35mm lens for 16mm camera

[Guest BradH]

Can anyone explain what the problem is with modifying my K-3 camera (or any 16mm camera) lens mount to fit a 35mm still camera lens to allow me to use many lower cost highly available stll camera lenses? I have a Canon EOS 35-80mm lens and a 100-300mm lens. The EOS lens's will need to come very close to the shutter in order to work, but I think it will fit if I create a new front plate that the lens mounts to.

 

Maybe my queation should be...what's the difference between a movie camera lens (16mm) and a still camera lens (35mm) besides the projection size and focal lengths? The difference between T-stop and F-stop seems negligible to me when shooting 16mm film.

 

I'm assuming I can create a new front lens mounting plate for my K-3 to fit an EOS lens at the correct focal distance, deal with the larger 35mm projection size, and deal with the lens focal lengths through tests and experience. Am I missing something?

 

BradH

[Patrick Neary]

Hi- I think the only real issue is finding 35 lenses wide enough to give you wide angle that works with 16mm (like in the 8-10mm range.) I know some of the super-wide still lenses have back elements that jut quite aways into the camera (some require a mirror lock-up) and would smack into your shutter.

 

A nice trend though is happening with lenses designed for digital SLRs, with zooms appearing now in the 10-30mm range, which would cover 16mm nicely. A set of nice, relatively inexpensive wide primes designed for a digital SLR (I can dream, can't I?) would be great to adapt to a 16mm camera-

[Guest Ian Marks]

People use 35mm still camera lenses on 16mm movie cameras all the time, so basically there is no great problem. There are some things to bear in mind. Obviously, a 50mm "normal" lens on a 35mm SLR still camera becomes a telephoto lens on your 16mm movie camera. You need to use a 24mm wide angle lens to approximate a "normal" 25mm lens on a 16mm camera (and I think a focal length of about 16-17mm should be considered normal for 16mm). The lenses you mention in your post are all going to be in the telephoto range, obviously.

 

The aperture rings of most still camera lenses have a strong detent at each F-stop (or half F-stop), which makes changes during a shot a problem. Also, the focusing rings don't have as much "travel" as most lenses intended for MP use, and some older lenses may develop some "slop" in their focusing, or start to feel "dry" as they lose their lubricant. These may not be a problem for a casual stills shooter, but definitely make it difficult to follow focus during a shot. Finally, lenses that are mass produced and machine assembled are simply not made with the same precision as a high quality motion picture lens.

 

The T-stop/F-stop difference is not much of an issue when using fixed focal length lenses. However, there are very few 35mm still camera zooms I would consider using for 16mm, especially considering how many high quality fixed focal length lenses are available on the used market. As you know, the Krasnagorsk has a standard M/42 "Pentax" lens mount, which means there are literally of thousands of lenses that will go straight onto your camera with no fuss (and no need to fabricate a new front). For a wide angle, consider using the Peleng 8mm.

 

All of that having been said, if there is one line of still camera lenses I would never consider adapting for 16mm motion picture use, it's the Canon EOS lenses. Am I bashing Canon? No way - I have a set of FD lenses for use with my ACL and I think they're great. The problem with the EOS lenses? No aperture ring!

[Chris Burke]

As you know, the Krasnagorsk has a standard M/42 "Pentax" lens mount, which means there are literally of thousands of lenses that will go straight onto your camera with no fuss (and no need to fabricate a new front). For a wide angle, consider using the Peleng 8mm.

 

 

What about the Zenitar 16mm 2.8? Is that lens worth getting for a K-3? What would be the focal length equivilent? something like 30mm?? I see them on ebay and am concidering a purchase along with the Peleng.

 

chris

[Clive Tobin]

What about the Zenitar 16mm 2.8? What would be the focal length equivilent?

 

A 16mm lens on a 35mm camera is still a 16mm lens on a 16mm camera.

 

The lens focal length doesn't change when you put it on a different piece of gear.

[Chris Burke]

A 16mm lens on a 35mm camera is still a 16mm lens on a 16mm camera.

 

The lens focal length doesn't change when you put it on a different piece of gear.

 

 

This is the opposite of what I always thought. That being that say a 25mm lens on a super 16 camera is equal to a 50mm standard lens on a 35.

[Andy Sparaco SOC]

This is the opposite of what I always thought. That being that say a 25mm lens on a super 16 camera is equal to a 50mm standard lens on a 35.

 

 

The focal length does not change but the coverage of the lens does.

