Complex S8 lens questions for the Pro's out there.

[Adam Paul]

Hi guys,

 

Nice place for the S8 film enthusiast!

I'm doing some research on S8 prime lenses. There doesn?t seem to exist a whole lot of primes for S8.

The search feature is not very accurate and picks up too much that has nothing to do with the topic. So I was wondering if you could help me out. I have a bunch of questions for you S8 Pros out there.

I?m trying to find the sharpest S8 primes ever made(sort of saying) I already heard of the Cinegon 10mm, as being one, if not the sharpest. But some of the info I got confused me. I know the Schneider Cinegon 10mm, which is a C mount lens, I think for 16mm film, maybe for video, I?m not sure. Is it the same lens as the one used with the Leitz camera? I heard a rumor that it is indeed. They just re-worked the lens to work with the Leitz. But how is it possible, when a C mount focal flange distance is 17,52mm? What?s the M mount focal flange distance?(I think Leitz uses a M mount, right?) I would presume a M mount has a longer focal flange distance. I heard the Cinegon 10mm on a Leitz can focus as close as 30mm(3cm)? Is it true? I don?t think the C mount version can do that.

How about longer lenses? Are the longer focal length primes for S8? What?s the sharpest 24 to 26mm rnage prime for S8?

I heard some S8 cameras use Switars? In this case, I presume they would be C mount cameras, or are there Switar lenses in M mount too?

Is the Switar 10mm sharper than the Cinegon 10mm in your opinion? For a bolex 16mm, Switar are the sharpest and beats the Cinegon by miles. Is the the same with the S8 version?

Now one thing I don?t understand. I think all Switars were developed for 16mm film. Even thought they are C mounts and can be used with C mount S8 cameras, they were designed to work with a bigger film frame. Won?t the performance suffer if one uses them with a smaller film frame like 8mm? (By the way, what?s the dimensions of a S8 film frame in mm?). I asked that because I know that the smaller the film frame or CCD a lens has to work with, the sharper and the better the lens needs to be to hit the small frame. So a 35mm lens in a 16mm camera won?t be as sharp as a lens developed for 16mm film. So aren?t we losing something when using lenses developed for 35mm, 16mm or 2/3? video with a S8 camera? Or there are no lenses specially designed for S8? How can the Cinegon 10mm be the sharpest S8 lens when it was originally developed for 16mm or 2/3? video?

Last question is, are there people who use 35mm SLR lens ( Most likely Zeiss and Leica in contax mount I would presume) with S8 cameras? Do they work better, worse or the same as for example the Cinegon 10mm? Talking about contrast, color, sharpness and overall performance.

Which are the sharpest in the 10mm and 24-26mm range?

I know that?s a lot of questions, but this place seems to be the right one to ask them. There seems to be a lot of S8 Pros around here.

I did a search, but it?s very hard to filtrate the information though the search engine, which is not very accurate. I hope it?s on to ask them here. I thank everybody in advance for any help.

[Adam Paul]

With that many views, nobody posted a single reply? Com'on guys, if you don't know all the answers, post at least the ones you do. With that many people shooting S8 around here, I'm sure somebody must know the answer to some of the questions. Help me out here. :)

[Guest santo]

Lots of questions. I'll do my best to reply as it's a topic I've done a lot of research into and haven't completely gotten to the bottom of, myself.

 

I?m trying to find the sharpest S8 primes ever made(sort of saying) I already heard of the Cinegon 10mm, as being one, if not the sharpest. But some of the info I got confused me. I know the Schneider Cinegon 10mm, which is a C mount lens, I think for 16mm film, maybe for video, I?m not sure. Is it the same lens as the one used with the Leitz camera?

 

There are at least 5 versions of the Schneider Cinegon 10mm f1.8 that I know of, maybe more. I think the Cinegon name merely means it has a general optical formula. Like the Zeiss Planar is different basic optical formula from a Distagon, for example -- and both are different in design when used for an Arriflex application vs. the new M-mount Zeiss Ikon. They're reworked depending on the application. Here's a few examples of Cinegon designed for sepcific applications off ebay recently:

 

Arriflex Cinegon

 

Cinegon C mount for high precision machine applications

 

Cinegon for Bolex RX

 

and of course, the Leicina Cinegon (this one being a photo I took of one of the ones I've owned)

 

in addition, there is a really beautiful looking chrome Cinegon C mount which is very long.

