Aaton adapter?

M

Mac

Well-known member
Way back in December Barry posted a link to an adapter for Aaton mount super16 lenses to MFT. I can't find the source, anyone know it?
 
I'm 99% sure it was from ebay seller ciecio7.

I don't see any listed on ebay right now, but you could probably drop him a line and ask about getting one...
 
Yeah, I can't find it either.. darn, I really wanted to try something functional. I'd be will to lose quality some to get away from this Zuiko lens.
 
You should just send him an email. HeavyG has a thread here talking about the adjustable PL mount, and I think it listed ciecio7's email address. He might have one in stock, and just not have an auction listed.

And about the Zuikos, I totally know what you mean. I know they're very popular, but ... no thanks. Once you've gone with a Compact Prime or even a ZF, it's hard to go back to the clicky-clicky-clicky clunky iris wheel lenses... but a decent zoom isn't all that easy to find. The 4/3 sensor is too big for 16mm or S16 lenses, but those are the right size for the camera in other ways. My S16 Angenieux zoom, 17.5-70, is a great match for focal length, for iris (it's f/2.2), and for operation (it's got that sweet cinema zoom, focus, iris action) but -- it just doesn't cover the sensor. Black sides and black curved corners everywhere. And a 35mm zoom, like the Zeiss 22-154, covers fine but it's just too massive for most uses. The lens by itself is over a foot long, six inches in diameter, and weighs something like 9 pounds. Which means you absolutely have to have rails, and now you're losing the big advantage of the AF100 body -- a small-size lightweight portable camera that delivers cinema quality images.

I wish they would have offered a center-extraction 720p mode, that would make all S16 lenses have full coverage and would have provided a nice compromise mode while we wait for the manufacturers to address the lens conundrum.

But, with that said, I really do expect the major manufacturers to come up with lenses for it. Angenieux, Cooke, Zeiss, Fujinon -- they've all got to be looking at this thing. It's probably outsold the Red One already, in just the four months it's been on the market! They're moving thousands of these per month. And we all know what the 8,000 Red Ones did for the PL lens market, so with thousands of AF100s on the market already, that's got to get the lens manufacturers' attention. I'm hoping there will be some cine-oriented lens announcements at NAB. If they made specific lenses for it they could be smaller than 35mm cine lenses, lighter, less expensive, shorter, with electronic features... there's absolutely a market out there for someone willing to grab it and become known as "the" lens to get for the AF100...
 
I asked him about it, and he sent me a response saying that he has the Aaton m43 adapter in stock, at a price of $250. If you want one, just look up ciecio7 on ebay and send him a PM.
 
Seems kinda pointless to me. Image circle for Super-16 is 14.5mm while Image Circle for AF100 is 21.6mm. The lenses won't cover.
 
Last edited:
In general, I agree. The specific case here was that Mac says he has a 10.8-52? Cooke that he's pretty sure will cover standard 35mm, which would obviously cover the AF100 frame as well. And that particular lens is in Aaton mount.

At the Abel workshop we had a guy there with a 9-50 that had a Century doubler on it, and it covered the full frame, but ... it didn't look good. Really soft, especially in the corners, I'd say unusably so. Might be due to the doubler, or some other reason, I don't know... But I'd sure like to hear the results of Mac's experiments.
 
An Aaton to MFT adaptor makes a lot of sense if , like me you have drawer full of Zeiss super speeds w/ Aaton mounts. Also in my humble opinion
an Aaton mount makes more sense than a PL, unless you already have lenses in PL mounts or intend to rent them, as it's lighter in weight so you can hang
many lenes on it w/o support. In addition, with an Arri to Aaton adaptor, all std and B Arris can be used. Don't roll your eyes over adaptor on adaptor, if done carefully with longer lenses which have a greater BF tolerence it should be no problem. BTW Barry your AF 100 manual is a gem, TY
 
Well, I'm surprised that this thread has surfaced again... I have never had a response from my inquiries about an Aaton to MFT adapter. And by the way, I said that the Cooke lens I have "nearly" covers 35 1:85, which I would hope would make it even closer with the AF100. I did a not-very-precise test, setting the Cooke on a sandbag and positioning the lensless AF behind it. It looked pretty close the first time I tried it, not so close the next. With more precision I could tell better. The vignette is a hard circle, rather than soft, so you would need to crop in to fix the corners. I'd still buy the adapter if I could find one.