 

All lenses project a circular image

 

Different lens designs project different size images

You can have two lenses of the same focal lengths which do not deliver the same image size

 

A lens designed for 16mm will not cover a 35mm frame

 

A lens designed for 35mm will cover cover both 35mm and 16mm

 

But since the 35mm frame is larger then 16mm you see more of what that lens is seeing, which is lost because the 16mm just does not have the physical real estate to capture the image.

 

You are seeing twice the magnification on the 16mm frame but with half the resolution of the 35mm frame.

 

It is very common to own a set of 35mm lenses from 18mm and longer which are used for 35/16mm then have three additional 16mm lenses to cover the wide end of 16mm. 16mm/12mm/9.5mm. Why not just use really wide 35mm lenses? -because they get real expensive to deliver coverage with such a wide angle-optical gymnatics cost big $$$$$

 

Cooke just added two new lenses to the "S" line of primes which do just that.

Edited December 1, 2005 by asparaco

[David Mullen ASC]

This is the opposite of what I always thought. That being that say a 25mm lens on a super 16 camera is equal to a 50mm standard lens on a 35.

 

A 25mm lens on a 16mm camera has the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera -- but it is still a 25mm lens on either camera. It just behaves more wide-angle on a larger format, more telephoto on a smaller format. But the focal length is the focal length is the focal length -- it's still a 25mm lens when it's on a Super-8 camera or an IMAX camera or on your 35mm still camera. It just won't get you the same perspective.

[Guest BradH]

OK. I was mainly looking at the 35mm still lenses for telephoto shots. But I guess it would be easier and probably ultimately cheaper to buy m42 mount lenses at the same focal lengths rather than use what I have (Canon) and make a new front plate.

 

At the wide-angle side it's not so clear to me though. Wouldn't a 35mm camera lens like the Peleng 8mm on a 16mm camera give me essentially a 16mm shot? If so, what does that give me that the 17mm-69mm lens at 17mm (that came with the K-3) doesn't? Doesn't the Peleng 8mm have that distorted fisheye look? I don't see a use for that with traditional shots. Are all 8mm lenses going to have that look? If so it sounds like I can't get lower than my 17mm-69mm using a 35mm camera lens. What's the widest angle 16mm camera lens I can get without getting the distorted fisheye look?

 

Brad

[David Mullen ASC]

Wouldn't a 35mm camera lens like the Peleng 8mm on a 16mm camera give me essentially a 16mm shot? If so, what does that give me that the 17mm-69mm lens at 17mm (that came with the K-3) doesn't?

 

I don't think you understood what we just said. An 8mm is an 8mm on any camera, so yes, an 8mm on a 16mm camera would look like a 16mm on a 35mm camera -- but that also means that a 17mm-69mm zoom on a 16mm camera would look like a 34mm-138mm zoom on a 35mm camera. In other words, the Peleng 8mm is twice as wide-angle as the 17mm end of the zoom, no matter what camera format it is used for.

 

A 17mm-69mm zoom on a 16mm camera would not start at a much of a wide-angle.

 

An 8mm lens would be super wide-angle on a 35mm camera but only moderately wide-angle on a 16mm camera, so it would not look as distorted. It is not unusual to use 8mm lenses in 16mm for wide-angle effects. Like you said, it's like using a 16mm lens in 35mm.

 

Often people use the Zeiss lenses made for 16mm, so in that set, a 9.8mm and 12mm were your basic wide-angle primes often used. The 9.8mm can vignette in Super-16, so one alternative is the 8mm Optex.

 

Common Super-16 zooms are the 11-110mm Zeiss, 8-64mm Canon, maybe the 11-138mm Canon.

 

Anyway, this is all to suggest that a typical wide-angle shot in 16mm would be in the 8mm to 12mm range, so you may feel a little restricted if your widest lens starts at 17mm.

[Guest BradH]

I think I've got it now. I think I missuse focal length when I mean field of view. Thanks for the help!

 

Brad

[Will Montgomery]

What about the Zenitar 16mm 2.8? Is that lens worth getting for a K-3? What would be the focal length equivilent? something like 30mm?? I see them on ebay and am concidering a purchase along with the Peleng.

 

chris

 

I just bought a Zenitar 16mm from Russia (man, its still weird getting something from there) and it gives a great wide view. The problem is there isn't a fully manual setting for the aperature so you have to wedge in the pin somehow to be able to change the F-Stops manually. I hate to have to "break" it to work properly.

