Super cheap prime with standard focal length for FS700?
- Thread starter alohype
- Start date
I should use a phrase "extremely cheap"
That olympus 50mm or C-mount 35mm are running for around $50-100.alaskacameradude
Veteran
I bought a 50mm F1.4 Canon FD mount off eBay for about $50. Great lens.
Thanks! I've just discovered a completely new world of cheap Canon FD lenses because of you!
How sharp they are? Any issues with them?
Last edited:
CinematicFanatic
Active member
I use the 50mm Canon FD f1.4 ... fantastic lens. Can't praise it enough.
slipstrea808
Well-known member
Those old FD lenses can be fun to use. They are not super sharp but they are fast and they feel "artistic" to me. I wouldn't use them on something high end at the moment but for my own stuff shot by myself that is fun, yeah why not.
I should use a phrase "extremely cheap"
Check out the Pentax 50mm 1.4, I'd wager its the fastest, sharpest MF lens under $100. Throw a Pentax > EOS dumb adapter on it and you can rock that on the Metabones. There are tons of threads on the Pentax 50mm 1.4. Build quality is excellent. Here are some reviews
http://www.amazon.com/SMC-Pentax-M-1-1-4-50mm/dp/B006CU9V34/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
In fact, I have all Contax Zeiss in my kit now and haven't used it in a couple of years, it's just sitting in a drawer. PM if interested. I'd move it and have the adapter.
Vinyl Stax
Well-known member
Hey,
I have been having a lot of fun with Takumar Primes, which can be had for around 50 to 100$ depending.
I am using a cheapo chinese booster from M42 to Nex mount which works like a charm and retains contrast and sharpness of the Taks. I have recently completed building an entire set of those SMC Taks and I couldn't be happier with them on the FS700 specifically. It adds "AIR" and diffuses the highlights beautifully reducing that digital TV feel the FS700 is sadly known for.
Frankly speaking If it was not for those lenses, I would have sold this camera long time ago
Here is a little shot I did today with my daughter Maia.
https://vimeo.com/115440296
pass:12345
https://vimeo.com/115447579
pass:12345
I have been having a lot of fun with Takumar Primes, which can be had for around 50 to 100$ depending.
I am using a cheapo chinese booster from M42 to Nex mount which works like a charm and retains contrast and sharpness of the Taks. I have recently completed building an entire set of those SMC Taks and I couldn't be happier with them on the FS700 specifically. It adds "AIR" and diffuses the highlights beautifully reducing that digital TV feel the FS700 is sadly known for.
Frankly speaking If it was not for those lenses, I would have sold this camera long time ago
Here is a little shot I did today with my daughter Maia.
https://vimeo.com/115440296
pass:12345
https://vimeo.com/115447579
pass:12345
Last edited:
Hey,
I have been having a lot of fun with Takumar Primes, which can be had for around 50 to 100$ depending.
I am using a cheapo chinese booster from M42 to Nex mount which works like a charm and retains contrast and sharpness of the Taks. I have recently completed building an entire set of those SMC Taks and I couldn't be happier with them on the FS700 specifically. It adds "AIR" and diffuses the highlights beautifully reducing that digital TV feel the FS700 is sadly known for.
Frankly speaking If it was not for those lenses, I would have sold this camera long time ago
Here is a little shot I did today with my daughter Maia.
https://vimeo.com/115440296
pass:12345
https://vimeo.com/115447579
pass:12345
Is this graded? Looks like film!
alaskacameradude
Veteran
They are probably not as sharp as modern lenses but I actually quite like the lookThanks! I've just discovered a completely new world of cheap Canon FD lenses because of you!
How sharp they are? Any issues with them?
you get with them. I've bought quite a few FD lenses off eBay and just leave a
FD to NEX adapter on each lens (the adapters are cheap but a pain to put on
and take off the lens). The FD lenses have their own look, a little softer, smoother
more filmic? It's hard to describe it. But as cheap as they are it's easy to get a
few FD lenses. And I have totally used them on paying gigs before.
Clermond
Veteran
My mostly used favorite lens is the 35mm CP.2 but I must say the FD 50mm 1.4 with novoflex adapter is pretty sharp also. The handicap is the short focus throw and the aperture handling, in general bad ergonomics. But the optical quality with sharpness and almost non existing CA is outstanding.
here's a sample of the 28mm/f2.8. f4 shot through the window(!) to check new 4.10 FW recording in 4K ProRes
The 28mm/2.8 can't even compare with the 50mm/1.4 ...
here's a sample of the 28mm/f2.8. f4 shot through the window(!) to check new 4.10 FW recording in 4K ProRes
The 28mm/2.8 can't even compare with the 50mm/1.4 ...
Last edited:
Seems hard to go wrong with any vintage prime lens set. FD, Olympus OM, Nikkors... all the way up to higher dollar choices like the Leica R's, Contax-Zeiss, Olympus Pen FT, etc. In the budget vintage realm, I have a set of Oly OM primes and also a very nice "variable prime" Vivitar Series 1 28-90/2.8-3.5 . The Vivitar was my go-to lens for a while (no, not a prime, but not really a zoom, either), it does nice things to photons... plus it was like $30, built like a battleship, and covers 28-90mm.
Vinyl Stax
Well-known member
Yes, heavy grading here. Colorista, FIlm Convert and curves in Premiere.
Sadly FS does not look too good "straight".