And yes, I've used CA-1 to Aaton, Arri Std to Aaton and Arri-B to Aaton adapters many times, even with zooms, and haven't had a problem - Remember these older adapters were manufactured by precision machinists, especially for the picky film industry - very different from the box-store MFT adapters that we're depending on now - excluding of course the high end PLs, which are still in that league...
 
You're correct about the differences in precision between a SS Aaton adapter for Arri or Eclair ( $200 ) and current cheap adaptors ($ 40-50 ).
They had to be good to handle a 5.9 etc. They are also very snug fits with little runout so as to not induce tracking errors in zooms. I did just get a NK
to MFT from Photodiox that surprised me for a very positive fit and no detectable play ($40.00). If you're mostly doing lock downs then a PL makes sense for 35mm format lens, however I modified many lenses like the Tamron 200-500 for Aatons and they were used on many shoots and rentals w/o incidents.
Just gotta be careful who you rent to and how you design your support system. I just got my AF 100 a week ago and love it. I will be building interfaces
for the numerous cine lenses I own and have no quams about using the AA mount as a general standard.
 
Yes, you're quite right lens adaptors by Aaton and Eclair are very precise, SS, and with close tolerances as to runout that would affect BF and zoom tracking, etc. Eclair ACL mounts are easy to shim, if needed, and the Arri std and Bs are better that anything Arri ever made to hold heavy lenses in place. So good that Chrozsiel and myself used them on heavy collimators. If I could I'd install an ACL lens flange to the AF 100, but I don't think there's enough clearence.
In the case of using Aaton as a light weight alternative to PL, for years I converted many heavy lenses to it (the Tamron 200-500 mm and others) with support plates and or rods and never had a problem in rentals or my own use. PLs are fine for heavy 35mm zooms and others in a lockdown, but some of us don't want to hire a cadre of Sherpas to haul them around.
 
As to the vignetting on your Cooke, it may be caused by a light baffle in the rear of the lens. If so, the glass may cover a greater image circle.
Look for a baffle or have a tech look into it to see if it can removed w/o damage and replaced.
 
Are you talking about the Cooke 10.4 - 52mm Varokinetal Super 16 Zoom Lens? (Though the same would hold true here for the earlier 16mm version (9 - 50mm) and it's various conversions to S16).

I have one and this Lens is an amazing S16mm Zoom Lens.

However, I've tried it on my AF-101 and it vignettes throughout its entire range unfortunately. It's in PL Mount and I tried it with Mike Tapa (MTF Services) PL Mount for MFT - this is a very good PL Mount by the way.

Shame I was unrealistically hoping it might cover MFT to use with my set of Cooke Speed Panchros which fortunately are 35mm Lenses.

Bought these Lenses originally for my S16mm Film Camera, now very glad I bought some 35mm Prime Lenses.

Don't think it's anything to with baffles, though I'm no Lens Tech. I wouldn't recommend playing with the back of the Lens either - it's very easy to screw up the collimation - have a Tech look.

The Lens was designed specifically to for a Super 16mm Frame size. It just don't cover a MFT size chip, the same way Standard 16mm Lenses won't cover a Super 16mm Frame (exceptions being on some longer Telephoto Lenses) and S16mm Lenses won't cover 35mm. I've got a set of S16mm Zeiss T* Distagons for my S16mm Camera and again they vignette on the Af-101.

Neil.



 
Last edited:
Neil: I expected vignetting, my question is, how much? At 1080 the AF delivers a good enough picture that I wouldn't mind cropping the image in post (I've preferred 720/24p with my HPX500 - resolution is highly overrated in my opinion)...

The viewfinder would be a problem of course, but I'd love to use this lens - and yes, it is a 10.4 to 52, originally designed for the super16 Aaton - it's supposedly one of, if not the, first, and I bought it from the British cinematographer that worked with Cooke on the design in the late '70s.
 
Mac, I got that you expected vignetting - but thought your question was partly about if the vignetting was present through the entire range of zoom, i.e., was any part of the Zoom vignette free?

It is there for the full range of the Zoom and obviously it's worse on the wider end.

I'll see if I can manage to post a shot of vignetting and it's extent throughout the full range of the zoom tomorrow.

In terms of the viewfinder problem - you can always put a mask on the flip out screen - I've often done this in the past on Cameras that didn't have a 1.85:1 (or whatever) grid available in the Camera Menus.

Neil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top