 

Now who can say which is sharpest? Probably the latest one, the high precision machine application as it's the most recent design by probably a decade or two. But who knows? Maybe the Leitz? Leitz has always been famous for not accepting anything less than to provide the best lenses in the world and when they've done joint projects, they always were supposed to insist on several reworkings to make sure that no other lens that they tested side by side could stack up. Sending Angenieux and Schneider back to the drawing board with what were already very competitive designs. But that was back in 1972 or so. Time marches on in lens tech.

 

I heard a rumor that it is indeed. They just re-worked the lens to work with the Leitz. But how is it possible, when a C mount focal flange distance is 17,52mm? What?s the M mount focal flange distance?(I think Leitz uses a M mount, right?) I would presume a M mount has a longer focal flange distance.

 

Here's a handy table of the different mount specs. It's easy to see why the two best mounts for buying adapters are the C mount and the M mount. Of course C mount lenses are way too short for M mounts, but not the other way around.

 

http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/mi...y-register.html

 

I heard the Cinegon 10mm on a Leitz can focus as close as 30mm(3cm)? Is it true? I don?t think the C mount version can do that.

 

I don't know if the C-mount can. Maybe there is one that can? I don't know. The superb macro capability of the Leicina Cinegon makes the use of a wide angle adapter screwed in like a filter possible. With Century Optics wide angle adapter I use, the filter sits about 1.5 cm from the lens surface. The marking on the lens is at .14 -- lens marking are, of course, always from the film plane). I'm pretty sure that the lens can focus to the surface, but that's not all that uncommon in super 8 really.

 

How about longer lenses? Are the longer focal length primes for S8? What?s the sharpest 24 to 26mm rnage prime for S8? I heard some S8 cameras use Switars? In this case, I presume they would be C mount cameras, or are there Switar lenses in M mount too?

 

If there were Switars im M mount that would be pretty cool.

 

Is the Switar 10mm sharper than the Cinegon 10mm in your opinion? For a bolex 16mm, Switar are the sharpest and beats the Cinegon by miles. Is the the same with the S8 version?

 

No idea. Bolex never made super 8 cameras with C mounts.

 

Now one thing I don?t understand. I think all Switars were developed for 16mm film. Even thought they are C mounts and can be used with C mount S8 cameras, they were designed to work with a bigger film frame. Won?t the performance suffer if one uses them with a smaller film frame like 8mm? (By the way, what?s the dimensions of a S8 film frame in mm?). I asked that because I know that the smaller the film frame or CCD a lens has to work with, the sharper and the better the lens needs to be to hit the small frame. So a 35mm lens in a 16mm camera won?t be as sharp as a lens developed for 16mm film. So aren?t we losing something when using lenses developed for 35mm, 16mm or 2/3? video with a S8 camera? Or there are no lenses specially designed for S8? How can the Cinegon 10mm be the sharpest S8 lens when it was originally developed for 16mm or 2/3? video?

 

Lenses are sharpest in the middle. You'll see that in any lens testing example. Shooting a smaller format means you only use the middle of the lens.

 

The concept that a lens for a smaller format is sharper than a lens for a larger format stems from probably 40 to 80 years ago when large format cameras got by with lenses not even close to the 35mm still cameras and had way better images anyways. When you put one on a 35mm camera, people were disappointed.

 

For the past 30 some years or more, lenses have had computer aided design and many other improvements. As Zeiss proved somewhere that I saw, there is no performance difference between their medium format lenses and their 35mm lenses. This was some old article reprinted from 20 years ago. What was true way back when has not been so for many decades. Every lens manufacturer trying to make a great lens is not going to slack off in the 35mm offerings compared to their 16mm lenses.

 

Last question is, are there people who use 35mm SLR lens ( Most likely Zeiss and Leica in contax mount I would presume) with S8 cameras? Do they work better, worse or the same as for example the Cinegon 10mm? Talking about contrast, color, sharpness and overall performance.

