Michael Maier

I did a search, but didn?t find anything. So I thought I would post the question. For the normal Joe, the F900 can look indistinguishable from 35mm film. The quality of well shot footage is really good. How the Varicam compares on the big screen? I would think on a monitor or for DVD release, you wouldn't see much difference. But how do they compare when transferred to film and projected and when HD projected? That considering they would both use the same lenses. As I have never seen anything shot on a Varicam in a theatre, I have no idea of how it performs. So just for the sake of comparison, if the F900 is 35mm film, would the Varicam be like S16 or more like a 35mm softer stock? Thanks.

Ok, the Lomo might no be as good as Zeiss and Cooke or even their older offerings, but is it at least better than Nikon still primes?

Actually, the information I have is that Angenieux 25mm f0.95 is a re-housed Schneider Xenon 25mm f0.95. So Schneider also has a f0.95 lens and it's the very same glass of the Angenieux you mention.

Well, the Cosmicar is said to be a TV lens instead of cctv. The Nominar is sure not a cctv, since the dealer says it's a cine lens for Bolex and Beaulieu.

82 people viewed this thread and not a single one have ever heard of any of these lenses? Must be very odd ball lenses.

Anybody knows these and can say how sharp or good are they ? Nominar 25mm f/0.95 Cosmicar 25mm 1:1.9 television lens Thanks.

Yeah, I also heard of the lomo lenses. I would be interested to know if they would be better than Nikons to use with a Mini35 adapter?

Money is always a concern. I'm just trying to educate myself about the options out there. So I can make an educated decision as to best invest my money and get the best quality lenses I can afford. For example; I learned a 1000-2000 dollars cine zoom won't produce the same quality as a 5 prime set of the best Nikon still glass out there, which can be had for 500 bucks. I could probably afford the 2k zoom, but why should I buy it when the nikons cost a quarter and are better? But then some say the Zeiss SuperSpeeds used by contax cameras are better than the nikons. They seem to cost a bit more. Again, I could afford a set of Zeiss Contax primes, but will them produce really noticeably better results? Or should I invest my money on something else and go Nikon? Or maybe the Contax Zeiss really kick butt and will be more than worth the extra cash over the nikons? It's all about making an educated decision. That's what I'm shooting for. That's what I'm talking about. but the only way to know that, is educating oneself. Most would automatically assume because it's a cine lens, it's better than any still prime. Not in the foreseeable future. But is there still room for improvement? Or do the Nikons push the 720p to it's quality edge as far as the format will go? Not only in resolution/sharpness, but also in color rendintion, color balance and color matching between the different individual lenses of the same brand. Maybe the Contax Zeiss are more uniformly made and will match each other better? I heard nothing but good things about them. But so did I about Nikons. I guess I'm just trying to make sure I'm getting the best out of my money before committing . Thanks for the reply Paul.

Thanks Stephen. So every Zeiss lens for Contax cameras are SuperSpeeds? I had the impression the Zeiss Jena lenses were the same as the Zeiss Contax, because I thought Contax cameras had M42 mounts, like Pentax. and the Jena seems to be made for pentax. So they Jena are actually worse than the Nikons? And they are not the same as the Contax Zeiss? Which mount do the Contax Zeiss fit? Isn't it M42? So your advice is to stick with nikons over contax Zeiss (Superspeeds)? Thanks Stephen. All this 35mm lens deal is very new and confusing for me. So many options, with so many variations. I appreaciate the help I'm getting here.

Thanks guys. I have pretty much set my mind on primes after all the good advice I have been gathering around. Now, would the extra expensive be worth in getting cine primes rather than still primes? What are the affordable cine primes out there? How they compare to the still Nikons in terms of quality? Also, are the Zeiss Jena sill primes really much better than Nikons? Do they come in other mounts besides M42 and contax? Or is contax and M42 the same actually? I heard the still prime Zeiss are the same as their superspeeds cine primes. But when searching on ebay, a lot of them seem to be very old lenses. Thanks guys.

