Let's talk lenses

I believe nearly all of the early F65 demo material was shot on the Summiluxes. I am not sure why. I had an interesting discussion with the AJA guys the other day - they said when they took the camera to Japan, all the guys were interested in there were scopes, they considered the image itself pretty much secondary!

There are certainly reasons you'd want technically perfect and flat glass, VFX chief among them, which makes it doubly confusing why LDS or /i were omitted - considering the Cooke Minis have them, even the old F3 lenses had them!
 
I try and refrain making judgements about anyone I have never met, but I have worked with a few big Hollywood crew on occasions - there are only two DoPs I have ever heard anything remotely negative about. He's one.
 
For reference, the last films I can see Deakins lensed with S4s are Jarhead and Jesse James. In the Valley of Elah, No Country For Old Men and as far as I can tell everything since seems to be (at least mainly) lensed on Master Primes.

I believe he uses Angenieux Optimos as a zoom when required. Very popular match with MPs.
 
Harry Lime said:
All true, but I have noticed that the Lux can oddly flat. I'm really not sure what it is, I can't quite put my finger on it. But they are brutally sharp.


https://vimeo.com/22899223

Lux on F35
https://vimeo.com/22909663


Summicron-C

The Cron looks a little 'dirtier' to me, which I prefer...

https://vimeo.com/84918790

https://vimeo.com/101592257

https://vimeo.com/84812581
Click to expand...



Since the discussion has ventured into the land of Leica land I'll throw another possibility out there:

https://vimeo.com/119487795

Shot with Leica R series still lenses. They have been seeing a lot of use on Red cameras, thanks to a Leica R lens mount for the Epic and Scarlet. As shown in the above video, they can be quite nice. The 100mm 2.8 APO Macro lens is an amazing lens for around $2k. I'm guessing they used it in this video quite a bit.

Justin Campos proved that Nikon, Rokinon and Tokina still lenses can work well on the f35 with his Chimsoro video:

https://vimeo.com/77681008

I believe the Leica R glass would really compliment the F35 well. I'll be looking to convert over an f35 block to the Leica R mount in the near future, much in the same way Justin did with the nikon mount.

Now, if I could just squeeze the F35 into that drone gimbal...oh, and get the thing off the ground!
 
As previously mentioned we're trying to stick to lenses which can be adapted to an F35/F65 - not lenses which require an angle grinder to be taken to the camera.

I have basically no experience with Leica glass, however everything I know suggests that of all the stills lenses they may be some of the more likely to make a coherent cine set provided a suitable rehousing, as Leica I believe try and have a much more consistent look than anyone else.

I do believe GL Optics do a rehoused Leica R set.
 
JMtheDP said:
As previously mentioned we're trying to stick to lenses which can be adapted to an F35/F65 - not lenses which require an angle grinder to be taken to the camera.

I have basically no experience with Leica glass, however everything I know suggests that of all the stills lenses they may be some of the more likely to make a coherent cine set provided a suitable rehousing, as Leica I believe try and have a much more consistent look than anyone else.

I do believe GL Optics do a rehoused Leica R set.
Click to expand...


There will soon be a PL mount Leica R 70-180mm APO from Duclos here in L.A. The lens is amazingly complex with 13 elements in 10 groups, two groups of which move to achieve focus. Not to mention that there are 5 anomalous partial dispersion (German for very expensive) elements. I really hope Matt Duclos has a good angle grinder...

Leica of yore seemed to have something going for them that the modern day lenses are missing. Musicians would call it "soul" here's a frame shot on a CCD sensor with the 70-180mm Leica R: https://flic.kr/p/9ShtSQ.

The camera houses here in L.A. Have rehousing still lenses for decades, especially the longer ones.

Sorry for straying. But a few (most) haven't put away our angle grinders in favor of F65s and Master Primes. But we're working on it, as inspired by your success, James.
 