 

The other issue is lack of a standard filter mount. It comes with 3 filters, a green, red and yellow filter but I wish I could get an 85 for it.

[Guest jeremy edge]

To lock the pin in...get a fountain pin and push it inside the body and let it snap to one side so it is held inside the lens.

 

The Zenitar is not sharp wide open and you may get chromatic abberations. use it at 5.6 to 11 if you can.

 

There is no 85 filter that I know of for it.best to use daylight stock for the daylight shots.

[Guest BradH]

Will that lens (Zenitar) cover super16 at 16mm?

[Stephen Williams]

Will that lens (Zenitar) cover super16 at 16mm?

 

Hi,

 

Its a 35mm still camera lens it will cover with ease.

 

Stephen

[Charles MacDonald]

Doesn't the Peleng 8mm have that distorted fisheye look?

 

I undersand that the central part of that lens is relativly free of distortion WHEN you are onlyusing the 16mm Movie frame part of the field. If you put it on a 35mm still Camera, you use more of the field and it is distorted. Note that even the 17mm Metor Zoom I understand will not fit a 35mm PENTAX camera as it sticks out quite a bit into the area that holds the mirror on the pentax. It is also designed to only cover the 16mm Movie frame. (a problem for folks who have converted their K-3 to Super16- they have to avoid using the lens at very wide angle settings.)

[Guest Ian Marks]

I've seen 16mm some footage shot with the Peleng 8mm. It had some noticeable barrel distortion out at the corners, but did not have the fisheye "look" ... it was actually quite nice. I think by composing thoughtfully (and possibly by avoiding scenes with lots of straight lines, which would be a tip-off) one could use it as a wide angle very effectively. It's certainly attractively priced. I understand that it does not come with an 85 filter, and with its protruding front element one would have to jerry rig some kind of filter holder (maybe a clamp-on to Series 9) to provide for filtration.

[Mitch Gross]

I think the Peleng 8mm looks horrid in 16/S-16. Lots of distortionand weak contrast. It looks great in 35mm/s-35, where it is a wonderful fisheye effect lens. It is extremely limited in use but it really is an effects lens, just like a 5.7mm Kinoptik in 16 is only good as a music video/dream sequence lens. If you want a "normal" looking lens that is also quite wide, then go for an Optar, Elite or Optex 8mm. These lenses look great in S-16, but they are also much more expensive.

 

The Peleng would never be covered by a Series 9. I doubt that a 138mm would properly cover. More likely at least a 6x6 would be required.

[Guest Ian Marks]

"I think the Peleng 8mm looks horrid in 16/S-16. Lots of distortion and weak contrast. It looks great in 35mm/s-35, where it is a wonderful fisheye effect lens. It is extremely limited in use but it really is an effects lens, just like a 5.7mm Kinoptik in 16 is only good as a music video/dream sequence lens. If you want a "normal" looking lens that is also quite wide, then go for an Optar, Elite or Optex 8mm. These lenses look great in S-16, but they are also much more expensive."

 

I suspect that the quality control on the Peleng is not great, and there might be a lot of variation from lens to lens. I can only say that the stuff I saw looked pretty nice - no contrast issues that I was aware of, but then I don't know how it might have been tweaked in the transfer. Definitely NOT an ideal wide angle lens, in that it's not designed to render straight lines straight, but we're talking about a sub-$200 lens here. Of course the Optar/Elite/Optex lenses are better, but you're probably not going to see one fitted to a K-3. As for the 5.7 being good only for effects, I disagree. Of couse, if you start swinging it around during a shot, things start looking pretty wild. There's a wide-angle tracking shot through a hospital in ubrick's "Clockwork Orange" (done, I believe, with the 9.8 Kinoptik on 35mm) which I think looks great, and I do like the stuff shot with the 5.7 in "El Mariachi." It's all subjective, of course.

[Scott Bullock]

First of all, I'm a newbie here so please go soft on me for now. Secondly, this is a wonderful discussion that applies to me so when I saw it in cyberspace I just had to join in. (I'm sure I'll be posting in many other topics as well, but I need to surf the other topics a little more thoroughly first so as not to be repetitive.) Finally, I can't believe it took me so long to find this site . . . I must have the web surfing skills of a tortoise!

