Lenses

[BTM_Pix]

13 hours ago, mercer said:

Yup, my BMMCC came with the Metabones Nikon speedbooster, but I really would have preferred the Canon version for those reasons. The Canon 17-55mm would have been a joy to use with the Micro as well as the 35mm f/2.

Yeah, my Nikon mount speedbooster sits in a drawer and remains as unused as Boris Johnson's sincerity.

Speaking of Pockets/Micros, an EF speedbooster used with a used Canon 10-18mm EF-S gives a really good alternative to the venerable Tokina 11-16mm for anyone looking for a wide option for those cameras.

Its far cheaper, smaller and ilghter than the Tokina and has not only a bigger range but also has IS which is a big boon on those cameras. 

OK, its slower than the Tokina and doesn't have its constant aperture either but the speedbooster gets some speed back obviously.

I might do some frames with it to post here if the plague actually calms the fuck down again in my area.

 

[BTM_Pix]

16 minutes ago, leslie said:

I figure by buying the g mount for my nikons at least then that should eliminate any play for those lenses. If i buy an ef mount then i have to find an adapter with tight tolerances and i feel trying to find such a beast off ebay  is up there with finding a unicorn.

In my experience, as the F to EF adapters are by necessity reasonably thin, then they are so tight that the challenge of getting them off again is far bigger than the challenge of keeping them on and secure !

[leslie]

5 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

In my experience, as the F to EF adapters are by necessity reasonably thin, then they are so tight that the challenge of getting them off again is far bigger than the challenge of keeping them on and secure !

At the moment i have the tokina nf mounted to the viltrox straight through adapter which in turn is mounted to the p4k. I can lift the tokina lens at the front and get the viltrox rocking up and down at the mft mounting point on the camera, if that makes sense. not very inspiring.

The viltrox's saving grace is that it has a foot. Which if i can be bothered, can be mounted to a plate to remove all that play. But its extra setup time and extra weight. Adding a cheap ef adapter only seems to exasperate the problem, with more play. It does my head in wondering if its having any effect on image quality or focusing perhaps, and lets face it i need all the help i can get.

I don't think the viltox is helping to be honest. Hence the desire to move to a different system, albeit more expensive option.

Neither of my olympus mft lenses have any sort of play what so ever when mounted to the p4k. So i cant blame the p4k. 

[leslie]

I did see a dial indicator in a box lying around in the shed the other day. If my brother doesn't turn up for work tomorrow, i may do a test for verification.

[kye]

Source: https://ymcinema.com/2022/01/16/oscars-2022-the-lenses/

I'd say that this bunch are a little more out of our price range than the normal lenses we discuss, but Panavision lenses aren't for sale, so they're out of literally everyone's price range 🙂 

[leslie]

if i win the lottery, i'll take one of each in mft 😀

[BTM_Pix]

Contax-Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f2.8 on Sigma FP

Shot about 25 mins apart on a very changeable weather wander!

[PannySVHS]

Great to see some love for the 135mm focal length. Beautiful shots @BTM_Pix Would love to see a video of that. What codec and resolution did you choose?

I have a Konica 35-100mm f2.8, which I wanna test. At 2.8 it is very challenging to focus at all distances and focal lengths. Very, very challenging! Would make an external monitor really necessary for video. It's a varifical lens, focussing up to 30mm at 35mm and to about 80mm at 100mm focal length. A solid 135mm should do the trick and make it much easier to focus. There is no representative footage out there with this lens, only some 30 sec kitchen sink videos.

[PannySVHS]

After having tried this exiting lens and having tested three of them, I am impressed. First lens has a faulty aperture, which does not close when mounted to the camera. Second one has two deep scratches. Number three is almost like new. What a marvel to hold and operate. No 1 and 3 have great center sharpness wide open throughout the zoom range. The one with the scratches is sharp at 2.8 but has a glow and is uber hard to get things in focus with when wide open.

Thanks to @Rinad Amir
who pointed this lens out to us on this forum among the Zeiss 40-120 2.8 if i remember correctly.