Last edited:
I plan on getting a GL Optics modded Lecia R set very soon! Will definitely share footage from F35 with them! I'm super excited. I love my R's - not PERFECTLY color matched but pretty good.
 
ajhill said:
Sorry for straying. But a few (most) haven't put away our angle grinders in favor of F65s and Master Primes. But we're working on it, as inspired by your success, James.
Click to expand...

Well I've only done one shoot with that combination! ;)

It's more a case of trying to keep this particular thread (somewhat) focused - I love stills lenses as much as the next person but I fear the thing goes a little bit off-topic once you introduce those into the fray.

Of course, if we were talking F55s and so on then stills lenses and what not are valid.

I do believe Duclos said that they had previously considered re-housing the 70-180 Leica, then decided against it, then changed their mind. It does sound like a very, very nice lens.

I believe the major issue with that particular lens is it focuses externally, and possibly rotates too?
 
This morning I've done something most unusual for me and I've done some semi-scientific testing. No charts or things involved but given the amount of glassware I have on the shelves at the minute, it seemed criminal not to.

I will be producing a fuller report soon, but I wanted to share a couple of frames which really genuinely surprised me.

I was comparing the GL Optics 18 - 35 (Sigma) and 70 - 200 (Canon) with the two lightweight ARRI/Fujinon Alura lenses. Both GL Optics are rehousings of stills lenses with excellent reputations. For the money, I think they are an excellent first step into PL mount glass and are good examples of the hybrid glass we are now seeing - lenses with still optics put into cine or cine-style housings.

I think this is a relatively fair comparison because the Aluras, in my mind, represent the first step on the "proper cine zoom" rung. The following two frames are from the GL Optics 18 - 35 and the ARRI 15.5 - 45. The test was shot at T2.8, which should have put the GL Optics at an advantage because it was working well below maximum aperture (T1.8).

The only processing applied was a de-bayer, and the Sony LC709 LUT. These shots were taken about 30 seconds apart. Consistent weather.

GL Optics
654855_gl35mm.00000.jpg

Alura
654855_alura35mm.00000.jpg
 
DLD said:
No. The hypothesis, as it were, is that cameras are computers and, as science advances, so does their performance and, while there's often a presumption of excellence fails under the real world tests, it's not a stretch to suggest that a computer can be purchased on specs. FS7 failures, such as they are, are also reflected in its specs and F35 superiority over other cameras of its era can be quantified similarly, with 444 and so on.

Furthermore, as I have mentioned the "perceived quality", an oversampled 4K in the hands of a decent operator should beat the oversampled 1080p in the hands of the same operator and that nostalgia for old equipment is fine and dandy - there are plenty of audiophiles and guitar players who love the old tube amps - but the progress marches on.

And, with that, I can leave this forum to those with much pricier toys.

PS. As Lieutenant Colombo was fond of saying - one more thing, which should pertain to this thread at least marginally. Someone who buys F35 in 2015 is more likely to use Rokinon than Fujinon and that's because there's a dearth of options in between..
Click to expand...

Cameras are only partly like computers. Images are by nature analog. A digital camera convert this analog plane into digital. Not the same thing as just a computer. Not by a mile.

Still, it's more than just a stretch to think a computer can be bought only on specs. Reminds of people who put together the cheapest Windows box they can, using the cheapest components because they see for example a NVidia based card with 4GB as the same as a high quality Nvidia 4GB card. Then it crashes and they blame Windows and say Macs are good because they don't crash. But Macs are not put together as cheaply, even if the specs on paper may be the same.
With cameras it's even more difficult to go by specs on a paper only. So I will go as far as saying that it's more than just a stretch to suggest that a camera can be purchased on specs. It's actually wrong and totally unnecessary.

"Perceived quality" sounds like a copout to me as it's highly subjective.

What is not subjective is that you are comparing a camera which is not yet out and is based on a bayer sensor with a rolling shutter and made for stills, inside a very small box and comparing that to a tried and proven full sized professional cinema camera which has shot several high-end features and is based on a real full RGB sensor, not bayer, with a global shutter and exclusively designed for capture motion pictures. This is the definition of mindless hype. Even if it's an older camera, which I'm sure will be the next argument. But the F35 still holds it's own against and even beats the Alexa in some regards, which is the current de-facto king of high end production.

