M Joel W

I believe the 10-100mm t2 Zeiss, while highly regarded, is known to breathe worse than many still lenses. It's an interesting question. K35s and FDs are purported to share optical similarities, and my older cinema lenses appear to be unit-focusing. I've heard the Master Primes and other modern designs are designed to avoid breathing–but are older cinema lenses just as bad as old still lenses?

This thread is old enough that you likely have your answer by now, but I own this combination and figured I would chime in. The above photos don't reflect what I own. The photos seem to have the base of the Arri standard mount removed from a zoom (at the "universal mount" Dom mentions, I suppose) and the universal mount to Arri mount component is attached to the extender instead. My adapter and lens both have Arri standard mounts, nothing unusual. So that one looks like it's been taken apart differently, at the universal mount rather than the standard mount, I'd guess? For me, the adapter and lens attach together just fine and rather surprisingly seem to cover S35. The lens is incredibly slow but appears to have infinity calibrated correctly and it's pretty fun how relatively small it is. I just bought a zoom crank for it, too... I have also used a second 12-240mm that had been converted to Arri Bayonet mount and the metal ring around the rear element was removed, allowing it to fit in a generic Bayonet mount extender (I think I was using a Colcine/Optex). The Bayonet adapter I was using had a much larger rear element but performance and coverage seem worse here. Edges are very soft and I saw a hint of vignetting on S35. But the above combination works fine. The Birns and Sawyer Angenieux AR 2x telezoom (co-branded French and American and made in Japan, it seems) works with the 12-240mm just fine from what I can tell, at least if you like really slow, really soft lenses. I think Larry bought one that had a universal mount adapter already attached to it. With that removed, it should work. Which seems weird, but then again my 12-240mm had a macro tube attached to it when it arrived and seemed to be focusing inside itself. ?

Looks like smoque 1 almost.

Thanks, Simon. Of course, as regards ratio of what spectra are transmitted, improving transmission selectively is effectively cutting back whatever isn't improved, but point taken. This is way over my head, though what you've written makes sense. I appreciate the detailed response and will continue to trust my own eyes rather than my weird theories. Zeiss does state that the additional warmth of the blue t* coating is trivial, whereas the blueness of the flares is not. And it makes sense that lens design is a bigger factor... How different is a Baltar from a Gauss-Tachar from a Schneider Xenon from a Biotar from a Primoplan? (Or those may not be equivalent designs, but of similar vintage designs from different manufacturers.) I notice the Xenons going for $300 on eBay and some of the others going for twenty times that. Curious what justifies that big a difference in price. Is a 50mm Cine-Xenon that different from a Cooke S2 or Baltar?

My old Zeiss (pre-T*) seem to reflect gold and purple. Newer Zeiss (T*) blue, teal, cyan, and yellow. (Haven't compared color cast as they are for different formats.) Other multicoated lenses appear somewhere in-between. Old lenses flare rainbow so I have no idea how that works. I just read that Zeiss's new T* blue coating flares blue but slightly warms the image. So maybe that's where I got the original idea.

Thanks, good point about different reflections for different surfaces. I hadn't considered that. Or I'd assumed it was due to different coatings on different elements but that doesn't make much sense... I did get a 2x extender attached to the 12-240mm Angeniuex btw and it almost covers S35. In the middle of the range there's a bit of vignetting but very minor. But literally this has the worst optical performance I've ever seen. I still don't have any idea how Kubrick got his to look as good as it did.

Does a coating that looks blue mean a lens is warmer and vice versa? It's counterintuitive because a blue filter makes the image more blue. Do blue flares correlate with a warm image? Do warm flares correlate with a cool image?

Thanks, this is all very helpful.

Thanks, I think it's counterbalanced properly now. Or close to it. Stays put no matter where I tilt even with lowest drag setting setting. Doesn't feel as well-balanced or consistently smooth as when my friend demonstrated counterbalancing on an O'Connor 2060, but that was a much larger camera set up and had the benefit of inertia. Maybe I'm still missing something but it seems fine now. This is the potential issue. I am shooting with an EVA1 and very tiny lenses. I have some cheap off-brand baseplate that, as well as being cheap, is very light, which I like. But its options for mounting screws are severely limited and poorly thought-out imo. I do worry about balancing larger lenses but will cross that bridge when I get there....

Thanks, makes sense. Oddly, if I swap the screws in the plate and mount the plate backwards, I can line the small screw up with a hole at the back of my baseplate. And then I need to slide the camera on from the front of the tripod rather than the rear. But it balances okay. But this feels like a strange solution and looks odd. I have no metal work skills. Is there any reason not to do this? Seems odd, but also seems to be working.

I feel really dumb. I'm using a Miller Compass 20 with a camera that's probably a bit small for it, 5-6 pounds at its lightest (haven't weighed it, but that's my guess). But the camera is back-heavy and I cannot get the mini euro sliding plate assembly far enough forward to balance on the tripod. So I removed the camera plate assembly and bought a standard Bogen-style tripod plate. Same thing. Should I buy the extra long tripod plate? There are no returns on it. Also, what counterbalance settings would be best for this set up? Thanks. Sorry for the newbie question. Getting back into shooting.

I believe many Nikkors cover 5k on the LF and the longer ones cover 6k.

Thanks again! I think I am abandoning this plan for now. I found a PL Mutar for $100 but it had just sold. ? I think I need to focus on more important/better things and will be abandoning this project for now. Really appreciate the help.