 

Hard to say, so far for me. I do know they're sharper than 1970's zooms used by most super 8 filmmakers -- by a substantial and easily observable measure. You have to keep in mind that we're bumping around the limits of the film's resolving power with these kinds of lenses. If you're using an old giant Japanese home movie camera zoom from the 70's, you'll be really lucky to see 50 to 60 line pairs of resolving power. Excellent prime lenses often hit 90 line pairs and, in the case of Leicas, test out up to 110 in some magazine tests. Zeiss claims their Zeiss Ikon M mounts can hit the very limits of optical physics pretty much. :lol: They use the same tech as their cine lenses do so that they can compete with Leica, which are the current best in the world in any objective test. Until now? One thing I do know is that it is pretty much a waste of time to argue such points of fact with Japanese home movie camera buffs. It doesn't matter how overwhelming the evidence in front of them, the examples, the logic ... it's like a strange branch of religious fundamentalists :)

 

Just for interest sake, here is a link to a Beaulieu with a Zeiss prime on another site:

 

http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/galler..._2K_PLT_FONDART

 

Lastly, here's something you may not have considered in your quest to look for the sharpest C mount. Imagine if you will a totalitarian State putting all their resources into designing the sharpest lenses to show the world what they can do. Now imagine them, this totalitarian state had managed to confiscate the world's greatest lens maker's facilities so they have the means to do it. Then consider what kind of C mount lenses they would build for their surveilence and spy cameras requiring the highest resolving and best contrast possible. Cost is no object. Stealing the latest technology elsewhere if needed is not out of the question. I discovered the existence of these lenses myself recently. They're called Tevidons. Carl Zeiss Jena. By all accounts, they destroy Switars and any other C-mount primes. I don't know, myself. That's just what I keep reading. I've seen the odd one on ebay from time to time. I then found this company who makes them new. They look the same. Proabably really expensive, I don't know. The 10mm f2 really has me interested. It's that "super lens" I keep seeing references to:

 

http://www.docteroptics.com/eng/opto_produkte.html

[A.Oliver]

Hi, i am no super 8 pro, though i have been into super 8 since 1982. Over the years i have used many different camera's. The sharpest super 8 footage i have is that photographed using the leicina special with 10mm macro cinegon on k40. I once read a few years back that the 10mm cinegon was the most corrected super 8 lens ever made. Santo or Sparky will at some point hopefully reply to your post, they are the leicina experts. As the special is equipped with the leica m mount a leica m-series lens of 24 or 28mm should work perfectly with the special, guess that would be a stunning prime lens of the focal length you require. Biggest draw back really is the resolving power of super 8 film. Now i did mention that the sharpest super 8 footage i have is with the 10mm cinegon. I didn't mention that once upon a time you could go one better and opt for double super 8, using a converted bolex with 5.5 and 12.5mm switar primes along with double super 8 kodachrome 25, you will get unsurpassed super 8 images. I have the said outfit, k25 is a far sharper film than k40. Super 8 can look stunning with k25 and switar glass. I have exposed a roll of double super 8 k40 thru the bolex with the switar primes mentioned, and repeated the shot with the special plus cinegon. The cinegon images appeared to be sharper with better colour saturation compared to the switar glass. C- mount switars were available for the bolex H8 rx, focal lengths being 5.5,12.5 and 36mm. Sadly k25 is no more, so until kodak give us a better stock than this 64t, you will never get to see how good super 8 images can be. ( unless you have a fridge full of ds-8 k25 ). Sorry if i have waffled on and sidetracked a bit.

Andy

[Adam Paul]

Of course C mount lenses are way too short for M mounts, but not the other way around.

 

That?s what I was saying. If the Cinegon was originally designed to be a C mount, how can it be converted to M?

 

If there were Switars im M mount that would be pretty cool.

 

But are there other primes for S8 besides the Cinegon 10mm? Maybe in the 24-26mm range?

 

No idea. Bolex never made super 8 cameras with C mounts.

 

But people use Switar lenses with S8 cameras right? They just use the 16mm Switars then? I have heard of Switars 5.5mm and 12.5mm, aren?t they S8 lenses?

 

Just for interest sake, here is a link to a Beaulieu with a Zeiss prime on another site:

 

Do you know which Zeiss?

 

So the the conclusion is that any 35mm SLR lens like Nikon or Zeiss will be sharper than a Switar or the Cinegon, even if it?s above of S8 resolution, and that it doesn?t matter they were developed for a bigger frame. Is that it?

If that?s true and the Leitz camera accepts M mount lenses, it would be better to use M mount 35mm Nikons and Zeiss with the camera. Even if it?s more resolution than S8 can handle. It wouldn?t hurt and you would know you are getting the best possible out of the S8 format. That frame from the Beaulieu, if take with a 35mm SLR Zeiss proves that.

