Bausch Lomb Baltar

[Michael Schroers]

Hello !

 

I'm interested in Bausch & Lomb Super Baltar Lenses. How is their look an d feel ? How is the difference compared to lenses like Speed Panchros ?

 

What's about the old lens Baltar 30 mm (a lens with cameflex mount, 2,5 30 mm). How is its quality and look ?

 

 

Thanks

 

Micha

[John Sprung]

These lenses are very old, from the 1930's - 40's. They were designed long before computers made ray tracing possible, so they can't compare with modern glass. The look of any particular one will depend mainly on its present condition, so the only way to know is to shoot a test.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Michael Schroers]

These lenses are very old, from the 1930's - 40's. They were designed long before computers made ray tracing possible, so they can't compare with modern glass. The look of any particular one will depend mainly on its present condition, so the only way to know is to shoot a test.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Hello !

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

I thought Super Baltar lenses (for example with Mitchell BNCR mount) would have been made during the 1960's. I mean the big lenses with this beautifull metal-rings.

 

The older Baltar 30 mm is black and its a little bit smaller. It was made for Cameflex. I think it's a very rare lens, isn't it ?

 

 

Aren't the Super Baltar lenses (Mitchell BNCR) as good as the Cooke Speed Panchros ?

Edited September 24, 2010 by Michael Schroers

[Stephen Williams]

 

 

Aren't the Super Baltar lenses (Mitchell BNCR) as good as the Cooke Speed Panchros ?

 

Hi,

 

Both lenses have an older feel, in both cases you need to test individual lenses at your intended shooting stop. This was normal practice 25 years ago on any production.

[John Sprung]

I thought Super Baltar lenses (for example with Mitchell BNCR mount) would have been made during the 1960's.

 

The same design may have continued in production, but it's all 1930's technology.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Michael Schroers]

The same design may have continued in production, but it's all 1930's technology.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Hello !

 

Is the Baltar 30 mm very similar to the 'newer' Super Baltar lenses or isn't it as 'good' as the Super Baltar 32mm for example ?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

a "good" and bad lens is subjective. It all depends on how you like your lenses.

[Michael Schroers]

a "good" and bad lens is subjective. It all depends on how you like your lenses.

 

yes, that's right.

 

I love lenses like speed panchro Ser.II and III for example. But not the Som Berthiot Pan-Cinor lenses.

 

Now I like to start to film with Bausch and Lomb lenses, but I haven't got one of it and I would like to buy one.

 

And so I'm not sure what I should prefer: The Baltar 30 mm or perhaps a Super Baltar 32 mm.

 

Do you have an photo, which has been taken with such a Baltar ?

Edited September 25, 2010 by Michael Schroers

[dino wiand]

Hi. I know these lenses very well.

 

Firstly we all know what Baltar's and Super Baltars look like, pretty much any film shot with a Mitchell was either Baltar or Kowa. Even a lot of stuff in the 80s was shot with Super Baltars and Kowas. A lot of old Disney stuff like 'Parent Trap' and 'Moonspinners' and also most Hitchcock stuff was shot with Super Baltars. A lot of John Ford stuff as well. 'The Birds' etc. Also a lot of the early Fox Cinescope stuff like 'the robe' was shot with adapted Baltar's. They used Super Baltars on the TV show Cheers if you want to see a bad example. Also the Star Trek TV series. 16mm versions were used on 'Brown Bunny' by Vincent Gallo, however again its not to me the best use of them.

 

I personally like the Baltars from the 50s a little better than the 60s Super Baltars, but the Super Baltars are great. By the way the Kowa's are exact copies of the Super Baltars but have a slightly orange warmer coating. I think the Baltar's are a touch more dramatic and moody looking compared to the Super Baltar.

 

I have never seen the CM3 Baltars, but sound interesting.

 

Personally I prefer them on 35mm rather than using them to soften the harsher digital cameras.

 

Personally I think a beautiful image is a beautiful image, but these lens add some real magic that you may not instantly get from a modern lens. Also I use them with no matte box/filters and have not had too much problems with flare, but it depends how anal you need to be. If you want to shoot perfectly (if there is such a thing) and without character maybe stay away.

[Michael Schroers]

Hi. I know these lenses very well.

