Alternatives to Optex conversions

[mark leuchter]

Can anybody suggest or does anyone known on an alternative to the Optex conversions of zoom lenses to Super-16?

 

Not only are they super expensive, but I've been told that the additional optical elements decrease the optical quality of the lens quite noticeably. One person has told me this is not the case, the but general consensus is that an Optex conversion of, say, a Cooke 9-50 into a 10.6-60 does not have nearly the same sharpness as the original lens.

 

One of the ACL websites suggests that Les Bosher in the UK can do some magic work on a lens, converting it to S-16 and retaining the optical quality. How would this be done?

 

I have a Kinor 10-100 (that I haven't tested, but I'm told it's very sharp) and a Cooke 9-50 in pristine condition. I'd love to have one of these adapted to S-16 if the optical quality can remain fairly consistent...

 

Mark

Edited August 6, 2005 by mark leuchter

[Stephen Williams]

Can anybody suggest or does anyone known on an alternative to the Optex conversions of zoom lenses to Super-16?

 

Not only are they super expensive, but I've been told that the additional optical elements decrease the optical quality of the lens quite noticeably.  One person has told me this is not the case, the but general consensus is that an Optex conversion of, say, a Cooke 9-50 into a 10.6-60 does not have nearly the same sharpness as the original lens.

 

One of the ACL websites suggests that Les Bosher in the UK can do some magic work on a lens, converting it to S-16 and retaining the optical quality.  How would this be done? 

 

 

Mark

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

You should test an Optex conversion for yourself. There is no magic in optics. An extra piece of glass in the optical path will have an effect on performancel!

 

Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman

 

www.stephenw.com

[Mike Welle]

Why not sell those lenses and save up for a Cooke 10.4-52? That's what I would do. You probably read my correspondence with Hans Hansson where he said anytime you add glass you are losing quality. Not only did I hear it there but on the Abel Cine site, and Mitch Gross used the term "optical hoops" on the Cinematography.net site in reference to the Abekas adapters.

 

You know, this is sort of off subject, but when I use a wide angle adapter on my Sony VX-2000, and I zoom through it, and the lens is wide open--I notice a lot of "rainbow fringe" effect around bright objects--and a general lack of sharpness. The same effect does not occur when the wide angle adapter is off. In other words it looks clear if I removed the adapter and just shot it with the regular lens.

 

Personally, I don't like to mess around with a lens designed for 16mm. I know the Super-16 lenses are more expensive, but sometimes you have to save your money rather than make the quick and practical decision--in the long run. But what do I know? Go with your gut. Mine tells me to stay away from conversions.

 

Can anybody suggest or does anyone known on an alternative to the Optex conversions of zoom lenses to Super-16?

 

Not only are they super expensive, but I've been told that the additional optical elements decrease the optical quality of the lens quite noticeably.  One person has told me this is not the case, the but general consensus is that an Optex conversion of, say, a Cooke 9-50 into a 10.6-60 does not have nearly the same sharpness as the original lens.

 

One of the ACL websites suggests that Les Bosher in the UK can do some magic work on a lens, converting it to S-16 and retaining the optical quality.  How would this be done? 

 

I have a Kinor 10-100 (that I haven't tested, but I'm told it's very sharp) and a Cooke 9-50 in pristine condition.  I'd love to have one of these adapted to S-16 if the optical quality can remain fairly consistent...

 

Mark

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Sam Wells]

You know, this is sort of off subject, but when I use a wide angle adapter on my Sony VX-2000, and I zoom through it, and the lens is wide open--I notice a lot of "rainbow fringe" effect around bright objects--and a general lack of sharpness.  The same effect does not occur when the wide angle adapter is off.  In other words it looks clear if I removed the adapter and just shot it with the regular lens. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know what the Optex conversion of the 9-50 looks like but it's not going to be the same thing as a wide angle adaptor for a VX-2000 (severely undercorrected for chromatic aberration it seems here) !

 

I mean if there are 15 or 16 elements in the 9-50 to begin with, you can't axiomatically blame lens elements, it's how they work together.

 

So Stephen is right you've got to test one. Not "I heard" and "someone said"

 

-Sam

[Mike Welle]

I wasn't saying it was the same thing as the VX-2000 I was simply making the point that whenever you add glass (especially magnifying) the image you lose quality. Okay, so it was a bad example. I admit. It's just that saying that Victoria's Secret lingerie is just as good as the underwear they sell at Wall-Mart, simply isn't true. Nor is the Zeiss 12-120 as good as the 11-110--its a compromise--just like zooming through the wide angle adapter of the VX-2000. I suppose to some people a spade is just a spade and there ae no analogies. When you mess with an original design you're asking for problems. But if you're happy putting duct tape and velcro on things, more power to you.

 

Mike Welle

 

I don't know what the Optex conversion of the 9-50 looks like but it's not going to be the same thing as a wide angle adaptor for a VX-2000  (severely undercorrected for chromatic aberration it seems here) !

 

I mean if there are 15 or 16 elements in the 9-50 to begin with, you can't axiomatically blame lens elements, it's how they work together.

 

So Stephen is right you've got to test one. Not "I heard" and "someone said"

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited August 7, 2005 by Mike Welle

[Mike Welle]

Sure,

Go ahead and rent one. That's $120.00 plus insurance right off the top--assuming you live in a city large enough for a rental house. While you're at it why don't you rent a Zeiss 11-110 and a Cooke 10.4-52, oh and a Canon 8-64--so you can compare quality. Let's see that comes to about $500.00 per day plus insurance--if you can get them on one day. Oh, you do live in a major city right. If not you're going to have to pay for postage overnight which will add another $200.00 or so--so you can keep it a day. It's imporant you live in a major city--oh and getting the insurance is so easy! After you perform this practical test. You'll be out about $500.00-$700.00 lets figure. Then get the film developed and find a Super-16 projector to project it on. Good luck. But gee, lets waste more money--and test this for yourself. But screw Mike--he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

 

I suppose AbelCine doesn't either when they say:

 

Unlike Super16 specific zoom lenses, which are designed by the manufacturer to cover the Super16 area at the outset, the optical conversions utilize a set of optics added to the rear of the lens in the form of a small (0.2x - 0.3x) range extender. Because this conversion is, in effect, adding additional optics to an existing lens design, keep in mind that the resulting lens may bear a slight degradation in image quality.

 

Good luck with your ventures. Remember I'm just an idiot who doesn't know anything.

 

Thanks,

Mike Welle

 

I don't know what the Optex conversion of the 9-50 looks like but it's not going to be the same thing as a wide angle adaptor for a VX-2000  (severely undercorrected for chromatic aberration it seems here) !

 

I mean if there are 15 or 16 elements in the 9-50 to begin with, you can't axiomatically blame lens elements, it's how they work together.

 

So Stephen is right you've got to test one. Not "I heard" and "someone said"

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Kevin Pittman]

It all comes down to personal experience, and then the particular lens and finish point of the project. I own a canon 7-56, optex converted to 8-64, and I'm extremely pleased with the sharpness, lack of breathing, and overall performance of the lens.

I've shot with the 7-63 factory super 16, along with 11-165, 8-64, and angeniex 7-81, and countless other super 16 lenses, and while ive never done a side by side test of the same material, I find my personal lens to compare very well footage wise on Digibeta and film print alike.

Like all products, luck and maintenance are all important.

[Sam Wells]

Hey no offense meant.

 

But honestly Optex are doing a bit more than duct tape and velcro. Have you used their Canon conversions ?

 

Are you suggesting he NOT test a prospective lens he's gonna shell out thousands for ?

 

-Sam