35mm Lenses...

[Landon D. Parks]

I seen a deal on Cooke Prime set (18,25,32,40,50,75mm) lenses from www.cinevision-ny.com... I was wondering if they would be worth anything, being only like $2,000 or so dollars.

 

Or does anyone else have any idea where to get good to great quality 35mm lenses?

 

Im looking to maybe buy or rent a Mini35 for the production of Shadows..... And Im looking for a good set of prime lenses or a nice Zoom that covers a wide range (maybe 25mm - 150mm or so) for under $6,000.00

 

I really have no clue where to look, so thank you for any help...

[Josh Hill]

www.visualproducts.com

 

But you will notice a good prime lens set from a reputable dealer (like Visual Products) is going to run you more in the neighborhood of 10 grand.

 

The cooke prime set you were looking at was probably 2000 dollars for a single lens, not for the set. You can't even get a good 16 or S16mm prime set for under three or four grand (and that is a liberally low price).

 

Renting the lenses would be far more your budget, I'm sure.

[Rik Andino]

I seen a deal on Cooke Prime set (18,25,32,40,50,75mm) lenses from www.cinevision-ny.com...

I was wondering if they would be worth anything, being only like $2,000 or so...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well they should be worth at least $2000US. :)

 

If they're Cooke S4 primes than they're probably worth it and much more.

I'll tell you that's alot cheaper than renting a set of S4 primes for a week.

Are you sure that it's $2000US for the set or just $2K for each lens?

 

Your best bet is to inquire about the item?

Ask why they would be selling it at such a low price...

Also check to see if you can test them before buying...

If they're S4s in really good condition then it's definitely worth it.

It's alot cheaper than renting a set of S4 primes for a week!

 

And definitely consider using primes with the Mini 35 adapter.

A zoom lens on a Mini35 adapter is too heavy

And it'll just make the whole contraption even more unnecessarily bulky.

 

Anyways

Good Luck

Edited April 26, 2005 by Rik Andino

[Rik Andino]

I did a little researching

 

http://www.cinevision-ny.com/salesinfo/CookeSP/CookeSP.html

 

Check it out they're Cooke Speed Pancros SII

& NOT Cooke S4 which would cost upwards of 10K

 

It might be a good deal

But they're old lenses

& rumor has it some of them have a tendency to yellow with age.

 

Anyways you should inquire more if you're interested.

 

 

Good Luck

[Max Jacoby]

The eternal question springs to mind:

 

Why do you want to buy if you can rent?

[Josh Hill]

Because Landon is young and idealistic. :D

 

Buying sounds so much more prestigious than renting, I know I've bought a lot of my own equipment just so that I could have it if I need it.

 

But when you're talking about lenses that cost thousands and thousands of dollars a piece .... renting, all the way.

[andrewbuchanan]

I own a set of S2 and S3 primes. I bought them last year. They are great lenses for the money. The 75mm does tend to yellow with age (definitely keep an eye out for this, because some have it really bad). They have a lovely softer/warmer image than most new glass. Joe Dunton rents a set and calls them the finest lenses for period work (or something like that). I read somewhere that Edward Lachman used them for most of the cinematography on The Limey (with a set of Zeiss speeds for the night scene at the end). I reallly, really like the look of that film. I got mine from Visual Products in BNCR and have been very happy with their performance. If you decide to buy I would definitely get them from a seller that has an in-house technician to check them out... a lot of the older ones are nasty.

 

I really like the look they create... its very different from the sharpest, newest, most contrasty glass. If I were trying to create a vintage 70's look, I would definitely use a set of these. Best of all, they were a relatively small investment - even from Visual Products.

[Robert Hughes]

I have a pretty good set of Bausch & Lomb Baltars and Super Baltars, either unmounted or with Eyemo mount. Does anyone have a recommendation for a shop that can put a set of lenses into PL mounts? Note the Eyemo mount includes the focus mechanism.

 

A few of these lenses are bare glass without coatings. And the Super Baltar 25mm is yellowing. Given the age of these lenses, is it even worth remounting them?

[John Pytlak RIP]

I have a pretty good set of Bausch & Lomb Baltars and Super Baltars, either unmounted or with Eyemo mount. Does anyone have a recommendation for a shop that can put a set of lenses into PL mounts? Note the Eyemo mount includes the focus mechanism.

 

A few of these lenses are bare glass without coatings. And the Super Baltar 25mm is yellowing. Given the age of these lenses, is it even worth remounting them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If they are in good condition, lenses that use very old designs are probably still useful for productions that are trying to simulate the more flarey and chromatic aberration "look" of that era.

