35mm SLR lenses for use on Super 16 camera?

[Steven Grant James]

Hey folks!

 

I am purchasing a converter for my bolex EBM super 16mm camera, so that I can use standard 35mm SLR lenses instead. Click here to see what im talking about..

 

I am just wondering if anyone else here has done this, and more importantly, if any of you knowledgable people have any recommendations for lenses! I am really looking for a wide lens right now... as I already have a good long lens.

 

Thanks!

 

SGJ

[Paul Bruening]

I've got a set of eleven Nikons for my Mitchell. I recently shot tests and had DuArt process and print the rolls. The projected images were incredibly sharp and the Nikon's notorious contrast seemed quite an asset to the sensation of sharpness. I personally recommend the Nikons. You can get 'em cheap off Ebay. Plenty of shops can clean and collimate them at affordable prices. Plus, they are the most widely adapted SLR lenses for cine cameras, so, your chances for finding adapters are better.

[Sir Alvin Ekarma]

If you get the russian Zenitar or Peleng m42 lenses, they need to be re-collimated for RX distance (or not as there are varying opinions on this since the literature says that this can't be done and/or won't make a difference); in any event, Bernie O'dougherty said he could do it when I asked him about this service some time back. Also note that if you use either of these lenses, you definitely need a french flag as these are terribly prone to flare that will only be apparent once the film comes back and that the Peleng is slooooow.

 

As for other lenses, I've tested and have good results with a an 85mm Jupiter 9 and a vivitar 135mm; both very sharp and punchy. I also tested an old 50mm takumar that was good but yellowing.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

On this same topic; I'm just curious if anyone has ever come across an Nikon AI to PL mount adapter? I have a few nikon Lenses I'd love to use on my SR3

[Steven Grant James]

I've got a set of eleven Nikons for my Mitchell. I recently shot tests and had DuArt process and print the rolls. The projected images were incredibly sharp and the Nikon's notorious contrast seemed quite an asset to the sensation of sharpness. I personally recommend the Nikons. You can get 'em cheap off Ebay. Plenty of shops can clean and collimate them at affordable prices. Plus, they are the most widely adapted SLR lenses for cine cameras, so, your chances for finding adapters are better.

 

Hi Paul - I have found a mount for use with Nikon SLR lenses, but I am not having much luck finding any Nikon primes. I may just end up going with a zoom lens.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Steven

[Guest Glenn Brady]

. . . I am not having much luck finding any Nikon primes. Any suggestions? Steven

 

There are literally hundreds of these lenses listed at eBay. How can you not find any?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

not to mention BH's used department.

[Steven Grant James]

Pehaps it was just because I was looking in the UK?? After another search I came across a few. Most focal lengths seem to be 50mm or over, but there are a few wider lenses available as well;

 

see ebay item here

 

Thanks for the tips guys!!

[Paul Bruening]

Nikon glass zooms are good lenses. The long ones tug hard on the mount, so, be careful. As well, the zooms will breath like crazy when you crank the rings. You'll probably want to avoid live zooming. The major complaint with SLR lenses is the short throw on the focus rings. They can be hard to pull focus on. The Nikons turn opposite from cine lenses. I had Matt Duclos press some Delrin gear rings onto mine. The focus drive gear is small enough that the ratio on the turn is more reasonable.

 

Good luck with your gear.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

On this same topic; I'm just curious if anyone has ever come across an Nikon AI to PL mount adapter? I have a few nikon Lenses I'd love to use on my SR3

 

Only possible for macro. Infinity focus not possible.

[Paul Watt]

Hey folks!

 

I am purchasing a converter for my bolex EBM super 16mm camera, so that I can use standard 35mm SLR lenses instead. Click here to see what im talking about..

 

I am just wondering if anyone else here has done this, and more importantly, if any of you knowledgeable people have any recommendations for lenses! I am really looking for a wide lens right now... as I already have a good long lens.

 

Thanks!

 

SGJ

Hey, Steven. I'm doing the same thing right now. I got the mount converter from Les Bosher, and Jean-Louis Seguin is doing the conversion in Montreal. I've been struggling with the decisions on what lenses to get. Sigma makes an 8mm with a manual aperture f 3.5 which looks to be a pretty good wide. They can be found for around $650 on ebay. There's also a number of good 16mm lenses available. I've got a Tamron 24-135 f3.5 - 5.6 that I'm hoping to use a lot. Not all zooms are parfocal, but this one is and although not all that fast, it will be good for outdoor bright light I'm hoping. It's got good contrast and sharpness, and it is a great deal for the quality in my opinion.