The reason I asked was because an optical engineer told me the other way around. He said 35mm lenses are not as sharp as 16mm lens and 2/3? video lenses are not as sharp as 1/3?. Because lenses designed for smaller targets and lower resolution formats need to be more precise and sharper to pull the best out of the lower end formats.

[A.Oliver]

But people use Switar lenses with S8 cameras right? They just use the 16mm Switars then? I have heard of Switars 5.5mm and 12.5mm, aren’t they S8 lenses?

Switar 5.5 and 12.5 are c-mount lenses designed for use with the bolex H8rx ( standard 8 camera) they will not work on say a beaulieu camera. They do cover the super 8 frame if the H8 is converted to ds-8. 16mm switars with rx markings will not work on a bolex H8 or properly on a beaulieu camera.

I have used a zeiss 9.5mm,16mm and 25mm lenses on my beaulieu 7008 (via an arri-b to c-mount adapter), image sharpness via these primes was no better than the angenieux 6-80 lens. Really the best super 8 footage can only be yeilded via k25 and switar glass or k40 ( while stocks last ) and cinegon glass, but the angenieux 6-80 and schneider 6-66 come in a close 2nd, the 6-66 being the sharpest super 8 zoom i have ever used. Some years ago i tried a pentax 50mm f1.7A lens on a R16 with 7245, then the angeneieux 12-120, the angenieux blew the pentax prime away. Stick with a lens thats designed for the format.

[Guest santo]

That?s what I was saying. If the Cinegon was originally designed to be a C mount, how can it be converted to M?

 

The same way the Zeiss Planar can be converted/reworked by the designers from a Contarex SLR lens to an Arriflex lens to a lens for the new Zeiss Ikon rangefinder. They just rework the concept, move the elements closer and farther, adjust angles of refraction, and in some cases add maybe an element or two in the back for further correction dependant on application. The lenses end up being completely different in physical appearance and back focus at different distances as they are designed to. The optical formula stays pretty close to the same.They're all Planar in basic design. It's all about a basic design being flexible enough to be reworked (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse) for an application.

 

But are there other primes for S8 besides the Cinegon 10mm? Maybe in the 24-26mm range?

 

No natively designed S8 prime lenses in that range.

 

Do you know which Zeiss?

 

Yeah, if you go to the link and read the material you'll see what it is.

 

So the the conclusion is that any 35mm SLR lens like Nikon or Zeiss will be sharper than a Switar or the Cinegon, even if it?s above of S8 resolution, and that it doesn?t matter they were developed for a bigger frame. Is that it?

 

No, that's not the conclusion. They can be just as sharp or even sharper. Not always sharper, but not always softer, either. Again it depends on the quality of the lens. As you can clearly see in the example with the Zeiss slr prime above, superb optics are simply superb optics. You will never find an old Switar lens which can begin to compete with a current generation Leica Summicron 50mm f2. Or a Summicron from two generations ago. One great falacy is that Nikon primes are interchangeable in quality to Zeiss and Leica. That are not. In fact, when it comes to wide angles, there is a mountain of independent testing showing they can't compete in centre resolution as a general rule. We're talking about differences which will go unnoticed in 35mm work from Joe Shmoe or even from on the run photo journalists. They were good enough back then to do a good job with a big 35mm still frame. But when you blow them up big time, as we do in small format filmmaking, they are easily outclassed. I've seen lots of examples from a lot of resources where this is extremely evident.

 

The reason I asked was because an optical engineer told me the other way around. He said 35mm lenses are not as sharp as 16mm lens and 2/3? video lenses are not as sharp as 1/3?. Because lenses designed for smaller targets and lower resolution formats need to be more precise and sharper to pull the best out of the lower end formats.

