Jump to content

Lens recommendations for Super 16 Arriflex SRII w PL mount


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I purchased a Super 16 Arriflex SRII w a PL mount and was wondering if anyone could recommend a lens. Given the costs, and the fact that I'm just ready to get shooting ASAP, I'm really looking for the most basic glass possible. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

 

Thanks so much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking into this myself. I'm after a small, light zoom or prime lens that will fit on a Super 16, PL mount-modified SR1 for mainly hand-held shooting. Many lenses won't fit on the SR series Arris because the viewfinder barrel gets in the way. I think a lens with a maximum diameter of about 80mm, or not much over that, should be suitable for me. The lens should of course also cover the Super 16 frame without vignetting. I will post later on some lenses I'm looking at. I'm looking after something not too expensive. Is there a particular lens you are thinking about getting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought. I recently purchased a Tokina ATK 11-20 and a 50-135. Of course these are not Super 16 lenses, equivalent to roughly 22mm to 40mm and 100mm to 270mm in S16, but they are lightweight and sharp. Plus, they'll cover Super35. Though I am left searching for a wider angles for S16, but for what I do, these lenses give me a good range to work with.     

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kevin Roy said:

Just a thought. I recently purchased a Tokina ATK 11-20 and a 50-135. Of course these are not Super 16 lenses, equivalent to roughly 22mm to 40mm and 100mm to 270mm in S16, but they are lightweight and sharp. Plus, they'll cover Super35. Though I am left searching for a wider angles for S16, but for what I do, these lenses give me a good range to work with.     

This is very helpful! I've been considering the Tokina 11-20. I have a Canon 8-64 and so far I like it a lot but it's very heavy and long. I think I will keep it but also seek out a lighter lens. Are you using the 11-20 with an Arriflex SR series model? If you are, could you tell me how much clearance there is between the lens barrel and the viewfinder 'elbow'? I'm wondering if this distance could be similar or the same as it is with the SR1. Does anyone happen to know?

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/59808-prime-lens-options-for-s16-arriflex-sr2-pl/


https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/73843-arri-sr1-super-16mm-lens-options/

This topic comes up pretty often, there are probably more threads if you search.

I assume by asking for the most basic lens you mean cheap?

The best (not cheapest) options for S16 that you might find on eBay or sellers like Visual Products would be things like Zeiss Super Speeds for S16 (9.5mm, 12mm, 16mm, 25mm) or Optar Illuminas which were Russian versions, or zooms like a Zeiss 11-110 or Canon 7-63 or 8-64 or 11.5 -138 or 6-66, or a Cooke 10.4-52 or 10-30 or Angenieux 7-81 or 11.5-138 though some of these are rare and/or expensive. 

If you rented you could get really nice lenses like Cooke SK4s or Zeiss Ultra 16s, or the older Zeiss Super Speeds or some of the zooms mentioned. You can also use pretty much any 35mm PL lenses for longer focal lengths, like Zeiss Standard Speeds (T2.1) that start from 16mm. 

Cheaper options probably entail buying vintage or Soviet lenses that might be adapted to PL. But watch out for some Schneiders or Cooke Kinetals which can interfere with the SR mirror. There are also cheap modern 35mm PL options that will work, as long as the barrel diameter isn’t too large (it may foul on the viewfinder elbow).

You can’t adapt lenses made for a shorter flange depth than PL (which is 52mm). So no Canon or Nikon stills lenses or most stills lenses really, or C mounts or M42 or lenses made for modern mirrorless cameras. You can adapt from earlier Arri mounts like Arri S(tandard) or Arri B(ayonet), (except for the Cooke Kinetals and some Schneiders as mentioned). Old Angenieux zooms in Arri S or B mount are viable, but most will vignette at the wide end, except something like a 15-150. A Zeiss 10-100 will also vignette at the wide end, but should be cheaper than a 11-110 or Optex converted 12-120.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A full-frame prime lens in PL mount I've been looking at is the Laowa 12mm t2.9. I've no idea at this stage what the diameter of the lens barrel is or whether it would work with an SR. It looks a pretty slim and light design. A small zoom would be much more versatile though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

This is very helpful! I've been considering the Tokina 11-20. I have a Canon 8-64 and so far I like it a lot but it's very heavy and long. I think I will keep it but also seek out a lighter lens. Are you using the 11-20 with an Arriflex SR series model? If you are, could you tell me how much clearance there is between the lens barrel and the viewfinder 'elbow'? I'm wondering if this distance could be similar or the same as it is with the SR1. Does anyone happen to know?