Anyway, even though this lens is impressive and a of 35 to 100mm range at 2.8 is a treat, this lens is not without challenges or should I say even moreso. Its varifocal construction means the focus marks are changing through the focussing range. One of my three lenses also has focal lengths changing when lens pointed 90 degrees up or down.

@BTM_Pix  I have to repeat and cite myself. So here i go:) "Great to see some love for the 135mm focal length. Beautiful shots. Would love to see a video of that. What codec and resolution did you choose?"😊

 

[BTM_Pix]

4K Internal 8it RAW

There is zero movement (aside from camera shake) in those shots so anything motion would be pointless to be honest.

I'll do something a bit more suitable with a few of the CZ lenses I've got and put it up in a few weeks.

[PannySVHS]

CZzzzzzzzzzzzz, the sweeter the sound. 🙂 I will follow with some Konica 35-100mm goodness. Hard to believe that hardly any footage exists on the web!

[kye]

On 1/31/2022 at 9:20 AM, PannySVHS said:

CZzzzzzzzzzzzz, the sweeter the sound. 🙂 I will follow with some Konica 35-100mm goodness. Hard to believe that hardly any footage exists on the web!

I think the internet has gone through a number of phases at this point:

• Who is going digital?  Can it ever be as good as film?
• Digital is great - now it's even sharper than 35mm film!  GIVE ME THE SHARPEST LENSES IN THE WORLD!!!!
• Wow, all this resolution and sharp lenses look kind of clinical and dead.  Hmmm.
• Digital needs to be tamed by vintage lenses.  It's all about CZ, FD, Takumars, Leica R, and the Soviet lenses.  These are the ones worth talking about.
• Mirrorless is great, now I can adapt any lens I like.  Plus, those CZ and Leica Rs are so ridiculously expensive.  Weren't there other brands too?  I vaguely remember some other brands.....

We're in the latter one now, basically.

There are people in the vintage lens groups pulling Konica sets together and cine-modding them, but they're not so common.  Vintage zooms are amongst the worst quality lenses ever made, optically at least, so they're the least likely to get any attention.

[webrunner5]

 If it is the front lens it really doesn't matter much, now the rear one that is a different matter.

[PannySVHS]

The 35-100 promises an impressive image. There are quiete a few impressive and worthy vintage 2x and 3x zooms out there! My 35-100 with the two scratches must have other faults as well, like webrunner said.

I was exited when Rinad pointed this lens out to us back then and I am super exited to have one which is like new plus two more used up ones. Some sellers from Japan offer mint ones for 700 bucks.

An impressive piece of glass and no worthy and hardly any footage on the web! That is indeed pretty surprising to me! I mean, come on, it's a 35-100 F2.8, with great results wide open! Your reaction is a bit understating.:)

Btw there is still no focal reducer for Konica mount. That might have hindered Konica lenses sky rocketting among vintage glass film crowd. Now with cheaper FF offerings of mirrorless that starts to change.

[homestar_kevin]

It's been cool to see Konica AR stuff get some love, they have some very nice lenses and some very cool/innovative ones.

I use the Canon FD 35-105mm f/3.5 a lot and really enjoy the range. I'd love to see some footage from that Konica if you have some time at some point

[PannySVHS]

@homestar_kevin   I will, when i get around it. And you too, would be awesome if you find time to post some FD 35-105 goodness.😊The Canon has been on my mind for years. I always wanted to get it for a super bargain. Now i bought a big, heavy, more expensive but beautiful varifocal Konica instead.😉 It's rather called a varifocal lens instead of zoom lens. It changes its focal point drastically when changing focal length.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

On 1/19/2022 at 10:25 AM, BTM_Pix said:

Contax-Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f2.8 on Sigma FP

Shot about 25 mins apart on a very changeable weather wander!

I have this one, got almost mint in 2015. Is probably my sharpest vintage lens, used it to shoot concerts and is insanely good. Still in the same price range that I've got (around US$ 160), for me is a no brainer.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

Have to share a little story here.

