Arri SR3 lens compatibility

[Samuel Preston]

Hi everyone, i just picked up an arri sr3 and was wondering if anyone has the measurements for the lens mount, mirror and baffel system, so that i can find out which lenses will work without internal conflicts? 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, considering 35mm film cameras mirror shutter angle is narrower than 16mm shutter angle, I think you'd not have any problems with lenses from any format really. 

 

[Robin Phillips]

Im not sure if any PL mount, B mount, or Arri S mount lenses will be a problem. LPL lenses I believe are a no go on 35mm film bodies, they might clear on an SR3. I've seen master primes (pl mount) on 416s with no issue, in fact its one of the ways to get the sharpest s16mm given the rarity of the U16s. I think where you need to be more careful are lenses built for digital systems exclusively, as even some high end ones dont care about film cameras and their mirror shutters and will protrude deeper into the mount. Hopefully someone here has the actual specs. 

What lenses are you looking to use?

[Samuel Preston]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Well, considering 35mm film cameras mirror shutter angle is narrower than 16mm shutter angle, I think you'd not have any problems with lenses from any format really. 

 

I’ve already had a lens made for 16mm not fit due to the rear element or surrounding part protruding so far back that it doesn’t even go flush to the pl mount. So, there does seem to be issues 

[Samuel Preston]

11 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

 

What lenses are you looking to use?

I’ve got access to a few U16 lenses, but i was thinking of picking up a more modern Zoom lens for versatility, i’ve seen the tokina 11-20 used on sr3 so that must work but i was wondering about something like the dzo 12-25 as it’s got a bit more reach into the longer focal lengths. Have not seen anyone run it so wasn’t sure about clearance. 

[Robin Phillips]

IIRC I've put a tokina 11-16 on an sr3 before without a problem, havent done the 11-20. But it was iffy in terms of sharpness. thats one of the challenges with lower cost lenses. most are not that great at resolving for the s16 gate. though those laowa nanomorph anamorphics will clear the mirror and are, to my surprise, quite sharp. 

its harder to find now, but the zeiss LWZ.1 and LWZ.2 are almost as sharp as the U16s. its my go too zoom lens for s16 when Im shooting U16s since it'll match, same coatings and all.

[Tyler Purcell]

4 hours ago, Samuel Preston said:

I’ve already had a lens made for 16mm not fit due to the rear element or surrounding part protruding so far back that it doesn’t even go flush to the pl mount. So, there does seem to be issues 

Well yea, you "made" a lens lol 

Lenses made for motion picture cameras, won't have these issues. 

[Samuel Preston]

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Well yea, you "made" a lens lol 

Lenses made for motion picture cameras, won't have these issues. 

You misunderstood, the lens i used is a 16mm motion picture lens. I didn’t make it, it was made for 16mm. 

[Aapo Lettinen]

by my experience, one often has most problems with Soviet 16mm lenses as they have weird back parts geometry easily hitting stuff inside Western cameras for the Western cameras made assuming that the lenses would have more compact rear mechanics. for example the Lomo 10-100 is just barely possible to fit to the Aaton LTR if you mount it really slowly and carefully, there is just like half a millimeter or quarter millimeter of room even if it is perfectly aligned in the adapter. Other lenses like 16SP and Krasnogorsk lenses often don't fit at all and are practically only compatible with the camera they are made for. Soviet cameras were made for cheap so of course they wanted to use simpler optical and mechanical designs, thus often making the lenses more "camera-specific" and less compact . Most Western lenses usually have more "slender, conical style" back parts whereas the Soviet ones are more commonly "just large bulky cylinder" type.

On most Western lenses it should usually be relatively easy to figure out from photos if a lens might potentially cause issues or not. On higher end lenses and especially on 35mm format ones the most common issue is the lens body not clearing the viewfinder assembly well enough, for example Ultra Primes come very very close to the viewfinder though should still be usable if carefully mounted.

