New 28-70mm & 80-200mm T2.8 zoom lenses

[Max Jacoby]

For 'The Bourne Ultimatum' Arri Munich rehoused 2 Nikon digital zoom lenses: a 28-70mm and a 80-200mm. Both are T2.8 throughout. There is more sets coming. I haven't spoken to Arri directely yet, but it seems the main advantage of these lenses is their light weight.

 

I'd be curious how the wider lens compares optically to the 28-76mm T2.6 Optimo, which is itself a lightweight lens.

[Ruairi Robinson]

For 'The Bourne Ultimatum' Arri Munich rehoused 2 Nikon digital zoom lenses: a 28-70mm and a 80-200mm. Both are T2.8 throughout. There is more sets coming. I haven't spoken to Arri directely yet, but it seems the main advantage of these lenses is their light weight.

 

I'd be curious how the wider lens compares optically to the 28-76mm T2.6 Optimo, which is itself a lightweight lens.

 

 

Hmm... interesting to know... do you imagine these lenses unmodified might be a decent option for use with the Red camera? Are these Nikkor/F-mount pre-modification? Makes me a little less snooty about considering SLR lenses!

 

Do you know which models they used? this one is f2.8 not T2.8:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1695..._AF_S_Zoom.html

 

there's an article about the Bourne thing (including the same info about nikon lenses used) here

http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?maga...htm~top.main_hp

 

(assuming thats not where you read it in the first place)

 

says 80% of first unit shooting was done with these two lenses...

 

Cheers for the info,

 

R.

[Stephen Williams]

Makes me a little less snooty about considering SLR lenses!

 

Hi Ruairi,

 

It's quite likely that lenses from several zooms get used to produce a really good one.

 

Stephen

[Brian Drysdale]

The article doesn't say how much modification (if any) of the mechanics of the Nikon zooms was undertaken by Arri. This is the weakest part of stills lenses compared to cine lenses and would a even bigger issue with SLR zooms lenses compared to SLR prime lenses.

[David Auner aac]

For 'The Bourne Ultimatum' Arri Munich rehoused 2 Nikon digital zoom lenses: a 28-70mm and a 80-200mm. Both are T2.8 throughout. There is more sets coming. I haven't spoken to Arri directely yet, but it seems the main advantage of these lenses is their light weight.

 

I wonder what the DP meant by "digital" Nikon lenses. The only 28-70 and 80-200 2.8s I know are made for full frame 35mm still film. As for their being light I'm even more curious. How heavy is a typical zoom for 35mm cine with a PL mount? Still film wise I would call both of these lenses rather heavy pieces of glass.

 

Having used both lenses myself (if he indeed meant the AF-S 80-200 2.8 and the AF-S 28-70 2.8) these are excellent lenses for still photography. Check out this site for information on Nikon lenses. It the best you can find!

 

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#70-xx

 

Regards, Dave

[Max Jacoby]

I wonder what the DP meant by "digital" Nikon lenses.

They are made for 35mm size sensors so they are telecentric I'd guess.

[Mitch Gross]

They are made for 35mm size sensors so they are telecentric I'd guess.

Telecentric would mean glass that is designed to focus properly for a 3-chip camera using a prismatic beam splitter. That's what video B4 mount lenses are.

[Max Jacoby]

Telecentric would mean glass that is designed to focus properly for a 3-chip camera using a prismatic beam splitter. That's what video B4 mount lenses are.

I was under the impression that telecentric meant that the rays of light hit the film, respectively the sensor at a 90 degree angle (i.e straight). If they came at an angle it would still be alright for film, but with a sensor it could lead to loss of exposure. At least that is how I've seen the word 'telecentric' used, for instance on flyer about the new Hawk V-plus lenses, which are obviously not designed for 3-chip cameras.

[Mitch Gross]

I was under the impression that telecentric meant that the rays of light hit the film, respectively the sensor at a 90 degree angle (i.e straight). If they came at an angle it would still be alright for film, but with a sensor it could lead to loss of exposure. At least that is how I've seen the word 'telecentric' used, for instance on flyer about the new Hawk V-plus lenses, which are obviously not designed for 3-chip cameras.

Hmmn. I've seen it specifically used the way I describe. I'll look into it as it may be a siliar term. How horribly confusing.

[Max Jacoby]

I did a quick google for the term and it seems that telecentric means that the rays are parallel to the optical axis.

 

What is Telecentricity?

By Jim Michalski

Telecentricity is a special property of certain multi-element lens designs in which the chief rays for all points across the object or image are collimated. For example, telecentricity occurs when the chief rays are parallel to the optical axis, in object and/or image space. Another way of describing telecentricity is to state that the entrance pupil and/or exit pupil of the system is located at infinity

 

http://www.edmundoptics.com/techsupport/Di...m?articleid=261

 

This is what Wikipedia has to say (not always the best source, I know!)

 

A telecentric lens is a compound lens with an unusual property concerning its geometry of image-forming rays. There are two main types, each with its own use:

 

A lens that is object space telecentric is usually employed for machine vision systems in order to achieve dimensional and geometric invariance of images within a range of different distances from the lens and across the whole field of view.

 

A lens that is image space telecentric is used with image sensors that do not tolerate a wide range of angles of incidence. For example, a 3-CCD color beamsplitter prism assembly works best with a telecentric lens, and many digital image sensors have a minimum of color crosstalk and shading problems when used with telecentric lenses.

A lens is called double telecentric if it is telecentric on both sides.

 

The technical property that distinguishes telecentric lenses is that the chief rays, that is the rays through the center of the entrance or exit pupil, are all parallel to the optical axis, on one or both sides of the lens, no matter what part of the image space or object space they go through.

