Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Shoot 2K with standard 16mm lenses

PaulClements said:
You'll need to pick up a mount adapter (I advise Les Bosher's[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Arri PL - Arri Standard with Spring loaded levers)[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Any idea what that might cost?
 
Tranquil_Light said:
Thanks, Chuck! Well - 'poor' is spot on and as for 'bastard' - I've been called worse - even by the trouble & strife.

Any thoughts on Angenieux in general? What sort of reputation do they have?

I know I'm a real lens klutz. I proved this last night - I did some calculations for DOF and came up with a hyperfocal point of 33 meters at the near end of the lens. Call me old fashioned, but isn't that a bit high? Or am I missing something somewhere?

Cheers, Phil
Click to expand...

Hi Phil,

Angenieux was and is one of the primere optical companies in the world. Their Optimo are right up there with any thing made. About your hyperfocal split at the near end do you mean the shortest focal length?
Also I think you can mount an afocal attachment that Angenieux use to make for your lens and it becomes something like a 12-50mm or there abouts. Ask Derick he will know.


I found one and guess who has it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NOS-7-X-Retro-a...ryZ30077QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I've seen them on ebay go pretty cheap sometimes.

cheers
 
Be careful with portholing

Be careful with portholing

This has probably been mentioned elsewhere but test for portholing before buy anything. I just shot some lens tests with Red#98 and Stephen Reizes in Toronto and portholing is definitely an issue with older and newer lenses. It's not enough for the image to just cover the sensor because if the rear element is too small and too close to the sensor light will hit it at too oblique an angle for all the light to register. This is a limitation of CMOS sensors and isn't an issue when shooting film.

A simple test Stephen showed me was to hold a piece of white paper in front of the lens and backlight it with a hard source. By viewing on a monitor or even better with a waveform (hey! Red has one built in, cool!) you can see where the light drops off in the corners. A waveform will display a flat line if there is no portholing, but the line will curve at either end if their is. The Red Zoom had a very straight line throughout it's T stop range (this will change the portholing effect as you use a smaller part of the lens). The Zeiss mkII's looked beautiful in every way, but did suffer from some degree of portholing. Ultimately if you go for older lenses you'll have to decide how much portholing is acceptable (saves time adding vignettes in post!).
 
problem with older PL mounts

problem with older PL mounts

I've been having problems with older PL mounts fitting on Red because of a slight bevel on the mount. Red doesn't round the corner of the inside lip of their PL mount so some lenses simply won't fit. Lenses that do fit (and fit very tightly I might add) might have a problem with the back focus going out. I just had this problem with an older probe lens and had to get the PL mount swapped on it in order to get proper focus.

Just one more thing to check if you're buying older lenses.
 
We had a big discussion about the PL mount a few days ago so hopefully they dealt with it on the new mounts.
 
Gregorios said:
It's not enough for the image to just cover the sensor because if the rear element is too small and too close to the sensor light will hit it at too oblique an angle for all the light to register. This is a limitation of CMOS sensors and isn't an issue when shooting film.
Click to expand...

Good points. The Cooke 9-50 I'll be testing has the rear element at the same level as the mount (i.e. the rear element doesn't extend beyond the mount of the lens). Hopefully that should negate the problems you mention. We'll see.

Paul
 
Gregorios said:
This has probably been mentioned elsewhere but test for portholing before buy anything..
Click to expand...

Hi,

Yes I have been mentioning it here & elsewhere for many months. Most people have ignored my comments on the 16,24 & 35 Zeiss Standard T2.1's.

Stephen
 
chuck colburn said:
Hi Phil,

Angenieux was and is one of the primere optical companies in the world. Their Optimo are right up there with any thing made. About your hyperfocal split at the near end do you mean the shortest focal length?
Also I think you can mount an afocal attachment that Angenieux use to make for your lens and it becomes something like a 12-50mm or there abouts. Ask Derick he will know.


I found one and guess who has it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NOS-7-X-Retro-a...ryZ30077QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I've seen them on ebay go pretty cheap sometimes.

cheers
Click to expand...

Thanks Chuck - very helpful. I think I've cleared up my hyperfocal split by using this calculator instead of the equations they give. Much more realistic.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


I've used a CoC of 0.008 for S16 based on a diagonal of 14.55mm does that sound about right?

Thanks for the afocal WANGLE idea. Will this bend all the verticles out of shape like some wide lens adapters I've used in the past - or were they just cheap and horrible? (Sony for a VX9000).

Re: Guess who has one "What are the chances of that happening!"

All the best, Phil
 
chuck colburn said:
Angenieux was and is one of the primere optical companies in the world. Their Optimo are right up there with any thing made.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, and their HEC stuff is great. But their older 70's-era zooms suck like a teenager whose milkshake straw is too small. The 9.5-57 is a horrible coke-bottle lens and the 12-120 is barely any better. So when you talk about Angenieux, there's really two different Angenieuxs to consider. The older stuff is not on par with their modern lenses.

Just don't want someone grabbing a c-mount 12-120 dogleg lens for $200 and sticking it on their Red One and seeing it look like a VHS camcorder and saying "but... but they said Angeiuex was good!"

Modern Angenieux = wonderful. Old Angeniuex? Made for news. Let the price tag be your guide.
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

Yes I have been mentioning it here & elsewhere for many months. Most people have ignored my comments on the 16,24 & 35 Zeiss Standard T2.1's.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Actually; all T2.1's porthole, even the 40 and 50 (the 35 does not exist in T2.1, you mean the 32mm I guess). I tested them all , however for me it's not a reason not to use them since the rest of their performance is excellent on the Red and the portholing when noticable is easily solved in post . All the cinematographers I know who shot on Red with these lenses said they did not notice it , however there will be times when you really don't want portholing like in white limbo's or evenly lit greenscreen sets.