Althought talked about, the main question of the thread stills somewhat answered. Will a Nikon still prime set( even if unmatched) be superior to an affordable and or older cine zoom lens when using with the mini35 and a JVC HD100 HDV camera? I can't afford a set of UltraPrimes/DigiPrimes or S4's. I probably can't afford a nice Cooke zoom either. So I have to work with the best I can afford. I could afford a nice set of Nikon primes with 5 primes or so. Or I could try to get the Zeiss contax or planar(whatver they are called) if I could find them, and if they would be a better option and or would color match better. Or I could afford an older 35mm cine zoom lens. So what you guys think? What level of zoom would beat the Nikons? If I can't afford the zoom lenses which would beat the nikon still lenses, would the Zeiss be justified? Thanks for the input.

Yeah, the Nikons look very attractive. But I would like to get more information on the Zeiss Contax. I did a search here and found the post where the poster says the Zeiss Contax lenses are actually the same as their cine SuperSpeed counterparts except for the housings. But is doesn't seem very easy to find info or used ones to buy. An Ebay search turned out many planars but are they the same as the SuperSpeeds as well?Or are all still Zeiss? It seems the Zeiss still might be a better route tha the Nikons? Frankly, follow focus doens't worries me, since I think a follow focus when having to change primes on set, would just slow me down. I also pull my own focus. What worries me the most about using still primes is the varying color rendition, contrast, exposure and lens breathing issues I have been reading around this forum. It is making me wonder if I wouldn't be better served with a cine zoom, even if older? I will be shooting HD(720 24p) if that matters. The camera will be a JVC HD100. The problem with zooms will be speed. When using a mini35 adapter, you lose light. I'm afraid a fast enough 35mm cine zoom will be expensive.

Hey, thanks Andrew. I was beginning to think I would not get a reply, since after 137 views, not a single person bothered to post a reply. I was begenning to think it was a really hard question and nobody knew the answer, or a very dumb one (which in my opinion, there's no such a thing as a dumb question. The dumb questions are the ones which go unasked). Anyway, thanks a lot for the advice. So you think the Nikon still primes will be better than the zooms. That's great news since I was kind of leaning towards them. But I would think a top notch/better quality Zeiss or Cooke zoom would beat the Nikons, wouldn't them? Well, anyway, I can't afford the top notch Zeiss or Cooke stuff. I was advised not to get the nikon E series because they were not very good. I was advised to get AI and AIS lenses at f1.4 or f1.8. I think I could afford the AI/AIS since they seem to be better. By the way, what AI and AIS stand for? I have been seeing some of them for sale which say AI mount/AIS mount. I thought all Nikons were F mount. Also is Nikkor just another name for Nikon. I see that a lot with used lens descriptions. Good point about the larger 35mm still frame. Thanks for all the good advice. I'm basically a video guy and all this 35mm stuff is brand new for me. Thanks Andrew.

Nobody has any advice on that?

I'm researching for lens puchase for using on a 35mm adapter with the new JVC HD100 HD camera. I was/am basically set on buying some nice Nikon 35mm still primes. But since the nice ones are in the range of 150-200 dollars each, and I would probably need at least 4 or 5 of them, I thought if it wouldn't be better to get a Zeiss or Cooke or even an Angenieux or Schneider cine zoom. I have seen some of them going for not too over $1,000, which would be the cost of 4 or 5 Nikon still primes AI or AIS, which was what I was recommended over the other thread, thanks Paul, Jan and Tim. , I know primes are better than zooms. But the zooms are Cine and the primes are still lenses in this case. So what would be the best way to go? Remember that no matter what, my relay lens behind the adapter will be a Nikon prime. Thanks.

For me the best looking HD film was the Polish Brothers "Jackpot". I didn't even know it was HD till I read it later. Fantastically done. Collateral looked like video. Maybe it was the intention, but I didn't like the look.