[Mitch Gross]

You're most definitely correct and now I'm going to be up very late trying to recall the correct term. Vidi-centric perhaps? There is a specific word to describe a lens that is designed to correct for the shift in wavelength depth of a 3-chip prism block. If anyone can relieve my misery I'd appreciate it as this escapes me at the moment.

 

Sorry to hijack the thread from what sounds like some very interesting optics.

[David Auner aac]

Still, it is interesting to note that IIRC both of these lenses were around a while before Nikon had their first DSLR out (the D1 in 1999). SO doubt that they had these designed to be used on digital cameras.

 

Cheers, Dave

[Max Jacoby]

Hmm... interesting to know... do you imagine these lenses unmodified might be a decent option for use with the Red camera?

I'd first check if they hold focus when zooming, because many (most?) stills zoom lenses do not.

[Stephen Williams]

I'd first check if they hold focus when zooming, because many (most?) stills zoom lenses do not.

 

Hi Max,

 

I always assumed that if high quality still camera zoom lenses were collimated they might zoom OK, they are generally not that wide so I think it's possible.

 

Stephen

[Hal Smith]

Still, it is interesting to note that IIRC both of these lenses were around a while before Nikon had their first DSLR out (the D1 in 1999). SO doubt that they had these designed to be used on digital cameras.

Cheers, Dave

That wouldn't surprise me in the least. Nikon's marketing people have probably fallen victim to the disease of "digitalitis" where calling something "digital" is believed to give it magic sales properties.

[Mitch Gross]

Back to "telecentric."

 

Max is correct, and it turns out we're talking about the same thing. For 3-chip cameras the lens must be telecentric as Max described so that the light hits the dichroic filters for color separation at the correct angle. As a different issue to this the image planes for the three primary colors are at slightly different depths due to their differing frequencies and the lens design must account for this. I thought that this second aspect was included in the term "telecentric" but it is not, and there is no particular single word definition for this.

 

And now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Hal Smith]

As a different issue to this the image planes for the three primary colors are at slightly different depths due to their differing frequencies and the lens design must account for this.

Further hijacking the thread: Are you certain about that? Why wouldn't one just adjust the backfocus for each sensor independently to compensate for any optical path differences?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

[David Auner aac]

That wouldn't surprise me in the least. Nikon's marketing people have probably fallen victim to the disease of "digitalitis" where calling something "digital" is believed to give it magic sales properties.

 

Hi Hal,

hehe, that might be very true, but so far I haven't heard of any case of this very contagious disease at Nikon's HQ.

 

If you refer to the article, the DP said something about "digital Nikon lenses". As a side note, I really enjoy the fact that you can take a 35-40 year old Nikon lens and mount it on a brand new digital D2x. Actually I have just bought a 135 and a 180/2.8. I will use these with a DOF adapter (Brevis) on my video camera and (hopefully soon) on my new Eclair NPR.

 

Cheers, Dave

[Mitch Gross]

Further hijacking the thread: Are you certain about that? Why wouldn't one just adjust the backfocus for each sensor independently to compensate for any optical path differences?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

Forty odd years of video lens technology are pretty well ingrained. This is the way it's done because this is the way it's done.

[David Auner aac]

Hi folks,

being complete ignorant of the hands on things in 35mm cinematography, how heavy is a normal T2.8 zoom in that range with PL mount? The Nikons mentioned weigh around 1000 and 1300 grams respectively. The article mentioned them being lightweight, so I wonder...

 

Cheers, Dave

[Brian Drysdale]

Hi folks,

being complete ignorant of the hands on things in 35mm cinematography, how heavy is a normal T2.8 zoom in that range with PL mount? The Nikons mentioned weigh around 1000 and 1300 grams respectively. The article mentioned them being lightweight, so I wonder...

 

Cheers, Dave

 

The Arri Lightweight T 2.6 15.5mm - 45mm weighs 2 Kg

The Cooke T3 18mm - 100mm weighs 5.5 Kg

[Hal Smith]

Forty odd years of video lens technology are pretty well ingrained. This is the way it's done because this is the way it's done.

Gee, the RCA TK41's and Marconi MKVII's I used to hack on many moons ago had adjustable back focus for each Image Orthicon in the 41's and each Plumbicon in the MKVII's. Hacking on MKVII's is one of life's pleasures (not) - it does get better once you learn to NEVER turn them off. The 41's weren't too bad once you got good at setting up the IO operating voltages (knee, shoulder, focus, knee, shoulder, focus, repeat a dozen times or so for each IO).

[Stephen Williams]

Hacking on MKVII's is one of life's pleasures (not) - it does get better once you learn to NEVER turn them off. The 41's weren't too bad once you got good at setting up the IO operating voltages (knee, shoulder, focus, knee, shoulder, focus, repeat a dozen times or so for each IO).

 

Hi Hal,

 

IMHO a well set up MKVII looked one hell of a lot better than the 2/3" crap they were replaced with.

 

Stephen

[Sam Wells]

Further hijacking the thread: Are you certain about that? Why wouldn't one just adjust the backfocus for each sensor independently to compensate for any optical path differences?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

 

Without control of the target (as in a tube camera) you can end up trading longitudinal chromatic aberration for lateral aberration !

 

-Sam

[Hal Smith]

IMHO a well set up MKVII looked one hell of a lot better than the 2/3" crap they were replaced with.

Stephen

Boy Howdy did they! I always thought rendition of pastels was in particular a strong suit of the MKVII's. I wonder how a MKVII would look compared to telecined Vision2.