Lenses

[noone]

12 hours ago, kye said:

Now there's a terrifying combination of words I've never heard before!!

 

 

It might be useful to have such a small lens for 80mm - in situations where you want to keep the setup light-weight or compact.

Dissolving bearings is not fun but it is also not that common either.       I am just saying it DOES happen.       Even with it, the FD 85 1.2 L is one of my favourite legacy lenses (along with the other FD L lenses I have had).         Much better than the regular lenses from all system I have had generally.     There really is something for having those aspherical elements in early primes and most others didn't (Nikon did in the Noct and look at the cult following and cult prices they go for).   Canon had a couple of L zooms with aspherical elements too that are supposedly good as well

As for a cheap 40mm lens that works great on M43, don't overlook the Canon EF 40 2.8 STM used on a non focal reducer AF adapter.       I used it on a GX7 with Kipon adapter and the AF (for AFS anyway) was virtually native.

[kye]

8 hours ago, noone said:

Dissolving bearings is not fun but it is also not that common either.       I am just saying it DOES happen.       Even with it, the FD 85 1.2 L is one of my favourite legacy lenses (along with the other FD L lenses I have had).         Much better than the regular lenses from all system I have had generally.     There really is something for having those aspherical elements in early primes and most others didn't (Nikon did in the Noct and look at the cult following and cult prices they go for).   Canon had a couple of L zooms with aspherical elements too that are supposedly good as well

I have so much more to learn!

8 hours ago, noone said:

As for a cheap 40mm lens that works great on M43, don't overlook the Canon EF 40 2.8 STM used on a non focal reducer AF adapter.       I used it on a GX7 with Kipon adapter and the AF (for AFS anyway) was virtually native.

I've gone to a completely manual focus lens lineup now.  AF-S would be great, but I need to be able to pull focus manually and fly-by-wire just doesn't cut it for me anymore.  In a sense, I'm using vintage lenses as an affordable alternative to cinema primes.  I'm even a bit annoyed when a lens doesn't have click-less aperture adjustments!

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Very much enjoyed the look of the Canon CN-Es (same glass as the Ls with better QC, coatings, and housings) on Helium for a recent short I gaffed. Attempted a more raw, naturalistic feeling look than I generally do, and I'm pretty happy with the results. Grabs are from ungraded Rec.709 proxies.

 

[kye]

2 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Very much enjoyed the look of the Canon CN-Es (same glass as the Ls with better QC, coatings, and housings) on Helium for a recent short I gaffed. Attempted a more raw, naturalistic feeling look than I generally do, and I'm pretty happy with the results. Grabs are from ungraded Rec.709 proxies.

Nice looking images, but wow are those lenses expensive!!

I understand the advantages of cinema primes and how they can pay for themselves on a big shoot, but yeah, you'd really want the images to be super nice!

[thephoenix]

On 1/11/2019 at 6:48 PM, mercer said:

Btw, the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 I am referring to is the RMC version, not the AT-X version. The AT-X version may be good as well but I’ve never used one, so I can’t say.

Here’s a good write up of the RMC version and his site is a great resource for vintage lenses for video use in general.

https://www.vintagelensesforvideo.com/tokina-rmc-17mm/

Also with the RMC Tokina lenses you have a couple extra choices in the wide range if you want to build a quasi set... the 24, 28 and 35mm f/2.8 are all decent lenses. I also briefly had an RMC Tokina 35mm f/2 that was amazing. Stupidly I sold it and haven’t found another one since. The 25-50mm zoom is pretty good. And they made a 24-40mm f/2.8 AT-X that I adore. And then there’s the 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 that is a cult classic and derived from the Angenieux design. 

Tokina lenses are a good foray into vintage lenses because they are available in so many adaptable mounts, the IQ is really good but with some character and are relatively inexpensive.

got lucky i guess, bought the 17mm rmc tokina yesterday with fd mount, wasn't really happy to finaly get a fd mount but got lucky again as i found another one with nikon mount which looks even better and same price. guess i will resell the fd one to get even and maybe even get a few bucks out of it

[TheRenaissanceMan]

9 hours ago, kye said:

Nice looking images, but wow are those lenses expensive!!

I understand the advantages of cinema primes and how they can pay for themselves on a big shoot, but yeah, you'd really want the images to be super nice!

They were rentals, and very reasonable ones considering our producer worked at the rental house. Besides, the Canons are actually very affordable in comparison to other cinema glass.

Also, it was anything but a big shoot. 2 days in a friend's cabin with 9 crew and 4 actors. $2500 budget that largely paid for food, actors, and rentals. Our goal on the technical side was to get maximum production value for minimum money and give ourselves as much post-production flexibility as possible, because at the end of the day, no one watching the film cares what the gear costs; they just want to like what they see.

[thephoenix]

I am thinking about declicking my vintage lenses like the tokina 17mm and helios 44-4. Did some of you did it  ? 

[mercer]

So, I took a drive yesterday in the cold to do a test of a few lenses... the Nikkor 24mm f/2 vs the Carl Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 in the Rollei QBM mount. 

