Lenses

[leslie]

6 hours ago, kye said:

Voigtlander makes a few different ranges of lenses.  This might help: https://www.voigtlaender.de/

i went to the voigtlander website didn't learn much. I guess you could say their website is efficient ?  here is a wikipedia link for voigtlander https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosina_Voigtl%C3%A4nder#35mm_SLR_lenses_(SL_II_series)

much more readable info  in the form of charts and text, for me anyway maybe its the way i learn ?

[Adam Kuźniar]

This is one of the best Vazen 40mm 2x sample I've seen yet

 

 

[noone]

Anyone tried a Promura 135 2.8?     I know of one in almost as new condition that should be quite cheap.     I need another lens like a new hole in my head but if it is cheap enough, what price would be worth it?     I actually have a Promura 135 1.8 but the two are chalk and cheese in appearance (though both very solidly built) mine has a film of some kind inside and while very impressive to look at is so so for image quality (I think someone previously tried to clean it) I have had it for maybe fifteen years though have not used it very much since using 6mp Pentax DSLRs some years ago and film cameras before that.     This 2.8 lens has almost no dust inside which for a lens of its age is very rare.

Oh and it is FD mount (My 1.8 is m42 screwmount).

 

[kye]

3 hours ago, noone said:

Anyone tried a Promura 135 2.8?     I know of one in almost as new condition that should be quite cheap.     I need another lens like a new hole in my head but if it is cheap enough, what price would be worth it?     I actually have a Promura 135 1.8 but the two are chalk and cheese in appearance (though both very solidly built) mine has a film of some kind inside and while very impressive to look at is so so for image quality (I think someone previously tried to clean it) I have had it for maybe fifteen years though have not used it very much since using 6mp Pentax DSLRs some years ago and film cameras before that.     This 2.8 lens has almost no dust inside which for a lens of its age is very rare.

Oh and it is FD mount (My 1.8 is m42 screwmount).

 

No idea about Promura, but I read something interesting about films inside lenses - someone said that you can get rid of them with a vacuum chamber.  I think the idea is that whatever film is on there (assuming it was from the lens being heated or aging) got there by evaporating from somewhere and condensing on the glass.  Therefore, if you put the lens in a vacuum then that stuff will evaporate again and the lens will become clear.

I've never tried it but the logic seems sound.

[noone]

9 hours ago, kye said:

No idea about Promura, but I read something interesting about films inside lenses - someone said that you can get rid of them with a vacuum chamber.  I think the idea is that whatever film is on there (assuming it was from the lens being heated or aging) got there by evaporating from somewhere and condensing on the glass.  Therefore, if you put the lens in a vacuum then that stuff will evaporate again and the lens will become clear.

I've never tried it but the logic seems sound.

I have actually used a vacuum on lenses before but not this one.     I don't have it with me at the moment but I will try it with this lens.     Not sure it will work but might be worth a go anyway (it seems like someone tried to clean it internally and just made things worse) ....I got it long ago at a bricks and mortar store long gone and the seller suggested it was probably down to someone  attempting a clean that should not have.

[barefoot_dp]

Has anyone here used the Cinematics mods of the Sigma 18-35 & 50-100?

I know they're not true re-housings, but do they do the job? Are the focus marks accurate and are the hard stops able to withstand a FF motor repeatedly? All the comments I've read about Cinematics/PCHood seem to just simply say "it's a case wrapped around the lens" which seems true of most of their early products and most DSLR lens mods. However the Sigma zooms seem to have more going on as they've added proper manual iris rings as well. I know they're not real cine lenses but for me, what they offer for the price would probably be worth it over the cost of the regular Sigma lenses for my personal kit.

Anybody with experience able to chime in here?
 

[kye]

7 hours ago, noone said:

I have actually used a vacuum on lenses before but not this one.     I don't have it with me at the moment but I will try it with this lens.     Not sure it will work but might be worth a go anyway (it seems like someone tried to clean it internally and just made things worse) ....I got it long ago at a bricks and mortar store long gone and the seller suggested it was probably down to someone  attempting a clean that should not have.

If they got it open then maybe you should give it a go..  what's the worst that can happen?

The only real specialist tool you need is a lens wrench, but you can make one by filing down the tips on an old pair of needle-nose pliers into a pair of flat blades.  If you do, just take lots of photos (or a video) as you go so you keep track of which bits go where.  It also helps to place the parts in a logical sequence (eg, left to right) when you remove them, so that working the opposite way (right-to-left) will be the right sequence to re-assemble it again.

