Adam Paul

bloopoid, tried to reply to your message by it says your inbox is full. I'm interested, drop me a line. I hope you see this.

I thought about getting one with the Cinegon 10mm, which seems to be the only worthwhile prime in S8, then there are 15mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm,35mm in SLR to complete a set. Maybe a 5.5mm switar for wide angle, or just an wide angle adapter for the 10mm. M mounts are expensive, but nothing compared to 16mm or 35mm cine lenses. By the way, is M42 the same as M mount?

Are the Jenas bad? Where do I find information about the different Zeiss optical formulas to see what?s best suited for me? The bad thing about C mount is while there?s a very wide selection to be bought used, there?s no way to tell which ones are good quality and which ones are not. Most security cameras use C mount, and I know lens for security camera are no good. That?s the reason I?m thinking of getting a Lecina and go with M 35mm SLR lenses like Zeiss. I just need to know which optical formula line to get. To address your question, no I don?t have $3700 to spend on a single lens. Way less than that. I?m in the case of hundreds or under grand.

Santo, I looked at the link, but it only say Zeiss 85mm. It doesn?t which Zeiss. Jena? Planar? So you think The sharpest glass around are Leica and Zeiss? I would have to research on Leica since I know very little about their lenses, but in the case of Zeiss, which ones are best? Jena, Planar, Distagon, other? What ages of Zeiss or Leica should I look for when buying used? No older than 70, no older than 80, 90? Thanks Santo. You seem to know a lot about this stuff. P.S. : about the engineer, I think what he meant was that a lens made for a smaller format is not designed the same way as a lens for bigger format. So you don?t get all the performance you would get from a 35mm lens shooting in a 35mm camera if you shoot with the same 35mm lens in a 16mm camera, because it wasn?t designed to work with 16mm. The problem is that with S8, lens choices are so limited. So far only the Cinegon 10mm seems to be worth it. I don't like zooms, so it seems the only way is to use 35mm M mount lenses.

That?s what I was saying. If the Cinegon was originally designed to be a C mount, how can it be converted to M? But are there other primes for S8 besides the Cinegon 10mm? Maybe in the 24-26mm range? But people use Switar lenses with S8 cameras right? They just use the 16mm Switars then? I have heard of Switars 5.5mm and 12.5mm, aren?t they S8 lenses? Do you know which Zeiss? So the the conclusion is that any 35mm SLR lens like Nikon or Zeiss will be sharper than a Switar or the Cinegon, even if it?s above of S8 resolution, and that it doesn?t matter they were developed for a bigger frame. Is that it? If that?s true and the Leitz camera accepts M mount lenses, it would be better to use M mount 35mm Nikons and Zeiss with the camera. Even if it?s more resolution than S8 can handle. It wouldn?t hurt and you would know you are getting the best possible out of the S8 format. That frame from the Beaulieu, if take with a 35mm SLR Zeiss proves that. The reason I asked was because an optical engineer told me the other way around. He said 35mm lenses are not as sharp as 16mm lens and 2/3? video lenses are not as sharp as 1/3?. Because lenses designed for smaller targets and lower resolution formats need to be more precise and sharper to pull the best out of the lower end formats.

With that many views, nobody posted a single reply? Com'on guys, if you don't know all the answers, post at least the ones you do. With that many people shooting S8 around here, I'm sure somebody must know the answer to some of the questions. Help me out here. :)

Hi guys, Nice place for the S8 film enthusiast! I'm doing some research on S8 prime lenses. There doesn?t seem to exist a whole lot of primes for S8. The search feature is not very accurate and picks up too much that has nothing to do with the topic. So I was wondering if you could help me out. I have a bunch of questions for you S8 Pros out there. I?m trying to find the sharpest S8 primes ever made(sort of saying) I already heard of the Cinegon 10mm, as being one, if not the sharpest. But some of the info I got confused me. I know the Schneider Cinegon 10mm, which is a C mount lens, I think for 16mm film, maybe for video, I?m not sure. Is it the same lens as the one used with the Leitz camera? I heard a rumor that it is indeed. They just re-worked the lens to work with the Leitz. But how is it possible, when a C mount focal flange distance is 17,52mm? What?s the M mount focal flange distance?(I think Leitz uses a M mount, right?) I would presume a M mount has a longer focal flange distance. I heard the Cinegon 10mm on a Leitz can focus as close as 30mm(3cm)? Is it true? I don?t think the C mount version can do that. How about longer lenses? Are the longer focal length primes for S8? What?s the sharpest 24 to 26mm rnage prime for S8? I heard some S8 cameras use Switars? In this case, I presume they would be C mount cameras, or are there Switar lenses in M mount too? Is the Switar 10mm sharper than the Cinegon 10mm in your opinion? For a bolex 16mm, Switar are the sharpest and beats the Cinegon by miles. Is the the same with the S8 version? Now one thing I don?t understand. I think all Switars were developed for 16mm film. Even thought they are C mounts and can be used with C mount S8 cameras, they were designed to work with a bigger film frame. Won?t the performance suffer if one uses them with a smaller film frame like 8mm? (By the way, what?s the dimensions of a S8 film frame in mm?). I asked that because I know that the smaller the film frame or CCD a lens has to work with, the sharper and the better the lens needs to be to hit the small frame. So a 35mm lens in a 16mm camera won?t be as sharp as a lens developed for 16mm film. So aren?t we losing something when using lenses developed for 35mm, 16mm or 2/3? video with a S8 camera? Or there are no lenses specially designed for S8? How can the Cinegon 10mm be the sharpest S8 lens when it was originally developed for 16mm or 2/3? video? Last question is, are there people who use 35mm SLR lens ( Most likely Zeiss and Leica in contax mount I would presume) with S8 cameras? Do they work better, worse or the same as for example the Cinegon 10mm? Talking about contrast, color, sharpness and overall performance. Which are the sharpest in the 10mm and 24-26mm range? I know that?s a lot of questions, but this place seems to be the right one to ask them. There seems to be a lot of S8 Pros around here. I did a search, but it?s very hard to filtrate the information though the search engine, which is not very accurate. I hope it?s on to ask them here. I thank everybody in advance for any help.

bobolex, you were right, I was talking about Switars. I was wondering if the 10mm Switar covers S-16. Thank you.

