn the automatic world!

Are the DX lenses so good that such extreme measures are worthwhile? Is it not likely that the optics are available in another form that is more motion picture friendly? Lens formulae are frequently used for a variety of different lens products by the same manufacturer. Comparative schematics of the lenses might reveal that. Just a thought. If I have time, I'll investigate.

[mike the beginner]

Thank you once again Gibby for the great advice it is really helpful:)

Michael

[stephen natanson]

had a very liquid dinner will try to make sense tomorrow.
Greg I stand corrected as I understood it the usually exhaustive german manual didn't mention special lenses.
Mike I think Gibby answered many of your questions better than I could try to anyway.
Notte.

[Greg Lowry]

No problem, Stephen.

This is what the Tilt-Shift system looks like with lens mounted to it (shown on ARRI camera). The photo shows a combination tilt and swing position.

The lenses that work with the Tilt-Shift system have much larger image circles to cover the various tilt, shift, swing, rise and fall positions. The principles are exactly the same as for a photo view camera.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/10846/1153527403.jpg

[Proteus]

Are the DX lenses so good that such extreme measures are worthwhile?

They are far more compact, lightweight and 32% wider than 35mm manuals...
What turns me down is their plastic and most times less-responding feel. I don’t think they are “so good” especially if you are not going to use all of their advantages e.g. stabilization for zooms (VR series). Personally I would not prefer them for RED except in rare cases…

Now an adapter with manual aperture for about $500 might be useful though, you could play with many cheap and compact lenses like the tiny 10.5mm fisheye.


Is it not likely that the optics are available in another form that is more motion picture friendly? Lens formulae are frequently used for a variety of different lens products by the same manufacturer. Comparative schematics of the lenses might reveal that. Just a thought. If I have time, I'll investigate.

You mean industrial maybe… Sorry, I’m not aware of such lenses and I don’t think they are going to be wide anyway…

[Greg Lowry]

No, I mean lenses for Nikon film cameras, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if the optics were "borrowed" for the DX lenses with the focus and aperture controls auto-fancified and the lens barrels cheapified.

[Proteus]

I think they might were borrowed but also downgraded. So IMO there is no point to go backwards, there are some very good Nikon lenses for 35mm which will be equally good for S35 such as the excellent 17-35 F/2.8D I have suggested before and the 14mm/2.8D. Both are very sharp but the later is more sharp in the center which is good for S35 format. It will be almost equally sharp from edge to edge. I think you can't go wrong with a good 35mm Nikon lens especially if it's famous too.

BTW, has anybody thought of using a mirror lens on RED? I have no experience with one, but I know the donut-style blurred background effect, they are lightweight, sharp and compact (for zooms). Only con they are not fast...Also: no chromatic aberration at all!

[Gibby]

Thanks for the kind words guys...at various stages of my career many guys were kind enough to fast-track my knowledge base with timely advice, so I'm paying respect to that the scenario by simply doing what they did for me.

The subtext is that networking is the core of this business. The person you help today may very well be the same person that steps up in your time of need...it's a symbiotic circle.

Cheers!

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Proteus]

The person you help today may very well be the same person that steps up in your time of need...it's a symbiotic circle.

There is too much wisdom in that sentence.. which not all understand and appreciate...
Very nice Gibby..

[Greg Lowry]

Proteus wrote: I think they might were borrowed but also downgraded. So IMO there is no point to go backwards, there are some very good Nikon lenses for 35mm which will be equally good for S35 such as the excellent 17-35 F/2.8D I have suggested before and the 14mm/2.8D.

That was exactly my point. There are many superb lenses that don't come with the auto-everything baggage.

[Emanuel]

What a thread! The-dvxuser.com-school itself.

[acrochordon]

Hey Proteus, mirror lenses are not a good idea. Don't take my word for it. Go to the link below,
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/solid_cat.shtml

PerkinElmer made mirror lenses. Psssst, they also make a CCD camera .

[filmmaker1977]

acrochordon you are our searcher.. :thumbsup:

[acrochordon]

I am glad at least one person in this forum appreciates me. For that you get a special gift. A link to the pic below. Notice a Nikon 35mm lens attached to it. Hummmmmm. The thing it is attached to is red in color.
That is what you get for being nice. There are lots more pics that I am holding back. You just have to be nice.

http://www.apgvision.com/30s.htm

The keen observer will notice it is an AF lens. Makes you think.

[Gordon Prince]

I also appreciate your posts. They are specials. It's the minimum that I can get.

[Emanuel]

Although I'm not cinematographer, there is here @dvxuser.com an important resource regarding the subject: the Dan's work. I know that he's working with the Silicon Imaging people. Why not a similar contribution but also with RED as third party here. It's just a hint. The future RED shooters would be glad.

[planetearth]

ILM used Nikon lenses for FX shots on 35mm.

Also, I've converted 2 of my old 35mm Cameflex cameras to Nikon mounts and have used them on many shoots with great results.