135mm lenses are typically quite simple optically so shouldn't be prohibitively difficult to service.  Look online for a service manual beforehand as that would be the best strategy, but I'd say give it a go anyway.  I had good results working with a solution of tap-water and dish soap for cleaning, then distilled water for rinsing and a lens rocket blower to push the drops off the glass before they dry.  A box of q-tips and those solutions worked well for me.

[noone]

1 hour ago, kye said:

If they got it open then maybe you should give it a go..  what's the worst that can happen?

The only real specialist tool you need is a lens wrench, but you can make one by filing down the tips on an old pair of needle-nose pliers into a pair of flat blades.  If you do, just take lots of photos (or a video) as you go so you keep track of which bits go where.  It also helps to place the parts in a logical sequence (eg, left to right) when you remove them, so that working the opposite way (right-to-left) will be the right sequence to re-assemble it again.

135mm lenses are typically quite simple optically so shouldn't be prohibitively difficult to service.  Look online for a service manual beforehand as that would be the best strategy, but I'd say give it a go anyway.  I had good results working with a solution of tap-water and dish soap for cleaning, then distilled water for rinsing and a lens rocket blower to push the drops off the glass before they dry.  A box of q-tips and those solutions worked well for me.

I am actually happy to leave it since I have much better lenses and it does work ok (ish).    I will try the vacuum though and if I can get this little 2.8 cheap enough i think I will.    I had a EF 135 f2 L and Sigma 150 2.8 and had to let one go so kept the Sigma as it is more versatile but the L was light years better than the 1.8 Promura so not a high priority.   Thanks though.

[kye]

Does anyone know the difference between the Rokinon cine lenses and the Rokinon XEEN cine lenses, apart from the housing and of course the price?

The cine lenses are fitted with follow focus gears, are marked in T-stops, etc, so I'm thinking that there must be some kind of optical difference?

[BTM_Pix]

3 hours ago, kye said:

Does anyone know the difference between the Rokinon cine lenses and the Rokinon XEEN cine lenses, apart from the housing and of course the price?

The cine lenses are fitted with follow focus gears, are marked in T-stops, etc, so I'm thinking that there must be some kind of optical difference?

Pretty much your first sentence plus a PL mount option.

This is a brief history of time for the Samyang/Rokinon range.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecinelens.com/2016/01/13/rokinon-cine-cine-ds-and-xeen-whats-the-difference/amp/

There are a few tests on YouTube that support the same conclusion.

The Cine DS ones are the sweetspot but you need to be a bit more creative ND wise for the ultra wides as they have fixed hoods on them.

 

[kye]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

Pretty much your first sentence plus a PL mount option.

This is a brief history of time for the Samyang/Rokinon range.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecinelens.com/2016/01/13/rokinon-cine-cine-ds-and-xeen-whats-the-difference/amp/

There are a few tests on YouTube that support the same conclusion.

The Cine DS ones are the sweetspot but you need to be a bit more creative ND wise for the ultra wides as they have fixed hoods on them.

Thanks!  Follow-up question then - what if I shoot hand-held without a follow-focus (and will never shoot with a follow-focus) but want to have a de-clicked aperture?  It seems like there isn't a combo that offers this..  unless they're like the Voigtlanders that can be set to de-click somehow?

[Edit: or do real cinematographers just have an indent on their left-hand with focus gear teeth?]

[mercer]

37 minutes ago, kye said:

Thanks!  Follow-up question then - what if I shoot hand-held without a follow-focus (and will never shoot with a follow-focus) but want to have a de-clicked aperture?  It seems like there isn't a combo that offers this..  unless they're like the Voigtlanders that can be set to de-click somehow?

Questions for your follow up question... why do you need a declicked aperture? Do you use a variable ND filter?

Also, which mount are you thinking of getting?

[kye]

3 minutes ago, mercer said:

Questions for your follow up question... why do you need a declicked aperture? Do you use a variable ND filter?

Also, which mount are you thinking of getting?

De-clicked aperture as I often have to grab quick shots and start recording before I've adjusted the aperture then focus then adjust aperture.  With clicked apertures it shakes the camera around and ruins that part of the shot, whereas de-clicked just makes the exposure a little off (while the auto-SS in the camera follows the adjustment).

I'm evaluating the idea of replacing the 40mm Hexanon with a Rokinon 85mm and simply zooming into the footage taken with my 17.5mm in post to bridge the gap.  I just did a quick test then of taking a bunch of shots and cropping into some of them and not others and comparing the video quality (with sharpening added to the zoomed ones) and the results are a bit meh once you're scaling to more than about 150%, but I'll upload to YT and see if that crunches the differences.

In terms of mount, not sure - I can can adapt basically anything, so it would be whatever was cheapest!

