Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted October 7, 2006 Author Premium Member Share Posted October 7, 2006 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100103...nikonfmount.asp Emmanuel, I have never tried the Nikon F mounted Zeiss lenses, but I would think they would be good if you can afford them. As far as breathing, you just have to look through a camera and pull focus, it's very clear when it's really bad! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel A Guedes Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 As far as breathing, you just have to look through a camera and pull focus, it's very clear when it's really bad! Stephen I understand. My concern though I'd like to hear any skilled review strictly from the motion picture side (if there is any interest around despite the Zeiss press release*) on the subject to these new Zeiss still lenses related. Emanuel * ZF lenses provide Nikon F-mount cameras with the creative potential and phototechnical performance available so far only in the Contax system. In addition, ZF lenses incorporate new technical advances from the ZEISS Ultra Prime®, Master Prime® and DigiPrime® lenses for motion picture cameras. Results have been seen in feature films like "Lord of the Rings", "Alexander", "King Arthur", "Air Force One", "Collateral", "King Kong" and many commercials and music clips. Read more >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted October 7, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 7, 2006 While the glass in stills lenses can be very nice their mechanics were not designed with motion picture use in mind. The stills lenses that see use in motion picture applications (Leica, Nikon mainly) have been rehoused previously. In addition to having been fitted a PL mount, they also have an extended focus scale and much stronger housing, plus the focus gears as Stephen mentioned. To illustrate the difference, here is an original Leica R lens and the rehoused version made by Vantage Film: As you can see, the focus scales on the R lens are tiny and mainly meant for eye focus, which is impssible in motion picture use and the low depth of field that 35mm or a 35mm sized sensor gives you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrizio De Sica Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 To illustrate the difference, here is an original Leica R lens and the rehoused version made by Vantage Film: As you can see, the focus scales on the R lens are tiny and mainly meant for eye focus, which is impssible in motion picture use and the low depth of field that 35mm or a 35mm sized sensor gives you. The links don't work. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allen Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 The links don't work. P. The photos? They work over here (mac osx, safari) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Kenny Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 I'm curious what the folks who have experience with cine lenses think about picking up something like this Angenieux 20-120mm T2.9. This is reconditioned, and I'm guessing it's not precisely a new lens model... but on the surface it looks like it would be a decent 'starter' lens, while waiting for the RED zoom or saving up for more expensive stuff. Still, the price makes me think there has to be some catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted October 8, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 8, 2006 I've never shot with one myself, but the fact that I have never even seen one in a rental catalogue and that over the years have heard some pretty bad feedback about this lens I think you probably get what you pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted October 8, 2006 Author Premium Member Share Posted October 8, 2006 I'm curious what the folks who have experience with cine lenses think about picking up something like this Angenieux 20-120mm T2.9. This is reconditioned, and I'm guessing it's not precisely a new lens model... but on the surface it looks like it would be a decent 'starter' lens, while waiting for the RED zoom or saving up for more expensive stuff. Still, the price makes me think there has to be some catch. Hi, I bought one (ex Aardman Animation) on Ebay for £140.00! Its O.K. @T8.00 but more useful as a prop IMHO. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel A Guedes Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 While the glass in stills lenses can be very nice their mechanics were not designed with motion picture use in mind. The stills lenses that see use in motion picture applications (Leica, Nikon mainly) have been rehoused previously. In addition to having been fitted a PL mount, they also have an extended focus scale and much stronger housing, plus the focus gears as Stephen mentioned. To illustrate the difference, here is an original Leica R lens and the rehoused version made by Vantage Film: As you can see, the focus scales on the R lens are tiny and mainly meant for eye focus, which is impssible in motion picture use and the low depth of field that 35mm or a 35mm sized sensor gives you. Yes I know. Although, I think the extended focus scale and the breathing hassle may be the major problems. For rental use, a stronger housing will be also but not so much for the shooter-owner of its own lenses gear. As far as PL mount concerns, as I already mentioned, RED will deliver a Nikon F mount. And concerning the focus gear or gears, any 3r party can solve the need(s) IMHO. Until the RED zoon lens deliver, my bet is 35mm still lenses should take away the job as a decent (malgré the limitations) outcome. Especially, as Stephen referred, if used at infinity when used on the RED camera. Thank you for your input too, Emanuel BTW, The pics work well on my PC (Windows XP, Explorer or Opera or Firefox). