richg101

there's very little that can go wrong. all that's likely to happen is that you'll never be able to restore the auto diaphram function, something not used in the scope of our profession

don't give up on it. it may be possible to fix, but some pics of the lens will be helpful for us to advise. Unfortunately I have never worked on these lenses. but i'd suggest going back to the previous one you dismantled and relook at it. the spring is simply to engage/disengage the aperture ring pin for the auto diaphram. try playing around with a toothpick to decipher what is doing what. with your 20mm it's likely a lever just needs to be fixed in place to engage the aperture ring. I imagine oil has dried up in the auto mechanism and as such the spring inside doesnt have enough strength to pull it to the right place.

So have you destroyed that k35 zoom? if it has been focal reduced it means it might be straightforward to revert it into something that covers s35mm, but even then i expect your camera will have mirror issues since the lens probably isnt retrofocus and will probably need to seated deep into the mirror box for infinity. post some pics!

wonderful imagery as usual. I'm really surprised how good it looks. I recon it could be largely down to how well the lens has been optimised for the sensor. I'd love to see a comparison between this and the bmpcc, both shooting log.

Dibs on your Centavision! hahahahahahahaha. I know you said you would be buried with it in your coffin, so I suggest you arrange for a two man coffin, I'll be buried alive with your corpse, so I can spend a few hours with the lens (before the air runs out)

My panasonic CM1 (1 inch sensor, leica lens) might not match the dof/fov of a full frame sensor but I'd say it's on a par or better than the a7s and an average lens... cm1: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/655/21377397474_9e3223d17e_o.jpg a7s+Hassleblad110/f2: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/487/20243312581_9ab559e2d5_o.jpg

1. Avoid units with bright blue or purple front element coatings - the majority of early silver units are of this nature. - the coatings flare up and peak the blue channel in a horrible way. 2. search for a unit with bronze/gold coatings which will match the coatings on your isco really well. also the purple coated lenses starting with serials 72, 73, 74 have a nice magenta coating which also matches well with the isco and also doesnt peak any channels. 3. the jupiter is a sonnar design which tends to also peak in the blue/green channel of a sensor in a condensed spot of colour depending on the coatings 4. avoid the majority of m39 jupiters since these are usually for 'Leica L39' mount - you can tell them apart since they have a longer body than the m42 units. m39 helios lenses are the same as m42 units in their adaptability. just use a m39 to m42 adaptor ring before your ef adaptor ring. 5. avoid af confirm chips at all cost if using on canon bodies - a plain brass adaptor, with silver nickel coating is best for canon cameras. on the flip side, if using with a metabones adaptor you need an adaptor with a af confirm chip since without often means the longer pins on the metabones adaptor cause short circuits when they touch the non af confirm adaptors. 6. there are a number of very cool night vision lenses of around 100mm in m42 mount. infact i think there is a 100/2 lens. I've not used it, but I imagine it will be rather nice. however might not have a built in aperture. if you can find a variation of the m42 100mm/2 with a built in aperture it'll be killer since its a planar design. 7. if going for a sonnar type 85mm lens (like the jupiter9), i'd match it with a 135mm/2.8 like an early pentacon 135mm/2.8. I have found the carl zeiss tessar 135/4 works very nicely with the 'rama 36. its normally found in rollei sl35/qbm mount. being old and without t* coatings it matches the early russians rather well!, and is dirt cheap though not shot on russin lenses, I shot this with the Iscorama (single coated) and a set of Rollei SL35 lenses. as I recall I used 35mm/2.8 distagon, 50mm/1.8 planar, 135mm/4 tessar. each of these was a non HFT unit meaning they are earlier units. going rate for the 50mm is around £50, the 135/4 is about £35 and the 35/2.8 is around £130. pretty cheap for a matched set that performs so well. if shooting full frame just go for the 85/2.8 instead of the 35/2.8.

Nice work Jim.

This is a quick test showing flaring of every 50mm (or 'normal' focal length) I have in my arsenal, and in stock at the moment, some have been supplied to me for optical work. I'm not going to go an list each lens in order, but upload this to illustrate how much variation there is between 50mm lenses despite being almost all consisting of 6 elements in 4 groups, or double gauss designs. Though anamorphic lenses are often seen as flare makers I think some of the results here are magical enough to warrant pairing them with anamorphics which don;t have particualy exciting flaring like an MC 'Rama 54, or a cinelux and an FM- just for the defocus and aspect ration alone. with some of these flares from the prime alone, why add more!

As far as I'm aware, nothing comes close in optical quality terms. that said, if you grab a century/optex '2 element/fixed focus design', a tokina +0.4 and a wide lens, then stick to m4/3 or smaller and optical quality will be pretty good, and a lot cheaper. You'll have flares, a little anamorphic optical look, but minimal defocus artefacts. if you need all three, full frame and fast lenses, as well as 1.33 or 1.5x the only option is the iscorama or widecreen attachment version of the iscorama. Don't limit yourself to 1.33x. a 1.5x widescreen2000 is also a viable option, as are the little iscomorphot anamorphics.

and with a smaller squeeze factor it will highly likely provide better performance than the 1.5x units in resolution terms. This is as much an Iscorama as a MC Iscorama 54 IMO. Value wise, since it doesnt have the 'Iscorama' nametag you'll have to expect lower sale prices due to less demand. However, if this were a 2x version there may be a number of people here ready to remortgage their homes and pay 2x the going rate of a 1.5x unit..

