Lenses

[Cinegain]

Anything Russian for starters. Think: Zenit Helios, Jupiter, Industar, MIR, TAIR, et cetera. If you want something else special, try the Tomioka Auto Revuenon 55mm f/1.2. If you want soap bubble extravaganza try some of the original Optik Meyer Görlitz lenses (Trioplan, Domiplan, Orestor, Primotar, Lydith). Of course there's tons of others you could look at. There are a lot of dirt cheap nice Vivitar lenses out there, don't forget to check out the Carl Zeiss Flektogon line-up either. But I'd start with the Russians for sure.

[Mattias Burling]

7 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

im interested in some m42 glass for my Canon 5d mark iii. Any standout m42 lenses you guys can reccomend ?

Zeiss Jena are fun. Yashica Yashinon (not yashikor) are also nice.

[jonpais]

I started a new project today and used the Sigma 60mm f/2.8. This was at around f/5.

[kidzrevil]

@Mattias Burling @Cinegain Thanks guys ! I now have my eye on a mir 35mm f2 and a helios 58mm ?the zeiss jena 20mm f2.8 sounds tempting as well

[mercer]

So I’ve been reconsidering my lens choices. I own too many and use only a few of them. I recently came across an old Canon L zoom I had never heard of... the 20-35mm f/2.8. After reading some reviews and looking at samples on Flickr, I decided to take the plunge when I found one for a reasonable price. I rarely shoot with ultra wide lenses, but for tight spaces, they are useful and with this one lens, I can have Canon L quality from ultra wide to wide normal... and I’ve heard it described as having prime lens quality... hopefully it will be a great option to keep in the bag when needed. 

Anyway, does anyone have any experience with it?

I’m also looking at a couple Sigma zooms... the DG models... probably either the 24-70mm or one of the 28-70mm variants... would love any info on them too.

[noone]

20 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

im interested in some m42 glass for my Canon 5d mark iii. Any standout m42 lenses you guys can reccomend ?

I had a Zeiss Jena 58 f2 Biotar.    Very very small and light though solid metal.      Contrast was low but quite sharp and had 17 blades and no click stops.    Only single coated (from the early 1950s I think).       Wish I had kept it now, would have been fun to use FF.

5 hours ago, mercer said:

So I’ve been reconsidering my lens choices. I own too many and use only a few of them. I recently came across an old Canon L zoom I had never heard of... the 20-35mm f/2.8. After reading some reviews and looking at samples on Flickr, I decided to take the plunge when I found one for a reasonable price. I rarely shoot with ultra wide lenses, but for tight spaces, they are useful and with this one lens, I can have Canon L quality from ultra wide to wide normal... and I’ve heard it described as having prime lens quality... hopefully it will be a great option to keep in the bag when needed. 

Anyway, does anyone have any experience with it?

I’m also looking at a couple Sigma zooms... the DG models... probably either the 24-70mm or one of the 28-70mm variants... would love any info on them too.

I have an old EF 20-35 2.8 L.       Mine was unusable for a year or so until recently as I couldn't move the AF/MF switch but in desperation, I took the switch out and at least it works now.     I use it MF on my Sony but have put it back to AF and loaned it to a friend and it still works great on their crop Canon (with tape over the hole where the switch was).        I wouldn't call it prime lens quality (at least not the better primes) but in the centre it is very good and on crop cameras the side wont matter so much.       If I didn't like using primes with clear zoom so much for jpegs and video on my A7s, I would use the lens a lot more.

You have to remember this was a pro lens with film and early digital but was replaced by the 17-35 2.8 L which was replaced by the 16-35 2.8 L which was replaced by the 16-35 2.8 L ii which has been replaced by the 16-35 2.8 l iii.        It is still pretty decent and a solid piece of work and I do like it though I suspect I will have difficulty prying it away from my friends daughter.

[mercer]

Thanks @noone I found one for less than $300 and although 35mm is one of my favorite focal lengths, it still covers the wider range I would never really buy. For car interiors and other tight spaces, it should do me well. And from what I understand it matches color of other EF lenses?

[TheRenaissanceMan]

8 hours ago, mercer said:

So I’ve been reconsidering my lens choices. I own too many and use only a few of them. 