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrizio De Sica Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Hi, I bought one (ex Aardman Animation) on Ebay for £140.00! Its O.K. @T8.00 but more useful as a prop IMHO. Stephen An Angenieux like a prop?!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel A Guedes Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Well, if useless... Besides, where is available, there are other used units for sale and another shooter said he bought a $2,000 unit of the same model. BTW, Stephen, what's the weight of this specific model? Can you give us an idea? Maybe, 'cause as Max said he heard some pretty bad feedback about this lens, there isn't easy to find any kind of information. And about your purchase for £140.00 -- any scratches or other old marks? As for instance, circular cleaning ones like it's possible to find @used glass? An Angenieux like a prop?!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrizio De Sica Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 I've never shot with one myself, but the fact that I have never even seen one in a rental catalogue and that over the years have heard some pretty bad feedback about this lens I think you probably get what you pay for. I was joking... I heard the same. I'm just not sure if it was about the same model. But maybe it's just bad italian tongue :P (italian with french don't mix) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted October 8, 2006 Author Premium Member Share Posted October 8, 2006 Well, if useless... Besides, where is available, there are other used units for sale and another shooter said he bought a $2,000 unit of the same model. BTW, Stephen, what's the weight of this specific model? Can you give us an idea? Maybe, 'cause as Max said he heard some pretty bad feedback about this lens, there isn't easy to find any kind of information. And about your purchase for £140.00 -- any scratches or other old marks? As for instance, circular cleaning ones like it's possible to find @used glass? Hi, I am not at home so I can't weigh it but I guess 4 kilo. Check out 'Easy Rider' I understand the Angeniux 20-120 was the main lens. The condition was good for a 40 year old lens, not mint but OK, smooth mechanical operation for £140 what can you expect. Aardman sold about 4 or 5 of those lenses, all about that price. A Cooke 20-60 T3.1, might just be the perfect lens for you. I wanted to try my one on the Red at IBC, but that was not possible. It's quite a rare lens from the 1980's, very sharp cost $30,000 + when new. I got mine on Ebay for under $3000! (I think it's better known as a 10-30 for S16, rear element is different, very fast @T 1.5) Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel A Guedes Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Hi Stephen, I'd like to get one. Both: lens and that price! You guess when you opened this thread. I'm concerned 'cause I can't to have the gear stopped waiting for the upcoming lenses. Actually, I just wait for October for order the second unit in order to delay it. But not the first one because just the second one should be targeted for the rental market. I'm waiting for the first camera during 2Q 2007 and I'll need to find an optic solution until then. The weight is also a major concern considering the lightweight specialties of the work already scheduled. Still, I ordered a first zoom but I'm not sure yet of my second reservation on that. Thank you for the tip, Emanuel PS If I'm not wrong we're speaking about 35mm lenses, it means a circa 1.5x magnification factor comparing with the Super35mm sensor format, isn't it? So, maybe a set of 3 (inexpensive if is there?...) prime: wideangle (as wider as possible), normal (probably a 35mm or around) and a tele would be gold. Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted October 8, 2006 Author Premium Member Share Posted October 8, 2006 If I'm not wrong we're speaking about 35mm lenses, it means a circa 1.5x magnification factor comparing with the Super35mm sensor format, isn't it? So, maybe a set of 3 (inexpensive if is there?...) prime: wideangle (as wider as possible), normal (probably a 35mm or around) and a tele would be gold. Any suggestions? Hi, 35mm motion pictures ZOOM will usually just cover S35 frame. Still camera lenses will cover 8 perf or Vistavision format. With 3 lenses I would take 24,35 & 85. & with 5 lenses 18, 24, 35, 50 & 85. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel A Guedes Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Thanks Stephen! Curious...why 24 and not 18? Don't you prefer wider? 