Yes, I'm using them on an SR3 and I can report that there is no contact whatsoever between to lens and the viewfinder. See attached. When the viewfinder elbow is in the lowest, locked position closest to the lens i.e . level, it is tight, but not tight enough to in any way impede the mounting or removal of the lens. Further, the iris, focus, and zoom rings will not come in contact with the viewfinder whatsoever. It's snug, but I didn't even consider there might be an issue until I read your question. Perhaps on the SR2 there might be even more space because if I recall the diameter of the viewfinder elbow is a little less. I would bet you wouldn't have an issue. Same goes for the 50-135. unnamed.thumb.jpg.3fa7ca2a829799d55542655c6a1b0560.jpg   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it's looking like the 11-20 might fit on an SR1 and SR2. Thanks for the great picture. It would be great if Tokina published a detailed schematic of the lens, giving the diameter of the T stop and focal length geared rings. This seems like a great lens.

I just found out there is a similar version of this lens, with thinner diameter. It is only 11-16 but it has (or had) a good reputation among DSLR shooters apparently. It's available in PL mount and comes at a lower price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 1/18/2022 at 9:40 PM, brandon kaufman said:

I'm really looking for the most basic glass possible.

You'll be much happier with the result if you use high quality lenses. Dom's suggestions are what I would go for. It really makes a huge difference. Since you are spending money on film stock, I wouldn't skimp on the glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found that something like the Zeiss T1.3 PL lenses of around 18mm and 25mm (what I'm most interested in so far) are generally found as part of a set, which I can't at this stage afford. Do these lenses come up for sale as single lenses very often?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Do these lenses come up for sale as single lenses very often?

Recently I bought a single Zeiss Distagon T1.3 12mm MkI lens Arri B-mount from Cameramarket in the Netherlands. Herman might have single PL mounts available. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I just found out there is a similar version of this lens, with thinner diameter. It is only 11-16 but it has (or had) a good reputation among DSLR shooters apparently.

I'm not sure about that particular Tokina you are referring to. Was it available from Tokina with a PL mount or does it have to be converted?

FWIW, to my eye, these Tokinas are sharper than the 9.5mm and 12mm Illuminas I used to have, and any 8-64 I've shot with. I was leaning towards finding an 8-64, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. For me the look is tired, and I'm not really into film looking "vintage." I can't speak to the older Zeiss primes. I determined that I wanted at least the MkII but for me affordability was an issue as well, if I could find one. And I figured if ever a job came along, I just rent a set of primes anyway. But I'm not in the business. I had reservations with the Tokinas, stepping away from what might be the norm, but frankly, I'm blown away at the quality. Perhaps it's the difference between 30 year old technology and what they can do now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kevin Roy said:

I'm not sure about that particular Tokina you are referring to. Was it available from Tokina with a PL mount or does it have to be converted?

There was a Tokina 11-16 T3 that was converted by Duclos. It was a popular lens for a while with DSLR shooters apparently. This lens is discontinued but can still turn up for sale.

The Canon 8-64 has an excellent reputation and it's just such a versatile lens. I haven't filmed enough with it yet to get a strong sense of its look but what I've seen so far has pleased me.

I do wonder about some of these newer, lower-priced cinema lenses and to what extent they vary from the look of classic brands such as Zeiss. It depends on what you want to do, too, to some extent. However, undoubtedly the Zeiss lenses and similar quality lenses are the very best available and will give the most satisfying results, and be entirely dependable. For a professional production with camera crew they would be a necessity.

Still, I can't help but wonder that if a lens is quite sharp, has little or no chromatic aberration, good contrast etc, and has a pretty good build quality, for one-man-band operations it might be quite a fine lens. It may not have some desirable qualities that the Zeiss and other lenses have but perhaps this doesn't matter. If buying a lower-cost lens can get you filming the projects you want to do, right now, then it seems to me worth considering. As an investment a Zeiss lens would be the way to go as it's not likely that a much cheaper lens is going to hold its value or rise in value.

Such are my thoughts at the moment. I'm open to listen to advice, always.

Regarding using 35mm lenses on 16mm cameras, I've received this advice:

"Original 35mm lenses fit on 16mm cameras, but if they were designed for digital cine cameras they won't fit. The rear element sticks out too deep for the shutter and the lens will damage the shutter. You will have to watch for stray light inside the camera too. Since a lot more light comes through it can cause ghost images from bright objects around the edge of the frame."

However, the rear section on the PL mount Tokina 11-20mm doesn't look very long at all. I've heard about how too much light can get into the camera from the wider image circle of 35mm lenses. I don't know how much of a problem this could potentially be, but from what I've heard it sounds like quite a few 16mm filmmakers get by with 35mm lenses on their cameras.