[Tyler Purcell]

On 10/29/2023 at 11:17 PM, Samuel Preston said:

You misunderstood, the lens i used is a 16mm motion picture lens. I didn’t make it, it was made for 16mm. 

Ah got ya, I've never seen a lens protrude to far into the camera that it won't work. Very odd. I'd like to see pictures of what part doesn't fit. I wonder if it's simply the lens mount being a tiny bit smaller inner dimension for some reason. Some cameras like the Arri SR3 have a slightly larger inner dimension than the Aaton cameras or some of the converted SR's from B to PL. 

[Dom Jaeger]

On 10/29/2023 at 10:27 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Well, considering 35mm film cameras mirror shutter angle is narrower than 16mm shutter angle, I think you'd not have any problems with lenses from any format really. 

This is bad advice, there are definitely cine lenses that are not compatible with an SR3.

The main culprits are certain older Arri Standard mount lenses that were made for the Arriflex 16S, like Cooke Kinetals and some Schneiders. The 16S had more mirror clearance than later cameras, so be careful with any wide angle lens in Arri Standard mount. Any lens in Arri Bayonet mount should be OK on an SR3 with a PL adapter. 

There are also a handful of more modern lenses that were made to be digital only, like the Angenieux DP zooms, which protrude too far back past the PL mount to fit a film camera, but from what I’ve seen most PL lenses nowadays seem to be made with film camera clearance specs in mind. Some lenses may have barrels that are too large which can foul on the SR3 viewfinder.

There is a lens clearance diagram Arri provided for their 35mm spinning mirror cameras which you can use. 16mm cameras like the SR series actually have a little more clearance than the 35mm ones. The diagram is in this thread:

 

[David Sekanina]

Wrong thread, sorry. I reposted it in the above mentioned thread about the Laowa Nanomorphs.

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by David Sekanina

[Guillermo Polo]

Hi everyone,

Bringing this thread back! I recently bought an ARRI SR3 and I’m starting to test several lenses with it.

We have a set of Master Primes, and after reading in a few forums that they supposedly can’t be used because they hit the viewfinder — I tried it myself, and they actually work. It’s true that you can’t rotate the viewfinder to a fully horizontal position, but you can angle it enough to make it totally usable.

I’m attaching some photos and a short video below. Once I get some footage, I’ll share my impressions.

Also curious if anyone here has tried modern lenses that are often considered “too sharp” on digital, like DZO (Vespid, Zooms), Laowa, etc. I’d love to see how they render on film.

I’ve often read that the “cleanest” and sharpest options for S16 are Ultra 16s, Ultra Primes or Super Speeds, but I’m interested to see how these newer designs behave — and of course the Master Primes, which I guess were used on the 416 as well. Have you tried any of this?

Link to Video and photo:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mldle9ptaGEb7zeyAmcp3Tx1ExGkfA0T/view?usp=drivesdk

 

 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

7 hours ago, Guillermo Polo said:

I’ve often read that the “cleanest” and sharpest options for S16 are Ultra 16s, Ultra Primes or Super Speeds, but I’m interested to see how these newer designs behave — and of course the Master Primes, which I guess were used on the 416 as well. Have you tried any of this?

Honestly, I did a feature a few years ago on 16mm with Ultra Primes and I wasn't blown away. When they're all the way open, they're really not special. They have similar issues to other lenses, which amazes me because having shot with Super Speed MK3's and CP2s Super Speed's quite a bit, the Ultra's just don't behave the same way from my experience. I had no choice but to run them that way due to our shooting situation, but having shot a lot with my little Russian Optar's quite a bit (my main kit), I really didn't see ANY benefits with the Ultra's all the way open. I guess stopped down, most lenses look great. So the point of Ultra Primes, Master Primes and even Super Speed's, kinda goes out the window if you're running T8 the entire time. Sure they're sharp, but MOST lenses are sharp at those stops.

I did post work on a film shot with my Aaton 35III in 3 perf few years ago, all with Master Primes, most of it all the way open and wasn't impressed either. I have used Master Primes on digital, forget that. I would never make that mistake again, way too sharp. Even my CP2 super speed's are so bloody sharp, I have been searching for alternatives for my digital cameras. 