35mm motion pictures ZOOM will usually just cover S35 frame. Still camera lenses will cover 8 perf or Vistavision format. Stephen On that, I read this: «Super 35 (originally known as Superscope 235) is a motion picturefilm format that uses exactly the same film stock as standard 35 mm film, but puts a larger image frame on that stock by using the negative space normally reserved for the optical analog sound track. If using 4-perf, the Super 35 camera aperture is 24.89 mm × 18.66 mm (0.980 in × 0.735 in), compared to the standard Academy 35 mm film size of 21.95 mm × 16.00 mm (0.864 in × 0.630 in) and thus provides 32% more image area than the standard 35-mm format.» LINK And this: «Absolutely true, but the Academy aperture doesn't cover the whole of the width of the negative - it too has been shrunk down from the Full aperture to allow for an optical soundtrack along the left hand side. Standard 35mm camera lenses cover the Full aperture, not just the Academy aperture, and so will also cover Super 35mm as well.» LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted October 8, 2006 Author Premium Member Share Posted October 8, 2006 Thanks Stephen! Curious...why 24 and not 18? Don't you prefer wider? On that, I read this: «Super 35 (originally known as Superscope 235) is a motion picturefilm format that uses exactly the same film stock as standard 35 mm film, but puts a larger image frame on that stock by using the negative space normally reserved for the optical analog sound track. If using 4-perf, the Super 35 camera aperture is 24.89 mm × 18.66 mm (0.980 in × 0.735 in), compared to the standard Academy 35 mm film size of 21.95 mm × 16.00 mm (0.864 in × 0.630 in) and thus provides 32% more image area than the standard 35-mm format.» LINK And this: «Absolutely true, but the Academy aperture doesn't cover the whole of the width of the negative - it too has been shrunk down from the Full aperture to allow for an optical soundtrack along the left hand side. Standard 35mm camera lenses cover the Full aperture, not just the Academy aperture, and so will also cover Super 35mm as well.» LINK Hi, An 18mm will start distorting more than a 24mm. I have had shoots that I have just used an 18,24 & 35 but that's not the 3 I would buy if I could only have 3! On movie film the film runs top to bottom, on a Nikon left to right! FWIW the Stephen W poster in your link is not me! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay A. Kelley Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Oh, what's wrong with pouring moonshine in the gas tank...I do it all the time. :D I'm a veggie oil guy myself Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary McClurg Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 We are fighting for the Red success. Because it will be our success too. If you want to call it "constant cheerleading", call it. It's not a problem. We gave our money on a reservation (camera, lens and upcoming accessories when available). . Your success is not based upon a camera... your success is based upon your talent and more than anything your drive and believing in yourself and what you can do... Not speaking for anyone but I believe that this might be what David is talking about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrizio De Sica Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) Your success is not based upon a camera... your success is based upon your talent and more than anything your drive and believing in yourself and what you can do... Not speaking for anyone but I believe that this might be what David is talking about... Agreed. But writing with a camera isn't the same than... writing. If Jannard could fail (it hurts to write it... a cheerleader behaviour? who knows?) it wouldn't be my success. Does it mean the opposite? Will it mean? I think this whole RED thing is insane , i am sick to death of it and all the weirdos . John Holland ,London. And for... what for.. what the hell someone wants to know your moods on anything? Ridiculous. Patrizio De Sica ,London. Ridiculous. Patrizio De Sica ,London. When it isn't Rome! :lol: Edited October 9, 2006 by Patrizio De Sica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 If you choose to quote me please use whole quote it wasnt a long post , and not edit to suit yourself, thanks John Holland, London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrizio De Sica Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) If you choose to quote me please use whole quote it wasnt a long post , and not edit to suit yourself, thanks John Holland, London. Ah Ah Ah! Are you sure? http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...st&p=131494 I quoted you using the first part of the text and your own words, yes, it wasn't a long post... Even if I can find one from yours without the useless of this one. Can't you recognize it? I invite you read it better the posts of the others before posting without knowing what you're talking about. And I stand it. You're welcome... Patrizio De Sica, London. Edited October 9, 2006 by Patrizio De Sica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted October 9, 2006 Author Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2006 Ah Ah Ah! Are you sure? http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...st&p=131494 I quoted you using the whole text and it wasn't a long post... Even if I can find one from yours without the useless of this one. I edited mine content not yours. Can't you recognize it? I invite you read it better before posting without knowing what you're talking about. And I stand it. You're welcome... Patrizio De Sica, London. Hi, Yes, John is quite sure as am I! John wrote"I think this whole RED thing is insane , i am sick to death of it and all the weirdos . Its just a camera that one day might be available , end of story . John Holland ,London." Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrizio De Sica Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 That "it", it means a lot... "John" is another arrogant member over here who thinks he's more important than the others. :P I find some ugly content from him. Save him from his own non-edited content! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Thanks Stephen , i think she proves my point !! . John Holland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now