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 :)

Optimo Rouge

S

SF Geek

Banned
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
860
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Anyone see this lens at NAB? It seemed like it was promoted to red owners, although I could be wrong.
 
I thought it was a pretty nice lens. It is a lightweight zoom that can be used for handheld work. It seemed very sharp with little breathing. The zoom range is not very big but if they sell a lot of these they'll compliment it with a wide angle zoom and a tele zoom. Angenieux has always made a nice zoom lens.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Did they tell you what the price is?
 
The rear element is too long.
 
Yes the rear element extends further back into the camera. It would hit the mirror shutter of a film camera. This is supposed to bring the element closer to the sensor, creating a better image on 35mm digital sensors. I would also guess it protects the investment of a 28-76.

It is a true optimo lens, no ramping, no breathing.
 
ChrisBurket said:
Yes the rear element extends further back into the camera. It would hit the mirror shutter of a film camera. This is supposed to bring the element closer to the sensor, creating a better image on 35mm digital sensors. I would also guess it protects the investment of a 28-76.

It is a true optimo lens, no ramping, no breathing.
Click to expand...

Thats what they say, but I suspect the reason was to price protect their Optimo lenses. Personally I wont buy a digital only lens despite its lower price.
 
I agree with Brook...from what I understand about sensor design. Also, I would think (correct me if I am wrong here) that the further the rear element of the lens is away from the sensor, the less bounce back to the sensor, (reflections on this rear element from the image on the sensor)...the inverse square law and all of that. I know that a really hot image (like the sun in frame) hitting film in the gate bounces around in the space between the rear element and the film plane, cutting down the contrast somewhat. Just some thoughts.
 
I've been fighting this thought all along. Every ounce of knowledge about sensor / lens interaction that I have tells me this is a bad idea. Light leaving the exit pupil of the lens needs to be intersecting the chip at a very straight angle to avoid portholing. Who knows they might have figured out some amazing trick.

Since they can't go any further back than the IR filter in the RED, which is a few (8 i think) MM from the actual chip surface, and the rear element looks to be rather large in diameter, it's possible they are projecting light fairly straight on to the sensor.

The issue is caused by the fact that the photosites on a chip rest in little depressions or "buckets". And when light hits the chip from a sharp angle the light bounces off the sides of the "bucket" before getting to the sensitive part at the bottom. This usually effects the photosites around the edge of a chip, and can cause vignetting or "portholing"

In the Leica M8 they had to actually put offset micro-lenses over the photosites on the outer edges of the chip. This works kind of like a viewcamera's lens and refocuses the light straight down into the bottom of the "bucket". They also decreased the thickness of the IR filter, and have no low pass filter. The M lenses typically have had rear elements very close to the film plane, hence their optical superiority.
 
Many lenses have a protruding rear element. The difference is that they generally narrow in a cone shape to a fairly small rear optical surface, mostly to avoid a spinning mirror shutter in a 35mm film camera. The new Optimo has a protruding element that sticks out like a cylinder instead of a cone. It is quite large -- larger than the Red's sensor. So light can travel in more of a straight line when leaving the lens instead of at an angle relative to the sensor plane.
 
Thanks Mitch! That's what I had assumed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top