I really appreciate the input of Dom and Uli in this discussion.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

"Original 35mm lenses fit on 16mm cameras, but if they were designed for digital cine cameras they won't fit. The rear element sticks out too deep for the shutter and the lens will damage the shutter. You will have to watch for stray light inside the camera too. Since a lot more light comes through it can cause ghost images from bright objects around the edge of the frame."

There are lenses that would not clear the shutter. That is certainly a consideration. I can't report having any issues with regard to stray light, and the negative effects of that. Zeiss lenses are tanks, no doubt, but they have to be, as most seem to land in rental houses first. For me I baby all my gear.

Best thing to do is test, test, test. Buy from a source that will allow you to do the testing you need to do to compare and make certain of the image characteristics. Most of the reputable dealers and equipment brokers will offer such terms. They may charge to return fee (or not) but that's a good backup if things don't work how you'd prefer. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kevin Roy said:

Best thing to do is test, test, test. Buy from a source that will allow you to do the testing you need to do ...

I agree. With film taking a while to be processed then scanned, it can be a long-drawn out affair but worth it. However, I was in for a surprise when I turned up at a cinema rental business recently. I was asked for a professional reference before they would do any business with me. I replied that I don't have film industry references but I could supply other references including character references. This wasn't good enough and I was told that their gear is very expensive. I found this unprofessional and I won't be bothering with that business again.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To explain further, they have a rental department and a retail department right next door. So if I do test I will find another business that would like to do business with me. It seemed my reply that the equipment was for filming with 16mm was cause for some doubt as to my professionalism. This isn't the first time I've encountered this, in businesses in Brisbane. Here, it's digital digital digital. Which is fine with me.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that many industry people don't realise Australia still has film processing. It's not a huge operation but that doesn't make film shooters unprofessional. I understand how a rental business would be concerned with someone damaging their equipment. Considering that I'm very careful with my own gear, and would certainly be very careful with a rental firm's equipment, and that I've grown up operating expensive film equipment, I did find it frustrating, and from a business angle a bit odd. I guess they've got more than enough customers. Anyway, onward and upward.

So, I do a lot of research, and go my own way. People often say rent gear but to me it's not ideal.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

"Original 35mm lenses fit on 16mm cameras, but if they were designed for digital cine cameras they won't fit. The rear element sticks out too deep for the shutter and the lens will damage the shutter. You will have to watch for stray light inside the camera too. Since a lot more light comes through it can cause ghost images from bright objects around the edge of the frame."

Most PL lenses, even modern ones designed with digital cameras in mind, stick to the conventions of the film era and don't protrude so far back that they would hit a film camera mirror. Angenieux released a pair of zooms back in the early 2010s that were designed only for digital cameras (they labelled them "Rouge" to appeal to owners of a certain camera brand) but within a few years they discontinued them and went back to making lenses with enough clearance to work with both film and digital. So it's unlikely you'll come across a modern PL mount lens that will protrude too far back. Some early 16mm lenses in Arri S mount might though, a few Schneiders and Kinetals for example. Usually the wide angles.

A 35mm lens shouldn't be a problem in terms of the oversize image circle unless there are shiny areas in the mirror cavity of your camera. I have had to black out the odd spot occasionally in SR2s and 3s. Just look carefully around the back of the gate area with the mirror out of the way. 

 

11 hours ago, Kevin Roy said:

FWIW, to my eye, these Tokinas are sharper than the 9.5mm and 12mm Illuminas I used to have, and any 8-64 I've shot with. I was leaning towards finding an 8-64, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. For me the look is tired, and I'm not really into film looking "vintage." I can't speak to the older Zeiss primes. I determined that I wanted at least the MkII but for me affordability was an issue as well, if I could find one. And I figured if ever a job came along, I just rent a set of primes anyway. But I'm not in the business. I had reservations with the Tokinas, stepping away from what might be the norm, but frankly, I'm blown away at the quality. Perhaps it's the difference between 30 year old technology and what they can do now. 

A recent feature film we supported used a Tokina Cinema 11-20. They can be quite sharp and contrasty for such a wide angle zoom, but I have come across examples already that had wear issues that caused them to lose focus depending on the direction you turned the zoom barrel. The cinema version is definitely better than a cine-modded stills version though.

Modern lens design has certainly come a fair way since the 80s and 90s, but I think a Canon 8-64 is still a pretty decent lens. It's worth noting that 8mm is actually quite a bit wider than 11mm on a S16 frame, and at T2.4 the Canon zoom is more than half a stop faster than the T2.9 Tokina. Plus it's an 8x zoom rather than a 2x one. I have worked on a few and they were very sturdy designs, I often find minimal wear in them, which I doubt will be the case with a Tokina 11-20 in 30+ years. But then when new these Canon zooms would have cost more than twenty times what a Tokina costs.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

 

A 35mm lens shouldn't be a problem in terms of the oversize image circle unless there are shiny areas in the mirror cavity of your camera. I have had to black out the odd spot occasionally in SR2s and 3s. Just look carefully around the back of the gate area with the mirror out of the way. 

