Tom Chabbat

Didn't know about this "B" series distinction. Was it to indicate a lens coating ? I have simples Cinor 1.9/10 and 2.5/75, very muddy, few contrast, even lower than some of my lenses from the 1930's. Stopping down doesn't seem to change much. I always assumed Berthiot was a cheap brand because we can find them in huge quantities and very cheaply. And aside from the Pan-Cinor, they never seem to have produced prime lenses for 35mm movie cameras. Even if you look at vintage ads, Berthiot lenses were often sold as the cheapest option (they were effectively cheaper than the switars for example). It really seems they were aimed at amateurs. Can we see somewhere some of the work you shot with them, René ? I'm really curious to see what "good" Berthiot can look like !

I own some Cinor, they are soft and lack contrast... If you want some kind of diffuse look without the need of Pro-Mist filter, that's the way to go. But if you want more contrast and sharpness, look instead for other Switars (not the RX series if you have a H16 M) or Angénieux. Some Schneiders can also be pretty good. I think the Berthiot always has been some kind of cheap lenses.

There's multiple factors such as shorter focal lengths have a better resolving power, small glasses are easier to make in better qualities, and the short focal flange of c-mount permits retrofocus-free designs above a 17mm focal length (even less if you're not using a reflex camera). Using 24x36 lenses under the 50mm focal length and 24x18 cine lenses under the 28mm focal lengths will therefor not be pertinent on a 16mm camera. And I didn't mention that smaller designs admits wider aperture (apertures above f/2 are standard in 16mm). And last but not least, 16mm cine lenses, made for cine use with smooth apertures and precise focus with no breathing are cheaper than photo lenses. So you'll be better off using 16mm lenses. Take the adapter only if you seek extremely narrow angle of view, a 100mm lens having the same angle of view in 16mm as a 270mm lens in 24x36.

I must warn you, I don't think it's wise to reduce the core diameter ! If you look at it closely, it's already as thin as it can possibly be. The flat side permits to easily attach the film to it without creating a bulge when it's fully wind. This flat side is at its closest 0.5mm to the groove with permits the core to stay in place from the downside (the sprockets side). If you reduce the core diameter, this means you'll have to find a new way to attach the film, which seems difficult to succeed without a bulge... And you need to keep the groove I mentioned intact for not compromising the light tightness. I really think, looking to it, that those Fuji cartridges were cleverly designed to be the smallest cartridges possible. Any modification will compromise their reliability I guess.

Thanks ! They'll be added to the final list (I just realized you can't edit posts in this forum... It will have to wait a little in case other lenses rise from the shadows). Do you happen to know what is the difference between the 16mm and super 8 versions of the 3.5mm ? I also wonder if anyone knows if there's any differences between the macro-cinegon and its 16mm variant other than obviously the focusing scale...