[Paul Bruening]

Hello good folks,

 

I prefer to own my gear. If you can afford it, buy it. Why line someone elses pockets? If worse comes to worse, you can rent out your own gear and recover some of the investment. I've already snagged a rental deal on my gear. The proceeds cover over half on my investment.

 

Just a thought.

[David Mullen ASC]

Err... when you buy equipment off of someone, you actually ARE lining someone else's pockets, so I don't get the point.

 

My observation is that you can usually afford to rent much better equipment than you can afford to buy. I can rent a 35mm Panaflex or a 24P HD camera -- I could afford to buy a DVX100...

 

You should only buy if the numbers add up, i.e. the purchase costs are less than the total rental costs you anticipate over time. Or the money you make renting it back recoups the costs within a reasonable period (a few years.) For someone who shoots all the time, like a big commercial DP, it make sense to buy that Arri-435 and some Cooke S4's -- because they have an accurate sense as to how quickly that investment will pay off.

 

Speaking as someone who owns only three light meters...

 

The problem with owning equipment is that you start to look for work for that equipment. So if you own a 16mm camera, you may find yourself trying to talk someone into shooting a feature on your camera to help pay it off -- when they were thinking of hiring you and renting a 35mm camera. Or you are only getting hired as a cheap way of getting your camera, rather than for your skills as a cinematographer. When I get hired for a job, I want to make sure that it's me they want to hire, not the package I bring with me.

 

If Landon just wants to buy some lenses to make his feature with, he should crunch the numbers because odds are high that his feature could only afford to shoot for a limited period, like three to four weeks, a short enough period that a rental makes a LOT more sense. Now if this were a really low-budget project shot over weekends for over a year, buying some cheap lenses and a camera might make more sense. But I don't recommend features be made that way unless there is a good reason, because it's better all-around for actor and crew availability, and deals on equipment (lights, camera, sound, etc.) to concentrate the shoot over a short period than spread it out over time.

[Rik Andino]

I prefer to own my gear. If you can afford it, buy it.

Why line someone elses pockets?

If worse comes to worse, you can rent out your own gear

And recover some of the investment.

 

Just a thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except you forget that owning your own equipment will incur it's own expenses

 

It cost money to maintain your equipment in proper functioning condition.

 

You'll have to deal with people mistreating your equipment...

And you havng to get it fixed afterwards

(Unless you're very picky with whom you work with...

But that means less revenue)

 

You"ll have to keep up with new products if you want to compete in the market

 

You'll have to get insurance to insure you're equipment

And that's a yearly expense

 

And so on and so...it's not just buying the equipment...

 

 

& this is coming from someone who owns a S16 camera

[Landon D. Parks]

Well, I made a suggestion to Mr. Mostafa to rent, but im not the producer, yet anyway. Really renting can still rack up our budget a lot, since we will be shooting after work hours and weekends. We will also be working with non-industry crew and first time actors, so Principle Photography will be slow.

 

Renting may be to an advantage if your going to be shooting 10 hours a day, 5 days a week. But when your shooting 3-4 hours a night on weeknights and 8 (Or so) on the weekends, it can run into some money

 

AND, Mr. Mostafa wants to buy because he wants to continue to make more film in the USA once this is done, so he wants to own the equipment so that next time he dont have to go through hell to get finding for the film.

 

I will make an effort to suggest renting in our next video conference, but I cant say it will work.

 

PS) A zoom lense may be heavy, but considering the camerea will almost 100% of the time be on a dolly, tripod or crane, it shouldnt be a problem.

 

I personally pushed for the mini35, because I want a LOT of shallow DOF, and unless theres a way I can get amn extremely shallow DOF without the adapter, then I need it.

 

As to "Crunching the numbers", If I had out 5 Zeiss Ultra primes on a 3-for-7 deal for 6 weeks @ $150.00/ per day list price, that comes to $13,500.00... Lets say I get a GREAT deal and they come down to $10,000 to rent them, thats still what I could buy a nice set of lense for, so does it really pay in my case to rent?

Edited April 29, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Josh Hill]

Your math doesn't add up. If the set is 150 a day, at 3-for-7 that comes to 450 a week, times six is 2700 dollars.

 

However, I assume you mean they are charging 150 day PER LENS which doesn't seem quite right either, and maybe you should think about renting somewhere else. My local rental company only charges 50 a day for their Zeiss 35mm primes, and that comes to 4500 dollars for your 3-for-7, six week shooting budget. Less than half of your "deal."

