Lenses

[QuickHitRecord]

Here is a neat little trick for using lenses that have rotating filter threads with height-adjustable matte boxes:

1. If you don't already know the inner diameter of the opening at the rear of your matte box, measure it with calipers.
    
2. Go on eBay and order a lens hood with an outer diameter that matches your measurement (I got mine from a seller called mkstudio-us; they have a chart of all of their lens hoods, complete with inner and outer diameters as part of each listing). This will attach directly to your matte box.
    
3. Now measure the outer diameter of the frontal lens body. If it is significantly smaller than the inner diameter of the lens hood that you just purchased, then you're going to get a light leak. To correct this, purchase a step up ring to screw onto the filter ring of the lens that also has an outer diameter of less than the inner diameter of the lens hood. You don't want them to touch, just to be as snug as possible.
    
4. If you really want to protect yourself from a light leak, or you need some room for a focus gear, then you can also purchase an additional lens hood to screw into the step up ring (but make sure that its outer diameter is less than the inner diameter of the first lens hood).
    
5. Mount your matte box to your rods, clamping your lens hood, and screw your step up ring to your lens (add your second lens hood if you bought one). Push them together, so that the lens hood is resting on the step up ring. Adjust the height of your matte box until your step up ring has enough clearance to turn without making contact with the lens hood.

The inside of these lens hoods is ridged and matte black to absorb light, so it seems to work pretty well. I like this solution a lot more than attempting to use conventional "nuns knickers" because there is no friction, and it's better than sticking to round filters because any slight marking or dirt on the glass can become distracting when it is rotated.

[andy lee]

has anyone on EOSHD got any Bausch and Lomb Super Baltars or Baltars?? as I'm keen to see what these look like in a shootout with  a KMZ Helios 58mm

 

The Super Baltars where used by Gordon Willis to lens The Godfather , he shot 90% of it on a 40mm Super Baltar...

George Lucas and Gilbert Taylor also used them to Lens Star Wars .

 

I'm keen to see if a Helios has a similar look to a B+L Baltar........Rich at DogShidt can you give me your thoughts on this as you are into Helios' in such a big way.

[richg101]

has anyone on EOSHD got any Bausch and Lomb Super Baltars or Baltars?? as I'm keen to see what these look like in a shootout with  a KMZ Helios 58mm

 

The Super Baltars where used by Gordon Willis to lens The Godfather , he shot 90% of it on a 40mm Super Baltar...

George Lucas and Gilbert Taylor also used them to Lens Star Wars .

 

I'm keen to see if a Helios has a similar look to a B+L Baltar........Rich at DogShidt can you give me your thoughts on this as you are into Helios' in such a big way.

 

 

It's a complicated subject.  Since both lens designs are from a similar era, the materials, manufacturing processes and tolerances and optical knowledge of the day will have been very similar.  Glass types which are now illegal due to lead and other 'dangerous' substances.  Without using this type of glass it's impossible to get quite the same look.  It's also more to do with how lenses have been looked after/maintained through their long and busy life.  

 

As American lenses designed for and given a hard life day in, day out they will have been opened and cleaned very regularly.  They'll have been assembled in non controlled spaces multiple times - usually leaving optic faces not quite as clean as when they originally came out of the vacuum tank after being coated.  Wiped quickly in use, resulting in micro scratches to the soft coatings.  Add all these factors and I think this makes up the 'Baltar' or similar lenses from the era.

 

I do think that it's more to do with the way Super Baltars will have been used close to their operating limits that dictate their character back when they were new.  As well as being used with FILM!   And now our modern perception of the lens is that it adds character to a digital image.

 

 

I imagine if the zeiss Otus was used for over 50years on film set and serviced once a year, it would share some of the aesthetic we see from Baltars.

 

 

Overall I think an early helios 44 will match a B+L 50mm Baltar more closely than any other affordable lens since their manufacture date and optical construction coincide so closely.  Using on a full frame sensor or with a speed booster helps since you;re using the lens closer to it's optical limits and this is where the beauty comes from IMO.   This is one of the main reasons I decided to develop the FF38 WA attachment.  a 4 element design.  Highly corrected, using as few elements as possible with glass bordering on illegality - as in, I imagine at one point or another those glass types will be sanctioned due to some of the materials they're made up of.  The unit literally sharpens the helios 44 and widens fov but 1.5x.  no ca or softening even on full frame.  it does however apply barrel distortion which actually adds to the swirly bokeh caused by the helios 44.  HAving the ability to use the helios in various fov's is magical since the helios/biotar 58mm is IMO one of the best lenses ever.    

 

That said, If I had lots of money i think a set of zebra baltars in immaculate condition would be bought just for display on the mantel piece!