TBH, I think your corporate video looks great. well lit, perfectly suited to the company. clean, tech, etc your interview shots are really nicely lit, if anything i felt the only thing that was missing was camera movement- tripod use throughout I think might be keeping the energy down. and also exciting b-roll shots. b roll clips seem a bit long and slow the pace. A corporate video is only as good as the client/brand and i think you are limited with how interesting you can make something like this look - geeks on computers making kids apps are not as interesting as a flamboyant fashion designer or artist. If you did exactly the same for Harley Davidson you'd have more visually interesting stuff to fill the b-roll with. There's nothing on that video that makes me feel like the a7s is at fault, nor the canon zoom, but I think if you went in with just a 50mm/2 summicron and used the ff/aps-c crop for getting wider or tighter framing you'd work differently, you'd have to move around more, and it would express the feeling of multiple camera ops running around. your zoom is allowing you to set the tripod up then frame which I think is reducing some of the wow due to lack of movement.

But Summilux's and S4's are aimed at exactly the same user base. Comparing the Summilux's or s4's to the canon and you will see a difference. Lighting, camera technique, etc are obviously going to have an impact. But that's something as forum members we have no control over on this project. Let's assume the thread starter knows how to light, compose and expose, as well as direct. it then becomes important to talk about details relating to gear choice.

It's not the fact that canon lenses are too clinical, boring or overly sharp. It's the fact that they've been used for decades by working photographers, and have the 'look' of a 'working photographer' rather than a 'working cinematographer'. If they'd been used extensively for motion picture then we'd associate them with motion picture, however their look cries out 'working photographer turned videographer'. I imagine if Philip Bloom remade himself into a true motion picture cinematographer, and was booked to shoot Ridley Scott's next film he'd be looking at lenses that can only be obtain via rental means (rather than a god to the still photographer turned videographer crowd- which has been very profitable for him as a businessman). You get a lot more cinematography masterclass bookings from FS7 owners with a set of Ef-L lenses and a speed booster than you do from the guys who simply specify cooke, panavision or arri lenses - most of which are optically inferior to Canon L lenses. shooting s35mm crop mode and using some old Lomo oct18 primes (clean) will command a lot more of a motion picture aesthetic. and a 28, 35, 50 and 75mm set + Emount to OCT18 adaptor can be had for less than the cost of the 24-105!

It'll more than likely be your lens choice rather than the camera that is determining how professional the aesthetic is. The image jump from the a7s to the fs7 wont be worth the extra expense. spending the rental costs on some proper lenses, with no zooms, and no canon L series lenses, and particularly not the 24-70! AT ALL will immediately make the image look more professional. An Amira is all for nothing if the user is fitting canon lenses on there and imparting the look of an everyday news photographer lens set. The fact that glass hasn't been brought into your criteria is a very clear indicator of where you need to focus your attention IMO.

$700USD and not even ended yet! The world's gone mad. I actually really like those flares. particularly when he closes down the aperture. Begging for a little ff58 with a 3x oval on the back of it. How are you finding the moondog?

No amount of resolution can make up for the grain of rice sensor and the associated boring aesthetic it delivers. I'd take 720p and some dof control over 8k from an iphone

Can't beat a 135mm/2, particularly one with no fringing on high contrast areas, and on full frame.

Please can you share some footage?

Or the 4k studio version? Seems to have gone very quiet on these cams, despite how nice a global version of the pocket would be. Apparently the camera are shipping soon and I expected to see some test footage to coincide..?

If you can't see the way the lenses render the defocus then you're blind. Even with the rather deep field at the wider end, it's plain to see that the lenses are defocusing with the 2x anamorphic distortion as well as adding the classical anamorphic aesthetic. And seeing as you are being so harsh and demanding of the lenses and of Hugo's test, as well as quite pompous, please direct us to some work of yours which illustrates your experience with anamorphic lenses in general, as well as the work you'd produce if SLR Magic had infact made lenses that matched Panavision c's or Vantage 74's.

Normally you'd be preaching to the choir. This time you're IMO plain wrong. I can't imagine anything else that could make the gh4 4;3 mode look more anamorphic. This looks more 'anamorphic' than most of the stuff I've seen from Hugo - including what he's shot on his Kowa B+H. if Hugo had aimed the light in the background towards the lens it would have flared more. instead he used the light to add some edge light to her to make her pop a bit more. I'm not saying I love the optical quality, but I can certainly see some anamorphic beauty there. The lenses have shaped the way Hugo has shot the piece. He'd have shot it completely differently and it would have looked completely different if he'd used normal lenses and cropped.

shoot full 16;9 mode in 4.6k and use a 'rama on a fast 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lens. sorted

The comments so far seem very harsh. Admittedly you could give Hugo a 550d and a 18-55 kit lens and he'd make something beautiful with it. Add some artistic themes, a great soundtrack and a truly beautiful lady in a semi transparent top into the mix and as a sexist pig I'm gonna like it. Optically it looks like these lenses were being used in their sweet spot in terms of a scene. subdued light, little opportunity for edge CA to become apparent. I see the classic SLR Magic browny orange/blue CA mix going on which to me is undesirable. LOMO's do CA properly. In a lomo square you get CA which doesnt cause a harsh effect. These look like they may suffer from the typical SLR magic CA which to me isn't nice. Positive thoughts are that these lenses really look anamorphic. subdued flares are nice, nice defocus, barrel distortion isn;t too corrected (barrel distortion is one of the best features of anamorphics from yesteryear). On a wide shot it draws your eye into the centre, and reminds the viewer they're watching a cinemascope movie. The sheer number of elements in the optical pathway are showing themselves really nicely. I'd still rather grab a rama 36, a tokina and a set of cheap 50, 85 and 135 lenses and shoot full frame 16:9, with 3 times the sensor area, and 3 times the shallowness of dof, with almost no CA, the perfect amount of distortion, and a German badge from 1970 on the front rather than a 2015 Chinese badge.