Hello everybody ! I've been looking around for some times in this forum, and recent topics about new cameras, either film or digital, with a super 8 frame size, gave me an idea. As those new cameras relaunched the interest in Super-8 designed lenses, I thought it would be cool to have some kind of exhaustive list of all interchangeable lenses manufactured for Super 8. Just to be perfectly accurate, I'm only interested here on legacy lenses that were marketed specifically for Super 8 cameras, CCTV and 16mm lenses are out of scope. Here's what I managed to find, please tell me if some are inaccurate or other are missing. Actually, I found this list raises a lot of questions, with a lot of mysterious, extremely rare lenses on which there's too few information. So let's try to make this list together the more accurate possible if you please ! Mounts are given following this nomenclature : C : C thread mount M : Leica M bayonet mount M42 : Praktica thread mount P : Pentaflex 8 mount (1) Angénieux Paris - Zoom 1.9/8-64 C - Zoom 1.2/6-80 C - Zoom 1.4/6-90 C - Macro 1.4/15-90 C (2) Beaulieu - Zoom Macro 1.4/6.9-55 C (3) Fuji Photo Film Co. - Fujinon MA-Z EBC 1.8/7.5-75 C - Fujinon SW EBC 1.8/5.5 C Isco Göttingen - Iscorama 1.8/10 C (4) Schneider Kreuznach - Variogon 1.8/8-40 C - Variogon 1.8/7-56 C - Optivaron 1.8/6-66 C/M - Macro Cinegon 1.8/10 M - Variogon 1.8/6-180 C (5) - Optivaron 1.4/8-50 C - Optivaron 1.4/6-70 C Shinsei Optical - Shinkor Zoom 1.8/6.5-65 M42 (6) Carl Zeiss Jena - Pentovar 2/8-32 P - Flektogon 2/5.5 P - Flektogon 2/12.5 P - Biotar 2/25 P - Sonnar 2.8/40 P Notes : 1. Don't know if this mount can be adapted to C. 2. Seems from the focal range like a 16mm lens, but the large aperture seems to say otherwise. Never seen one of those. 3. Made in Japan, but actual manufacturer is unknown. Could it be Bell & Howell/Mamiya ? Kowa ? 4. Actually an assembly of a Schneider Cinegon and an Isco anamorphic adapter. 5. Prototype, don't think it reached production. 6. Don't know if this lens fits standard M42 to C adapters since its rear lens protrude inside the mount in a specific way. The Kowa 1.8/12.5-75 was marketed with some Pathé DS8 cameras but is actually designed for 16mm. I found no information concerning lenses marketed with specials cameras like the Mekel or the VIC. Seems likely they were sold body only. All in all, It seems there's never been more than 20 distinct lenses types marketed for Super 8 (of only 7 brands), with about a third being easily findable. This contrasts with the hundreds of lenses made for 16mm. Looking this way, a Super-8 sized digital sensor doesn't seem really pertinent as the park of lenses available is very limited, mostly hard to obtain, and quality wise with no real advantages over its big sister other than big zoom ranges of compact size, since almost no primes were made. But now, should we include too regular 8 lenses ? Some regular 8 cameras like the Beaulieu MR8 had C-mount lenses, but it is not known, at least by my little knowledge, if they would cover Super 8. Some Bolex H-8 REX series has successfully been converted to DS-8 but their RX-type lenses are designed to only work with their matching cameras. Still it helps leading to think that regular 8 lenses can cover Super-8. Another example of successful conversion is the factory made Pentaflex DS8. The Ercsam Camex cameras, also in regular 8, had their own kind of mount which I don't know if they're adaptable to C. All other 8mm cameras with interchangeable lenses have a D-mount, with a too short focal flange to be adapted. In another way, I don't think the extremely few Arri ST modified for DS8 had special 8mm lenses made for them, it seems more likely they just had classic 16mm lenses. Now, I'm calling for your knowledge, hoping to discover some lenses I didn't see ! Best regards, Tom

This is an interesting topic, I am working on a single-8 project with reloaded cartridge, as it is of today the cheapest way to film in single-8. I know there's some spanish members here working this way, but I don't know know how they do the processing. Even when working in super-8, some people use reloadable cartridges, but do they all process their films themselves ? If you want to use high quality negative stock, I personally thinks it's better to let professional labs do the job. Andec seems to develop by cartridge, but maybe they can do reels on special order, it may be pertinent to ask...

Hello, I just wanted to add my contribution, I've been in a similar situation, trying to fit an Optivaron on a Fujica, as it is believed to be the best 8mm zoom lens. From what I've seen, re-collimating the lens would not be of any use because the problem does not come from here. The Fujica and the Beaulieu have exactly the same flange depth, and proof is when you exchange Angénieux or Fujinon lenses on both camera there's absolutely no trouble. The Optivaron can't fit because its rear element protrude too far in the mount, and not just by a hair, but by one millimeter. In fact, the Beaulieu have a small recess in its mount to accommodate this lens, where the Fujica have just a straight plan. So I think it's physically impossible to fit the Optivaron, either in C or M mount, because the Fujica wasn't designed to allow it. Best Regards, Tom