Jump to content

Canon 8-64mm 'Hurt Locker Lens' Opinion needed.


Recommended Posts

I currently own an Aaton LTR-7 with the Aaton mount installed.

I've been offered by a local seller in my area for the Canon 8-64mm S16mm in PL and I'm wondering what's everyones opinions on some options. 

Option 1) Look into getting my Aaton converted to PL, though spending a fortune sending it overseas and getting it all done ($$$)
Option 2) Look into getting the Canon lens converted from PL to Aaton. Is this a thing?

Next part is I'm not sure of what's the tube part at the back of the lens. Here's the link: https://imgur.com/a/Dnlg0ww. I've never seen it on the 8-64mm before. 

Cheers
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You for sure want to try and convert the camera to PL. Its not easy, there are only a few mounts around, but it would be handy for the future. Great lens tho! 

Any idea on what the tube part is on the lens in the images ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost certain that that's not a true Canon 8-64mm.

It looks like someone converted a Canon J8x6 B4 lens (what the Canon 8-64mm is likely based off of) with a Abakus 132 B4 to PL adapter. In the pictures you linked, if you compare the rear part of the optics to a Abakus 132, it looks exactly the same.

There is no simple way to convert a PL mount to Aaton - there is no off the shelf adapter. For this lens, you would have to have someone completely machine new parts for this already franken-lens. It just wouldn't be worth it. 

The easiest way to convert a lens to Aaton is finding a lens with a Cooke / Angenieux universal sub-mount and then getting an Aaton sub-mount. You can also find Arri Bayonet to Aaton adapters.

So, getting your camera converted to PL is the only real option if you have to have this lens, but you may just want to pass on it, unless you use this info to talk the seller down and make it worth your while to convert your camera to PL. This lens might even be better, optically, than a native 8-64mm, or it might be worse, but it's most likely worth less. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joshua Cadmium said:

I almost certain that that's not a true Canon 8-64mm.

It looks like someone converted a Canon J8x6 B4 lens (what the Canon 8-64mm is likely based off of) with a Abakus 132 B4 to PL adapter. In the pictures you linked, if you compare the rear part of the optics to a Abakus 132, it looks exactly the same.

There is no simple way to convert a PL mount to Aaton - there is no off the shelf adapter. For this lens, you would have to have someone completely machine new parts for this already franken-lens. It just wouldn't be worth it. 

The easiest way to convert a lens to Aaton is finding a lens with a Cooke / Angenieux universal sub-mount and then getting an Aaton sub-mount. You can also find Arri Bayonet to Aaton adapters.

So, getting your camera converted to PL is the only real option if you have to have this lens, but you may just want to pass on it, unless you use this info to talk the seller down and make it worth your while to convert your camera to PL. This lens might even be better, optically, than a native 8-64mm, or it might be worse, but it's most likely worth less. 

It's strange hey? The front part looks normal but the tube part at the rear is very strange and definitely not part of the original design. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joshua Cadmium said:

I almost certain that that's not a true Canon 8-64mm.

It looks like someone converted a Canon J8x6 B4 lens (what the Canon 8-64mm is likely based off of) with a Abakus 132 B4 to PL adapter. In the pictures you linked, if you compare the rear part of the optics to a Abakus 132, it looks exactly the same.

There is no simple way to convert a PL mount to Aaton - there is no off the shelf adapter. For this lens, you would have to have someone completely machine new parts for this already franken-lens. It just wouldn't be worth it. 

The easiest way to convert a lens to Aaton is finding a lens with a Cooke / Angenieux universal sub-mount and then getting an Aaton sub-mount. You can also find Arri Bayonet to Aaton adapters.

So, getting your camera converted to PL is the only real option if you have to have this lens, but you may just want to pass on it, unless you use this info to talk the seller down and make it worth your while to convert your camera to PL. This lens might even be better, optically, than a native 8-64mm, or it might be worse, but it's most likely worth less. 

But you're right. Someone has taken the Canon J8x6 B4 lens and converted the back part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Joshua Cadmium said:

I almost certain that that's not a true Canon 8-64mm.

It looks like someone converted a Canon J8x6 B4 lens (what the Canon 8-64mm is likely based off of) with a Abakus 132 B4 to PL adapter. In the pictures you linked, if you compare the rear part of the optics to a Abakus 132, it looks exactly the same.

Well spotted. It does indeed look like an Abakus converter at the back, and a B4 lens in front. I really doubt the image quality will be comparable to a S16 8-64.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Well spotted. It does indeed look like an Abakus converter at the back, and a B4 lens in front. I really doubt the image quality will be comparable to a S16 8-64.