 

It sounds like he should give Zeiss a call and set them straight. They seem to think that their medium format lenses are just as sharp as their 35mm lenses and that their 35mm cine lenses are as sharp as their 16mm lenses when testing the same size piece of film! Seriously, it depends on what lenses you're using. If we're talking about 16mm lenses versus Common Joe 35mm still lenses 40 years ago -- your Switar primes are from this era -- he's got a case. He's no doubt talking in a general context about how to make cost effective lenses for different formats. That's a smart engineer who doesn't live in a cost no object Zeiss/Leica world. So in context of using your ancient 1965 Switars vs. using a 1965 Nikon prime lens, sure I could buy that the Switar would be sharper on your Beaulieu. I'd be surprised if that weren't true. However, compare that Switar to any new M mount and it wouldn't stand a chance. Time has certainly not stood still in lens design, and makers of the best don't have to settle for much in the way of compromises. If there were a way to make the new Zeiss Ikon M mounts sharper by employing some sort of special 16mm design philosophy or technique, it would have been done. They, like Leica does, simply designed the most precise and sharpest lenses possible, 35mm format or no 35mm format. If they were designing for 16mm there would be no difference.

 

Lastly, and I've already written too much on this topic on which I am no expert, keep in mind that when people are evaluating how sharp such and such a lens is on their C mount, that there is a great deal of adjustment possible with that mount. The lens needs to be adjusted to the body to get optimum results. You can't really just screw on any old C mount lens or a 35mm adapter and shoot away and expect to get a realistic comparison. Your backfocus is bound to be off at least a little. So take such comparisons with a grain of salt when you read them.

[Adam Paul]

Santo, I looked at the link, but it only say Zeiss 85mm. It doesn?t which Zeiss. Jena? Planar?

So you think The sharpest glass around are Leica and Zeiss? I would have to research on Leica since I know very little about their lenses, but in the case of Zeiss, which ones are best? Jena, Planar, Distagon, other?

What ages of Zeiss or Leica should I look for when buying used? No older than 70, no older than 80, 90?

Thanks Santo. You seem to know a lot about this stuff.

 

P.S. : about the engineer, I think what he meant was that a lens made for a smaller format is not designed the same way as a lens for bigger format. So you don?t get all the performance you would get from a 35mm lens shooting in a 35mm camera if you shoot with the same 35mm lens in a 16mm camera, because it wasn?t designed to work with 16mm.

 

Stick with a lens thats designed for the format.

 

The problem is that with S8, lens choices are so limited. So far only the Cinegon 10mm seems to be worth it. I don't like zooms, so it seems the only way is to use 35mm M mount lenses.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Adampaul

[Guest santo]

Santo, I looked at the link, but it only say Zeiss 85mm. It doesn?t which Zeiss. Jena? Planar?

 

I have no idea. I know it can't be a Jena, as those are the old East German branch and they never had T coating as it was trademarked. Really, it doesn't matter much. Probably either a Sonnar or a Distagon. They'd pick the optical formula best suited and go from there.

 

So you think The sharpest glass around are Leica and Zeiss? I would have to research on Leica since I know very little about their lenses, but in the case of Zeiss, which ones are best? Jena, Planar, Distagon, other? What ages of Zeiss or Leica should I look for when buying used? No older than 70, no older than 80, 90?

 

The only worthwhile logical advice to give is the same as should be followed when it comes to any industrial design item: If you want the best performance, buy the newest version of the top of the line model that you can afford. Although I think that a 1967 427 tripower Corvette is a hell of a cool old sports car and I would love to own one, it is completely blown off the road by a new Corvette in every performance category, comfort, mechanical and technological design, and build quality.

 

The problem is that with S8, lens choices are so limited. So far only the Cinegon 10mm seems to be worth it. I don't like zooms, so it seems the only way is to use 35mm M mount lenses.

 

I think you've got a lot more choices when it comes to C mounts. The old machine vision C mounts from the 60's or whatever I've read people dismissing, are probably right. But the modern ones with superb coatings for colour rendition and extremely high resolving power and contrast are no doubt well worth trying. Fuji has a new line of lenses in this area that they're bragging about. Schneider's latest Cinegon. These Tevigons. Probably a number of others.

 

Also choices that are worth looking include Angenieux's 5.9mm which is supposed to be very good. As are rarer lenses like the Century Optics 5.7mm.

 

What you should also really keep in mind is that for narrative filmmaking, probably 70 - 80% of your shooting is going to be in the 6 to 10mm range. A 10mm, give or take a mm or two, is a super 8 "normal" lens. While for a wide, you're looking at a 5 or a 6mm. I can tell you, having just finished my third super 8 narrative short film, at least 80 % of my shots were in this range. I don't think I used more than a 28mm in any shot. 28mm is telephoto in super 8 terms. So take a look around and see what's available in M mount in the under 28mm range, and weigh this into your decision. Do you have $3700 to spend on a Zeiss Ikon 15mm M mount for your super 8 "long" lens? And even if you do, do you want to? If you're looking to use a wide variety of practical normal and wide lenses in super 8, it's pretty hard to argue against a C mount. You can get them in everything from a 3mm to 100mm plus in a wide variety of quality levels.