 

As to the discussion at hand, I have a little bit of knowledge on the subject but am still seeking plenty more. To wit, I have an Eclair NPR that was converted to S16 and I just acquired a C-mount to Nikon adapter and also a C to Canon FD adapter, as well. I did this mainly because the adapters are cheap as dirt and I already own a good assortment of Nikkor and Canon 35mm still lenses -- all primes, ranging from 14mm to 135mm. In fact, I think I have every common focal length between the two. I've yet to do any real testing with this set-up, but I was hoping to get some feedback on what to expect if/or when I attempt to blowup my images to 35mm. I don't expect to get the same results that I would if using Optar Illuminas or Zeiss Super Speeds, but am I going to be completely horrified and have to run out of the screening room in order to puke, or otherwise hugely disappointed? (Certainly these 35mm still primes have to be better than using an Angenieux 15 - 150mm, don't they?) Or, will the results be acceptable should such a need arise on a particular project?

 

I already understand the limitations of trying to use such lenses for wide-angle work (because there is a decided lack of "wide-angle" 35mm still lenses out there), but what about the slower speeds (f/2.8, 3.5, 4) of these lenses? Am I going to have to shoot all my interior night stuff wide-open with 500 ASA film? Speaking of wide-angle lenses, is the angle-of-view on a 14mm or 17mm lens going to be adequate enough for most applications in the S16 format, especially for interiors, or am I constantly going to be looking for something wider? If so, what opinions are there regarding - gasp - the uses of "quality" wide-angle adapters to increase AoV? (I do see that digital SLR lenses are becoming increasingly wider, but I have very little familiarity with them in terms of quality.)

 

Okay, that is a lot of questions, so I will stop for now even though I have many more, like the best way of calculating depth-of-field when shooting S16 and using 35mm still lenses: Are there charts available? Or will I have to critically focus every shot? Any and all responses are greatly appreciated. Sorry for such a longwinded initial post . . . :unsure:

[Mitch Gross]

I think your two biggest issues with using these still lenses will be their ease of use (or lack thereof) and their mismatching. In ease of use, these lenses will be harder to focus as their markings are near useless, and if you want to use any filters then you will quickly discover that the front housings are all different sizes. Get some retainer rings that expand all your lenses to match your largest lens, then get filters for that size or a mattebox with a rear opening of that size. For mismatching, these lenses will not match in color, contrast, sharpness, chromatic abberation and a host of other lens characteristics. They will also not match in widest aperture, which means that you will always have to light a scene to the slowest lens you plan to use in the scene. And just because a lens opens to T2 doesn't mean it performs well there, especially if it is a lens made to cover a different format.

 

I think that a 14mm can be doable as a wide lens but it is limiting. You may find otherwise and it is really more an issue with shooting style. Expect to do a lot of closeups. I really think you'd be underwhelmed with the results from an add on wide angle adapter, especially on one of these wide lenses. Why don't you look into some older c-mount lenses that cover Super-16. Try the Kinoptiks. They make a 9mm that covers S-16 and isn't too expensive. Certainly not as good as the higher priced lenses but better than nothing. It's the lens that is included with the A-Cam S-16 camera.

[Scott Bullock]

Thanks for the response, Mitch. You've given me some things to take into consideration.

 

You wrote: "In ease of use, these lenses will be harder to focus as their markings are near useless, and if you want to use any filters then you will quickly discover that the front housings are all different sizes."

 

Yeah, the markings are virtually useless. However, what if one were to do critical focusing for everything, even pulls, the old school way by placing one strip of tape around the barrel for a reference mark and another around the focusing ring? Say, for example, a couple of pulls were required for the shot; could one critically focus each mark and then feel confident that the lens would be correctly focused once the focus ring is returned to that mark? I'm not as worried about using filters for the lenses because my NPR has been fitted with 15mm rods thereby allowing the use of a matte box.

 

"For mismatching, these lenses will not match in color, contrast, sharpness, chromatic aberration and a host of other lens characteristics."

 

Very good points, indeed. I figure that these problems would be especially apparent when switching between the Canon lenses and the Nikon ones. However, most of the lenses I have are Nikkor AI-S manual focus lenses, which, if I'm not mistaken, use exactly the same lens coatings. Therefore, am I incorrect in assuming that the color and contrast would be relatively the same among all the Nikon focal lengths? As for sharpness and chromatic aberration, I've always assumed that one would run into these same problems even if using more expensive primes. Of course, I could be wrong, as I'm relatively new to the world of prime lens cinematography; most of my experience has been with zoom lenses in the regular 16mm and video worlds. Photographing with S16 is pretty new to me and I'm still trying to learn its particular nuances.

 

"I think that a 14mm can be doable as a wide lens but it is limiting."

