Tin Ojeda Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Hey I just got this angenioux 15-300mm super 16mm lens .. and went out and shot some surfing .. got some weird results back .. Colors change thru out the picture .. seems to be a spot on the center and the right that are different color .. what can be the problem? i shoot Vision 2 50d and all the other stuff with the zeiss primes came out without a problem .. so i believe the lens is the problem help please .. should i return this lens Look on the image .. thanks a lot ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Louis Seguin Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 From what I've been researching on sensors, it's possible, with certain particular combinations of lens and subject matter, to actually have white balance variations across the frame. There is nothing you can do about it while shooting, but there are software solutions available to correct this effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 The OP shot on film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Louis Seguin Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Oooppss! Didn't read carefully. Then the results are even stranger. No clue. Damaged lens coatings maybe? Jean-Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Peich Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Jean-Louis, When I read that the lens was a 15-300mm Angenieux , my 1st thought was that it is a lens for older tube video cameras that have prisms. I had never heard of that particular focal length lens used for 16mm or 35mm film, or at least it wasn't popular in the 70s, 80, or 90s. Perhaps stopping the lens down will eliminate the problem. Maybe adjusting the back focus? From a previous post in this forum........ "As for the 15-300 model, it is quite rare indeed. It does cover the S-16 frame, but of course is doesn't go as wide as the 12-120. Also, I don't believe it's a 35mm. lens, but rather one that was designed for the 1-inch pick up tubes of 70's video cameras (thus the S-16 coverage)." http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=41369 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 BTW, OP, we don't do fake names here. Please contact the webmaster and have it changed to your real name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tin Ojeda Posted September 13, 2014 Author Share Posted September 13, 2014 (edited) Thanks yeah its film not digital Edited September 13, 2014 by Tin Drugmoneyart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Louis Seguin Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Charlie, I like your theory about the pedigree of the lens but what would be optical explanation for the uneven colors? Jean-Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Peich Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 Jean-Louis, I can honestly say that I've never seen a problem like this before. To me it looks like a lens flare, external light coming from the right. I had a 12-120 from the early 70s that would catch light and flare. Problem is, we don't know much about the conditions of the shot. Perhaps other examples of the problem might give a clue. Was all the footage shot by the water? We don't know that. As for this screen shot, questions: What focal length was used? What stop was it shot at? Was the effect the same while zooming? Was the effect more visible at the long end of the lens? Was the effect more visible at the short end of the lens? Did the effect change shape or size at different focal lengths? Sunshade used? Matte Box used? Filter or filters? Polarizer? What camera was it used on? Now that he knows what the effect looks like, can he see it when looking through the lens on a reflex camera? It could be that the coating on the rear elements are bad on his 15-300. They are closer to the film and the defect would be sharper (focus wise) than any defect internally. If this 15-300 was originally designed for video cameras in the 70s or 80s, is the rear optical group bad? He said that footage shot with Zeiss primes was ok. No comment. I would shoot a test with the lens under varying light conditions, pointing a flashlight into the lens to create flares, to see if the effect happens again. Shoot it with the lens wide open, then in higher light levels with the lens stopped down. If it's an internal lens problem with this 15-300, and all footage shot with the lens has the same, or has a similar look as the example pic, then he should have the seller check it out, or have a lens tech familiar with Angie lenses look at it. Or, he could return it and get his money back. As you know, repairs can end up costing as much, or more than a used lens. Visual Products has one listed..... http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail03.asp?productID=106&Cat=8&Cat2=20&Cat3=28 Charlie Or, he could just use this lens when shooting B&W film. :P 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