The year is 2012, starting to shoot stills and video more seriously, just got an GH2, influenced by a british guy which have a video site with DSLR / mirrorless cameras. Funny that the guy put "EOS" in  the name of the site and the rage there was hacked GH2s (the GH3 was just launched).

The same guy had a GH2 guide in which he recommends some vintage lens to use. One of then was the Canon FD 35mm f/2, which he praised a lot - got one in eBay, compared to the other FDs that I've got, was kind of expensive.

Liked the lens; one "problem" was the yellowish tint of the thorium element. The british guy said that it was a pleasant characteristic, but my copy had a VERY strong tint, cheap ND filter like. With the "Ikea lamp" method, in 3 days the tint was much lowered, and yes, now it is very pleasant.

I known that the prices were raising, specially after that popular video (very good, indeed) that tested each one and compared the FDs to the Canon cinema lenses. My copy have the concave front element (got by luck, was not filtering the seraches by it when I bought), which I know that is more valuable too.

Paid US$ 199,00 in 2012, very good shape, optical elements pristine. Got a look at the prices in eBay this morning. HOLY SHIT.

Thanks, british guy, a.k.a. @Andrew Reid. 🙂

[noone]

2 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

Have to share a little story here.

The year is 2012, starting to shoot stills and video more seriously, just got an GH2, influenced by a british guy which have a video site with DSLR / mirrorless cameras. Funny that the guy put "EOS" in  the name of the site and the rage there was hacked GH2s (the GH3 was just launched).

The same guy had a GH2 guide in which he recommends some vintage lens to use. One of then was the Canon FD 35mm f/2, which he praised a lot - got one in eBay, compared to the other FDs that I've got, was kind of expensive.

Liked the lens; one "problem" was the yellowish tint of the thorium element. The british guy said that it was a pleasant characteristic, but my copy had a VERY strong tint, cheap ND filter like. With the "Ikea lamp" method, in 3 days the tint was much lowered, and yes, now it is very pleasant.

I known that the prices were raising, specially after that popular video (very good, indeed) that tested each one and compared the FDs to the Canon cinema lenses. My copy have the concave front element (got by luck, was not filtering the seraches by it when I bought), which I know that is more valuable too.

Paid US$ 199,00 in 2012, very good shape, optical elements pristine. Got a look at the prices in eBay this morning. HOLY SHIT.

Thanks, british guy, a.k.a. @Andrew Reid. 🙂

I just sold my FD 24 1.4 L for $5000 Australian ($4000 to me),     Mine was very ratty externally but the glass was ok (apparently a few cleaning marks and a tiny not noticeable scratch).

Others with bad fungus and worse have sold for MORE than i got.      I maybe could have got $7000 on Ebay worldwide but am not greedy and sold it to a local dealer.

Turns out these are being purchased to rehouse as cinema lenses and likely the same for your 35.

I used some of the money to buy a GM 85 1.4 lens from the same bloke (and for about what I paid for the FD in the first place!).

[kye]

4 hours ago, noone said:

I just sold my FD 24 1.4 L for $5000 Australian ($4000 to me),     Mine was very ratty externally but the glass was ok (apparently a few cleaning marks and a tiny not noticeable scratch).

Others with bad fungus and worse have sold for MORE than i got.      I maybe could have got $7000 on Ebay worldwide but am not greedy and sold it to a local dealer.

Turns out these are being purchased to rehouse as cinema lenses and likely the same for your 35.

I used some of the money to buy a GM 85 1.4 lens from the same bloke (and for about what I paid for the FD in the first place!).

Yeah, I'm on some vintage lenses groups and people are constantly buying lenses, matching, cinemodding / rehousing, and completing sets, which then get casually listed for 4 or 5, or even 6-figures.  There are also people new to things and just buying their first Helios or CZ, it's a real mixture.

A month or two ago someone posted asking for info on a prototype lens which he believed to be from Panavision.  Apparently it was a development prototype of a lens that never made it to production and something happened and the person was told to throw it out, so they put it in their bin at their desk and someone else immediately took it out and took it home lol.