[Emanuel]

http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/8e8ae439a3fd6101c125711b005a77c4

«ZF lenses incorporate new technical advances from the ZEISS Ultra Prime®, Master Prime® and DigiPrime® lenses for motion picture cameras. Results have been seen in feature films like "Lord of the Rings", "Alexander", "King Arthur", "Air Force One", "Collateral", "King Kong" and many commercials and music clips.»

«Like the ZEISS lenses for motion picture, ZF lenses feature unusually high mechanical quality, fixed focal length, very precise manual focussing, reliability, and exceptional durability. Special attention is paid to guarantee absolute color matching throughout the whole range of lenses resulting in state-of-the-art image quality.»

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/?Open

[Greg Lowry]

Too bad the Nikkors and Zeiss ZFs rotate counterclockwise. Inconvenient.

[macgregor]

Has anyone tried the ZFs allready?
That is what i think i will buy for the red. The 35mm ZF should be like a medium lense (50 mm in 35 still photography.)

[Greg Lowry]

There are various online reviews of the first two lenses.

[macgregor]

There are various online reviews of the first two lenses.

I couldn´t find a good one.

[Greg Lowry]

"good" meaning positive?

[macgregor]

No, meaning with showing pictures, real pixels comparisons at all different F numbers, vignetting analysis, focus ring analysis, resolution charts, and color aberrations.
And how well perform against the nikon f1.4 and canon f1.4 too.

[Jarred Land]

one of the new photo mags has a round up of a buncha lenses and if i remember correctly they did a review on the new ZFs.

[Greg Lowry]

I haven't seen a formal in-depth review either. Various anecdotal reports and user reviews seem to suggest that the 50mm is of excellent if not spectacular quality. These are inexpensive lenses relative to cine lenses. The 50mm is about US$600, the 85mm about US$1200. Anyone expecting them to perform up to ARRI Zeiss Master Prime quality will be probably be disappointed. But for a few thousand bucks the ZFs should offer excellent price/performance if they can be PL adapted/mounted.

[acrochordon]

Are the ZFs just in Nikon mount? I hope they will make them in Canon mount too (only because I already own a canon SLR.) But no worrys about the PL mount. Jim said that RED would make adapters for Nikon. So if you bought one of these ZFs and a Nikon adapter, you would be set. These ZFs sound like a good deal. Good quality but not cine lens prices. Looks like our quest for lenses could end happily.

Now all I have to worry about is there being enough Zfs produced fast enough and them making more lenses to fill out their product line before RED ONE comes on the market. Will they make a zoom or a macro. If not, I will have to start my quest over again.

[acrochordon]

Anybody into filming bugs? Anybody into filming with achromat or close up lenses?

I found a good link.
http://www.geocities.com/seemolf/achromats/achromats.html#chart
http://www.geocities.com/seemolf/achromats/achromats2.html
http://www.geocities.com/seemolf/

[mike the beginner]

AH........ you have something that is worth looking at acrochordon. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Nice macro photo did you do that yourself?

Michael

[Greg Lowry]

Worth looking at perhaps. But does it belong here? I don't think so. Why not just post a link? Those large images break up the thread.

[Emanuel]

Although I'm not cinematographer, there is here @dvxuser.com an important resource regarding the subject: the Dan's work. I know that he's working with the Silicon Imaging people. Why not a similar contribution but also with RED as third party here. It's just a hint. The future RED shooters would be glad.For those who would like to know more concerning the subject, here is an interesting link @dvxuser.com:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=62742

[evinsky]

Are the ZFs just in Nikon mount? I hope they will make them in Canon mount too

No Canon mount Zeiss lenses, the Nikon F mount patent has finally run out so Zeiss can make Nikon mount lenses without licencing them. Canon EOS was made in the 80s so it will be another 30 years before Zeiss will make an Eos compatible lens. But there are Nikon to EOS adapters.

There will be macros but zooms are unlikely, since Nikon already has such good ones and Zeiss is focussing on the MF market only.

[Greg Lowry]

Ziess says it will not provide the lenses in other mounts. However, Zeiss ZS lenses are exactly the same optics, but for M-42 screw mount cameras or adapters. This makes the lenses adaptable to almost any other mount by using third party adapters. Canon SLRs can use screw mount adapters or Nikon F mount adapters to mount Zeiss ZS or ZF lenses. Keep in mind that ZF and ZS lenses are fully manual.

[evinsky]

Keep in mind that ZF and ZS lenses are fully manual.

Except on Nikons you get auto stop down at the time of exposure, on all others you have to do stop down metering and viewing as well.

Just being clear.

[visceralpsyche]

I've noticed a couple of people mention still to cine conversions for their favourite lenses.

Not having much experience with still lenses, does conversion usually include adding a toothed focus/aperture ring so that a follow focus kit can be used on them?

I would most likely be limited to buying only one multi-purpose zoom lens due to budgetary constraints (at least initially), for filming in 1080p, so it sounds like a good modified 35mm still zoom would be ideal (or failing that, a S16 cine zoom lens).

In these circumstances, which would be your preference (modded 35mm still zoom, or S16 cine zoom)?