Ziess 10-100 MK2

[Shawn Sagady]

Hey all.

 

I have just purchased a zeiss 10-100 MK2 for use with my BMPCC ( i know about the sensor size issues ) and plan to eventually have it modified for S16. But for now I am curious if there are any must have accessories for this?

 

With the diameter of 87mm its a little harder to find lens hoods or rings for fitting to matte boxes etc.

 

Also I have I lens support but I have not been able to find the details on what thread size the lens uses, or if it even has a threaded point for a support.

 

Also if anyone has a suggestion for a US lens technician to do the S16 mod that wont break the bank would love to hear.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

The Arri LMB-3 mounts to it. It does not have a threaded support, because it wasn’t considered a lens that needed such support (and is still easily held on by the mount itself).

 

The conversion is about $3500 and can be done through Visual Products. It requires the Optex kit (now supplied by Abakus in the UK). If you’re okay with losing two stops, the Mutar 2x extender enlarges the image circle to a usable size for the Black Magic Pocket and 2.5K.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Gregg MacPherson]

You could almost buy a S16 zoom for the price of that conversion. The conversion is relatively costly. Problems with sorting a clamp on or rod mounted matte box should be relatively cheap.

 

I have a Cooke 10.4-52 that I might sell for about the cost of that conversion. PM me.

[Shawn Sagady]

Thanks for the info. I got it for a good deal so even after conversion I will be ahead compared to the factory upgraded versions.

 

The Mutar is a neat trick but it compromises the image more than I would like.

 

I noticed bright tangerine seems to make rings for 87mm so should be ok there.

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, I was gonna suggest a 2x extender. The only problem is the loss of wide angle.

[Shawn Sagady]

Yea, I was gonna suggest a 2x extender. The only problem is the loss of wide angle.

I was under the impression the 2x extender would introduce a notiable loss in sharpness clarity since its effectivly zooming in on a smaller portion of the lens. As for the loss of the wide angle, thats not a complete loss since were already stuck above 20-25mm without the S16 conversion. If the 2X is usable without things getting fuzzy or funky that would certainly be an interesting option.

[Tyler Purcell]

It would for sure look soft.

[Shawn Sagady]

It would for sure look soft.

That is what I suspected. Thank you for the information Tyler. I will see how the lens works once everything arrives and go from there. Looking forward to doing an indepth review of it in conjunction with a bmpcc.

[Dom Jaeger]

It would for sure look soft.

Is this an observation based on experience or conjecture?

 

The Zeiss Mutar is a pretty high quality extender, and the Arri mount ones were specifically optimised for the Zeiss 10x zoom. They will magnify any faults in the lens, but a well set up 10-100 gives a pretty sharp, rather aberration-free image. I've projected several 10-100s with Mutar doublers in my workshop and found minimal image degradation. The S16 conversions are basically extenders fitted to the back of the zoom (albeit much lower magnification). Plenty of extenders have been used on movies and high end TVCs and such over the years. Kubrick famously used one (custom fitted of course) with a 16mm zoom to cover 35mm. In some circumstances the lens may need to be stopped down, but saying it will "for sure look soft" sounds like an uninformed generalisation to me.

 

I've measured the S16 coverage of a 10-100 to be from about 35-100, so the doubler gives you the extra range of 20-35 (and 100-200) with a 2 stop loss. Not a bad compromise, if you can find a Mutar that's not too expensive.

[Shawn Sagady]

I am curious about the bare miinimum mutar. I think I saw at one point there is a 1.4x Would that get me 14mm on the S16 sensor or would it still be to small? Also just curious if there is a version of the mutar that converts from arri b mount to PL or I would still want to attach a PL adapter to the mutar. Thanks for the added perspective and information Dom.

[Dom Jaeger]

I've never seen a 1.4x Mutar for 16mm so can't comment on that, but in theory a 1.1x extender is just enough to cover S16, so 1.4x should do the job. The issue is usually complicated by the presence of masking or limited optics diameters within the extender to cut down on stray light, ideally every lens/extender combination should be tested first before assuming anything. The other big issue is whether the optics protruding out the back of a lens will clear the extender optics, many combinations just don't work.

 

I've seen Arri B mount to B mount Mutars and PL to PL Mutars but never one going from B to PL. You'd need a separate adapter I think.

[Tyler Purcell]

Is this an observation based on experience or conjecture?

Observation based on experience with both the lens and the camera in question. I use Super 35mm glass on my Pocket camera and most of it isn't sharp enough. Out of my 5 lens kit, only two lenses have a crisp enough center for a small imager like the pocket camera has. It's not like film which already has softness to it. You will absolutely notice the lens being a bit softer with a 2x extender. Maybe not on film, but with the pocket camera, absolutely.