A recent feature film we supported used a Tokina Cinema 11-20. They can be quite sharp and contrasty for such a wide angle zoom, but I have come across examples already that had wear issues that caused them to lose focus depending on the direction you turned the zoom barrel. The cinema version is definitely better than a cine-modded stills version though.

Modern lens design has certainly come a fair way since the 80s and 90s, but I think a Canon 8-64 is still a pretty decent lens. It's worth noting that 8mm is actually quite a bit wider than 11mm on a S16 frame, and at T2.4 the Canon zoom is more than half a stop faster than the T2.9 Tokina. Plus it's an 8x zoom rather than a 2x one. I have worked on a few and they were very sturdy designs, I often find minimal wear in them, which I doubt will be the case with a Tokina 11-20 in 30+ years. But then when new these Canon zooms would have cost more than twenty times what a Tokina costs.

Good information. Thanks for your expertise and details with regard to the Tokina. Issues to keep an eye on.

No doubt the Canon is stout. It will always be in demand in the market so if considering resale....absolutely. And you have the wide angles and speed. When I was in the market I was really heavily leaning towards finding a later Canon. It's truly versatile, built like a brick. I went back an even looked at the Hurt Locker, and I have to be honest, I was just like, "ugh." It's purely "the look" that pushed me away from it. I didn't want any of my footage to look stuff I was doing back in the 90's! One thing to consider too for buyers, is something I considered, which was the idea that I could take the Tokinas and put them on a S35 digital camera. So I was thinking about that level of versatility as well, if god forbid I have to learn the endless menus on a new cine camera. ?

But for me again, I'm purely into experimental work in an academic environment, and traveling light and compact. Off topic, I recently picked up a Sachtler Activ8...omg, I never thought I'd ever be able to easily carry camera support. Amazing stuff. Camera tech has truly come such a long way. Constantly blown away at the innovation over the decades.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an important point Dom, about wear. How repairable/adjustable would these wear issues in, say, a Tokina 11-20 be? It reminds me of musical instruments, as the better ones tend to stay in exact adjustment longer .... and are usually far more repairable. Were these rental Tokinas you've seen, or were they owner-operator? Owner-operated mightn't be subject to the demanding life of a rental lens. 

Kevin, I really liked the look of the Hurt Locker (the images themselves but not necessarily the style, with many sudden zooms), plus the other films and videos made with the 8-64 that I've seen. I also very much liked the S16 shots in First Man, taken with a close relative of this lens. To each his own I guess ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

That's an important point Dom, about wear. How repairable/adjustable would these wear issues in, say, a Tokina 11-20 be? It reminds me of musical instruments, as the better ones tend to stay in exact adjustment longer .... and are usually far more repairable. Were these rental Tokinas you've seen, or were they owner-operator? Owner-operated mightn't be subject to the demanding life of a rental lens. 

They were owned by DoPs, not rentals.

I looked into repairing one, the local agent couldn’t give me any drawings or parts information, and said they sent them back to Tokina for repair, with a turnaround that could take months. So not easily repairable, at least here in Australia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Zeiss Distagon 25mm T1.3 MkI, like others in the set, only seems to stop down to T11, at least as marked on the ring. Could someone explain this to me. Is the solution ND filters? ... though these lenses don't look all that adaptable to the use of a matte box ... plus there doesn't seem to be a thread for a screw in filter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2022 at 10:17 PM, Uli Meyer said:

Shooting on 16mm will give you a somewhat dated look, no matter what lens you use. Happy to be proven wrong but if you are after a “modern” sharp look, digital seems a better choice.  

Yeah, I think of 16mm in slightly different terms though. I recall Allen Daviau describing black and white as being more "immediately abstract" as opposed to color. I love that idea. I sort of think of film versus digital cine in a similar way. And I like that abstraction albeit so subtle, and even more subtle with 35mm. It is interesting the extent to which viewership changes, and how we get normed to expect or accept a particular look. With my work, on the fringes and intersection of film and new media, it's still challenging for me to accept the look of digital, or have an emotional connection to it, not to mention a connection to process. I remember working with DPs who were cutting the sharpness of Primos with Promist filters. Some hated how sharp they were, razor sharp. But again, now, I'm working in an entirely different arena of art making and experimental. 

Swinging back to those Tokinas. For filmmakers just getting into it, they're versatile in the sense that they'll cover S35, but can be used for S16 as well. Even for me that has appeal as someone who does do the occasional digital project.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...