Schneider Cine Xenon vs Cinegon Lenses

[Steve Goodloe]

I was wondering if anyone new the reason for the naming difference? Is one set is for 35mm work and the other for 16mm? Or were they just different years of production?

 

I'm looking for lenses for my 16mm camera that I will be able to adapt with a PL mount adapter and use on the Scarlet 2/3" if it ever comes out. Seemed like the best option for my self seeing as the lenses would work on both cameras.

 

But I dont want to buy Lenses meant for 35mm work because I dont want to be dealing with the crop factor.

 

Any help would be great. Thanks guys.

[Chris Keth]

But I dont want to buy Lenses meant for 35mm work because I dont want to be dealing with the crop factor.

 

Any help would be great. Thanks guys.

 

Repeat after me: "There is no such thing as a "crop factor." A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens on any format, ever."

Edited August 5, 2009 by Chris Keth

[Elliot Rudmann]

Repeat after me: "There is no such thing as a "crop factor." A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens on any format, ever."

 

 

A 50mm lens does not give the same perspective on a 16mm camera than it does on a 35mm camera. Come on Chris, haha, you know what he means! Whether or not a "crop factor" is technically real, the idea behind it is something worthy of his concern.

[Chris Keth]

A 50mm lens does not give the same perspective on a 16mm camera than it does on a 35mm camera. Come on Chris, haha, you know what he means! Whether or not a "crop factor" is technically real, the idea behind it is something worthy of his concern.

 

I do know the difference in angle of view but it is of no concern when purchasing lenses for multiple formats. Mainly I'm just sick of people being misinformed by advertisers of consumer DSLRs, where I think the whole crop factor fear comes from. Whether one buys lenses "meant for" 16mm or for 35mm, a given focal length will look exactly the same on whatever format you are using at the time. The notion that one would prefer not to have 35mm lenses to avoid some magic crop factor is silly. In fact, I would prefer to have lenses made for 35mm, and perhaps add to that a couple wider lenses made for 16mm. That would allow one to use them on a greater variety of formats without vignetting.

[David Auner aac]

I do know the difference in angle of view but it is of no concern when purchasing lenses for multiple formats. Mainly I'm just sick of people being misinformed by advertisers of consumer DSLRs, where I think the whole crop factor fear comes from.

 

Second that. There's so much bullsh*it info about lenses out there. Glass is such an important topic in cinematography/photography that it deserves being a stickler for it.

 

Regards, Dave

[Guest Kevin Thomas]

Second that. There's so much bullsh*it info about lenses out there. Glass is such an important topic in cinematography/photography that it deserves being a stickler for it.

 

Regards, Dave

 

Okay here is a few facts in reply to various replies posted:

 

Repeat after me: "There is no such thing as a "crop factor." A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens on any format, ever."

 

Firstly the design of a lens of any given focal length effects the image circle produced and this is variable. Proof? Compare lenses of the same focal length in the Rodenstock N or S sironar lenses. Lenses in the S series produce a larger image circle than the corresponding N lenses of the same focal length.

 

Secondly in changing formats the function of a lens does change. Proof a 50mm in 35mm is classed as a "normal lens" in 5x4 it is wide angle. If you are saying the size of an image of (say the moon) produced by a 300mm lens on film is the same regardless of format you are correct. If you are saying that my 50mm Nikkor produces the same image on my Nikon F5 (full frame 35mm) as my Nikon D300 you are wrong.

 

Thirdly Focal length does not effect perspective only the angle of view. To change perspective requires moving the viewpoint - the position of a camera.

 

Fourthly lenses are designed with a specific purpose in mind - yes their image circle and resolving power may make them adaptable but I see no problem with the wish to use lenses designed specifically for 16mm.

[Steve Goodloe]

I guess basically I'm just asking that if I buy a 10mm cine-xenon, I want it to have a 10mm field of view for a 16mm camera(since I own one of these), if it was meant for a 35mm frame then it would have a different field of view, I want to build a set of lenses that are varied. And I was just wondering if anyone knew what the differences in the names meant. So i can make an informed purchase of the lenses I am looking for.

 

If I'm explaining this wrong please let me know.

[Chris Keth]

I guess basically I'm just asking that if I buy a 10mm cine-xenon, I want it to have a 10mm field of view for a 16mm camera(since I own one of these), if it was meant for a 35mm frame then it would have a different field of view, I want to build a set of lenses that are varied. And I was just wondering if anyone knew what the differences in the names meant. So i can make an informed purchase of the lenses I am looking for.

 

If I'm explaining this wrong please let me know.

 

Any 10mm lens will be, and look like, a 10mm lens on 16mm. If you put that exact lens on a 35mm camera and it covers the format, it will be a much wider look than on 16mm but it will still be a 10mm lens.

 

The only thing affected by designing a lens for a particular format is the coverage of the lens. Lenses designed for 16mm format will often not cover 35mm format. If they do cover, though, they will look just the same as an equivalent focal length lens designed for the 35mm format.

[Chris Keth]

Okay here is a few facts in reply to various replies posted:

 

Repeat after me: "There is no such thing as a "crop factor." A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens on any format, ever."

 

Firstly the design of a lens of any given focal length effects the image circle produced and this is variable. Proof? Compare lenses of the same focal length in the Rodenstock N or S sironar lenses. Lenses in the S series produce a larger image circle than the corresponding N lenses of the same focal length.

 

Secondly in changing formats the function of a lens does change. Proof a 50mm in 35mm is classed as a "normal lens" in 5x4 it is wide angle. If you are saying the size of an image of (say the moon) produced by a 300mm lens on film is the same regardless of format you are correct. If you are saying that my 50mm Nikkor produces the same image on my Nikon F5 (full frame 35mm) as my Nikon D300 you are wrong.