[andy lee]

thanks for that insite into Helios and Baltars Rich , so they are optically similar - ish lenses

 

so Helios and your FF38 WA  is the way to go then to get a Baltar look economically ! as I dont like throwing £££££ at old lenses

 

all those films like Godfather shot on Baltars are pushing the slow film stock to its limit so they will be shooting wide open pushing the Baltar to its limits too.

 

A Helios WO at f2 has got to be similar - ish!!

 

I got my first Helios in 1979 on a Zenit TTL and I still have it its almost mint , I still use it

[andy lee]

Rich my other thought was B+L spherical projection lenses as I have a few of these off the back of B+L anamorphics - of that era must be a very similar optical formula - just no focus helicoid and iris?

 

 

so has anyone on EOSHD got a Baltar and can do a shoot out with a Helios 58mm so we can see what the glass looks like ?????

[andy lee]

Rich so its just dawned on me - doh !!!!

 

38mm is as good as 40mm - so

 

your FF 38 WA is gonna pretty darn similar to a 40mm Super Baltar like Gordon Willis used to lens 90% of The Godfather........

 

thats a pretty good selling point for your lens!!

 

 

I would really like to try one!!! purleeeese!!

[Lukas]

I hope this is the right thread for this, I didnt want to open a new one...

 

So I own a GH4, a Speedbooster (for some Canon Lenses) and the Panny 12-35 2.8 (as an allrounder). Now I am really thinking about giving back the 12-35mm and getting the Sigma 18-35 1.8 instead and put that one on the Speedbooster.

The main thing that bothers me about the 12-35 is that the focus ring is...pretty much non existant. For video work it is nearly unusable IMO.

What do you guys think?

 

Also semi related: I need to get some NDs...Vario or fixed? And does it have to be the Heliopan ones or is there a cheaper alternative with as good a quality as the Heliopan ones?

 

Thanks a bunch in advance!

[Inazuma]

I hope this is the right thread for this, I didnt want to open a new one...

 

So I own a GH4, a Speedbooster (for some Canon Lenses) and the Panny 12-35 2.8 (as an allrounder). Now I am really thinking about giving back the 12-35mm and getting the Sigma 18-35 1.8 instead and put that one on the Speedbooster.

The main thing that bothers me about the 12-35 is that the focus ring is...pretty much non existant. For video work it is nearly unusable IMO.

What do you guys think?

 

Also semi related: I need to get some NDs...Vario or fixed? And does it have to be the Heliopan ones or is there a cheaper alternative with as good a quality as the Heliopan ones?

 

Thanks a bunch in advance!

Do you mean general lens as in lens that can be used in a lot of situations for cinematography, or just a general lens thats good for use in everyday situations (travel, birthdays, etc)?

 

As an 'everday' types lens I found the Sigma to be a bit too cumbersome because of its weight and because you have to turn three different rings about to get your desired picture. But if you're using it for cinematic purposes it is superb. 

 

Right now I'm thinking about getting an Oly 12-40mm f2.8 as a general walkaround lens. It doesn't have stabilisation, but it is superior to the 12-35mm in every other way, including that it has a focus ring with stops.

[Daniel Acuña]

I hope this is the right thread for this, I didnt want to open a new one...

 

So I own a GH4, a Speedbooster (for some Canon Lenses) and the Panny 12-35 2.8 (as an allrounder). Now I am really thinking about giving back the 12-35mm and getting the Sigma 18-35 1.8 instead and put that one on the Speedbooster.

The main thing that bothers me about the 12-35 is that the focus ring is...pretty much non existant. For video work it is nearly unusable IMO.

What do you guys think?

 

Also semi related: I need to get some NDs...Vario or fixed? And does it have to be the Heliopan ones or is there a cheaper alternative with as good a quality as the Heliopan ones?

 

Thanks a bunch in advance!

 

 

Tiffen and Hoya have also very good ND filters and its less expensive. Just avoid the very cheap ones if you are doing serious work.

[Daniel Acuña]

Hey you can also check Dave Dugdale's Variable ND filter Shootout :

 

[Lukas]

I will use the 18-35 as both for paid work and personal projects/freetime, but the work aspect is more important to me regarding this decision. So I guess I´ll go with the 18-35 then, even though it does not have hardstops either, the focus ring seems to be ahead still and quality wise it also seems to be superior.

 

Also thanks for tips on ND filters. Just one more question...any reason to go with "fixed" ND filters as opposed to high quality vario NDs (except for being able to reproduce certain scenarios more precise)?

[andy lee]

fixed Tiffen Nds are the best - thats all I ever use

 

buy an ND 2 4 8 AND 16 and stack them to get the exposure you need

 

Vari NDs produce horrid artifacts on your footage and colour shifts

as they are in all just 2 polorisers working against each other..avoid!

