Torture of lens designers.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I'm shooting a commercial with the Mini-35 adapter and PL mount lenses on a progressive DV camera. It involves a lot of traveling across Europe and therefore needs a light, portable kit. So I chose the older Zeiss T2.1 series simply because they're light and very portable. I also happen to like the way they look. But this particular job entails a lot of extreme close-up work. Once again I'm up against the extreme technical limitations of todays film lenses.

 

I need close focus capability. But I can't get close enough on the Zeiss's. And since the Mini 35 adapter system is a 15mm rod system I can't get a normal mattebox for this (since they're on

19mm systems), therefore I'm limited to the clip-on LMB-12 mattbox. But. This system doesn't have a doughnut and therefore can't accomodate any diopters for close focus work.

 

So what to do?

 

Well, last time I had to pull the lens out of its mount and try to not wobble with ot to get the focus I needed. Not ideal, as you understand. Order macro lenses? Problem is they don't exist in all the focal lenghts I need, plus the barrel is bigger and then I can't use my clip-on LMB mattebox for those. And my actors often walk from a normal focus into a macro range. I also can't afford to carry both. Diopters? There is no doughnut on the LMB 12 to place them in and there are no square diopters that fit a 4x4 filter tray.

 

It drives me nuts simply because it's just such a stupid and simple problem to solve if the lens manufacturers would just stop feeding us with all this bulls*** about how macro lenses are such a delicate design and has to be specially designed bla, bla.

 

EVERY lens is a macro lens if you just allow for this very simple solution: Let the lens and focus ring just screw out more. That's it - that's all they have to to - extend the tread. Problem solved. And how hard would that be?

 

It's a disgrace that not every lens isn't a macro lens. Quick reality check to lens designers:

 

1. I don't bloody care how much light it steals in the macro range - I want that capability on every lens if I need it.

 

2. Why isn't there PL mount spacers available like there has been for stills cameras for like 40 years?

 

The film tech biz is really criminally behind at times. Frustrating.

Edited February 24, 2005 by AdamFrisch

[Bob Hayes]

Have you tried taping the Diopter on the front of the lens?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Bob, that's what I'm going to have to do. Not ideal either since it takes time, gets them dirty and makes the lens useless above the macro range. Also a pain with the mattebox if you use other filters. But that's what I have to go with, I reckon.

 

I have ordered a 100mm macro lens at an exorbitant $200 a day for the duration, but that means I'm going to have to give up some other stuff to balance the budget. :angry:

[Nate Downes]

Ahem: Tube Extentions

[Brent J. Craig]

I worked with a director once who had his own set of Zeiss T2.1's with the close focus 'stoppers' removed. It kind of freaked me out in the camera prep. If you kept twisting I suspect the lenses would have come apart.

 

It was certainly convenient though! Every lens was a macro. Sure some of them looked like crap focused too close, and compensation for lens extension was mostly voodoo.

 

If you have a really good relation with the lens tech at your rental house, and it's a long enough rental, maybe you can have them pull the stoppers for you too.

[Peter Martin]

Vantage has designed a set of close focus lenses using leica glass (15, 19, 24, 27, 35, 60, 90, 135, 180mm) They would cover your needs.

 

There are several follow focus systems available that can be mounted on one of the 15mm rods only.

 

Century Precision is making PL-to-PL Extensions. Vantage's rental department has them available.

 

www.vantagefilm.com

 

Peter Martin

Vantage Film - Hawk Lens Design

[Rolfe Klement]

I think the primary reason all lens rental companies do ont have the focus pin pulled out it the inherent financial dangerous exposure and the minor issue of confusion when focus marking lenses.

 

I own some Zeiss lenses with the rear focus pin pulled out and they are great but the problem is if someone doesn't know what they are doing they can damage the lens - or have it fall apart - and mark a focus incorrectly...considering how many students rent kit it can quickly increase insurance premiums for rental companies

 

The advantages of cine lenses are still huge over stills lenses IMHO - try and mark a 100mm still lens for a 70 to 90 ft rack - or look how much breathing a still prime does on a focus rack - but that is why a cine lens is at least 10x more than a still or do a 35mm optical blow up from a still lens and project it - I once shoot something with a 100mm Nikon still and it was really shocking next to a Zeiss UP

 

Pulling out the focus pin is not a huge job if you have a good relation with the rental company - Otto Nemenz pulled one out for me in about 20 min last year

 

I also used the Century diopters but things (zoom and 3 diopters) get really heavy and with extension tubes we started to get focus inside the lens hood

 

For the cost and weight of a PS technic and zooms etc - it might be a better production pitch to do it on S16 - with an Aaton

 

my 2 cents

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Sam Wells]

Well that was one great thing about Arri standard mount !

 

(helps to have an assistant with a net if you tilt down :unsure: )

 

If *I* ruled the world, all lenses would be shift/tilt lenses. Apparently I don't.

 

Maybe somene needs to make a modified P&S with two stages ?

(the question would be, as usual, how much of a call would there be for it; you'd need some very precise marking - this is in the field collimation here....)

 

-Sam

[Max Jacoby]

Adam

 

To be fair, your favourite Zeiss Standards are not really state of the art lenses anymore. Most modern cine lenses have pretty decent close-focus. The Zeiss Master-Primes are the first lenses to have both no breathing problems and good close-focus, so things are looking up.