Super 16mm Krasnogorsk-3 footage shot with Peleng 8mm

[Will Montgomery]

Ive just projected some Tri-X exposed with my K3 and a Takumar 200mm lens. I know people keep going on and on about the sharpness of Takumar lenses but I wasn't overly impressed with this particular lens. It's not a bad lens but I found that in terms of sharpness, it was a bit ordinary. Not exactly razor sharp.

 

The Super Takumar's are a good inexpensive option for K3 owners, they are not Zeiss Primes by any means. That said, my colorist noticed a major difference between my Meteor lens and my 35mm Super Takumar. But with these cheap cameras there are so many other factors and they aren't always easy to focus precisely anyway... my eyepiece shifts constantly out of focus.

[Patrick Cooper]

"That said, my colorist noticed a major difference between my Meteor lens and my 35mm Super Takumar."

 

That is interesting. According to the colourist, which one was superior - and was the difference in terms of colour, sharpness or other factors?

 

"But with these cheap cameras there are so many other factors and they aren't always easy to focus precisely anyway... my eyepiece shifts constantly out of focus."

 

Ive found the viewfinder on my K3 quite good for determining focus. It's certainly easier to focus than a Bolex! That is not so good about the eyepiece setting shifting - that would be irritating - this hasn't happened with mine. I was filming birds with the footage that I projected and in one instance, I remember focussing specifically on the eye of a pigeon. With the projected footage, I could clearly see that the eye was in focus but in terms of sharpness, it was okay - nothing mind blowing. Though another thing I did notice is that this lens seems to have unusually shallow depth of field for a 200mm lens. Most times, only small parts of the birds were in focus whereas when I use my 300mm zoom on my canon 35mm still camera, I find that most of the subject is in focus.

[Scott Cohen]

Though another thing I did notice is that this lens seems to have unusually shallow depth of field for a 200mm lens. Most times, only small parts of the birds were in focus whereas when I use my 300mm zoom on my canon 35mm still camera, I find that most of the subject is in focus.

 

A 200mm still lens designed for 35mm photography will behave like a 400mm when on a 16mm cine camera.

 

SC

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Though another thing I did notice is that this lens seems to have unusually shallow depth of field for a 200mm lens. Most times, only small parts of the birds were in focus whereas when I use my 300mm zoom on my canon 35mm still camera, I find that most of the subject is in focus.

 

This is probably due to the difference in the size of the circle of confusion in the 16 cine and 35 still formats.

Though you didn't mention what f/stop you were using.

 

First, circle of confusion is an arbitrary figure that changes depending on the magnification of the final image.

 

So the smaller format which will be magnified more, will have a tighter depth of field.

 

Over all very long lenses aren't as sharp as normal focal length lenses.

 

 

A 200mm still lens designed for 35mm photography will behave like a 400mm when on a 16mm cine camera.

 

This has been gone over many times before, but a 200mm lens is always a 200mm lens.

 

If you're refering to field of view, 35mm still is 36mm wide, 16mm cine is 10mm wide, 12 forS16.

 

So the 200mm will give the same angle on 16mm as a 720mm on still,

yet will have the same depth of field as a 200mm lens designed for 16mm!

 

 

A 200mm still lens designed for 35mm photography will behave like a 400mm when on a 16mm cine camera.

 

This has been gone over many times before, but a 200mm lens is always a 200mm lens.

 

If you're refering to field of view, 35mm still is 36mm wide, 16mm cine is 10mm wide, 12 forS16.

 

So the 200mm will give the same angle on 16mm as a 720mm on still,

yet will have the same depth of field as a 200mm lens designed for 16mm!

 

Spooky!

[Patrick Cooper]

"Over all very long lenses aren't as sharp as normal focal length lenses."

 

Hmmm...this might be debatable....I have an old Vivitar 75-300mm for my Canon still cameras which is beautifully sharp! (despite being a zoom.) However, I have read in a Nikon book in a library that there is some technical reason that exists that makes it very difficult to design a 200mm focal length lens with good quality. Of course that doesnt mean that good quality 200mm lenses don't exist.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

"Over all very long lenses aren't as sharp as normal focal length lenses."

 

Hmmm...this might be debatable....I have an old Vivitar 75-300mm for my Canon still cameras which is beautifully sharp! (despite being a zoom.) However, I have read in a Nikon book in a library that there is some technical reason that exists that makes it very difficult to design a 200mm focal length lens with good quality. Of course that doesnt mean that good quality 200mm lenses don't exist.

 

Yes, it is debateable. I do have the "over all" caveat in there. Nor am I saying that all long lenses are not sharp. & of course there are some normals that aren't very good.

 

I'm going mostly on the concept that longer lenses cover a larger image circle and that since longer lenses have smaller f/stops diffraction comes in to play.