 

It's too bad there is not a C mount book out there with some reasonably objective testing and practical application advice. One is really needed.

[Adam Paul]

I have no idea. I know it can't be a Jena, as those are the old East German branch and they never had T coating as it was trademarked. Really, it doesn't matter much. Probably either a Sonnar or a Distagon. They'd pick the optical formula best suited and go from there.

 

Are the Jenas bad?

Where do I find information about the different Zeiss optical formulas to see what?s best suited for me?

The bad thing about C mount is while there?s a very wide selection to be bought used, there?s no way to tell which ones are good quality and which ones are not. Most security cameras use C mount, and I know lens for security camera are no good.

That?s the reason I?m thinking of getting a Lecina and go with M 35mm SLR lenses like Zeiss. I just need to know which optical formula line to get.

To address your question, no I don?t have $3700 to spend on a single lens. Way less than that. I?m in the case of hundreds or under grand.

[S8 Booster]

some info avail on the various lenses:

 

zeiss lens ranges

 

zeiss cine lenses (scroll down)

[Leo Anthony Vale]

.

That?s the reason I?m thinking of getting a Lecina and go with M 35mm SLR lenses like Zeiss. I just need to know which optical formula line to get.

 

---Do you realize that almost all 35mm SLR lenses will be in effect "telephoto" lenses on Super 8?

 

& M-mount lenses are quite expensive?

 

---LV

[Adam Paul]

---Do you realize that almost all 35mm SLR lenses will be in effect "telephoto" lenses on Super 8?

 

& M-mount lenses are quite expensive?

 

---LV

 

I thought about getting one with the Cinegon 10mm, which seems to be the only worthwhile prime in S8, then there are 15mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm,35mm in SLR to complete a set. Maybe a 5.5mm switar for wide angle, or just an wide angle adapter for the 10mm.

M mounts are expensive, but nothing compared to 16mm or 35mm cine lenses. By the way, is M42 the same as M mount?

[A.Oliver]

Hi, if you require the leicina 10mm cinegon, then you have to go for the leicina special camera. My opinion is your waisting your money buying expensive prime lenses for the super 8 format. Why not at least try the 6-66 zoom on the special, then decide if prime lenses are a worthwhile option. Like i mentioned before i have tried zeiss primes on a beaulieu, the images were no better than that of the 6-80 angenieux zoom. The bolex 5.5 c-mount lens will only work on a bolex H8 rx.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I thought about getting one with the Cinegon 10mm, which seems to be the only worthwhile prime in S8, then there are 15mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm,35mm in SLR to complete a set. Maybe a 5.5mm switar for wide angle, or just an wide angle adapter for the 10mm.

M mounts are expensive, but nothing compared to 16mm or 35mm cine lenses. By the way, is M42 the same as M mount?

 

---The M-mount is the Leica range finder bayonet mount. It has a flange depth of, I think, 28.8mm; a tad less than the 29mm of the Leica screw, M39.

The M42 is AKA the Prakticka/ Pentax mount. It's flange depth is 45.5mm & was a widely useed SLR mount.

So there's alot of used lens of varying quality and price availiable.

 

15mm and 20mm in S8 are the equivalent of 27mm and 36mm in 16mm. 36 is already a long lens.

 

These lenses will be slow. f/2.8 at the fastest.

 

---LV

[steve hyde]

Hi, if you require the leicina 10mm cinegon, then you have to go for the leicina special camera. My opinion is your waisting your money buying expensive prime lenses for the super 8 format. Why not at least try the 6-66 zoom on the special, then decide if prime lenses are a worthwhile option. Like i mentioned before i have tried zeiss primes on a beaulieu, the images were no better than that of the 6-80 angenieux zoom. The bolex 5.5 c-mount lens will only work on a bolex H8 rx.