With that said, I would day the Super Speed MK3's are probably the best over-all lens due to the cost, barrel size (easier to run on SR's and such) and the simple fact, from my perspective, there is no benefits to the Ultra or Master primes. They're very similar to the Optars optically but they don't have the issues with the housings, which is why the Optars fall flat on their face for real work. The MK3's are also sharper all the way open, but not a lot. It's a difference that if you compared the two back to back you may see, but not something you'd see randomly by watching the B Roll. 

To do a real test, you need to compare multiple lenses, you can't just show us footage. There are too many variables from camera body calibration to scanner quality. 

 

[Dom Jaeger]

17 hours ago, Guillermo Polo said:

.. curious if anyone here has tried modern lenses that are often considered “too sharp” on digital, like DZO (Vespid, Zooms), Laowa, etc. I’d love to see how they render on film.

I’ve often read that the “cleanest” and sharpest options for S16 are Ultra 16s, Ultra Primes or Super Speeds, but I’m interested to see how these newer designs behave — and of course the Master Primes, which I guess were used on the 416 as well. Have you tried any of this?

Generally speaking, you'll get the best performance from lenses designed for the format you're shooting. S16 lenses like Ultra 16s were optimised to cover the S16 frame and with slightly higher resolution than 35mm Ultra Primes, since 16mm is assumed to need more magnification for normal viewing conditions (which is why the S16 Circle of Confusion figure is different to 35mm).

But lens design evolves too, so many modern lenses have very high edge to edge resolution now, even when designed for larger formats. Full frame lenses like Sigmas, Signature Primes or Zeiss Supremes are as close to perfect as lenses get, with better resolution than Master Primes, which were the state of the art for 35mm cine lenses back in the mid 2000s. MPs are still very high quality though, just with slightly different characteristics and importantly they are (in most cases) faster. This is generally true of smaller format lenses - they can be optimised for faster apertures than larger formats.  

So Zeiss S16 Super Speeds made decades ago are still faster than most modern lenses designed for full frame.  You'll also struggle to find very wide focal lengths in modern full frame lens lines, which tend to go down to around 12mm (like Master Primes), whereas S16 lenses like Ultra 16s or Cooke SK4s can go down to 6mm. There are also Century and Optex S16 lenses that go very wide.

I'm sure DZO Vespids would look fine on 16mm film (assuming they fit your SR3), but you would be limited to T2.8 for the wider focal lengths (12 and 16mm), compared to T1.3 with Super Speeds or Ultra 16s, more than a two stop difference.

Super Speeds are a classic choice, but I wouldn't call them clean wide open. 

So as always, there are factors to consider beyond just "what lens is sharpest"? Almost any lens looks pretty sharp stopped down to T8. But do you want to be able to shoot in low light, or have the choice to get a shallower depth of field?  Do you want a wider angle of view than 12mm (only equivalent to about a 35mm on a full frame camera)? Do you want huge heavy lenses on your SR3 that limit your viewfinder position and useability?

[Guillermo Polo]

Thanks everyone for your replies and information.

Generally speaking, for renting the camera, S16 lenses would obviously be the best option.

But I was asking because if, eventually, I wanted to shoot a feature film with an equivalent 35mm field of view (around 18mm, 20mm, 27mm, and 35mm), and we shoot mostly between f/5.6 and f/8 to get a cleaner, more “35mm-like” look.

For low-light or night scenes, we could light more and open up the iris (around f/2.8).

I’ve even seen some recent films using this approach — shooting night or low-light scenes on Alexa 35 and matching them in post to the rest of the film.

I find it interesting that some digital films have tried to emulate a 35mm/16mm texture using filters, lenses, and color grading, while others shot on 16mm but went for a very clean workflow (controlled lighting, lenses, lab process, and post), resulting in an image that barely looked like film.

So, if your goal is something in between — and you don’t have the budget to shoot on 35mm — there are several strategies you could take.