[Shawn Sagady]

Interesting. Well I have the Lens + PL Adapter and PL-MTF Adapter shipping to me now so well see what kind of shape everything is in. If I can get my hands on a cheap 2x or otherwise mutar ill grab it to try and do some empirical tests.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Shawn Sagady

[Gregg MacPherson]

...only two lenses have a crisp enough center for a small imager like the pocket camera has. It's not like film which already has softness to it. You will absolutely notice the lens being a bit softer with a 2x extender. Maybe not on film, but with the pocket camera, absolutely.

 

I don't think it's just the sharper centre. S16 vs 35 format lenses of the film era did not need the same resolution. To have the same contribution to the MTF of the projected image, the 35mm format lens only needs about half the resolution.

Have you checked collimation of the lens, with and without extender, and FFD for the camera?

[Tyler Purcell]

I don't think it's just the sharper centre. S16 vs 35 format lenses of the film era did not need the same resolution. To have the same contribution to the MTF of the projected image, the 35mm format lens only needs about half the resolution.

Have you checked collimation of the lens, with and without extender, and FFD for the camera?

That's right, the film era lenses don't have the same resolution as the current digital era lenses, like the one's I'm using. I do use the same lenses on S35 sized imagers all the time and they look much better. So that's really the only testing I've done, mostly with high resolution stills, rather then moving images so it's easier to test.

 

Not saying the Zeiss 10 - 120 is a bad lens, I think it's a fantastic lens.

[Shawn Sagady]

Certainly I did not expect this lens to be as crisp as a modern lens and that is one of the reasons I'm getting it. I have a full set of Rokinon primes but I want a zoom that's not as harsh but still resolves well. And that I can afford till a Cooke 20-100 falls in my lap.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Shawn, does everything look a little confusing seen upside down? Even the old Zeiss 10-100 T3.1s can be very sharp, resolve very well.

[Shawn Sagady]

I'm still waiting for the Lens to arrive but with all the great feed back and discussion here I look forward to really testing the Lens and shooting some charts for comparison.

[Tyler Purcell]

Mine is a 10 - 100 version with the optex S16 conversion, which turns it into a 12-120.

It was a freebee of sorts, kinda thrown into a prime kit I bought. I really only got it because I wanted a longer lens for some shots. Then I started shooting with it on my Aaton LTR and I was like, holy crap this thing is amazing. It's really unfortunate people charge so much money for the S16 version, the modifications aren't that expensive to make.

[Shawn Sagady]

Quick question since I think I've been thinking about this totally wrong. I keep thinking I have to use a mutar that is Arri Bayonet, but I could just as easily apply the PL Adapter to the lens then use a PL mutar could I not? In which case might open up my options right? And then im also PL->PL and not intermediate bayonet which is not as secure as PL. Please correct me if Im totally off on my thinking here.

[Shawn Sagady]

Cant edit but...

 

EDIT: This is probably a stupid idea, but would I be insane looking at MFT Extenders? Assuming they clear the elements in the PL mount that might be another option that is a lot less expensive than some of the PL based 1.4x converters.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I used a 1.4x MTF extender with the 11-110 to bump up the image circle for the 2.5K BMCC. Worked great. You need to unscrew the rear housing which is easy and can be done by hand. Olympus makes the 1.4x.

[Shawn Sagady]

Finally got the lens and all the various parts together. As mentioned earlier the image circle doesn't cover the super16 sensor till about 35mm. The Optima 1.4x gives me good coverage at the widest (14mm with the adapter), looks sharp and loving the color. I will record some tests once I get back home and can set it all up. You can see in the pictures I removed the rear plastic cover which allows it to co-exist with the 1.4x.

 

https://goo.gl/photos/rfVTyYzTiB5UDHqd7

https://goo.gl/photos/WpEr4CxP6FR395AS8

 

I also realize my PL adapter is on upside down, or wrather the lens is currently mounted upside down. Will fix that when I get home.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Shawn Sagady

[Don Norberto]

Hi Shawn,

I own the 10-100 changed to mft in brandnew condition. It works beautiful. Much much better footage than any Sigma 1.8 with speedbooster etc. It's factory modyfied c to mft and covers perfectly 25 up. Below that with light vignetting. If you want it, tell me. 1.5k only.

[Shawn Sagady]

So finally home from my last project and got a chance to really play with the lens and discovered it looks like I was sold a lemon. Something is in the center of the 1st or 2nd focus element from the front, looks like it might be mold. It obscures the image and is just well nasty. I'm contacting the seller to figure out a return or partial refund to cover the cost of servicing. Can anyone recommend a lens tech good with these older ziess lenses?