But like I mentioned before this debate is fruitless and unproductive. Besides it's way off topic and is highjacking the thread.
You will believe what you want to believe anyhow. So let's just go back talking about PL lenses.

All the best for you with the a7RII.
 
Grug said:


As someone who's spent the last two and a bit years invested in a set of CP.2s I'd have to say I find it hard to agree with much of the criticism that get levelled at them - for the price the only (non-ancient) lenses that are competing with them are the Canon cine primes (basically an EF-only version of the CP.2 stills glass concept) the Schneider Zenons and the (seemingly owner-operator-only) Sony Primes.

Yes the inconsistent apertures are a bit frustrating, but since most people seem to have got rid of their 18mm T/3.6 lenses, most sets are simply T/2.1 across the board with the exception of the widest lens, which will be either the 21mm or the 15mm, which are both T/2.9 - and dealing with a single lens with a 1-stop difference isn't too big of a deal.

Mechanically and operationally, there's really no comparison with any still lenses out there. The CP.2s are leagues ahead. And with a long focus throw, accurate focus marks and excellent construction, they make pulling focus, and repeating focus moves incredibly easy - my main reason for purchasing them was to speed up things on set, and the precision and control that they allow absolutely speeds up the process, there's no dicking around with small and not always precise focus marks, they just work.

Add to that beautiful image quality (they really are lovely bits of glass, I've never had anything but ecstatic feedback from clients) and I honestly think the CP.2s make for a solid set of cine lenses. Are they on the same level optically as UPs or S4s? Of course not, nor should they be for the price. But for the price, there really aren't any better options around IMO (the Canons, the Schneiders and the Sony are all on the same sort of level optically, each with it's own particular strengths and foibles). If you step up in price a fair way you get to the Illuminas and S4 Minis, and they're superior lenses, but again - you pay for the improvements.

At the end of the day, I'd take an F5 or C500 with CP.2s over an Alexa/Epic with stills glass each and every time, until the end of time.
Click to expand...


Don't take me wrong Grug. The CP.2s are not trash and this is not what I meant. Actually if it wasn't for the other options which are better and at the same or around the same price range, and even cheaper, such as the Sony set, the CP.2s would be a no-brainer. They are the entry level of what we could consider proper cinema glass.

But for what they are I find them grossly overpriced. The only attributes they have going for them is the Zeiss name, for those who are into it, and the focal selection, which is wide, because they are basically still lenses.

Besides that they are nothing special compared to the other available options in the same price range. Most of which are dedicated developed motion picture lenses. The Sony set is the true special case here. It is way cheaper than CP.2s and beat them in every regard but the brand name, if you are in the rental business. The CP.2s just ride the Zeiss reputation in my eye and I think if they were the very same set, but had a Sony label, they would be crucified by the market. But in our hypocritical market, no company is allowed to put out questionable products or take up questionable paths. At least no company not named ARRI and Zeiss.

Keep in mind though that since this is the F35 and F65 section, I'm considering things from a strictly narrative production point of view. Because these cameras were fully designed for that and get very little use if none outside of this. Even if the F35 has fallen in price and can now be used for weddings by somebody who wants. They are still high-end cameras designed to fit a high-end production workflow. At the FS7 and F5 forums I think the CP.2s would and should be judged under a different light as those cameras are multi-use tools that are used from weddings to upper end production.
 
JMtheDP said:
This morning I've done something most unusual for me and I've done some semi-scientific testing. No charts or things involved but given the amount of glassware I have on the shelves at the minute, it seemed criminal not to.

I will be producing a fuller report soon, but I wanted to share a couple of frames which really genuinely surprised me.

I was comparing the GL Optics 18 - 35 (Sigma) and 70 - 200 (Canon) with the two lightweight ARRI/Fujinon Alura lenses. Both GL Optics are rehousings of stills lenses with excellent reputations. For the money, I think they are an excellent first step into PL mount glass and are good examples of the hybrid glass we are now seeing - lenses with still optics put into cine or cine-style housings.