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Thanks!  Follow-up question then - what if I shoot hand-held without a follow-focus (and will never shoot with a follow-focus) but want to have a de-clicked aperture?  It seems like there isn't a combo that offers this..  unless they're like the Voigtlanders that can be set to de-click somehow?

[Edit: or do real cinematographers just have an indent on their left-hand with focus gear teeth?]

The Cine DS line are de-clicked.

If you don't want to use a follow focus system then these are a cheap low tech option.

They are under £10 for a pair 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adjustable-Follow-Focus-Notched-Rubber/dp/B07CVBNTHG

54 minutes ago, kye said:

In terms of mount, not sure - I can can adapt basically anything, so it would be whatever was cheapest!

I'd get EF as you can then have the option of using it on a Speedbooster on your GH5.

[kye]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

The Cine DS line are de-clicked.

If you don't want to use a follow focus system then these are a cheap low tech option.

They are under £10 for a pair 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adjustable-Follow-Focus-Notched-Rubber/dp/B07CVBNTHG

I'd get EF as you can then have the option of using it on a Speedbooster on your GH5.

I'm confused..  I would want a de-clicked aperture, but the nice rubber grips on the original photo series.  I would imagine the follow-focus teeth would be pretty uncomfortable to use?

[heart0less]

If you are not afraid to open the lens, then try this:

 

[BTM_Pix]

2 hours ago, kye said:

I'm confused..  I would want a de-clicked aperture, but the nice rubber grips on the original photo series.  I would imagine the follow-focus teeth would be pretty uncomfortable to use?

Which the path of least resistance to achieve (if you don't want to open the lens up) is through getting the Cine DS version and adding something on to the teeth to make it easier to hand focus.

The grips I linked to can have the gear belt reversed like I've done here to my 14mm to illustrate for you (though obviously trim the end unlike I've done here).

If you don't want to use the lever (although it is actually operationally not horrendous to be fair) then you can just use a regular gear belt reversed to give you a grip.

To be honest, the gear teeth themselves are not really that bad and there is enough space between the focus ring one at least to fashion a grip with some rubber grip tape.

But yeah, if you don't mind opening the lens up (and listening to Guns&Roses while doing it if that video is anything to go by), then de-clicking a stills one might be the way to go and you can certainly save a few quid going that route too.

 

[mercer]

6 hours ago, kye said:

De-clicked aperture as I often have to grab quick shots and start recording before I've adjusted the aperture then focus then adjust aperture.  With clicked apertures it shakes the camera around and ruins that part of the shot, whereas de-clicked just makes the exposure a little off (while the auto-SS in the camera follows the adjustment).

I'm evaluating the idea of replacing the 40mm Hexanon with a Rokinon 85mm and simply zooming into the footage taken with my 17.5mm in post to bridge the gap.  I just did a quick test then of taking a bunch of shots and cropping into some of them and not others and comparing the video quality (with sharpening added to the zoomed ones) and the results are a bit meh once you're scaling to more than about 150%, but I'll upload to YT and see if that crunches the differences.

In terms of mount, not sure - I can can adapt basically anything, so it would be whatever was cheapest!

I didn’t realize you shot auto, I just assumed you shot manual.

I think Nikon G adapters have an “aperture ring” and will make all Nikon lenses have a smooth aperture... but I’m not a hundred percent sure on that.

[BTM_Pix]

21 minutes ago, mercer said:

I think Nikon G adapters have an “aperture ring” and will make all Nikon lenses have a smooth aperture... but I’m not a hundred percent sure on that.

Haha...yes, ignore all that bollocks that I wrote in my last post @kye and buy F mount stills versions as this option is indeed the best way to have your cake and eat it regarding the smooth aperture and retaining the focus grip if you are going to be using them on a non Nikon body.

Just set the aperture to minimum and you will then have a de-clicked smooth aperture control.

The only caveat is that most of them don't have a scale so it'll be purely manual by eye on the camera exposure meter regarding exposure.

[mercer]

23 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Haha...yes, ignore all that bollocks that I wrote in my last post @kye and buy F mount stills versions as this option is indeed the best way to have your cake and eat it regarding the smooth aperture and retaining the focus grip if you are going to be using them on a non Nikon body.

 

I don’t know, I’d still suggest the Cine version in EF if he wants a declicked aperture. I’ve had a couple of the M4/3 Cine lenses in the past and didn’t mind the geared focus ring when focusing by hand.

The other option would be the Fotodiox Viselex adapter that has a built in variable ND filter... I assume Auto SS would work the same???

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

The grips I linked to can have the gear belt reversed like I've done here to my 14mm to illustrate for you (though obviously trim the end unlike I've done here).

That’s a nifty little set up... I used to use focus levers when I was a responsible tripod user and I can see how those reverse gears would be useful.