This is exactly what made me finally take the plunge on my Leicas. It made more sense to have one premium set of lenses vs a hodgepodge, even if it was a lovable hodgepodge. It's made life a lot simpler, since I'm not always sifting through the pile deciding what to use: just pick my focal length and go. 

So I applaud the thinking. Keep your set streamlined. Unfortunately, I don't have any insight on the lens in question. What few samples I can find look good, but who knows. Some Canon FDs I've used had issues with purple gunk, so keep an eye out.

EDIT: In my experience, the FD L lenses do color match with Canon's newer stuff, which is helpful. And a 20-35 sounds like an IDEAL lens for shooting in cars. Nice all rounder for close quarters.

[mercer]

2 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

This is exactly what made me finally take the plunge on my Leicas. It made more sense to have one premium set of lenses vs a hodgepodge, even if it was a lovable hodgepodge. It's made life a lot simpler, since I'm not always sifting through the pile deciding what to use: just pick my focal length and go. 

So I applaud the thinking. Keep your set streamlined. Unfortunately, I don't have any insight on the lens in question. What few samples I can find look good, but who knows. Some Canon FDs I've used had issues with purple gunk, so keep an eye out.

EDIT: In my experience, the FD L lenses do color match with Canon's newer stuff, which is helpful. And a 20-35 sounds like an IDEAL lens for shooting in cars. Nice all rounder for close quarters.

I was actually referring to the 20-35mm EF version but it’s probably a very similar lens design... maybe even identical.

But yeah, this is definitely my thought process. In fact, I could see myself shooting an entire short film with just one lens. Now the problem becomes... which lens. I am looking for a very modern clean prime lens between 35-50mm. I’d love a 50 or 35mm 1.4 Sigma Art but I don’t want to pay that kind of money... any suggestions? 

I’d love some Leica’s, but as you know... they can be pretty pricey... do you have the 50mm f2 Summicron?

For now I am going to roll with my Canon lenses. Hopefully this zoom will be good. I’ve been editing a scene from my short that I shot with the 35mm f2 and I really just love that lens. The color needs a little work yet, but the lens is just special...

[TheRenaissanceMan]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I was actually referring to the 20-35mm EF version but it’s probably a very similar lens design... maybe even identical.

But yeah, this is definitely my thought process. In fact, I could see myself shooting an entire short film with just one lens. Now the problem becomes... which lens. I am looking for a very modern clean prime lens between 35-50mm. I’d love a 50 or 35mm 1.4 Sigma Art but I don’t want to pay that kind of money... any suggestions? 

I’d love some Leica’s, but as you know... they can be pretty pricey... do you have the 50mm f2 Summicron?

For now I am going to roll with my Canon lenses. Hopefully this zoom will be good. I’ve been editing a scene from my short that I shot with the 35mm f2 and I really just love that lens. The color needs a little work yet, but the lens is just special...

Ah, my b. No clue about that one. Wonder how the focus ring is. Those earlier EFs range from pretty good MF action to pretty awful.

Fun thing I just learned: all of Call Me By Your Name was shot on a 35mm. And it looks lovely! A single lens film can definitely be done, but it entails its own set of challenges. See that as an advantage, though, since specific limitations often produce inspired results. 

Hm...modern clean prime. 35 or 50. Not too pricey. The Olympus OM 35mm f/2 comes to mind. Sharp as a tack, great colors, very affordable. The Contax Zeiss 35mm 2.8 MM is another stunner, if you can handle a modest aperture. Sparkling and pristine from wide open, and a tiny little bugger to boot. Ditto the CY Zeiss 50mm 1.7, which is even sharper than the 1.4. Downside of that one is the build quality--bit plasticky compared to the rest of the lineup--as well as the somewhat "nervy" bokeh (though that's more of a taste thing).

I do have the Leica R 50mm Cron. My version hails from 1970, and thus wasn't too pricey. Ran me about $350. Lovely, gorgeous lens, but I wouldn't exactly call it clean and modern. More like a Panavision C-series, with a bit of highlight bloom and nice resolution of fine detail without aggressive microcontrast. Flares like a bastard, too.