Thanks again Jan. Hey guys, I'm trying to find some Nikon lens on ebay, but it's really confusing. I'm looking for the AI and AIS lenses, as they were highly recommended in this thread. But some of them say AI E series. I was told not to get any of the E series. Also some say AI mount. Aren't all Nikons F mount? What the AI and AIS stand for? trying to stay with f1.4 to f2 and maybe a F1.2 for low light. There you go Jan. http://www.jbkcinequipt.com/index.htm

Thanks for the tips. But those lenses being all different speeds, wouldn't it make my life complicated o set. Specially based on what Jan said, which I think makes sense? Thanks Tim. Any tips for a 18mm, 35mm, 75mm, 85mm and maybe a 150mm? That way, I can fill in the gaps :) Also I didn't understand this. I shouldn't get any E series, but should I or should I not get any ED series? By the way, I found those lenses when loking for AI and AIS Nikons (what the terms stand for by the way?) Nikon Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 AI Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AIS Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AI Nikon Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8 AI Nikon 35mm f1.4 AIS Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AIS Fast lens Are they from the good ones you adviced? Thanks.

I see. But with video lenses, is never good to shoot at the aperture limit/wide open. The sharpest point of the lens is about 2 stops down. The same apply to still film lenses? That?s a good point. If you set the light for f1.8 and your next lens opens only till f2.0 it?s a problem. Although if you have let?s say two f1.8 and two F2.0 lenses, you could just never set any of them wider than F2.0 which is the limit of the slower lenses. Couldn?t that work too, in case I can?t find all them at the same speed? How can I tell if a lens is consumer or pro? Pricing is very subjective. Any special details to make it easier to tell them apart.? I will just stick with the Nikon brand then (besides the 3 Sigmas ;) I found a place, which also makes gear rings for them. I?ll see what?s the cheaper option. So, as long as I WB when I switch lenses, my colors should fine? I can do that. Do you think it would be hard to find them all with the same number of blades? Which is the most common number, 5, 6,7 or 8 blades? Makes sense. Thanks for the advice Jan. Very helpful and insightful.

Thanks both Paul and Jan. The Nikons are looking better abd better. I might just go with them. So, a should stick with F1.8 only? I have to confess that I know close to nothing about 35mm lense. So I have no idea of which F numbers to look for. So basically, as long as they are Nikons 35mm (not D-SLR) primes, all I need to pay attention then is focal length and F number? Every Nikon will be a F mount, without exceptions? They are all same quality?Same peformance? I see that not every Nikon mount is a Nikon. Jan suggested Sigma. Are there other brands which used the Nikon F mount? Or should I stick with Nikon brand only? The problem with using still lenses is that theay are slimmer, and then follow focus and mattex boxes won't fit well. But they are much cheaper and if you guys say they good enough for HD (specially with Paul's enthusiasm towards them calling the glass PREMIUM ;) ), I think that's what I'm going with. Jan, you lost me here: "-still lenses aren't really matched up colorwise and lookwise" You mean physically, like in the way they look like, meaning every lens will look different from each other and not like a lens set? Or you mean the images they make will have different textures and colors? Also, what's a good source of used Nikon primes besides Ebay? Or should I buy new ones only? Thanks guys

Cool you talked about still Nikon lenses. I thought about them, but thought they would not be up to HD specs or be as good as the cine ones. So people do use them for motion picture photography? Are all Nikons the same quality of are there any special ones to look for? About my options, I can get PL, OCT-19, Nikon F and Canon FD.

Come on Paul. The advice on the lenses and focal length was great! ;)

I think you might have missed the part I say I want to use the lenses with a mini35 adapter. This adapter keeps the exact smae angle of view of the 35mm lens. I want to use it with the new JVC HD100 HD camera. It is a 720p camera. Thanks.

Hi, I'm looking into getting a mini35 adapter. I would like if possible, to get a short set of primes to go with it, as opposed to a zoom lens. I belive the minimum number of primes I could get would be like 3, a wide angle a 35 or 50mm and more telephoto. Maybe the 4 of them.(How many primes you usually work with when shooting a feature by the way?) My question is, what would be good lenses to get which would not cost me an arm and a leg? I know that probably leaves out Zeiss, Cooke and all the big guys. But what would be the affordable options? Thanks.

Isn't it the same way the DVX100 and XL2 do?