How strange. When I confronted the seller that its actually not a 8-64mm they were shocked. I assume they were sold on the idea it was a true Canon 8-64mm many years ago themselves...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Ha. Is that the only picture you've been sent, of the thing with someone's hand wrapped around the crucial part?

No, multiple images are attached in that link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
16 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Well spotted. It does indeed look like an Abakus converter at the back, and a B4 lens in front. I really doubt the image quality will be comparable to a S16 8-64.

Question for a lens tech.

Is there a significantly reduced amount of glass in the back of a film lens compared to an otherwise similar B4 lens? I'm thinking of all the chicanery required to land the image on a 3-chip block, which B4 lens to PL camera adapters are required to reverse.

What I'm getting at here is the idea that if a Fuji or a Canon wanted to make a single-chip-compatible version of one of their lenses, whether they'd save any significant money, size, quality by building it targeting single chip cameras, and it then wouldn't need the converter, or probably the extender, as you'd build it with the extender permanently engaged.

Of course that would also completely cannibalise their high end lens market.

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cale Boys said:

How strange. When I confronted the seller that its actually not a 8-64mm they were shocked. I assume they were sold on the idea it was a true Canon 8-64mm many years ago themselves...

Not surprising if they weren't familiar with how they normally look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Question for a lens tech.

Is there a significantly reduced amount of glass in the back of a film lens compared to an otherwise similar B4 lens? I'm thinking of all the chicanery required to land the image on a 3-chip block, which B4 lens to PL camera adapters are required to reverse.

No, B4 zooms would simply be computed with the 3 chip prism as part of the optical pathway, so no additional optics are required per se. The design might require more telecentricity than a film zoom, but otherwise the parameters would actually be less stringent due to the lower resolution requirements. I think until about 2015 B4 zooms were only required to resolve for HD at the most, while film zooms had much higher standards, the equivalent of maybe 6K. (I'll avoid the minefield of comparing photosite densities to line pair/mm resolution, but by any measure film zooms were designed to resolve much, much more than HD.) It's possible that some designs were carried across between formats, with tweaks to the formulas to accommodate prisms in the light path, larger image circles or different resolution requirements. 

The extra glass comes in when B4 zooms are adapted for single sensors (or film) and the absence of a prism in the light path needs to be compensated for. In the case of converting to larger formats, like S16 or S35, the adapters also need to magnify the image, which tends to magnify any aberrations in the original lens. Converting 2/3" to S16 requires a 1.32x magnification, more than the old N16 to S16 conversion kits, which were typically 1.1x or 1.2x converters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Question for a lens tech.

Is there a significantly reduced amount of glass in the back of a film lens compared to an otherwise similar B4 lens? I'm thinking of all the chicanery required to land the image on a 3-chip block, which B4 lens to PL camera adapters are required to reverse.

What I'm getting at here is the idea that if a Fuji or a Canon wanted to make a single-chip-compatible version of one of their lenses, whether they'd save any significant money, size, quality by building it targeting single chip cameras, and it then wouldn't need the converter, or probably the extender, as you'd build it with the extender permanently engaged.

Of course that would also completely cannibalise their high end lens market.

P

There would actually be an increase in the amount of glass in the back of a film lens. That's because in between the PL mount flange and the film is about 52mm of air (plus maybe a rotating mirror). You can use that extra space to add additional optics.

On a B4 lens, on top of having each color focused at a different point, the light is also focused through a whopping 46.2mm of glass (prism and filters) before it hits the sensor: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3294.pdf . The flange distance is only 48mm, so there is barely any room for the optics to go further than the flange before it hits the coverglass.

Some manufacturers did design their optics with both formats in mind, albeit as two different, but related lenses. I'm pretty sure all the Canon S16 lenses have a similarly built B4 counterpart. Angenieux's 7-81mm for S16 and 5.3-61mm for B4 are the exact same optics up front, with a different rear group in the back. (You could even buy a conversion kit for the 7-81mm). Angenieux also released their 12x Optimo in a 12x9.7 B4 version and there was also Cooke's 18-100mm in a 8-46mm B4 version.

I think someone could technically make what you are proposing (supporting 2 formats in one), but it would most likely be an optical compromise for one of the systems and/or significantly harder and more expensive to make, not easier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

VidGear.com - Broadcast Video Warehouse

FJS International

Film Gears

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Serious Gear

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...