Lenses

[jonpais]

20 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Wouldn't the C mount be the best option for you to put on the Veydra's Jon and then you can use cheap C mount adapters to be able to quickly swap them between using them on your GH5, X-T2 and A7III (in crop mode) ?

Sorry to say, I don’t even know what a C mount is! Maybe I should have purchased them instead, huh? At the time, never in a million years did I think I’d be shooting Sony!

[mercer]

7 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Sorry to say, I don’t even know what a C mount is! Maybe I should have purchased them instead, huh? At the time, I never in a million years thought I’d be shooting Sony!

Do you prefer the Sony over the GH5?

[BTM_Pix]

9 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Sorry to say, I don’t even know what a C mount is! Maybe I should have purchased them instead, huh? At the time, I never in a million years thought I’d be shooting Sony!

16mm movie camera and latterly CCTV camera lens mount.

Veydra did/do a mount adapter for it and then £10 dumb mounts can get it on to all your different cameras.

 

[jonpais]

6 minutes ago, mercer said:

Do you prefer the Sony over the GH5?

It’s still too soon to say. 

[BTM_Pix]

7 minutes ago, mercer said:

Do you prefer the Sony over the GH5?

Oooohhhh.....

I'm settling myself in for this one

[mercer]

2 minutes ago, jonpais said:

It’s still too soon to say. 

Well played... well played. Lol.

Seriously, though... we briefly discussed this before... and there is just something about that FF image. Other than going to the complete other end of the spectrum to shoot S16 with the Pocket or Micro, I barely like the idea of shooting Super 35 anymore. And with my distaste for adapters growing by the day, M4/3 seems like a strange crop factor to my eye now.

@BTM_Pix ironically c-mounts are the only things I miss about M4/3 or S16. 

[BTM_Pix]

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

@BTM_Pix ironically c-mounts are the only things I miss about M4/3 or S16. 

I like the versatility of the mount itself but I suppose that just encourages trying to shoehorn inappropriate lenses on to it and the amount of adapters that I own is now reaching ridiculous levels.

The most sensible mount for me now is fast becoming the e mount.

Sigma upping their game with lenses for it has helped, their electronic adapters for their EF and SA mount lenses are another boon and I've just got the TechArtPro adapter so now I've got AF for all of my manual lenses (within reason).  

It also means though that I've now had to go and get yet more adapters to convert the other mounts to Leica M as thats what the TechArtPro takes !

 

[mercer]

A few test shots from a recent location scout. I've been using my Canon 28mm f/1.8 lens a lot lately. It is just so versatile. I originally thought it would be too wide for my tastes as I usually prefer the 35mm-60mm focal lengths, but the ability to get a shallow depth, close up or a fairly, wide establishing shot has been great.

[mercer]

On 7/16/2018 at 10:20 AM, BTM_Pix said:

I like the versatility of the mount itself but I suppose that just encourages trying to shoehorn inappropriate lenses on to it and the amount of adapters that I own is now reaching ridiculous levels.

The most sensible mount for me now is fast becoming the e mount.

Sigma upping their game with lenses for it has helped, their electronic adapters for their EF and SA mount lenses are another boon and I've just got the TechArtPro adapter so now I've got AF for all of my manual lenses (within reason).  

It also means though that I've now had to go and get yet more adapters to convert the other mounts to Leica M as thats what the TechArtPro takes !

 

Sorry missed this the other day. I think the inappropriate c-mount lenses shoe horned on is what appeals me the most about c-mounts. Until recently I’ve only used adapted, vintage lenses... so I have quite the... collection. Back when I had the G7, I had my first opportunity to test them on a modern digital camera and in the first few days I captured my favorite images I ever captured with the G7 and Micro 4/3. Once I started testing and using FF lenses, my results were lackluster. So, in some ways that added character of the jerry-rig kind of helped... for me anyway.

Interesting about the E-Mount. I’ve been watching a ton of a6000 videos lately and I’m still blown away by the video quality nearly 4 years after its release.

[BTM_Pix]

My problem with looking for things to adapt to M mount was that I started looking at real M mount lenses and well one thing led to another....

In my defence it was a bargain.

In Leica terms at least 

[jonpais]

Anyone who’s followed my posts here is aware that I’m quite the fanboy when it comes to Sigma lenses. And reading tests of their lenses is usually pretty much guaranteed to put you to sleep, because they almost all say the very same thing. But for whatever reason, I found myself reading Roger Cicala’s write up of the 14-24mm f/2.8 Art. His findings were almost a forgone conclusion, but the addendum, where he talks about QC, is well worth reading. 