Here are the results...

Nikkor 24mm f/2

Carl Zeiss 25mm f/2.8

I found the speed of the Nikkor to be pretty helpful considering that that shot was taken about 10 minutes after the Zeiss shot, but there is just something about that cold Zeiss look that has a definite pop to it that seems more cinematic... maybe it's in my head? 

Full disclosure... I didn't attempt to match these images, I just did a basic Rec709 conversion and a little bit of curves and saturation. Also I am still using my MacBook Air screen for all of this preliminary color work and lens tests. I'm in the process of deciding on a monitor upgrade... so these may look like crap compared to what I am seeing in Resolve... oh the fun of hobbyist color work... lol.

[webrunner5]

I sort of like the Nikkor lens better. The Zeiss is kind of Too good to be honest. Although in reality they are two different shots. The Nikkor is using it's f2.0 to the max LoL.

You could have picked a warmer day to do this you know. Although the snow really adds to the scene. I hope those were screen gabs so you have some good footage to add.

[BTM_Pix]

I think if you match the white balance and exposure between them it gets a lot closer.

I personally prefer the Zeiss image largely because its a more subtle settled look overall with enough (and smoother) separation to the background without being as jarring as the Nikkor is though I dare say this would be the case with the Nikkor at f2.8 as well.

[Nikkor]

I'm bored of those seascapes, I want to see some New York City footage.

I prefer the zeiss because I don't really like nervous bokeh,but let's continue this review with NYC footage, I want to see some glorious out of focus lights on the zeiss, I love it when they are dense dot and not some fuzzy crap, and I think that's where the zeiss really will show off.

[mercer]

@BTM_Pix yup I noticed the Zeiss was a lot cooler in the mids. But I was surprised that the slower lens had better separation. I’m sure it’s more quantifiable than magic so I’ll use the word mojo instead but those old Rollei Zeiss lenses seem to have it in spades... much better than the Contax Zeiss I’ve tested in the past. 

4 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

I'm bored of those seascapes, I want to see some New York City footage.

I prefer the zeiss because I don't really like nervous bokeh,but let's continue this review with NYC footage, I want to see some glorious out of focus lights on the zeiss, I love it when they are dense dot and not some fuzzy crap, and I think that's where the zeiss really will show off.

Wrong time of the year for NYC for me... way too cold for my slim build. I’ll get a shot of Taxi Driver on the TV if you want? 

[BTM_Pix]

1 minute ago, mercer said:

 I’m sure it’s more quantifiable than magic so I’ll use the word mojo instead but those old Rollei Zeiss lenses seem to have it in spades... much better than the Contax Zeiss I’ve tested in the past. 

I think its safe to say 'mojo' in this particular area of the forum  

 

[mercer]

2 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think its safe to say 'mojo' in this particular area of the forum  

 

Yeah us lens nerds are more forgiving than the sensor nerds, I guess.

[BTM_Pix]

Just now, mercer said:

Yeah us lens nerds are more forgiving than the sensor nerds, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a bit of technical jousting and whatever myself but at some point all this shit has to mean something tangible in terms of an image.

The amount of A/B/C/D camera comparisons that I see getting chewed over that use completely different lenses on each camera bewilders me to be honest, like the lens is somehow incidental.

I've posted this before with regard to making a Cinecorder but I'm definitely going to get rid of a few bits and pieces and buy one of these Angenieux 25-250mm if I can find a decent one.

 

[mercer]

@BTM_Pix yeah I must admit, other than the past few days, I’ve been steering clear of this site a little because quite frankly I am tired of defending myself when using words like cinematic, mojo, etc... I’m definitely not the most talented or skilled person around these parts but if somebody needs quantifiable definitions for mojo, then they’re not using their eyes or capturing with their gut.

If this stuff was one hundred percent scientific, then I’d be a lot better and we’d all be Kubrick but it isn’t no matter how much math you throw at an explanation. Art isn’t always describable and a brush stroke can only explain so much. It’s when science and art melds with craft and emotion does a beautiful image appear. I am far from that goal but it doesn’t mean I can’t recognize it without explanation.

end rant

That Angenieux looks beautiful. I’m always tempted to pick up the 35-70mm Nikon Mount Angenieux until I see the price tag. With my brief stint with the Micro, I had the 15mm c-mount and it was like painting with pastels and sharp as a tack at the same time.

Does that 25-250mm cover S35 or is that using the magic zoom function of the LS300?

With that being said, here's a shot of the same subject from the Zeiss 50mm 1.8 Rollei mount lens...

[BTM_Pix]

16 minutes ago, mercer said:

Does that 25-250mm cover S35 or is that using the magic zoom function of the LS300?

It covers S35.

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

It covers S35.

Have you ever used B4 lenses on it? Amazing lenses for hardly any money.

[kye]

4 hours ago, mercer said:

So, I took a drive yesterday in the cold to do a test of a few lenses... the Nikkor 24mm f/2 vs the Carl Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 in the Rollei QBM mount. 

Here are the results...

