Lenses with character

[Oliver Daniel]

The nikon is not a vintage lens, it's as ugly as the rest of modern zoom lenses in that range but with bad corners in fullframe.

 

 

I failed to point this out in my last post, which is why I asked. I do personally find most modern zoom lenses to be far too sterile, brittle and rather electronic. So wondered what was special about it? 

 

I actually only own one vintage zoom, Canon FD 35-105mm. (others I have are never used push pull). This lens is very useful, got it for £50. 

 

My goal is to build up set of various vintage primes and zooms, then mod the set I prefer. Also keeping sets for special stuff such as crazy flares and weird bokeh. 

 

I'm attracted to the Rokinon/Samyang Cine DS line because of the declicked/filters threads/gears... but having never used them, have no idea if they have the personality I crave from lenses. 

[andy lee]

firstly they dont shoot movies on full frame ..so you dont need to even think about the corners.....

 

they shoot Super 35mm and this lens delivers great images in APSC and Micro 4/3 on a speedbooster

 

Oliver Wood pioneered this lens on Bourne Ultimatum -

 

since then - DPs Phil Meheux, Roberto Schaefer, Trent Opaloch, Newton Thomas Sigel and Barry Ackroyd all use these Nikons too on big feature films.

 

the 28-70mm f2.8 Nikon breathes LESS than the 15k Carl Zeiss 28-80 CZ2 T 2.9

 

its light and has a 'pop' to it optically its has a very nice look to the glass in it - and it delivers nice blacks too

 

I use them alot

 

it is not  as aspherically sharp 'harsh' as a Canon L Series lens is

[Quirky]

the 28-70mm f2.8 Nikon breathes LESS than the 15k Carl Zeiss 28-80 CZ2 T 2.9

 

its light and has a 'pop' to it optically its has a very nice look to the glass in it - and it delivers nice blacks too

 

I use them alot

 

it is not  as aspherically sharp 'harsh' as a Canon L Series lens is

 

Isn't that indeed one of the key elements that makes it such a usable lens for cinema-like digital video? 

In the sense that it's not 'too sharp,' and it doesn't out-resolve the sensor it's being used with.

What I mean is that if a lens is 'too sharp' and capable of out-resolving the sensor, it'll amplify the digital artefacts like jaggies and moire, and make the footage look 'video-y' and dull, albeit tack sharp. Which is one reason why many of the legacy lenses made for 35mm film work so nicely for video.

 

I don't have any Nikon lenses currently, but I just thought that this lens together with the Metabones first Speed Booster for BMPCC might be a nice, simple combo. The Nikon version of the Speed Booster for MBPCC is cheaper than the Canon one, albeit much more limiting in lens choice. Another niggle is that the wide end would be slightly less wide, too, because of the ~1.7x crop factor.

 

I wonder if someone is using such a combo, and if yes, what might be a matching lens (character-wise, as described by Andy above) (prime, perhaps) for the wider end?

[andy lee]

yes that is part of its look that is appealing - I do highy recomend this lens along with its big brother the Nikon IF ED 80-200mm f2.8

together they are a powerful film making combination with a proven history

[andy lee]

I only use 2 wide lenses with the Nikons

the Panny 14mm and the Olympus 17mm ....both m4/3

[Quirky]

I only use 2 wide lenses with the Nikons

the Panny 14mm and the Olympus 17mm ....both m4/3

 

I happen to have the Olympus 2.8/17mm pancake, but I take it you're talking about the 1.8/17mm version, right?

 

I consider the old pancake as an inexpensive 'pocketable standard lens' for my BMPCC, as 17mm isn't actually too wide with a 2.88x crop sensor. Surely the 1.8 version would be clearly better, but as the sensor is only using the centre of the lens, the pancake is not too bad a standard lens for the price and size. More usable than the lens cap, and better than it was with the E-P2 I used to shoot stills with a few years back.

[animan]

Great alternative to the nikon 28-70 2.8 for APSC is the Nikkor 28-70 3.5-4.5, 10th of the price and third of the weight! 

 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/1635984@N23/pool/

 

Amazing lens..

[animan]

if a lens is 'too sharp' and capable of out-resolving the sensor, it'll amplify the digital artefacts like jaggies and moire, and make the footage look 'video-y' and dull, albeit tack sharp. 

 

I think this is an oft repeated misperception , theres nothing wrong with sharp lenses, its modern high contrast lenses with their fancy coatings that kill the mood that older lenses had, good vintage lenses were just as sharp as (good) modern lenses.

[JazzBox]

Andy, HUGE thanks for the RJ adapter! I'm going to order it! :)

Do you think this one is the same? It could arrive  in less days at home:

http://www.ebay.it/itm/ADATTATORE-CANON-FD-MICRO-4-3-SPEED-BOOSTER-OLYMPUS-PANASONIC-GH4-GH3-GH2-M4-3-/351116470242?pt=Filtri_e_Lenti&hash=item51c02c27e2 

(I read that it's better not to point to lights to avoid blue point: is it true?)
 

[andy lee]

it looks like the same but its very expensive !! get the cheaper one

 

all these speedbosoters under extreme back light can flare and you get a blue spot - just move the camera 10 cm left or right until it goes!! .....easy....

[Quirky]

Andy, HUGE thanks for the RJ adapter! I'm going to order it! :)

Do you think this one is the same? It could arrive  in less days at home:

http://www.ebay.it/itm/ADATTATORE-CANON-FD-MICRO-4-3-SPEED-BOOSTER-OLYMPUS-PANASONIC-GH4-GH3-GH2-M4-3-/351116470242?pt=Filtri_e_Lenti&hash=item51c02c27e2 

(I read that it's better not to point to lights to avoid blue point: is it true?)
 