I think this is a relatively fair comparison because the Aluras, in my mind, represent the first step on the "proper cine zoom" rung. The following two frames are from the GL Optics 18 - 35 and the ARRI 15.5 - 45. The test was shot at T2.8, which should have put the GL Optics at an advantage because it was working well below maximum aperture (T1.8).

The only processing applied was a de-bayer, and the Sony LC709 LUT. These shots were taken about 30 seconds apart. Consistent weather.

GL Optics
654855_gl35mm.00000.jpg

Alura
654855_alura35mm.00000.jpg
Click to expand...

The 18-35 Sigma is a very versatile lens and optically it is better than it has the "right" to be. I have a version in PL and I have to say when shooting certain projects I'm tempted to just leave it on for the wider angle work as it's flexible and relatively fast. But when pitched side by side against glass developed for motion picture and with higher quality it's limitations start showing.

Back to the thread topic of limiting it to PL only, if we are to open it to any lenses it will be just another lens thread on DVXuser. I think we have enough of those and I don't think we need Rokinons mixed up with Master Primes in a discussion as it makes no sense.

I know some F35 owners ended up converting it to Nikon mount. But the camera is originally PL mount. F65 is PL mount. So keeping it PL makes the most sense.
 
Yeah - if the lens converts to PL without any major issues (ie. I can buy an off-the-shelf or professionally rehoused PL version) then I am happy to discuss it. Gives us a framework to talk.

My next comparison may be with the Master Primes and the gen 1. Sony lenses, as I have some of those on the shelf here too. I was going to compare the Master Primes with the GLs/Aluras, but it was wildly unfair and I wanted to do them all quickly to avoid weather changes being an issue.
 
Another set that doesn't get mentioned very often is LOMO. I have shot quite a bit on them and they are very nice for what they are. The weakness is the mechanical side. They are hard to work on and do maintenance. But if a solid set is available they make for a quite distinct look in this world of Nikons and CP.s, which price wise is what compete with LOMOs.

I like lenses with character and I don't feel that it's just a matter of throwing a flat filter in front of the lens. Character is not the same as diffusion. It has to do with the way the lens renders the whole image, the way it bends the light. No filter before the lens or after the camera will do the same.

So the sets I enjoy the most shooting with depending on the project are; Cook, K35s, LOMOs and the Sony Cinealtas. Each fill a niche or level of production. Problem is availability of some of these sets.

But if the project can afford I would always go Cooke. Not much need looking elsewhere then. Unless I ever shoot a horror picture.
 
I have never been fond of K35s myself. I know some people who swear by them, but for me I just don't like the image or the mechanics.

LOMOs are very interesting. They do adapt to PL easily and there are a lot of PL sets about. I had a curious set of LOMOs once, allegedly standard speed copies.

One of them was a 22mm and it looked like a lens cap - there was nothing to it. Like my 32mm standard, I swear the optics began at the PL mount!
 
Broatch

The Optimo DPs are supposed to be amazing. Quite comparable to the Aluras I'd say.

I have only used the "film" Optimos, the 15-40 and the 24-290. Both of those were stunning.

The DP is allegedly nearly identical, but is a third of a stop slower and has a really big protruding back element. That means it definitely can't be used on film cameras or any camera with a spinning mirror. The early DP lenses also protruded too far for the F35/Genesis too - they hit the glass on the cavity. This was revised and nearly all of them fit now. Personally I would go for an Alura, as they do much the same thing but work on film cameras.

At those prices, that is a steal. I'd be tempted to offer AG $20,000 to take the pair. That's less than one was new. I don't think it helps the new Optimo "Style" lenses are better, work with all cameras, and are priced very aggressively.
 
Has anyone shot with the various flavors of the Angeniuex 25-250? It's been around a long time and there are many variations...
I've away been curious about that lens and it gets real mixed reaction that range from outright hatred to 'If you can find one that has been serviced it's great'



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