Canon lenses aren't my favorite, but don't fix what ain't broke. If it works for you, use it. And it certainly looks like it's working for you! Love what you've been doing with the 5D raw.

[kidzrevil]

13 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

This is exactly what made me finally take the plunge on my Leicas. It made more sense to have one premium set of lenses vs a hodgepodge, even if it was a lovable hodgepodge. It's made life a lot simpler, since I'm not always sifting through the pile deciding what to use: just pick my focal length and go. 

So I applaud the thinking. Keep your set streamlined. Unfortunately, I don't have any insight on the lens in question. What few samples I can find look good, but who knows. Some Canon FDs I've used had issues with purple gunk, so keep an eye out.

EDIT: In my experience, the FD L lenses do color match with Canon's newer stuff, which is helpful. And a 20-35 sounds like an IDEAL lens for shooting in cars. Nice all rounder for close quarters.

I like @mercer own way too many lenses myself and I am currently downsizing as well. I find it important to build a lens “family” vs a mismash of lenses. I own a set of Nikkor Pre AI era lenses that all have similar image rendering too each other which leads to a sense of uniformity in my images. The same with my voigtlander set which sadly I am getting rid of cause of the cost to value aint adding up in comparison to my Asahi Super Takumar set which is much cheaper, better rendering, and are roughly as sharp. Point is building a uniform set is important. If you buy one Canon L the rest of the focal lengths you buy should be Canon L as well for example. Like you said life is a lot simpler when you can just pick a focal length and go

[mercer]

9 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Ah, my b. No clue about that one. Wonder how the focus ring is. Those earlier EFs range from pretty good MF action to pretty awful.

Fun thing I just learned: all of Call Me By Your Name was shot on a 35mm. And it looks lovely! A single lens film can definitely be done, but it entails its own set of challenges. See that as an advantage, though, since specific limitations often produce inspired results. 

Hm...modern clean prime. 35 or 50. Not too pricey. The Olympus OM 35mm f/2 comes to mind. Sharp as a tack, great colors, very affordable. The Contax Zeiss 35mm 2.8 MM is another stunner, if you can handle a modest aperture. Sparkling and pristine from wide open, and a tiny little bugger to boot. Ditto the CY Zeiss 50mm 1.7, which is even sharper than the 1.4. Downside of that one is the build quality--bit plasticky compared to the rest of the lineup--as well as the somewhat "nervy" bokeh (though that's more of a taste thing).

I do have the Leica R 50mm Cron. My version hails from 1970, and thus wasn't too pricey. Ran me about $350. Lovely, gorgeous lens, but I wouldn't exactly call it clean and modern. More like a Panavision C-series, with a bit of highlight bloom and nice resolution of fine detail without aggressive microcontrast. Flares like a bastard, too.

Canon lenses aren't my favorite, but don't fix what ain't broke. If it works for you, use it. And it certainly looks like it's working for you! Love what you've been doing with the 5D raw.

Thanks, I’ve been working hard at improving my craft. Now if I could just find some actresses. But seriously, I am so happy I stopped chasing these 4K cameras. I was never happy with the results. And spending time with one camera for nearly a year now has taught me so much.

I’m hoping the 20-35mm will have a decent focus ring since it’s an L lens but in reality with those wide angles, it’s not like I’ll be racking focus or anything... so as long as it holds focus and doesn’t drift... I should be good.

I just sold my Canon 24-70mm f/4 and although it was on the slow side, it’s an amazing lens... but since I’m a one man band hobbyist filmmaker, a $700 lens just didn’t make sense.

I’ll probably end up building a small set of Canon lenses and a small set of f/2 Nikkors and then I’ll keep a small handful of my favorite lenses... like the Minolta 35mm 1.8 and my Tokina 24-40mm.

Hmm, I never knew that about Call me by your Name... nor have I seen it. Thanks for the info... I’ll check it out.

And thanks for the lens tips. I’ve had a Zeiss 50mm 1.7 but I think I may have had a bad copy because I didn’t get any of that signature 3D Pop that lens is known for.

How about Rokinon/Samyang cine Lenses... are they supposed to have a modern look? I know they have some character, which is good, but I’m looking for that clean, sharp modern feel. I already have plenty of lenses for vintage type looks.