 

Thirdly Focal length does not effect perspective only the angle of view. To change perspective requires moving the viewpoint - the position of a camera.

 

Fourthly lenses are designed with a specific purpose in mind - yes their image circle and resolving power may make them adaptable but I see no problem with the wish to use lenses designed specifically for 16mm.

 

All true. The thing I object to, and try my best to correct, is when people say "if I put a 50mm lens on my DSLR, the crop factor turns it into a 75mm lens."

 

That, for anyone reading who doesn't already know, is not just false, it is incredibly false. ;)

 

The way to express the idea of that statement without altering the laws of physics would be, "if I put a 50mm lens on my stated 1.5x crop factor DSLR, the angle of view of that combination would look the same as a 75mm lens on a full frame camera."

[Guest Kevin Thomas]

Hi Steve,

 

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Kreuznach to answer your question

 

Hi Chris,

 

we agree on the physics and I can see your point on the use of language though I would be more worried if people thought a 50mm was a 50mm expecting it to be a normal lens regardless of format.

 

Cheers,

 

Kev

[Adrian Sierkowski]

What is even a "normal" lens? Such things can vary ;). One could just say "larger the format, wider the lens appears." emphasis on the appears.

[Guest Kevin Thomas]

Hi Adrian,

 

indeed you are right "normal" is open to interpretation.

 

In photography a normal lens for a format is based upon the convention of measuring the diagonal of the frame in still photography and twice the diagonal in film and then usually rounding the figure up or down.

 

Cheers,

 

Kevin

[Chris Keth]

Hi Adrian,

 

indeed you are right "normal" is open to interpretation.

 

In photography a normal lens for a format is based upon the convention of measuring the diagonal of the frame in still photography and twice the diagonal in film and then usually rounding the figure up or down.

 

Cheers,

 

Kevin

 

Twice the diagonal in film? If anything, DPs tend to use a wider then the diagonal lens as their normal. I know of an awful lot of people who consider 32mm their normal for 35mm film.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Kreuznach to answer your question

 

While the entry says thata Cine-Xenon is "A 6-element double gauss lens for film projection."

 

Not all Cine-Xenons are for projection, the list there does seem to be projection lenses.

 

A Cinegon is a retrofocus or inverse telephoto. The front section is negative, thus not symettrical like the double gausses. That allows it to have a long back focus, which enables it to clear the camera's reflex mirror. A 10mm Xenon would have too short of a back focus to do so.

[Guest Kevin Thomas]

Twice the diagonal in film? If anything, DPs tend to use a wider then the diagonal lens as their normal. I know of an awful lot of people who consider 32mm their normal for 35mm film.

 

Hi Chris,

 

once again we agree even if we take different viewpoints partly due to the fact that I believe that in photography it is not only the light that is being bent.

 

If we were all only to portray reality we would perhaps stick to your 32mm prime lens and that hits on an interesting point - what a fantastic opportunity photography and cinematography has to show the world differently - possibly even to see the world in a grain of sand.

 

Cheers,

 

kev

[Guest Kevin Thomas]

While the entry says thata Cine-Xenon is "A 6-element double gauss lens for film projection."

 

Not all Cine-Xenons are for projection, the list there does seem to be projection lenses.

 

A Cinegon is a retrofocus or inverse telephoto. The front section is negative, thus not symettrical like the double gausses. That allows it to have a long back focus, which enables it to clear the camera's reflex mirror. A 10mm Xenon would have too short of a back focus to do so.

 

Hi Anthony,

 

you are correct the list only gives projection lenses which are the only ones currently manufactured - I should have looked more closely before posting.

 

Schneider did manufacture camera lenses using the Cine Xenon name including a series marked Schneider Krauznach Arriflex-Cine-Xenon.

 

Kev

[Guest Kevin Thomas]

I was wondering if anyone new the reason for the naming difference? Is one set is for 35mm work and the other for 16mm? Or were they just different years of production?

 

I'm looking for lenses for my 16mm camera that I will be able to adapt with a PL mount adapter and use on the Scarlet 2/3" if it ever comes out. Seemed like the best option for my self seeing as the lenses would work on both cameras.

 

But I dont want to buy Lenses meant for 35mm work because I dont want to be dealing with the crop factor.

 

Any help would be great. Thanks guys.

 

Hi Steve,

 

take a look at http://www.gluedto.tv/id7.html

 

This guy has a set of Schneider Krauznach Arriflex-Cine-Xenon 16mm primes - possibly worth dropping him an email.

 

Kev

[Guest Kevin Thomas]

Hi Chris,

 

once again we agree even if we take different viewpoints partly due to the fact that I believe that in photography it is not only the light that is being bent.

 

If we were all only to portray reality we would perhaps stick to your 32mm prime lens and that hits on an interesting point - what a fantastic opportunity photography and cinematography has to show the world differently - possibly even to see the world in a grain of sand.

 

Cheers,

 

kev

 

Hi Chris,

 

I don't feel I expressed myself well with the last post so I will try to clarify my point

 

Measuring the diagonal of the frame is only a convention, yes it does give a set figure for any format but that is open to interpretation. Part of the reason this can only ever be a generalisation is that it is based on the viewing distance of the final image.

 

In very few formats are prime lenses made that are close to the normal focal length, i.e. the often quoted 50mm for 35mm still photography to the 43.3mm length of the diagonal.

 

Kevin

[David Auner aac]

Measuring the diagonal of the frame is only a convention, yes it does give a set figure for any format but that is open to interpretation. Part of the reason this can only ever be a generalisation is that it is based on the viewing distance of the final image.

 

Yes, quite true. It also changes over the years. In the past the majority of lenses used was of longer focal lengths than today. Of course this is also influenced by the availability of shorter lenses.

 

Cheers, Dave