Gregorios said:
This has probably been mentioned elsewhere but test for portholing before buy anything. I just shot some lens tests with Red#98 and Stephen Reizes in Toronto and portholing is definitely an issue with older and newer lenses. It's not enough for the image to just cover the sensor because if the rear element is too small and too close to the sensor light will hit it at too oblique an angle for all the light to register. This is a limitation of CMOS sensors and isn't an issue when shooting film.
Click to expand...

Well in the case of the 32mm, it does even porthole on S35mm film.....

Mick van Rossum NSC
 
The 9.5-57 is a horrible coke-bottle lens and the 12-120 is barely any better.
Click to expand...

Some of the 9.5-57s, especially the newer hec lenses (they are a half a stop faster than the standard) are extremely sharp and have excelent contrast. All lenses of this vintage show some variation from lens to lens, it's a matter of finding a good one.

Cheers,
Nick
 
redrum said:
Well, yeah, and their HEC stuff is great. But their older 70's-era zooms suck like a teenager whose milkshake straw is too small. The 9.5-57 is a horrible coke-bottle lens and the 12-120 is barely any better. So when you talk about Angenieux, there's really two different Angenieuxs to consider. The older stuff is not on par with their modern lenses.

Just don't want someone grabbing a c-mount 12-120 dogleg lens for $200 and sticking it on their Red One and seeing it look like a VHS camcorder and saying "but... but they said Angeiuex was good!"

Modern Angenieux = wonderful. Old Angeniuex? Made for news. Let the price tag be your guide.
Click to expand...

Actually the 9.6-57 is a very nice lens. I don't know if you have owned or used one, perhaps something was wrong with the one you had. They were good enough for me to order five of them for the UCLA film school and all of them were very sharp and equal to each other. But perhaps my standards were lower then yours.
So far as mounting a 12-120 C mount lens with side finder on a RED camera that might be kind of hard to do. But if you give me enough money and a good hand drill I'll see if I can fit one up to your RED camera for you.
 
This Sucks

This Sucks

redrum said:
Well, yeah, and their HEC stuff is great. But their older 70's-era zooms suck like a teenager whose milkshake straw is too small. The 9.5-57 is a horrible coke-bottle lens and the 12-120 is barely any better. So when you talk about Angenieux, there's really two different Angenieuxs to consider. The older stuff is not on par with their modern lenses.

Just don't want someone grabbing a c-mount 12-120 dogleg lens for $200 and sticking it on their Red One and seeing it look like a VHS camcorder and saying "but... but they said Angeiuex was good!"

Modern Angenieux = wonderful. Old Angeniuex? Made for news. Let the price tag be your guide.
Click to expand...

Hey redrum, thanks for your opinions. I do appreciate that two people can have a very different experience of the same item - especially something as malleable in quality as a lens.

And I enjoyed your milkshake metaphor for things that suck bad! It got me thinking - we could have spontaneous "things that suck big time contest"

Here are a few to get you going . . . "that sucks more than: - a 110V Hoover plugged into 240V mains socket - an industrial Vacuum pump for atom smashers - the air intake on a super tanker engine - an F5 Tornado - a female porn star on a cocktail of Cocaine, Speed and E!

You get the picture - have fun and go for it !
 
Lens Help needed

Lens Help needed

chuck colburn said:
Actually the 9.6-57 is a very nice lens.
Click to expand...

Help! what do 9.6 and 57 refer to ? I'd guess it's a 9.6mm to 57mm zoom?? But then why 9.6? Why not 10mm ?? What difference does the 0.4 whatever make?

And what about this lens I saw on eBay:

Angenieux Zoom Lens 15x10B 10-150mm 2.0 Arriflex RED !

What does 15x10B refer to? And the 2.0??? And why would they think it's compatible with RED???

Thanks for any clarification anyone might be able to offer

Cheers, Phil
 
Hi Phil,

That's actually 9.5-57mm I can't type for shit.
15x10B means; The widest focal length is 15mm and the zooming range is 10 times that so it's a 15-150mm zoom. The B means it's a lens without a side finder. An "A" type lens would indicate it has a side finder and a "C" type would be for a Bolex Rex. As for why it's 9.5mm I guess that's as wide as they could go within the design parameters.
 
chuck colburn said:
Hi Phil,

That's actually 9.5-57mm I can't type for shit.
15x10B means; The widest focal length is 15mm and the zooming range is 10 times that so it's a 15-150mm zoom. The B means it's a lens without a side finder. An "A" type lens would indicate it has a side finder and a "C" type would be for a Bolex Rex. As for why it's 9.5mm I guess that's as wide as they could go within the design parameters.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chuck! I still don't get the 57mm bit - but no to worry. It's past my bed time. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
Phil!

Buy you books and buy you books and all you do is eat the covers. LOL

The shortest focale length is 9.5mm and the longest is 57mm.

If it was a 12x10 it would be a 12-120mm zoom lens.
Get it?
 
chuck colburn said:
Phil!

Buy you books and buy you books and all you do is eat the covers. LOL

The shortest focale length is 9.5mm and the longest is 57mm.

If it was a 12x10 it would be a 12-120mm zoom lens.
Get it?
Click to expand...

Hi Chuck, But those covers are so tasty !

Yes I think I get it - though it's going to make more sense when I have the lens fixed to the camera and I can play with all the different settings on the lens while looking at a monitor.

I guess I'd still be nervous about lenses on eBay that were not new - partly because of the condition and partly because I'm not sure what fits with the RED camera.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I'll have to mail you a beer or something?

All the best, Phil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top