Thanks so much, that's very very generous of you to check and very informative. I suppose rotating in the mount would be a big problem for a zoom lens? If I wanted to zoom during a shot, I imagine this would wreak havoc? I think the cost of mount conversion to ARRI Bayonet would be high, too. Maybe I should just return the Mutar and sell the zoom and give up on this endeavor, cool as I think it would be to reconstruct a Kubrick 24-480mm.... Do you think the lens would spin too much to make it useful as a zoom? Thanks again.

Is it possible the 12-240mm you were using was converted to ARRI Bayonet?

Thanks, Dom. Yeah I am starting to think it is the black tab not recessing sufficiently after all, or not engaging with the button properly. That would make up for the difference in clearance exactly, and I cannot focus close to infinity with this set up as-is. Ah well. Mutar seems so cool... Perhaps this is a fool's errand. Did you find the 12-240mm with mutar to cover S35mm (16:9 crop) btw? I remember Kubrick used it (apparently) on Barry Lyndon but I think it was academy 35....

Sorry to keep bothering. But how deep is the lens supposed to sit? Maybe it does fit, but it just doesn't lock? There's clearance between the lens and mutar but not a lot. Maybe the button is broken, not the black tab?

It's nearly unused so I doubt it's wear. Perhaps a lack of use. Do you remember the silver tab and black tab both retracting when you press the button? Currently only the silver tab retracts. When I push the black tab in when it's not extended (turning the ring extends it), it goes a bit deeper into the lens and I strongly suspect it's extending more than it should (unless I push it back) and is what's blocking the lens from mounting. But I'm pretty confused by this since my only Bayonet mount lens has a rear element too deep to even try mounting on the Mutar. And I can't find a tab for the Arri Standard mount lens to lock it... so that's confusing, too. Aren't some mounts missing that tab to allow the lens to spin freely? I lack the mechanical skills to take this thing apart. Might just return it, I guess.

That makes sense, thanks. I think you're right about the button being for standard mount and ring for bayonet. Surprisingly, I don't see a tab to fit inside the standard mount. My impression is it's still something to do with the black tab (part of the bayonet mount locking system) not retracting fully. It seems to poke out a bit even when closed and something doesn't allow the lens to go deep enough. That said, I would expect a tab for the standard mount and don't see one so maybe I am missing something.

Thanks, Dom. When I rotate the mount the black tab retracts but not fully–pictured above is about is as far as it retracts: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1pbhkko86tkrgnk/IMG_0520.MOV?dl=0 I think the black tab is poking forward just a bit too far and the lenses won't mount. I wonder if I could shave the tab down a bit or something, but have no idea what happened. The mutar is otherwise like new. Or maybe I'm missing something. I tried pressing the button but it seems to actuate a different tab, whereas rotating the ring moves the black tab. Anyway, I appreciate the feedback. Yes I do have lenses that have rear elements that are too deep, so I am not using those. But even my telephoto zooms and long primes won't fit so I suspect it's that black tab protruding just a bit too far. Wish I could figure this out.... this are hard to find.

I think the black metal tab might be protruding too far into the mount for some reason and blocking any lenses from mounting? Otherwise it is in just great shape. Is there an easy way to address this or would I better off returning the Mutar?

Well, the Arri Bayonet mount lens I have is a wide angle so the rear element will protrude too far so I don't want to try it. My zoom has a black (aluminum?) mount while most I see online appear to be silver (steel?).

Hi Dom, I'm new to old cameras so this might be a dumb question! But I have a 12-240mm Angenieux I want to use with a Mutar 2X (Bayonet mount for 10-100 t2), but I can't get them to fit together... nor can I get ANY Arri standard mount lenses to fit inside the Mutar 2X. I have one Bayonet mount lens but it's in a PL mount adapter atm so I haven't tried it out yet. How do I make this work?

There's one here but it's overseas. Haven't purchased from these guys before, but I think their reputation is good: https://www.cameramarket.eu/equipment.php?type=dicam_16mm

I think it's fair to say there was, or maybe it's the same one that started earlier and it just took a while to finish. Between around 2007 and 2010 there was the release of the Red One (which I felt was groundbreaking but unusably immature upon release–just my opinion), the Alexa (still the gold standard imo, imo truly groundbreaking), 5D Mark II (first affordable/prosumer large format digital video camera), and the Red MX (which I consider the first really usable, mature Red camera body). And then in 2012 digital overtook film in terms of percentage of major features acquired one way or the other. So I think the "bulk" of the revolution happened between 2007 and 2012. Earlier cameras like the F900 and F35 (which I quite like) for whatever reason didn't seem to have the same impact. Personally, I think it was happy accidents that had the largest impact–ProRes on the Alexa, which I believe was originally intended as a proxy format, and affordability with the 5D Mk II, originally intended almost exclusively for stills. Personally, I find earlier digital cinematography (Zodiac, Miami Vice, even Tim and Eric and Adult Swim stuff) more interesting for the risks taken. But I think the bulk of the "revolution" took place around 2010-2012. Related to the original question–do you think a combination of S16, slow film stocks (50D and 200T), Hawk 1.3 anamorphics, and 1/2 and full classic softs would be too "soft" of an acquisition format? Do classic softs feel different on S16 than they do on 35mm as regards strength at equivalent focal lengths for a given field of view? I imagine you need to shoot pretty wide open to avoid the pattern showing up in front of the lens... And in your experience, what are the effects of pulling those stocks a stop, I think I remember you shot a feature you rated at 100T on 5213? What was the intended effect? More saturation and less grain? I'd be shooting 7213 of course...