Jump to content

M Joel W

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About M Joel W

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    Online

Recent Profile Visitors

7193 profile views
  1. Thanks, Philip. I'm deciding between a set of lenses to keep (these and old standard speeds–or both) and I might just go with the standard speeds. Both are really beautiful sets.
  2. Thanks for the information. That makes a lot of sense. I saw a Zeiss that was 47mm and a Canon than was 48mm from around then so was hoping it was something standard. Maybe I will try a 50mm ring out of curiosity. It is odd since the 75mm and 18mm are standard sizes and contemporaneous. And visually every other Isco or Schneider lens I have tried from that era is a 49mm thread, as are most Zeiss lenses.
  3. Hi everyone, another one of these weird questions from me. I'm looking for step up rings for vintage Schneider Cine-Xenon lenses. So far, the 75mm f2 seems to have 40.5mm front threads I think, and I have successfully gotten a step up ring for that. I'm looking to step up to 82mm, and the 18mm Cinegon seems to already be 82mm. But for the 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm I have tried I cannot figure out what filter threads to use. They look like 49mm and that's consistent with other lenses from that era, but the 49mm step up rings are a bit loose. Is it some other weird Series filter (series 6.5?) or is it 50mm? I have seen 50mm step up rings but they're rare. I want to use screw on NDs. I appreciate any help. Thanks.
  4. Thanks, Bruce. I read a bit more and it sounds like optical design I believe is the same between Mk1 and Mk2, but the housings cause a bit more vignetting with Mk1, so perhaps they are not appropriate for 3.2k Alexa after all.
  5. Looks like Mk2 covers 3.2k Alexa: Though corners are soft on the 16mm. Do the Mk1s cover? From what I have seen the 16mm does not quite and absolutely does not if you use a filter or step up ring.
  6. Isn't the 2/16 Cine-Xenon newer than the 1.9/16mm? What about the 16mm f2 Cinegon? I like the rendering of the Cine-Xenons (more than the Cinegon) but is there a wide lens for S16 to complete the set? The Arriflex 10mm Cinegon doesn't cover S16, correct? Have you used the 16-44mm f0.95 Angenieux btw? Such an interesting looking lens but I can't imagine it's sharp wide open. Do you know if the 17.5-50mm Angenieux with the retro adapter covers S16. Bad lenses on digital was cool before S16 was cool maybe now bad lenses on S16 is extra cool.
  7. When you write film theory what are you referring to? Bordwell and Thompson? Bazin? How familiar is a general audience with terms like shot/reverse shot?
  8. Full frame is roughly the same size as 135 film, so virtually any still lenses will work if you have a camera with the appropriate mount. Unless you want cinema mechanics, in which case you might want something rehoused or bespoke. Here's a great recent comparison: https://www.sharegrid.com/learn/lens-sets Contax is also really popular. The 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 Contax might share similar designs with Super Speeds, and the earlier serial numbers almost certainly share the same coatings. I have a few older Contax lenses and they're nice. On the high end, there's Arri DNA, which is similar to Blackwing7. But to me it feels a bit like spending 100X on a posh version of something like this: https://ironglassadapters.com/lens/ What camera are you using? Are you looking to buy or to rent? EF mount okay or strictly PL? Do you need cinema mechanics? K35s seem to be the popular thing lately and are about as fast as and contemporaneous with Super Speeds but the cost is obscene. If you want to buy something, you could do worse than Contax. Same coatings as Super Speeds, I suspect, and there are most useful focal lengths available either in f1.4 or f2.
  9. I have a 16mm f2 Cinegon and I believe it covers S16. It's in Arri standard mount, and has a focusing mount, and there are adapters to convert it to PL or Aaton mount. However, the rear element extends back further with this lens than I've ever seen with any other. Like, almost absurdly far. I assume it was designed for an Arri 16 S, but I can't imagine it wouldn't hit the mirror. How can I tell if this lens is safe to use on a given reflex camera?
  10. There's a video where someone did this with Cooke anamorphics. I couldn't find it, but it's part of Cooke's showcase. I prefer it to most Cooke anamorphic footage...
  11. Arri DNA, Blackwing 7, rehoused Canon FD, K35 (except the 18mm), rehoused Nikon, a lot of the soviet lenses (Helios 44-2, Mir-1) are being rehoused, various other still lenses. I have been shooting a bit with Rollei single coated lenses and they're a bit slow (f2.8 for some focal lengths) but wide open they look very very similar to older standard speeds. Richard Gale is a fan of them, too, he manufactures a few sets of pseudo-vintage lenses himself. From what I understand, the Genesis G35 and Celere lenses are largely identical to Rokinon/Xeen, which is another option. I don't think the T1s cover. Sharegrid did a cool video series on this recently. The Leica R seems like the nicest if you can afford it and don't mind some slower options.
  12. Seems it should be. For use with a K3 camera. A T2 lens adapter seems like almost the same thing, possibly could be jerry-rigged.
  13. Just beautiful. The Kinoptik reminds me more of the Schneider than of the Lomo. Looks better than both, but the talent involved and shooting 2-perf I'm sure helps, too. Definitely closer to the Schneider to my eye at least. More petzval-like bokeh. I'm ashamed to post my ten-minute lens test with the 35mm Lomo, but I found it online. I didn't even have access to a proper focusing adapter so I was just trying to get an idea of bokeh/flare/sharpness: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ob2pnfyq5iypix1/AACnZXUKKA1Piql_e6xdVApla?dl=0 Literally just ten minutes and random objects to get a sense of the bokeh. But you can see it has quite a different character from Kinoptik.
×
×
  • Create New...