James Ewen Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Hi there, Does anybody have any experience with this lens? Is it able to stretch to S16, is it convertable and where? Thanks, J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Marks Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I saw this covered somewhere else on the web - supposed to be a great lens, covers S16 from somewhere in its midsection out to the telephoto end. If a conversion to full S16 were available, it would probably result in something like a 15-150mm. Canon did make a (non-fluorite) 15-150mm "TV-16" lens that should cover throughout its entire range. Les Bosher can convert these from C-Mount to Arri, Eclair, or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I saw this covered somewhere else on the web - supposed to be a great lens, covers S16 from somewhere in its midsection out to the telephoto end. If a conversion to full S16 were available, it would probably result in something like a 15-150mm. Canon did make a (non-fluorite) 15-150mm "TV-16" lens that should cover throughout its entire range. Les Bosher can convert these from C-Mount to Arri, Eclair, or whatever. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you know where would you find that particular lens 15-150? How much does Les charge to change the housing to Arri or whatever...? Does Les Bosher have already converted lenses for sale? & How much does it cost to convert the Canon Flourite 12-120? I know you probably don't know the answers to most of these questions But I'm just curious. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Marks Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Rik, there is a thread about this lens somewhere here in the 16mm section. I bought mine from Ebay in excellent condition for $100 after missing out on several 15-150mm Angenieux zooms (which also cover S16 throughout their range). I e-mailed Les Bosher after the lens arrived and he said he had remounted several of these lenses in the past and that they were quite good. He did not give me a price (so if you get a price from him, would you let me know what it is?). The lens is in a C-mount so I can use it unmodified on my ACL. However, it's BIG and HEAVY and so would require some kind of support. Remounted in an Arri or Eclair mount would be much nicer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Thanks for the advice Ian, I'll go check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob spence Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Hi. I've got a canon 12-120 fluorite that Les Bosher has recently 'massaged' to cover super 16 and it's still a 12-120! I think some machining was necessary at the rear of the lens. I've still to test it with film , I'll let you know the results when I do. Cheers Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Marks Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Rob, please let us know how the "massaged" fluorite lens is in actual use. How much did Les charge for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morein Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Rob, please let us know how the "massaged" fluorite lens is in actual use. How much did Les charge for this? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is very interesting. I have the lens. It covers S-16 at 12mm, and 40-120mm. As I recall, when the lens was originally introduced, Canon explained that there was insufficient interest in S-16 to justify the additional cost of larger elements. I question whether enlarging glare stops (the internal baffles) actually makes a usable lens. This lens isn't that sharp anyway, except at longer focal lengths, where it is extremely sharp. Don't assume that reaming it out results in an acceptably sharp lens. It may also have more than cosine falloff in brightness, or excessive flare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Ewen Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 This is very interesting.I have the lens. It covers S-16 at 12mm, and 40-120mm. As I recall, when the lens was originally introduced, Canon explained that there was insufficient interest in S-16 to justify the additional cost of larger elements. I question whether enlarging glare stops (the internal baffles) actually makes a usable lens. This lens isn't that sharp anyway, except at longer focal lengths, where it is extremely sharp. Don't assume that reaming it out results in an acceptably sharp lens. It may also have more than cosine falloff in brightness, or excessive flare. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is this the standard 'unmassaged' version of the lens that covers at 12mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob spence Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Hi, I've just bought a used Canon 8-64 zoom, lovely piece of engineering. So we're about to test all equipment. I'll let you know how the 'massaged' 12-120 holds up against it ( if at all !~ ). Cheers Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Marks Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 guess you won't be needing that 12-120 after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now