 

Firstly we all know what Baltar's and Super Baltars look like, pretty much any film shot with a Mitchell was either Baltar or Kowa. Even a lot of stuff in the 80s was shot with Super Baltars and Kowas. A lot of old Disney stuff like 'Parent Trap' and 'Moonspinners' and also most Hitchcock stuff was shot with Super Baltars. A lot of John Ford stuff as well. 'The Birds' etc. Also a lot of the early Fox Cinescope stuff like 'the robe' was shot with adapted Baltar's. They used Super Baltars on the TV show Cheers if you want to see a bad example. Also the Star Trek TV series. 16mm versions were used on 'Brown Bunny' by Vincent Gallo, however again its not to me the best use of them.

 

I personally like the Baltars from the 50s a little better than the 60s Super Baltars, but the Super Baltars are great. By the way the Kowa's are exact copies of the Super Baltars but have a slightly orange warmer coating. I think the Baltar's are a touch more dramatic and moody looking compared to the Super Baltar.

 

I have never seen the CM3 Baltars, but sound interesting.

 

Personally I prefer them on 35mm rather than using them to soften the harsher digital cameras.

 

Personally I think a beautiful image is a beautiful image, but these lens add some real magic that you may not instantly get from a modern lens. Also I use them with no matte box/filters and have not had too much problems with flare, but it depends how anal you need to be. If you want to shoot perfectly (if there is such a thing) and without character maybe stay away.

 

Hi. Thanks for your answer.

 

What do you thing is the difference between Speed Panchros and Baltars ?

 

Do you like Som Berthiot Pan-Cinor too ?

[Stephen Williams]

 

Do you like Som Berthiot Pan-Cinor too ?

 

No, that's getting into 'sub prime' territory.

[Sing Howe Yam]

The Super Baltars have a soft look to them. It basically looks like a black pro mist or black frost. If you want to get an idea of what they look like, check out the film "The Wackness", that was shot 35mm with the Super Baltars. Also a more recent movie, I've been on quite a few RED shoots with Super Baltars.

 

But each set is different, I've worked with four different sets and they all have a difference in softness to them.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Sing Howe Yam

[Saul Rodgar]

Duclos has a Super Baltar set for rent. IIRC, Harris Savides used them to film Birth. Check it out. In conjunction with some exposure / processing acrobatics, the look is a pleasant soft and creamy palette, prone to flares and glare, as these old lenses do not have much of the modern anti-flare coating that is the norm these days.

 

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fineline/birth/quicktime_large_new.html

[dino wiand]

don't know the Som Berthiot other than I used Som Berthiot on a Bolex and didn't like the set as much as the Switars or Taylor Hobsons.

[dino wiand]

checked out 'the wackness' - that looked softer than the s.baltars that I am used to. I don't like to think of them as an effect lens but it looks that way in that film, its more like they are pushing the lenses boundaries to get an effect. I think if they still had 3 strip technicolor like Baltars were made for then they wouldn't be as soft. I am used to watching old films so when I see a sharp modern lens it looses a little magic unless the DP can work to soften the light rather than the lens.

[Michael Schroers]

 

I personally like the Baltars from the 50s a little better than the 60s Super Baltars, but the Super Baltars are great. By the way the Kowa's are exact copies of the Super Baltars but have a slightly orange warmer coating. I think the Baltar's are a touch more dramatic and moody looking compared to the Super Baltar.

 

 

Hello !

 

Which Kowa lenses do you mean ? The Kowa lenses made by 'Lomo' ? (for example Lomo 2,0 28 mm OKC7-28) ore are there more lenses originally made by Kowa ?

[Bruce Taylor]

Which Kowa lenses do you mean ? The Kowa lenses made by 'Lomo' ? (for example Lomo 2,0 28 mm OKC7-28) ore are there more lenses originally made by Kowa ?

 

I don't think Lomo and Kowa have any association. Lomos were manufactured in the former Soviet Union, Kowa was made in Japan. Kowa optics and build quality are excellent. Lomo made generally good to excellent optics, but the mechanical components were not well made.

[Michael Schroers]

I don't think Lomo and Kowa have any association. Lomos were manufactured in the former Soviet Union, Kowa was made in Japan. Kowa optics and build quality are excellent. Lomo made generally good to excellent optics, but the mechanical components were not well made.