 

I believe it's the same. Looks like the same Chinese product is being sold with a dozen different brand names. Surely there can't be that many different manufacturers for those. I bet there's only one or two. I take it even that Camdiox one delivered in that fancy yellow box is pretty much the same thing... right? 

So I believe it's a matter of taste, price and logistics. Pick any one that suits you best, or pay more for the Metabones one.

 

 

I think this is an oft repeated misperception 

 

Or perhaps just a slight misintrepretation on your part. 

 

 

theres nothing wrong with sharp lenses

 

I said "out-resolving the sensor." Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing. 

 

 

No doubt the Nikon lens mentioned is sharp, too, but that's not quite what I was referring to. I used 'too sharp' between apostrophes just as a reference to Andy's 'harsh.' I thought "out-resolving the sensor" and "video-y and dull albeit tack sharp" was clear enough not to be confused with sharpness of a lens. But fair enough, suppose that sentence was a bit confusing, after all. My bad.

 

What I meant was that the higher the resolving power of the lens, the more likely you'll start seeing aliasing and moire of the sensor at some point. That point being where the lens out-resolves the sensor. Perhaps aided by a good enough speed booster. A sharp lens is just a sharp lens, nothing wrong with that, as you pointed out. As long as that sharp lens won't out-resolve the sensor, you'll usually end up with a sharp but reasonably pleasant look.

 

I've thought that ideally a given lens and the sensor should sort of make a nice 'match,' too. This may be an over-simplified version of the notion, but nevermind, just to clarify my point. I don't wish to derail the topic with any further nit-picking. 

 

Suppose the bottom line is that there are several different reasons why people like to use legacy film lenses for modern filmmaking. It may often come down to matters of taste, but there's more to it than that. All the nit-picking put aside, what Andy's been saying in this thread so far seems to make a lot of sense. 

[andy lee]

the Nikon is sharp its also great fully usable fully wide open .its that sharp you dont have any worries WO

 

 

its just not Panny 14-42mm kit lens insanely hash aspheric sharp ,

it has modern coatings does not flare much and has great contrast

 

its MUCH sharper than the Tokina AT-X PRO 28-70mm 2.8 Angenieux designed lens I have talked alot about - thats alot more arty the Tokina

 

The Nikon is great for filmic narative stuff , thats what it gets used for alot by all these big name DPs

[John Palmer]

I normally use canon FD glass on my gh4. I find them to be a very good combo with the gh4, I never have trouble with an "overly digital" look to my footage. there is a shop in my town with a ton of old lenses and they let me trade back and forth so I get to try and bunch of random ones out.

I have a bunch of them but one that seems to have the most character to me is a Vivitar 28mm f2.5 FD mount. it has really cool lens flares and is very sharp wide open

Ive also got a Sigma 35-70 f2.8 FD mount that I use with my anamorphic lens that is awesome

I bought a Contax Zeiss 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 the other week from keh.com. I really like it and its pretty damn sharp for a zoom lens. It was only $313 in Excellent condition so it was a hard deal not to pass up.

 

Ive got an RJ FD- m43 speedbooster as well. I have been very happy with it and that blue dot is not really much of an issue.

[Oliver Daniel]

Canon FD glass is great.... I spent very, very little on a set of these and make a living, just proves you don't need 'luxury' lenses to wow a client. I fully recommend them, much better than the modern Canon glass for narrative/stylistic video. 

 

Has anybody used the Rokinon/Samyang cine lenses? How are these for "character"? I hear very good things about them, with cine housings and great quality for the price, but if they have that modern lens high contrast look, I'm likely not going to bother. Vintage lenses are flattering for talent ;) 

[andy lee]

they are modern clinical lenses

 

http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/duclos-lenses-introduces-rokinon%E2%80%A2raw-primes/

 

the fact that Matthew Dulocs is removing the coatings to give them more character speaks volumes!

[Oliver Daniel]

Thanks Andy, the "look" for me is way more important than the housings for cine.

I've been recommended to look at the Rollei QBM lenses for a very organic character. Do you have any experience with these?

Also really looking for a wide angle macro type vintage lens for that beautiful look you get - shooting on S35 sensor. Sirius 28mm a goer?

[andy lee]

yes I have some Rollei QBMs

 

some are made by Zeiss some by Rollenair

 

the early ones are single coated and low contrast and flare like crazy - like a Helios

 

tones of character

 

the later ones have HFT coatings and are very similar to Zeiis T* coatings so very modern

 

get the early ones

[JazzBox]

Thank you very much! :)

[Oliver Daniel]

Thanks Andy.... how do they differ in sharpness? I guess the HFT ones are more clinical in that respect. 

 

Again thanks for all the info! 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Do you guys consider the lack of sharpness/resolving power a "charachter" point? I love my lens sharp, all the vintage high quality cinema lenses were extremely sharp contrary to modern belief, they are mainly just as good as the latest photographic lenses or sharper.

I think the points that define the lens's charachter are:
-Contrast
-Corner viggenitte
-colour vividness, tempreture
-Flaring potential and style the actuall flare
-Bokeh rendition, how wide open it can go, how many iris blades it has, how smooth or harsh that bokeh is.
-Focal length is a very important factor, it's very hard to get charachter in a wide lens, 50 to 100 work best for vintage look.


I think the lack of resolving power, and horrible characteristics like high purple fringing and chromatic abberations, strong distortion, etc are not factors in making a lens unique or give is character they just make it worse. Just my opinion.