What?s the difference between a pre-set and non pre-set lens? Which is better? Will a 10mm cover S16? Thank you.

David, all I want is a 2.35 image to be projected digitally. I just thought an anamorphic lens would be the best way to go and not lose resolution. So you think just letterboxing my 16:9 image to 2.35 is a better option? I wouldn't have thought so since I would be losing resolution.

Please do not hijack my thread. Let's keep on topic. Leo, have you hear of the Iscorama 42 MC? How much of a hassle is it to work with the Iscorama and different primes on set. Would it slow the shot down considerably?

I never heard of this Iscorama attachment, but I did a research and it seems to be something for Super8? Is it of good sharpness? Can I use it over the normal Lomo spherical? Is there a model number I should look for to fit the Lomos? The only used I found was a 42 MC. Landon, if I crop some of the sides, wouldn't it be the same as shooting in 16:9 and cropping for 2.35:1? It seems I would lose resolution anyway.

Thanks. I'm actually thinking about buying some Lomo square front anamorphic primes, after I found out they go for pretty cheap. Are you sure I should shoot in 4:3 mode? Because I would be losing resolution since the camera has native 16:9 CCDs.

Or am I better off just letter boxing my 16:9 footage in post to 2.35?

Can I use cinemascope lenses like Hawks or Lomo with the Mini35 if I shoot with a XL2? Will I get the 2.35 aspect ratio, even though the XL2 has 16:9 chips? I mean, will the anamorphic scope Hawks or Lomo squeeze the 2.35 in there with all the resolution? Will I lose any resolution as opposed to shot with normal spherical 35mm lenses? How much added distortion? Do you think it?s worth it? Thank you.

You mean don't buy 28mm and 75mm Lomo lenses? Why? Are they bad? But I need a close up lens and the 75mm seems nice. The 100mm Lomo is much slower at T3.

Makes sense. I suppose I could stretch for a 100mm, even it being slower. On a side note, 250mm for a close up? How far did you have to back the camera? Did she have a huge nose or what? :P

As I said, I have no way of testing it before, as I will most likely buy online and maybe even from overseas. Adapters will be no problem if the quality is there. All I need is somebody who had used or seen results from Lomo and Nikon, to tell me their opinion on the quality of the lenses. Thanks. But I have never seen a Lomo in 20mm. Just 18mm.

Why do you think I will need both, 75mm and 100mm? I heard a 75mm is pretty nice for close ups. Problem with a Lomo 100mm is that they are much slower than the rest. I think they are f2.8 against f2 on the others.

Dimitrios, I think you missed the part of my post where I said it was for "motion picture photography". ;) Thanks for the focal length advice. I was also thinking about dropping the 28mm, as it is almost the same as a 35mm. But the 100mm might be too long for close ups when in tight places. I had thought 18mm, 35mm, 50mm and 75mm. But am willing to listen to other opinions too. Audiris, testing is not a possibility. Reason I posted the question here, hoping I would find somebody who had done the test, or at least had used both to give me an opinion.

After a long time since I started my other thread, I still have no solid answer to this question. The thread had gone way off topic and I haven't really had much on this question. So, I would like to get a final showdown on this matter. Lomo vs. Nikon for motion picture photography? Which is the sharpest and overall best? The Lomo are basically the double of the price but easier to focus. But which is the better option? I can only afford the slower F2 Lomo by the way, so please consider that. Also consider, no matter what, a follow focus system won't be used. A related question. If you had to pick four lenses out of those, which four would you pick to shoot a feature film? 18mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 100mm. Thanks in advance.

Which Lomos are you taking about, anamorphic or the normal ones? The lenses you run at f2, how fast are they? Does f2 means fully open here? Do you mind giving the lenses specs, like focal length, speed, model etc? How old are your lenses? Thanks.

Is this also true for the slower lenses, like the f2s? I heard the faster lenses are not as sharp as the slower ones. F5.6 is nearly useless if shooting at night with limited light. If Lomos are really just sharp at f5.6 and down, maybe my friend was really right, and Nikon still primes will get me more quality. I know you can shoot with an f1.4 50mm Nikon at f2 and it looks very sharp. But it?s hard to believe a still lens would be better than a real cine lens for motion picture work. What gives?

Hi Charles. According to some research I have done, Solaris was indeed made with the very same Lomos you buy for cheap today. Lomo is Lomo. I also found many who told me the Lomos beat the Schneiders and Angenieux and also older Cookes and Zeiss superspeed. One source actually told me, if you are shooting 35mm and can't afford S4 or Ultraprimes, Lomo is the next best thing. Specially for the money you can get them for. Your lower contrast remark is consistent with what I have found out as well. But contrast can be a matter of taste. You say they are hard to focus. Harder than still lenses? I still have this buddy who keeps telling me I should buy some good 35mm still primes, because they will be better than the Lomos and will cost much less. Even if you don't think Lomos are as good as older Cookes, I would think they would at least beat still lenses. Am I wrong?

Hey guys, how about bringing my thread back on topic and open your own thread? Hey Charles, I would still like to know ;)