 

 

I'm not a pro - I agree that buying expensive prime lenses for super 8 is a sketchy proposition. The law of dimensioning returns comes into play. Just have a look at Santo's prime lens tests. They look great for super 8. The images are slightly sharper than those made with a zoom, but what does that add up to? The way I see it - one can buy a Leica Super 8 camera and the brightest Leica primes, then shoot the finest grain stocks under bright light conditons at mid aperatures and mid focal lengths. Then have a $400.00 per hour color correction session and transfer the footage to HDcam and one will still end up with footage that looks just good enough to look like grainy old 16mm.... All the evidence I have seen suggests this to be true. I hope someone proves me wrong about this.

 

Yet, I just bought an Angeniuex 5,9 prime lens for my Beaulieu 4008. Why? Because I like the look of Super 8. I like working with the format. I want my student films to look like student films. I bought this prime lens not because I think it will look sharper, but because it is a fixed focus lens that gives me the freedom to make tracking shots without having to worry about focusing and it allows me to get really close to my subjects. (4 inches + or -) and hold focus to infinity. It is very difficult to follow focus with a Super 8 camera - therefore I plan to try to get around this problem with a fixed-focus moving camera.

 

...just a few more thoughts to consider. Super 8 is a wonderful format.

 

have fun,

 

Steve

Edited November 23, 2005 by steve hyde

[Guest santo]

I bought this prime lens not because I think it will look sharper, but because it is a fixed focus lens that gives me the freedom to make tracking shots without having to worry about focusing and it allows me to get really close to my subjects. (4 inches + or -) and hold focus to infinity. It is very difficult to follow focus with a Super 8 camera - therefore I plan to try to get around this problem with a fixed-focus moving camera.

 

Well, this alone is reason to purchase super 8 prime lenses and a camera that can use them.

 

Just so readers are clear on the difference in image quality between shooting with probably the best of the fixed non removeable megazoom home movie cameras, the Nikon R10 versus using a Leicina Special with a prime lens (Cinegon 10mm), here's the image Steve presented on another thread to demonstrate his assertion. Same film stock, Plus-X.

 

Steve's Nikon R10 shot:

 

 

Santo's Leicina Special Cinegon shot:

 

 

I like Steve's image. However, in my opinion, I certainly feel the extra couple hundred bucks I spent for my camera and lens so I could shoot with a prime has allowed my super 8 shooting to break free of that "shot on a home movie camera" look. At least that's what I see here. I'm sure some will disagree.

[Maulubekotofa]

the hairts on his arm seem less sharp than the watch hand on the girl. the giirl shot better. The flareing on the box is a strange thing. the blacks also looks a bit richer on the girl shot

[steve hyde]

Well - obviously Santo is going for a dream-like look with this shot. That is why he overexposed it. I just don't see the "prime lens advantage" you are arguing here Santo. Any photographer that knows anything about optics knows that prime lenses are sharper and brighter than zoom lenses, but I have to say - when it comes to Super 8 the difference is very difficult to detect. The prime lens difference is much more evident on 35mm or S16. Santo, the image that you are referencing here - yours with the box with the light on it - does less to make your case than the image that you posted in the other thread (it is a shot from a roof top down on to the street). The rooftop shot is much sharper and I think that shot does show something of a "prime lens advantage." The box shot is out of focus in the foreground and the background is so overexposed it looks soft.

 

All I'm saying is your obsession with putting high-end lenses on super 8 cameras is unwarranted. If sharpness is your obsession, you are shooting the wrong format.

 

More specifically - you will have a sharper image by shooting 16mm with a bright prime and getting a one light transfer to DigiBeta than you will by using a Leica Super 8 camera with ten thousand dollar Zeiss 10mm lens transfered scene to scene to HD. Sometimes I think you are living in some kind of imagined Super 8 la la land.

 

I mean sure - filmmakers might notice that it looks sharp *for super 8* but any non-filmmaking person watching the footage will just think it looks grainy..... or as my girlfriend says when she see's my super 8 footage: "Hmmmm. why does it look like poop?"

 

edit: hey who censored my explitive?

 

Steve

Edited November 24, 2005 by steve hyde

[Guest santo]

http://abstract.cs.washington.edu/wiki/ind...ists_in_Seattle

[S8 Booster]

gotta be kiddin. the nikon shot looks like 16mm compared to your grainy out of focus image which has the typical schneider character of soft dark edges as well.

 

how come you focus on your shoe tip to grass? is that where the action is?

 

looks like the nikon zoom circumfrences the schneider prime on resolution almost as well as the canon zooms does.

 

and the schneiders apparently lacks proper coating as well.