[YvesS]

In his GH4 shooter guide, Andrew suggests the Sigma 28-70 mm. Looking into buying one, but there seem to be to models around. A "D"-model and an "EX"-model. Are the any differences? Which one is Andrew talking about in his guide?

[andy lee]

get the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 IF ED

[andy lee]

Mathew Duclos gives a thumbs up to the new

Veydra, M4/3 Cinema Primes

http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/veydra-first-to-offer-m43-cinema-primes/

[Tim Naylor]

I hope this is the right thread for this, I didnt want to open a new one...

 

So I own a GH4, a Speedbooster (for some Canon Lenses) and the Panny 12-35 2.8 (as an allrounder). Now I am really thinking about giving back the 12-35mm and getting the Sigma 18-35 1.8 instead and put that one on the Speedbooster.

The main thing that bothers me about the 12-35 is that the focus ring is...pretty much non existant. For video work it is nearly unusable IMO.

What do you guys think?

 

Also semi related: I need to get some NDs...Vario or fixed? And does it have to be the Heliopan ones or is there a cheaper alternative with as good a quality as the Heliopan ones?

 

Thanks a bunch in advance!

Get both. Regular ND's will always be better optically but there are situations where they are not practical. If you're shooting doc work by the time you change filters the shot is gone. With variables, I don't lose the shot. I can live with artifacts and getting the shot as opposed to no artifacts and losing the shot. I set my stop and just ride it up and down. The problem is cheap / bargain variable really suck. Mainly color shift being the problem. Fork out the money and get a decent Heliopan or Tiffen IR Variable ND if it's for paying work. For regular ND's I recommend the Tiffen White Water IR ND set (3,6,9,12,15,18, 21). Colors are clean as a whistle. 

[Tim Naylor]

has anyone on EOSHD got any Bausch and Lomb Super Baltars or Baltars?? as I'm keen to see what these look like in a shootout with  a KMZ Helios 58mm

 

The Super Baltars where used by Gordon Willis to lens The Godfather , he shot 90% of it on a 40mm Super Baltar...

George Lucas and Gilbert Taylor also used them to Lens Star Wars .

 

I'm keen to see if a Helios has a similar look to a B+L Baltar........Rich at DogShidt can you give me your thoughts on this as you are into Helios' in such a big way.

Baltars were the first lenses I learned film on. If you really need the Baltar look, make sure to have the best AC you can find. They're a bitch to pull focus because the low contrast and the narrow focus draw. If you look at Godfather, it's mostly simple static operating and some relatively straightforward dolly moves. Nothing terribly complicated.

[jax_rox]

has anyone on EOSHD got any Bausch and Lomb Super Baltars or Baltars?? as I'm keen to see what these look like in a shootout with  a KMZ Helios 58mm

 

The Super Baltars where used by Gordon Willis to lens The Godfather , he shot 90% of it on a 40mm Super Baltar...

George Lucas and Gilbert Taylor also used them to Lens Star Wars .

 

I'm keen to see if a Helios has a similar look to a B+L Baltar........Rich at DogShidt can you give me your thoughts on this as you are into Helios' in such a big way.

I don't own a set of Super Baltars, though I've shot with them quite a bit... They're really nice lenses, I love using them on RED. Gives a nice look.

 

In comparison to the Helios, I would say it's a different look again. Perhaps you might say that it's a look of the same era, but I wouldn't say that they're a super close match.

 

Wide open, Super Baltars are pretty soft, and at some focal lengths the corners can be so soft it's not even funny. The first time I used them I had this one shot were both edges were just a total blur - I took a screenshot and it looked I'd applied a gaussian blur over the edges in Photoshop!

Also a bit of vignetting at times. The effect would be reduced somewhat on a S35 sensor, but on the Epic MX @ 5k it can be there. Again, not all focal lengths.

Certainly gives a certain look though, one that I really like for the right project. They have an incredible character, and subjects really tend to 'pop'. They flare really nicely.

They also tend to come in sets with a 75mm and a 100mm, rather than just an 85 which I love.

 

 

Baltars were the first lenses I learned film on. If you really need the Baltar look, make sure to have the best AC you can find. They're a bitch to pull focus because the low contrast and the narrow focus draw. If you look at Godfather, it's mostly simple static operating and some relatively straightforward dolly moves. Nothing terribly complicated.

Hire an AC who's focus pulled on film! I've personally not found focus to be that much of an issue, though I do work with some great ACs!

[andy lee]

Helios is a pretty sharp lens even wide open so I guess its not really a match for a Super Baltar then !

[Inazuma]

Anyone know any lenses that give circular rainbow flaring?