[Simco123]

On 11/10/2017 at 11:48 AM, kidzrevil said:

 

zeiss milvus is overrated unless you want a super clinical look imo. Those lenses are just about the sharpness and contrast

You may find the greatest DoP in the world Roger Deakins won't agree with you. Those who are against the "clinical look" tend to look for excuse of not able to light their scenes properly and pick a soft or vintage lens to diffuse the image. Some people are fooled by the look of some LUTs into believing that the image is too clinical when paired with a sharp problem free lens when the problem is the LUT itself. A good sharp clean lens is as good as it get in what is being captured through the glass. How it looks after it is saved in your memory card and loaded onto your computer are interpreted by design.

[jonpais]

On 7/18/2018 at 11:55 PM, BTM_Pix said:

My problem with looking for things to adapt to M mount was that I started looking at real M mount lenses and well one thing led to another....

In my defence it was a bargain.

In Leica terms at least 

One of the most insanely beautiful series I’ve seen in recent memory, The Night Of (HBO), was shot with the Leica Summicron-C lenses. 

[BTM_Pix]

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

One of the most insanely beautiful series I’ve seen in recent memory, The Night Of (HBO), was shot with the Leica Summicron-C lenses. 

They are seductive once you've used them so they are a dangerous game financially to get involved in.

The lens equivalent  of this

 

 

[BTM_Pix]

And as if to prove my point, it's not even midday and I've been out to score more Leica lens crack.

It's an Elmar rather than a Summicron though.

It's old, slow and cheap.

Like it's new owner. 

[cantsin]

You can also buy this lens as a Minolta Rokkor (maybe cheaper).

[BTM_Pix]

Yeah, I have the Minolta version of the 35-70 Leica R lens.

The theory goes that with the 75-200 that Minolta sent them to Germany where Leica cherry picked the best ones and did some (unspecified) mechanical tweaks. Carrying this theory through then the Leica ones should at least be the best QCd ones, which could be significant considering the era they were produced in.

How reliable the theory is could well be informed by how many Leica owners are trying to justify the extra cost

What is actually real though, again considering their vintage, is the sort of life they've led and in general terms the Leica ones seem to have been treated with the usual white gloves and display cabinet routine. A lot of the Minolta ones I've seen , as with my 35-70, have had a bit of a life.

For the price I paid for it, €135, I could definitely have got a Minolta one for maybe even half price but, even taking into account its very tidy condition, as this one was from an actual Leica store and has a 12 month warranty I'm fine with that.

Plus, they threw in a Leica branded lens cloth so that's bound to be worth €50 to Leica fetishists!

[kidzrevil]

8 hours ago, Simco123 said:

You may find the greatest DoP in the world Roger Deakins won't agree with you. Those who are against the "clinical look" tend to look for excuse of not able to light their scenes properly and pick a soft or vintage lens to diffuse the image. Some people are fooled by the look of some LUTs into believing that the image is too clinical when paired with a sharp problem free lens when the problem is the LUT itself. A good sharp clean lens is as good as it get in what is being captured through the glass. How it looks after it is saved in your memory card and loaded onto your computer are interpreted by design.

Thats cool but none of this applies to me soooo redirect your energy bro ?? save your assumptions, prejudgements and sweeping accusations for someone less experienced with filmmaking. How a LUT affects the color of an image and the look of a “clinically” sharp lens are two completely separate topics.

”those who are against the clinical look tend to look for excuse of not able to light their scene properly” <— nice talking point but doesn’t apply here. 

 

 

 

Voigtlander 28mm f2.8 w/ metabones speedbooster ultra x digilogcolor.com “Aesir” LUT 

 

[cantsin]

A question to the collective wisdom of this forum:

Which MFT lens is better, the Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro or the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95?

Their prices are roughly the same. The Voigtlander is manual-only (and designed for manual operation - a plus in my book), but the Olympus has the clever mechanical clutch for manual focus operation.

The Voigtlander is half a stop faster on paper, but like the 25mm/0.95 (which I own) seems be hazy/extremely soft open, not just because of the shallow DoF, but also for the areas that are in focus. Reviews suggest that the Olympus is sharp at 1.2. Regarding the actually usable aperture range, the Olympus may therefore be the 'faster' lens of the two.

The Olympus has the more complex optical construction, 15 elements in 11 groups vs. 13 elements in 9 groups in the Voigt. 

The Voigt, on the other hand, has an (optionally stepless) aperture ring which the Olympus doesn' t have. It will also work on cameras with passive MFT mounts like the old BMCC 2.5K.

- Any more ideas? 

 

[mercer]

@cantsin and @BTM_Pix , it was my understanding that they were Minolta designs but Leica built with Leica glass?

I’ve had both the Minolta 35-70mm 3.5 and the Leica version and although similar in looks, the Leica was definitely different.

Sadly, the guy who sold me the Leica, decided that the zoom ring was completely locked up in shipping, so I was forced to return it before I had the chance to use it, but most online accounts describe the glass has Leica written all over it?