[Guest santo]

:rolleyes:

 

Ah, I guess this is more funny than anything. :lol:

 

:D I think I'll just point out for other people reading this thread, that the shot was made with a Century Optics wide angle adapter on the Cinegon for a 5.5mm focal length which is focus free from about 30cm in front of the lens to infinity. So the actor's head, right next to camera, is out of focus of course, but everything else is in focus, except for the localized soft focus effect and flare areas which were accomplished like this: The actor's lap was grey carded without the silver-painted box for correct exposure. Then when the shot was taken, the box was added, the bright silver paint overexposed in extremely narrow latitude black and white reversal, and I tried to take advantage of the beautiful flaring that occurs with that wide angle adapter under such an extreme circumstance, combined with the overexposure of the film itself, to get the effect of soft focus in very localized areas. More stills are available in the "10 bit transfer" thread. 30 posts in I reattached pics. http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...pic=10027&st=15 For the record, the camera, lens, and wide angle adapter cost a little over $500 in total. The 10 bit transfer cost a $100 surcharge over a miniDV transfer (plus harddrive at very close to cost, of course).

 

As I've almost learned by now -- I keep forgetting -- there's no sense in arguing and proving a point with Japanese super 8 home movie camera nut home shooters, so I'll sign off on this thread. I've covered everything I feel I need to on the subject. Hopefully my posts on it have been / will be helpful to the rational.

[Alan Rik]

I have shot some footage with a Leicina Special and I have to agree that the 6-66 Optivaron gives stunning images. I was blown away by the detail and the contrast. I was using Tri X and it was pretty incredible. I also used the Cinegon and that lens is Super Sharp. I felt like I was looking at 16mm documentary footage.

When I was looking for a camera with "sizzle" and crisp definition I thought I would find it with the Beaulieu 6008S and the Angenieux 6-90mm but no.. I found it with this strange boxy Leicina Special!

I really dont like the looks of it but it gives awesome images. The only other camera that had me stunned was the Canon DS8 with K25. To my eyes it is sharp with gorgeous colors. Better than K40 I think.

So since there is no more K25 I sold the Canon. And now all I have is a Leicina Special and a Canon 310 xl . (Can't believe way back when that I use to think that this footage was sharp. Once you see a Leicina with the Cinegon or the Optivaron..then you will have a reference for "sharp".)

What I would like to try is getting a NEW Summilux/Summicron on the Leicina to see how the new lens fares. But I have to save up for my Leica M7 first. Its sad.. I becoming a Leicaphile!!!

Damn Leicina Special! Damn it! :)

[Adam Paul]

bloopoid, tried to reply to your message by it says your inbox is full. I'm interested, drop me a line. I hope you see this.

[steve hyde]

As I've almost learned by now -- I keep forgetting -- there's no sense in arguing and proving a point with Japanese super 8 home movie camera nut home shooters, so I'll sign off on this thread. I've covered everything I feel I need to on the subject. Hopefully my posts on it have been / will be helpful to the rational.

 

Santo,

 

Your posts in this thread have been helpful and informative. I'm just making a good old fashioned evidence-based argument that challenges your claims about a "prime lens advantage" with super 8.

Keep in mind one definition of *rational* is "based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation." I think it is interesting that you are taking the time to test prime lenses on super 8 and I appreciate the fact that you are posting your results so that others can learn from your work. The tests that you have posted are unscientific, which is fine - so are mine, but I don't even see a significant difference based on practical observation..... The verdict is still out.

 

For the sake of argument, I will say a Schnieder 6 - 66 zoom is still the sharpest, most practical, most economical Super 8 lens ever made and that given the limits of the small frame of super 8 there is very little in the way of a prime lens advantage for this format when it comes to *image sharpness*.

 

Furthermore, I think using an HD workflow for Super 8 is a lot like putting one pound of flour in a ten pound sack. You might have a ten pound sack, but you still only have one pound of flour. The reason I'm taking the time to make this argument is in the interest of truth - not because I think I have access to the truth about this matter - I don't because I have never shot Super 8 with a prime lens or transferred Super 8 to HD. I make the argument because there is no visual evidence that there is a prime lens advantage or an HD advantage for Super 8. So let's be careful not to hype super 8 to be something that it isn't.

 

Maybe my logic sounds irrational to you. What can I say? - I'm just trying to keep the conversation interesting.

 

Respectfully,

 

Steve