 

If renting a set of lenses cost as much as buying a set of lenses, no one would ever rent.

 

And by the way, your signature refers to something "raping" when you mean "rapping." Might want to fix that.

[Brian Wells]

I'm a bit of a newbie myself, so far be it for me to start making all kinds of suggestions. I cannot imagine, however, the economy of this producers envisage: third-shift filmmaking on 35mm. There appears a lack of rational inference in costs associated and reduced margin for error due to shortened days and limited "setup" time.

 

On a side note, Charles Papert, SOC documents his experiences with the P+S Technik system in an article here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images19.php

 

Hope the link is helpful.

Thanks for an excellent community here.

 

Brian Wells

[Mark Allen]

Okay - this is going off topic - but so much of this is familiar thinking, I have to ask:

 

Landon, you're spending a huge amount of effort for this guy - figuring out what to buy verses what to rent and all that. Are you sure this guy is really going to follow through? Don't let your eagerness blind you.

 

I only say this because when I was 19 I'd just sold a script and finished a short and I had a handful of people talking to me about movie deals and I put months and months into each one and they never came to fruition. Today I could smell that from the next room, but back then I just never allowed myself to ask difficult situations.

 

If so - more power to you! If not - just realize it sooner rather than later.

 

And now back to our previous discussion about lenses and buyive verses renting...

 

...I'll add this. I bought a camera once. It was stolen out of my office. Didn't have insurance for it either because I'd switched policies recently. Liability is something to add into that cost evaluation. Things break, get stolen, wear out. On the otherhand, there are definitely things worth buying.

 

One warning though... many of the people I know who ended up buying a lot of equipment, spent the next few decades as a slave to them. They became a rental house or a studio or a facility.... now those are fine careers - but they weren't the career that any of these people had intended.

[Stephen Williams]

Your math doesn't add up. If the set is 150 a day, at 3-for-7 that comes to 450 a week, times six is 2700 dollars.

 

However, I assume you mean they are charging 150 day PER LENS which doesn't seem quite right either, and maybe you should think about renting somewhere else. My local rental company only charges 50 a day for their Zeiss 35mm primes, and that comes to 4500 dollars for your 3-for-7, six week shooting budget. Less than half of your "deal."

 

If renting a set of lenses cost as much as buying a set of lenses, no one would ever rent.

 

And by the way, your signature refers to something "raping" when you mean "rapping." Might want to fix that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

150 a day per lens was for Zeiss Ultra Primes. IMHO thats OK for fairly new glass. Used they would cost about USD 6000 per lens. Lenses hold their value quite well so an older set bought for 12K could turn out to be a good investment. If you rent you can choose the lenses for the project. I own a set of Zeiss Superspeeds, and a Cooke 20-100 zoom. However I will rent Cooke S4's if I have the budget!

 

Cheers,

 

Stephen Williams DP

Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com

[Paul Bruening]

Hello All,

 

It is standard practice to treat every budget individually. Therefore, renting is a more economical way to go. However, I divide the equipment purchases by the number of productions I do. The more I do, the more economical the equipment gets. As well, I am in love with my Super Baltars.

 

Just a thought.

Edited May 5, 2005 by Paul Bruening

[Robert Hughes]

Paul, what sort of focusable mounts do you have your Super Baltars set up with? Who did the work?

[Paul Bruening]

Hello Robert,

 

I bought my Mitch as is. The Balts are BNCR mount on a modified, rack-over L-plate. The focus gears sync with the blimp's focus puller. I have no idea who did the work. Ken Stone seems to know all-that-is-Mitchell. His number is 661-242-8490. Sorry, I can't answer your question better.

 

I wish I could put the Balts on my Arri IIB. I only have Schnieders for it.

Edited May 9, 2005 by Paul Bruening

[Lens Wrangler]

Well they should be worth at least $2000US.  :)

 

If they're Cooke S4 primes than they're probably worth it and much more.

I'll tell you that's alot cheaper than renting a set of S4 primes for a week.

Are you sure that it's $2000US for the set or just $2K for each lens?

 

Your best bet is to inquire about the item?

Ask why they would be selling it at such a low price...

Also check to see if you can test them before buying...

If they're S4s in really good condition then it's definitely worth it.

It's alot cheaper than renting a set of S4 primes for a week!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can't really believe that a set of S4s are going for that price??? Lala-land....