Good luck, and let me know how it goes when you test the camera.

[Jess Haas]

SLR lenses are great for longer lenses but good wides are a bit harder to come by. They also tend to be much larger and heavier than necessary since they are made to cover a much larger frame.

 

One option for a wide SLR lens is the russian 8mm lens. They can be had for a reasonable amount of money.

 

For wides you might be better off looking at c-mount lenses.

 

With longer lenses you can get away without having them collimated but wide lenses will most likely need to be collimated to your camera.

 

~Jess

[Steven Grant James]

With longer lenses you can get away without having them collimated but wide lenses will most likely need to be collimated to your camera.

 

~Jess

 

No one warned me of this - why does a wide lens need to be collimated? Where can this be done? I was hoping I could shoot once I had the proper adapter (which I just bought from Les Bosher in the UK - as Paul did)

 

I am still looking to purchase a Nikon 16mm prime lens I have seen on ebay. Going back to Paul's comment, I am aiming for prime lenses at the moment. I was thinking of building up a little set (ie. 16mm, 25mm, 50mm). I will certainly put up some tests (or film footage) that I shoot with this set up! I am exctited to see the results.

 

 

Steven

[Jess Haas]

With primes if the lens is not properly collimated it will work fine but the focus marks on the lens and the infinity focus mark will be off. There is a chance that the adapter will be setup correctly and your lenses might not need to be collimated, but SLR lenses don't tend to have that accurate of focus marks to begin with.

 

The reason that collimation is more critical with wider lenses is that they have a shallower depth of focus. Depth of focus refers to the focus on the image plane as aposed to depth of field which is the focus on the subject. The more depth of field you have the less depth of focus you have, and as such wider lenses have a shallower depth of focus so the focus on the image plane (or collimation) has to be more accurately set.

 

With zoom lenses if the collimation is not set properly they will not hold focus throughout the zoom range.

 

~Jess

[Freya Black]

With primes if the lens is not properly collimated it will work fine but the focus marks on the lens and the infinity focus mark will be off. There is a chance that the adapter will be setup correctly and your lenses might not need to be collimated, but SLR lenses don't tend to have that accurate of focus marks to begin with.

 

The reason that collimation is more critical with wider lenses is that they have a shallower depth of focus. Depth of focus refers to the focus on the image plane as aposed to depth of field which is the focus on the subject. The more depth of field you have the less depth of focus you have, and as such wider lenses have a shallower depth of focus so the focus on the image plane (or collimation) has to be more accurately set.

 

With zoom lenses if the collimation is not set properly they will not hold focus throughout the zoom range.

 

~Jess

 

 

My understanding was that wide angle lenses had greater depth of field and that telephoto lenses had shallower depth of field. I've always found it to be like that. Of course the brighter it is the more depth of field you have too. (Pile on the footcandles! Yay!) So I think you must mean the other way around?

 

love

 

Freya

[David Auner aac]

My understanding was that wide angle lenses had greater depth of field and that telephoto lenses had shallower depth of field. I've always found it to be like that. Of course the brighter it is the more depth of field you have too. (Pile on the footcandles! Yay!) So I think you must mean the other way around?

 

Freya, read carefully! ;)

 

You are right and Jess is too! You mean depth of FIELD and he means depth of FOCUS! Which are related, they are inversely proportional to each other on lenses of different focal lengths.

 

Cheers, Dave

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Freya, read carefully! ;)

 

You are right and Jess is too! You mean depth of FIELD and he means depth of FOCUS! Which are related, they are inversely proportional to each other on lenses of different focal lengths.

 

To amplify, depth of is in front of the lenses, while depth of focus is behind the lens at the focal plane.

[Freya Black]

To amplify, depth of is in front of the lenses, while depth of focus is behind the lens at the focal plane.

 

Ah! Thankyou! I thought it seemed odd! I've never heard the expression depth of focus before and given the talk of collimation I guess it makes more sense to talk in such terms because it's what's going on with the focal plane thats going to matter!

 

I see that it is explained in the posting by Jess tho, so I must have been half asleep or something.

My mind is mostly on other things these days! :(

 

I seem to post stuff that makes less and less sense too.

I wish I could just take a holiday from my life for a while.

 

love

 

Freya