 

Yeah, that sounds about right to me. I really do want something wider but here are my major obstacles: I can't seem to find a comprehensive list of C-mount, wide-angle primes that will cover S16. I know they exist, I just don't know what they are. As for using the Arri-B mount on my NPR (yep, had that modified as well), I know that there are many fantastic quality optics out there, but I feel like I'll have BIG mismatching problems if I try to cut footage shot with an Optar Illumina 9.5mm, for example, and that shot with a Nikkor 24mm. I don't know this to be true as I've yet to shoot anything with the Nikkors, but that's what I anticipate happening.

 

I guess what I'm trying to figure out here is whether or not I'm wasting my time by shooting with 35mm SLR lenses when I can always rent lenses at my local motion picture rental house. The only reason I wanted to use them in the first place is because a) I already own them, B) know that they'll cover S16, and c) felt that they might be an affordable alternative not only for myself, but for certain clients as well. I mean, if somebody comes to me wanting to shoot a down and dirty horror movie but has limited funds and is willing to give the SLR lenses a shot, as it were, is everyone involved going to be disappointed in the image quality if the film happens to land a distribution deal? The last thing I'd want to hear someone say, including myself, is "If only you'd used Zeiss Super Speeds instead . . ."

 

I definitely appreciate any and all input on these issues as I have some serious decision making to do with regard to what kind of glass to put into my own personal kit; keeping in mind that I'm basically trying to develop a S16 setup geared toward filmmakers who are on an ultra-low budget but still want to shoot film. So, to that end, I really need to find out if 35mm still lenses are a viable option or if I'm going to have to suck it up and fork over the 5 to 10K to buy a good S16 zoom lens and/or set of primes. I do own an Angenieux 15 - 150 lens, but my gut instincts tell me I'd be more pleased with Nikkor and Canon primes despite their (understandably) difficult use in motion picture work.

 

Again, I thank everyone who is willing to offer their advice and opinions. I promise that everything offered will be carefully considered.

[Guest Ian Marks]

While it's obviously no Zeiss, maybe that 15-150mm Angenieux wouldn't be so bad, especially stopped down a stop or two. Maybe you could shoot a test alongside the 35mm SLR lenses and let us know?

[Scott Bullock]

While it's obviously no Zeiss, maybe that 15-150mm Angenieux wouldn't be so bad, especially stopped down a stop or two. Maybe you could shoot a test alongside the 35mm SLR lenses and let us know?

 

Yes, of course you are right, and such testing is inevitable it seems. I'm hoping someone out there who's actually shot S16 with 35mm still lenses will give me their opinion/s, which is obviously much cheaper than shooting film. However, I imagine that there's really no way of getting around doing actual film tests. And yes, I'll definitely report my findings on this board once they're completed. I'm also going to take the lenses to my local rental house and have them projected; at least that will give me a decent idea of what to expect.

 

In the meantime, however, can someone tell me -- I hope this question doesn't sound too stupid -- if depth-of-field charts exist for S16 and where I can find them? My version of the ASC manual doesn't have them, but I'm not sure if the newest edition does or not. Also, if a 50mm lens in 35mm format has approximately the same angle-of-view as a 25mm lens does in 16mm format, what focal length would I need to use to get the same (approximate) AoV in S16? Is there some simple correlation that exists as there does between 35mm and 16mm (i.e., dividing a 35mm focal length in half roughly equals the focal length needed to acquire the same AoV in 16mm)?

 

Thanks again, folks.

[David Mullen ASC]

The ASC Manual has separate field of view charts. So you could see what the angle of view is for a 50mm lens in 35mm 1.85, for example, and then find something close in the 16mm/Super-16 chart, although in truth, you'd probably need a zoom lens to match it exactly because odds are high that it would be some inbetween focal length that doesn't exist as a prime lens.

 

In other words, using the rough rule that you'd want to use a lens that is half the focal length of what you'd use in 35mm for shooting 16mm/Super-16 to get a similar view is probably close enough.

 

However, depth of field is particular to the focal length, f-stop, and distance focused (I'm ignoring circles of confusion issues), not whether you are shooting Super-16 or 35mm, so if you are using a 50mm lens, for example, you'd use the depth of field chart for a 50mm regardless of the shooting format. It's just that if you're shooting in Super-16, you'd probably be using a 25mm lens instead of a 50mm lens to get the same view as in 35mm, so you'd be using the 25mm depth of field chart instead of the 50mm chart, etc.