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Yeah that 28-90 looked nice. I remember shooting a test video with that lens
just messing around a few years ago on my FS100. Always thought it shot nice
looking stuff. Kind of a beast of a lens and push/pull zoom action meant it was mainly a
tripod lens for me although I could grab a couple shots handheld. Random test video
with that lens here:
just messing around a few years ago on my FS100. Always thought it shot nice
looking stuff. Kind of a beast of a lens and push/pull zoom action meant it was mainly a
tripod lens for me although I could grab a couple shots handheld. Random test video
with that lens here:
Vinyl Stax
Well-known member
Good stuff !
I like the feel !
I honestly think the FS700 needs older glass to look decent / good / great ..depending.
This was shot on an old 50mm 1.4 Nikkor for example.
Last edited:
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Nice! That looks very good. As to what you are saying......
I kind of agree. I've heard people refer to these old lenses as the new 'film stock'.
Just as old film stock used to give different feels to things, nowdays different lenses do
the same. My totally uninformed opinion is, that the new lenses are sharp, almost
clinical, which is great for corporates. But the older lenses just have a different look
to them. Maybe it's not as sharp, smoother, I'm not sure. My impression is that the
newer cinema cams are very sharp as the world races toward 4K resolution so
we have the 4K or 4k ready chips. Even normal HD can almost look to sharp sometimes.
So by using the older lenses with these cameras, you get to 'turn down' some of this sharpness
and get a pleasing look. But that's just my WAS (Wild A*$ Guess).
Nice video, did you add grain over it?
I was actually looking into the buying that 1.4 nikkor the other day. I have the 28mm 2.8. Never used it much but I should. Lot's of people use the nikkor ai-s series (good quality and affordable). However I have heard people say they like the nikkor's for the sharpness, which would contradict what some of the people are saying here about the charm of these older lenses, that they're softer and that's what gives them the good look. What's your opinion?
Colinelves
Well-known member
I've got a pretty full set of the 'premiere' Canon FDs I've had declicked and EF converted: 'L-series' 14mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 plus 'fast' 35mm f2, 135mm f2 and the 17mm f4. I wouldn't exactly say they're cheap as the full set cost be about £5,000 including the EF conversion - but that is still cheaper than a similar set of modern lenses (Canon or Zeiss).
In my estimation the 85mm and the 135mm excepted, they tend to be soft wide open (the 85mm is an optical miracle I have to say) but all perform well a stop or so down from that (they're solid at f4). The 24mm and 50mm 1.2 I'd definitely call soft wide open - the 24mm is a bit like having at 1/2 promist on the front.
However when I've looked at other lenses (Nikkon AIS, modern Canon 50mm 1.2L, Cooke S4s) they also tend to be a bit soft wide open - certainly once you reach the same apertures (i.e. the Canon FD 50mm 1.2 is soft wide open but probably as good as a Zeiss at 1.4 - but then a Zeiss only goes goes 1.4...) so I'm probably just a little picky. Plus I've never had anyone complain about then, although I don't think I've ever had a client master at 4K, so that might be part of it. Plus the softness can be quite pleasant (I tend to shoot Cooke S4s when I can - and they're soft too, but in a nice way).
In general I'd say I really like the Canon FDs - and I'm really glad I own the set. They've a fairly neutral look when stopped down, but in general perform really well and when they're soft they seem to be soft in a pleasant way (rather than weirdly glowing like the cheap Pentacon 24mm f2.8 I used to have).
However, like I said, they're not cheap. The cheaper ones are the slower ones (i.e. the 50mm f1.8, the 35mm f.28) and they're fine but a little soul less. In terms of cheap cheap cheap lenses I think I probably preferred the M42s I had as they had a bit more character. I had am old Jupiter 9 85mm f2 that I loved, a Pentax SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 that was quite nice (if a little yellow) and an old Zeiss DDR Jena 35mm f2.4 that was okay as well (but soft wide open - much softer than the Jupiter).
In my estimation the 85mm and the 135mm excepted, they tend to be soft wide open (the 85mm is an optical miracle I have to say) but all perform well a stop or so down from that (they're solid at f4). The 24mm and 50mm 1.2 I'd definitely call soft wide open - the 24mm is a bit like having at 1/2 promist on the front.
However when I've looked at other lenses (Nikkon AIS, modern Canon 50mm 1.2L, Cooke S4s) they also tend to be a bit soft wide open - certainly once you reach the same apertures (i.e. the Canon FD 50mm 1.2 is soft wide open but probably as good as a Zeiss at 1.4 - but then a Zeiss only goes goes 1.4...) so I'm probably just a little picky. Plus I've never had anyone complain about then, although I don't think I've ever had a client master at 4K, so that might be part of it. Plus the softness can be quite pleasant (I tend to shoot Cooke S4s when I can - and they're soft too, but in a nice way).
In general I'd say I really like the Canon FDs - and I'm really glad I own the set. They've a fairly neutral look when stopped down, but in general perform really well and when they're soft they seem to be soft in a pleasant way (rather than weirdly glowing like the cheap Pentacon 24mm f2.8 I used to have).
However, like I said, they're not cheap. The cheaper ones are the slower ones (i.e. the 50mm f1.8, the 35mm f.28) and they're fine but a little soul less. In terms of cheap cheap cheap lenses I think I probably preferred the M42s I had as they had a bit more character. I had am old Jupiter 9 85mm f2 that I loved, a Pentax SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 that was quite nice (if a little yellow) and an old Zeiss DDR Jena 35mm f2.4 that was okay as well (but soft wide open - much softer than the Jupiter).