Anyway thanks for your help and post some more stuff from your F3... love that camera. If I didn’t need to be inconspicuous when I film, that camera would definitely be on my radar.

11 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

I like @mercer own way too many lenses myself and I am currently downsizing as well. I find it important to build a lens “family” vs a mismash of lenses. I own a set of Nikkor Pre AI era lenses that all have similar image rendering too each other which leads to a sense of uniformity in my images. The same with my voigtlander set which sadly I am getting rid of cause of the cost to value aint adding up in comparison to my Asahi Super Takumar set which is much cheaper, better rendering, and are roughly as sharp. Point is building a uniform set is important. If you buy one Canon L the rest of the focal lengths you buy should be Canon L as well for example. Like you said life is a lot simpler when you can just pick a focal length and go

Every time I try and build a Takumar set, I just cannot find 50mm 1.4 that isn’t yellowed. I don’t thing the 55mms have that problem... but what’s a set of Takumars without the 50mm 1.4.

[kidzrevil]

@mercer I bought the 35mm f2, 55mm f1.8, 105mm f2.5 and hopefully I find a 85mm f1.9. One thing I like about the Takumar’s is the uniformity in the rendering. They all look like paintings. Fun fact : the CEO of Asahi Optic’s brother was a painter and was a source of inspiration for him 

[Mattias Burling]

12 hours ago, mercer said:

 

Like I said on IG, thats a lovely frame. You really should extract the DNG and edit it for print

[mercer]

42 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Like I said on IG, thats a lovely frame. You really should extract the DNG and edit it for print

Thanks, maybe I’ll make it a poster for the film... or part of a collage poster.

I really like how those two guys on IG process their photos... Sebastian Kortman and Max Mesch... there’s a dark and clean modern look to some of their  images.

So I’ve been working on that a little because I think that “look” fits the dark tone of my film... but honestly I still haven’t figured it out yet... I think maybe they have some green in their mids

Anyway, of all of my lenses I’ve used, the Canon 35mm f2 IS lens seems to be the easiest path to that look. 

Of course I think they shoot fuji but I’d imagine they’re shooting raw. 

[mercer]

1 hour ago, kidzrevil said:

@mercer I bought the 35mm f2, 55mm f1.8, 105mm f2.5 and hopefully I find a 85mm f1.9. One thing I like about the Takumar’s is the uniformity in the rendering. They all look like paintings. Fun fact : the CEO of Asahi Optic’s brother was a painter and was a source of inspiration for him 

Yeah, Pentax, Minolta, Canon and Nikon have always tried to make their lenses match one another at the very least in color. And I think Minolta was a stickler about that.

That 85mm is a tough get and pretty pricey. According to the Pentax Lens Database, the f/1.8 version is slightly better but also a little more expensive. I look forward to seeing what you get with it. The first K Mount versions were labeled simply SMC Pentax and they are all the same exact lens designs as the Takumars... minus the Thorium. So you may be able to find one of those to match if you need to.

[kidzrevil]

Can you believe I GAVE AWAY a 85mm f1.9 to a friend ? Guess whos currently regretting that decision ? @mercer

[webrunner5]

Really good article about Mirrorless Electrical Adapters that just came out 2 days ago.

 

[noone]

6 hours ago, mercer said:

 

I’m hoping the 20-35mm will have a decent focus ring since it’s an L lens but in reality with those wide angles, it’s not like I’ll be racking focus or anything... so as long as it holds focus and doesn’t drift... I should be good.

 

It is ok and wide enough though the biggest issue is you have to use the M/A switch so can not just grab the focus ring (at least it wont break if you do like some others do).      It has a distance window too.

[mercer]

1 hour ago, noone said:

It is ok and wide enough though the biggest issue is you have to use the M/A switch so can not just grab the focus ring (at least it wont break if you do like some others do).      It has a distance window too.

Yeah, I read about the switch. And that AF is reasonably fast for an old AF lens, but it’s very noisy. With my current USM lenses, I’ll sometimes push AF to get my original mark and then I’ll manually work focus. I assume with this lens, I’ll just do all manual... not the end of the world.

Thanks, I hadn’t even heard of the lens until about a week ago, so to learn that you own it is invaluable.