Nikkor 24mm f/2

Carl Zeiss 25mm f/2.8

I found the speed of the Nikkor to be pretty helpful considering that that shot was taken about 10 minutes after the Zeiss shot, but there is just something about that cold Zeiss look that has a definite pop to it that seems more cinematic... maybe it's in my head? 

Full disclosure... I didn't attempt to match these images, I just did a basic Rec709 conversion and a little bit of curves and saturation. Also I am still using my MacBook Air screen for all of this preliminary color work and lens tests. I'm in the process of deciding on a monitor upgrade... so these may look like crap compared to what I am seeing in Resolve... oh the fun of hobbyist color work... lol.

The Zeiss is a lot bluer which makes sense given the time of day - you can't use that as a fair test.

Having said that, take away the lesson that this is what happens when you grade like this - if you have a go matching the Nikkor to the Zeiss then it's a free lesson in grading

3 hours ago, Nikkor said:

I'm bored of those seascapes, I want to see some New York City footage.

I prefer the zeiss because I don't really like nervous bokeh,but let's continue this review with NYC footage, I want to see some glorious out of focus lights on the zeiss, I love it when they are dense dot and not some fuzzy crap, and I think that's where the zeiss really will show off.

Interestingly, I was distracted by how sharp the bokeh was in both the Zeiss and Nikkor images above and prefer the softer Angenieux rendering below, but for night shots with bright light bokeh maybe harder edges would be better.  

Great - now we need a set of day lenses and a set of night lenses!

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a bit of technical jousting and whatever myself but at some point all this shit has to mean something tangible in terms of an image.

The amount of A/B/C/D camera comparisons that I see getting chewed over that use completely different lenses on each camera bewilders me to be honest, like the lens is somehow incidental.

I've posted this before with regard to making a Cinecorder but I'm definitely going to get rid of a few bits and pieces and buy one of these Angenieux 25-250mm if I can find a decent one.

 

"at some point all this shit has to mean something tangible in terms of an image"

Truth.  Otherwise we're just the video equivalents of those people that photograph brick walls!

2 hours ago, mercer said:

If this stuff was one hundred percent scientific, then I’d be a lot better and we’d all be Kubrick but it isn’t no matter how much math you throw at an explanation. Art isn’t always describable and a brush stroke can only explain so much. It’s when science and art melds with craft and emotion does a beautiful image appear. I am far from that goal but it doesn’t mean I can’t recognize it without explanation.

end rant

That Angenieux looks beautiful. I’m always tempted to pick up the 35-70mm Nikon Mount Angenieux until I see the price tag. With my brief stint with the Micro, I had the 15mm c-mount and it was like painting with pastels and sharp as a tack at the same time.

There's the same problem in audio of describing aesthetics in a consistent way.  It creates all the same confusions and arguments because people all hear differently, and people have different preferences, so comments like "A is better than B" "worth the price" etc are automatically a problem, but even things like "X is faster than Y" "X has better imaging than Y" "X has better bass than Y" etc are also difficult because even when people have the same definition of what those words mean (which takes a shared history of experience) each person might hear different aspects of those things differently and depending on how you value those different aspects of that trait will depend on how you think each one rates.

There's also another complication which I'm not sure is true for video, but if definitely true for audio and that is that the 'rules' change depending on the overall quality level of your equipment.  For example, if you have a low quality digital source, like a cheap CD player, then the high frequencies are unpleasant and so speakers that don't have an extended high-frequency response are more musical because they're covering up a problem elsewhere in your system.  However, when you start going up the levels going from a bad CD player to a very good CD player there is a point at which having speakers that hide the problem by de-emphasising the whole high-frequency range becomes a liability and not an asset.  Unfortunately what this means is that people with low quality systems will evaluate high-quality speakers and dislike them, then flood the internet with comments about how they sound awful.
The main difference is that you can't hear an audio system over the internet, so video is a bit different in that sense.  Imagine all the issues you'd have with cameras if people were all warring in the forums and reviewers relied on ad money etc, but you couldn't see any photographs or video except in person!  Yeah, it is that bad.

Synergy is always a thing, art is always subjective, haters gonna hate but who cares!  Just like Casey Neistat said about haters.. "People who don't create don't get an opinion"

[mercer]

8 minutes ago, kye said:

The Zeiss is a lot bluer which makes sense given the time of day - you can't use that as a fair test.

 Having said that, take away the lesson that this is what happens when you grade like this - if you have a go matching the Nikkor to the Zeiss then it's a free lesson in grading

True but nothing about this “test” is fair. Pitting an f/2 lens vs an f/2.8 lens wide open isn’t fair. Also Nikkor lenses are traditionally warmer than Zeiss lenses. Hell, I may have even set the color temperature differently in the Raw panel because I preferred one over the other at the time.

I have a very modicum amount of grading skills, so I prefer to allow the equipments’ natural tendencies to do some of the job for me. Color grading is a craft in and of itself and as a one man band filmmaker, it is impossible for me to be great at every discipline. Of course I try my best, to do my best and your point on the lesson is definitely taken and food for thought.