Let's talk glass: Lenses for the AF100!

That zoom was a 16mm lens converted (possibly with a doubler) to cover the 35mm camera gate.
Flame mode:
Typical Kubrick, a hack, hardly professional from the crusty DP point of view:

- First one to use the steadycam on a major production. In a letter of introduction from Samuelson, the device was described as "a contraption".
- adapted two Zeiss lenses designed for NASA to a 35mm camera. They hacked the mighty Mitchell camera as well to allow the lens to focus. Shocker!
- Shot on 35mm with a converted 16mm lens. Did he checked the resolution charts before submitting the proposal to the producer, bean counters and distributors. Imagine a distributor finding out what this nut case is doing. Imagine if he asked for advice in an internet forum.
- Never used a filter on the lens (Why would one put a $10 piece of glass on $20000 lens?). He was shooting on tungsten balanced film outdoors. Another no go zone from the crusty DPs and lab boffins.

Just to mention a few hacks from somebody who pushed visual boundaries and influenced generations of film makers. Shame he was so cheap.

:(
 
Barry_Green said:
To power what though?
Click to expand...

Right now there is a big hole where cine style zooms at a moderate price are available but I think it is enevitable that the lens manufacuturers will develop them. Zeiss has already announced their cine style zoom which is still expensive. Red has 2 cine zoom lenses for under $10,000. Surely Panasonic has been talking with lens makers about the possiblility of developing zoom lenses. Maybe someone could develop zoom motors for still zoom lenses. I think the AF 100 is going to be more than just a camera for low budget filmakers. It is the first camera of its kind, and will be emulated by other manufacturers. I can see 4/3 being the new 2/3. I envision a demand for lenses beyond primes and still zoom lenses. I think the market will thirst for all the accessories available for motion picture and broadcast cameras for the AF 100.
 
Sure, and I agree with that, with the understanding that while motors for cinema lenses already exist now, they're external motors that are added on. They wouldn't need to (nor want to) be powered by the camera. The camera has an itty-bitty 7.2v battery. For a physical motor that's going to be turning a big zoom lens's zoom ring and shoveling all that glass around, it's gonna need some torque and presumably that means it's going to need its own power system anyway; I don't know for sure but I sincerely doubt that the camera's own little battery is going to be of much use for powering the zoom or focus of a full-on cinema lens. So when such motors are adapted to the Red or Angenieux or Zeiss zooms, they typically have their own 12v XLR power connectors and use external heavy-duty 12v power supplies.

I mean, I get where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's practical to expect the camera to be powering such a device.
 
A rather cheap solution to zooming problem is to use your favorite FF implement. I'm not a professional and not even that good of an amateur, but found zooming a kit lens on GH13 with Indifocus Mini a breeze.
 
svecher said:
A rather cheap solution to zooming problem is to use your favorite FF implement. I'm not a professional and not even that good of an amateur, but found zooming a kit lens on GH13 with Indifocus Mini a breeze.
Click to expand...

+1. Add a speed crank and mark your starting and stopping focal lengths, and it's whatever speed you want it to be. We've done this with Nikon zooms and a Chroziel FF at work (80-200/2.8 AFD) with great results. I haven't used it on a client project yet, but when the need arises, I will!
 
Back in the olden days I use to shoot with an Arri 16 BL and you could do a half decent manual zoom with a zoom stick on the lense. I know other people that have tried to use microforce zoom controller and motor on a canon still zoom with hit and miss sucess. I guess it takes alot more torque to zoom a still lense than a cine zoom.
 
Bucknfl said:
you could do a half decent manual zoom with a zoom stick on the lense.
Click to expand...
The slr zooms I've used don't have a stick - but that would be a great little mod - just drill a bit and screw one in.

I've pulled zoom as well but could never as smoothly as a camcorder motor zoom.
 
gclark said:
So has someone shot with the Zeiss CP.2's? Are they worth the investment?
Click to expand...

They really have great barrels and mechanics, but some of the lenses are lacking in performance when wide open (similar to the ZF). Still, great lenses for the price, just not as good as other cinema lenses. If your on a budget, It may not be a bad idea to try the Red pro primes- not quite as good barrels, but faster and better performance wide open. And as always, renting lenses is always an option- speaking of which, im dreaming of some cooke s4's on the af100 right now..
 
The slr zooms I've used don't have a stick - but that would be a great little mod - just drill a bit and screw one in.
Click to expand...
An easy mod is to make a collar with a stick on for the zoom barrel. I'm surprised this isn't being sold by one of the companies making follow focus and lens gears.
 
I'll be getting some Duclos zooms, and some of his modified zf primes, my logic being that for the money they're probably the best lenses I can get that will correctly interface with a matte box and follow focus. I'm also thinking about the Noktor 50mm f0.95. Does anyone here know if the Noktor has a focus gear on it or is that something I'll have to add?
 
Wide angle presents a problem: Less bokeh.

Wide angle presents a problem: Less bokeh.

Barry_Green said:
Of course, with the appropriate adapter.
Click to expand...


Barry,

Perhaps this has been discussed before, but are we not being bamboozeled here? I mean, the Four-Thirds sensor is still smaller than current APS-C (like in Canon) and DX (Nikon) sensors. The crop factor on a 50mm lens results in an effective 100mm lens. How can one achieve a narrow depth of field using wide angle 35mm lenses?

For example, if I want to achieve the angle of view I would get with a 50mm (standard) lens on a full frame camera, I would need to use a 24mm lens (considered a wide angle lens). Is it not true that with wide angle lenses you cannot get as narrow the depth of field as you would with a standard lens?

In other words, does it seem like the AF100 will do well (in terms of pleasing bokeh) in the telephoto range, but for standard to wide angle shots we will be limited to a much greater depth of filed (less bokeh)?


Thanks,
Paul Vicente
 
Here are two video grabs from a 24mm @ 1.8 on my gh13, further and closer to the subject (wife and little aya)- not sure how much more shallowness is needed? Maybe use a 1.4 or the new voigtlander 25mm f0.95 if you want to get crazy.
 

Attachments

  • aya.jpg
    aya.jpg
    147.9 KB · Views: 0
  • aya2.jpg
    aya2.jpg
    115.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Hunter,

Who makes that lens?

I'm really wrestling with which wide angle lens(es) to go with.

Micro four thirds is great because you can mount anything to it but the problem is the 2x crop factor sends all my slr lenses towards telephoto and we need wide!
 
Just buy the appropriate wide m43 lens if that's the case. Do you really need wider than 7mm? Panasonic's 7-14 should cover the wide end pretty nicely, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top