 

 

sorry, I have made a stupid mistake.

 

Now I know what you mean. I thought about KONVAS cameras :rolleyes: , and they most had lomo lenses . . .

 

And what about the Photo-Lenses made by Kowas ?

 

Are they as good as the cine lenses or aren't they ?

 

Thanks.

[Bruce Taylor]

And what about the Photo-Lenses made by Kowas ?

 

Are they as good as the cine lenses or aren't they ?

 

By "Photo-Lenses" do you mean still camera lenses? From my experience Kowa made a couple of still cameras series with lenses. There was a low priced 35mm slr (priced below the higher end Minolta/Pentax/Olympus/Nikons of the day) that was not particularly mechanically or optically great, but it was inexpensive. They also made the Kowa 6, a medium format 6x6cm camera for the semi-pro/pro market, dubbed the "poor man's Hasselblad." The camera body had some reliability issues, but it had lenses that rivaled the best medium format cameras of the day.

 

Kowa's cine lenses were competitive with the other professional lenses of their day in build quality and optical performance. IIRC, Cinema Products rebadged them for their XR35 and CP16R camera lines.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

 

Is the Baltar 30 mm very similar to the 'newer' Super Baltar lenses or isn't it as 'good' as the Super Baltar 32mm for example ?

 

They have different designs. The 30mm is a Gauss design, while the 32mm is a retro-focus.

In actuallity there is no 32mm Super Baltar, it's a 35mm.

 

The rear of the 30mm will clear the mirror shutter of a cameflex/CM3 or an Arri IIC, it won't clear the mirror of a BNCR or Mark II.

 

The Super Baltars were designed for the Mitchell relexes. The lens shorter than 50mm had to be retro-focus designs to be able to clear the mirror.

[John Sprung]

In actuallity there is no 32mm Super Baltar, it's a 35mm.

 

It's true of a great many lenses that the given focal length is only approximate. Check them out on an optical bench, and the actual measured focal length varies plus or minus as much as 10% from the number engraved in the aluminum.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[dino wiand]

the super baltars were softer than the cookes in my opinion. The Cooke's 'pop' a little more. The Kowa's to me were between Cooke and Super Baltars for sharpness. 'Milk' was shot with Speed Panchros and Vittorio Storaro claimed the speed panchros to be his favourite lens (at least in the 70s and 80s).

Just a note on the Speed Panchro series ii and ii.. The Cooke Series III was made to fix the problems with the series ii 18mm and 25mm focal length lenses. Both series ii 18mm and 25mm were very poor lenses and really not usable.. they came out with the series iii to fix the problems. the S III are the same lenses as the other series ii lenses ... but usable.

I think the Super Baltars struggle a little wide open in low light but still are beautiful lens.. they look amazing with reversal stock as do the sp's as these were lenses made for 3 strip technicolor or high contrast black and white. I go between liking the SP's or SB's the best. Maybe the Cookes are more the all rounder. Also the Panavision 'C' series are in the same league as Super Baltars in my opinion.

[Michael Schroers]

They have different designs. The 30mm is a Gauss design, while the 32mm is a retro-focus.

In actuallity there is no 32mm Super Baltar, it's a 35mm.

 

The rear of the 30mm will clear the mirror shutter of a cameflex/CM3 or an Arri IIC, it won't clear the mirror of a BNCR or Mark II.

 

The Super Baltars were designed for the Mitchell relexes. The lens shorter than 50mm had to be retro-focus designs to be able to clear the mirror.

 

 

 

 

Is there a difference between the Baltars and the super Baltars in their look or their quality like sharpness, contrast etc. ?

 

I'm interrested in a baltar 30mm 2,3 with cameflex mount. How much is it's worth ?

 

Is the price of $ 300,- too high ? (I think yes)

[John Holland]

Think thats a good price just dont use it wide open about 4.5 should look good .

[Michael Schroers]

does anybody know which films were made with the older baltar lenses (not super baltars) ?

 

 

'The Birds' has been filmed with the super baltars. Does anybody know which scenes were filmes with which focal length, for

example the super baltar 20 mm ?