35MM Lenses on Super 16MM

[Joshua Makela]

Hi! I saw that there was some discussion on a thread about this before, but just wanted to get some clarification. Has anyone had experience with using 35mm intended lenses on their super 16? I fully understand that a 50 is a 50 is a 50! My questions isn't regarding what the field of view would be in choosing the lenses but more so on what it would do to the negative with the larger cover area? I have read about it working but at the cost of possible light magnification onto the negative or spilling unwanted artifacts onto the final exposure? I'm still learning when it comes to this subject matter, so forgive me for any lack of proper communication in what I am asking!

 

I am looking to shoot with an SR3 or a 416 Plus, with the hopes of trying to make the cooke speed panchros!  

[Stephen Perera]

I cant possibly think why anything adverse would happen other then the field of view issue.....which you know about.....unwanted artefacts on the negative? interested to hear if someone has experienced this......I could give you feedback by next week though....currently shooting some scenes with a 135mm Takumar lens on my Aaton standard 16mm format camera on Kodak Eastman Double X film......looks amazing through the viewfinder....we shall see what the negative gives me.....having 2K Arriscans done

[Stuart Brereton]

All lenses have an image circle bigger than the format they are designed for, obviously. With long lenses, the circle can be considerably bigger, in some cases being large to cover much bigger formats. That’s why the inside of the lens port is painted matte black. As long as there are no reflective surfaces in there, it shouldn’t matter that your lenses were designed for 35mm coverage.

[Dom Jaeger]

As Stuart said, the only possible issue is reflections from shiny surfaces inside the mirror cavity spilling onto the neg.

We just supplied Cooke S4s and S4Ks for an Arri 416 job and the lenses come with hard mattes that screw into the front to reduce the image circle of the S4s, to prevent any possible reflections, but usually Arriflexes are pretty blacked out inside.

[Stephen Perera]

16 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

As Stuart said, the only possible issue is reflections from shiny surfaces inside the mirror cavity spilling onto the neg.

We just supplied Cooke S4s and S4Ks for an Arri 416 job and the lenses come with hard mattes that screw into the front to reduce the image circle of the S4s, to prevent any possible reflections, but usually Arriflexes are pretty blacked out inside.

wow never heard of this being done before.....hard mattes to reduce the image circle......can you explain the way this works Dom???

[Phil Connolly]

Isn't there a potential issue with some 35mm lenses being too wide for some 16mm cameras hitting the viewfinder etc... The Arri 416 was designed be fine with 35mm glass but the SR3 can have issues?

[David Sekanina]

Yes, newer 35mm lenses with large barrels (compared to the small barrelled ones of the 70's) have sometimes the problem of hitting the viewfinder on the SRs.

Edited February 6, 2020 by David Sekanina
precision

[Stuart Brereton]

1 hour ago, Phil Connolly said:

Isn't there a potential issue with some 35mm lenses being too wide for some 16mm cameras hitting the viewfinder etc... The Arri 416 was designed be fine with 35mm glass but the SR3 can have issues?

Yes, I believe some newer 35mm glass like S4/5s and Master primes can cause issues with the VF on the SR3. The OP is hoping to use Speed Panchros, so size shouldn't be an problem

[Dom Jaeger]

13 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

wow never heard of this being done before.....hard mattes to reduce the image circle......can you explain the way this works Dom???

Hi Stephen,

It's just a matte black disc with a rectangle cut out of it that screws into the front thread of Cooke S4s. I should correct myself in that it's a soft matte, as it doesn't crop at the film plane but in front of the lens, so the edges are soft. But the principle is the same, it crops down the image, effectively turning the large image circle into a smaller rectangle that just covers the gate. Some zooms have a similar rectangular mask at the front of the lens, other lenses may have internal masks that help reduce internal reflections. Lens hoods and matte boxes do a similar job, preventing stray light from entering the front element and causing unwanted flare.

 

[Tyler Purcell]

We use lenses designed for FF imagers all the time on super 16, there are no issues. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Tyler Purcell

[Stephen Perera]

8 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Hi Stephen,

It's just a matte black disc with a rectangle cut out of it that screws into the front thread of Cooke S4s. I should correct myself in that it's a soft matte, as it doesn't crop at the film plane but in front of the lens, so the edges are soft. But the principle is the same, it crops down the image, effectively turning the large image circle into a smaller rectangle that just covers the gate. Some zooms have a similar rectangular mask at the front of the lens, other lenses may have internal masks that help reduce internal reflections. Lens hoods and matte boxes do a similar job, preventing stray light from entering the front element and causing unwanted flare.

 

thanks for the information Dom much appreciated to learn stuff in this forum.......

[Aapo Lettinen]

21 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Yes, I believe some newer 35mm glass like S4/5s and Master primes can cause issues with the VF on the SR3. The OP is hoping to use Speed Panchros, so size shouldn't be an problem

It's been years since I tested this on sr3 but I remember clearly that most of the lenses including S4 did not have viewfinder clearance issues. The ones problematic were Ultra Primes where the lens barrell comes very very close to the viewfinder tube (they are "fatter" from the rear part than most 35 lenses even when they are otherwise smallish lenses). Though they could still be used, at least the ones I tested. There was just about 1mm or so of free space between the lens and the finder 

[Stuart Brereton]

2 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

It's been years since I tested this on sr3 but I remember clearly that most of the lenses including S4 did not have viewfinder clearance issues.

I remember being warned specifically about S4s by a rental house. We didn’t use them in the end, so I don’t know if the warning was justified.

[Joshua Makela]

On 2/6/2020 at 1:21 AM, Stephen Perera said:

I cant possibly think why anything adverse would happen other then the field of view issue.....which you know about.....unwanted artefacts on the negative? interested to hear if someone has experienced this......I could give you feedback by next week though....currently shooting some scenes with a 135mm Takumar lens on my Aaton standard 16mm format camera on Kodak Eastman Double X film......looks amazing through the viewfinder....we shall see what the negative gives me.....having 2K Arriscans done

Thank you for your response! I would love to hear back after your shoot and know what you were able to see! 

[Stephen Perera]

Absolutely....Will post some dpx stills  of the stuff I shot with the Pentax Takumar 135mm lens on the Aaton 16mm

[Adrian Sierkowski]

There's a chance I'll be on Sk4s/S4s on an SR3 in June in Chicago, via Panavision, if we go that way I'll report on the VF issues as it was something I was told was problematic years ago, so never tried.

[Stephen Perera]

On 2/9/2020 at 5:24 PM, Joshua Makela said:

Thank you for your response! I would love to hear back after your shoot and know what you were able to see! 

I created a thread of my results so far:

 

[Manu Delpech]