Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

A poor man's Lens - worth it?

Raul Gonzo

Raul Gonzo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
881
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
www.raulgonzo.com
I have RED's 18-50 &
Until I can save up enough $ for RED's 50-150,
I am considering a Lenar 40-160 with PL, good condition.
Dirt cheap- $400.
Anyone know anything about this lens?
I'll probably get it since I need something now,
but just thought
I'd ask some of you knowledgeable redusers for your
thoughts and opinions.
 
Worth $400 or worth sticking on a RED, probably not to both questions.
 
Hey Stephen, can you elaborate?
If it can't hurt my Red it might be worth having something other than nothing.
It will be at least a year before I can buy the RED 50-150.
Thanks for your help
 
This is a very old lens. It predates the Lomos. Judging from the serial number on the picture it was built in 1963. Probably not worth $400, but you might still find some use for it.
 
I am no optics expert and have no experience with the lens in question, but here's my opinion...

Almost any lens is better than no lens at all; this one is so cheap, you really can't lose much by giving it a try. You might even find that the strange aberrations it creates are quite pleasing for certain subjects.

I've always found it amusing that we belong to a fraternity that insists on the absolute finest glass, even when we're covering it with a piece of silk stocking that someone liberated from a French house of pleasaunce in 1945.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Raul Gonzo said:
Hey Stephen, can you elaborate?
If it can't hurt my Red it might be worth having something other than nothing.
It will be at least a year before I can buy the RED 50-150.
Thanks for your help
Click to expand...

Hi,

It really won't match the RED lens, which is modern sharp lens. Cine zooms as old as that have a look of their own which personally I would avoid. You would get better images with modern still camera lenses.

Stephen
 
I agree with Leo - might have some softness, flare, or other desirable affect that you couldn't get with expensive filters or elaborate post effects. I know a lot of guys that preferred the old Cooke Speed Panchros for portraits over Zeiss speeds, for this reason.
 
Douglas Underdahl said:
I agree with Leo - might have some softness, flare, or other desirable affect that you couldn't get with expensive filters or elaborate post effects. I know a lot of guys that preferred the old Cooke Speed Panchros for portraits over Zeiss speeds, for this reason.
Click to expand...

Hi Douglas,

Cooke Speed Pancros & Super Baltars do look beautiful, however zooms from the same era were very much worse. It was not until the Cooke 20-100 that zooms lost their bad name.

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

It really won't match the RED lens, which is modern sharp lens. Cine zooms as old as that have a look of their own which personally I would avoid. You would get better images with modern still camera lenses.

Stephen
Click to expand...

The question is, what's "better"? I think that the lens is worth it for sure. I've got a Foton 40-150 and I like what it's doing. Go for it!
 
Thanks for everyone's input.
I will certainly give it a try, bearing in mind it probably won't match up with the 18-50.
But again, it is just temporary...
 
haha, for 400 bucks it's worth a try anyway!
 
8) I know, besides
raise your hand if you have had to change your
financial plans since the 13th
photo_image_147_Hands%20raised%20to%20Jesus%20by%20Steven%20Bridge.JPG
 
Stephen -

I'm from that era. Shot a lot with old Angenieux zooms, some with side finders, even SOM Berthiots.

Douglas Underdahl
Author
THE 16MM CAMERA BOOK
contributor
THE AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER MANUAL
 
f/11

f/11

At f/11 most lenses resove about the same except for some Chromatic fringe which you can filter with software.

There might be some flair, but if you use a matte box and do not point it into lights or the sun you can drop the black level in post.

There is a backfocus adjustment on the REDONE so you can compensate for the PL mount being off a little to get the wide to tele to track better.

With the OLPF in the camera no lens is "sharp" on the REDONE, it blurs the image anyway to reduce aliasing. In the de-Bayer you can increase the sharpness (on a radius of 1 to 3 pixels) to compensate for the varation of sharpness between lenses, but the more you sharpen the more noise you get, so there is a limit to how much sharpen you can use on fuzzy lenses.

If you need to shoot bigger than f/6.3 I would think twice, but from f/8 to f/16 it might work for some studio lighting, or if the sun is mostly to your back.
 
Funny thing... I've shot on RED with Cooke S4s, Ziess Superspeeds, Nikons and an OLD set of Canon FD lenses. My favorite? The old canons. they have an organic film look that I can't really explain or mimic with a filter. But it looked great! Most of those lenses cost me $30 on ebay;)
 
I've shot RED with Angenieux zooms as well. They looked great!
 
Dan Hudgins said:
At f/11 most lenses resove about the same except for some Chromatic fringe which you can filter with software.
Click to expand...

Mostly true because the diffraction of the small aperture will limit resolution, so the better quality lens will be "sandbagged". But the contrast of a multi-coated lens will still be higher, at any aperture.

Besides, no one shoots past f1.2 these days anyway, right?:sarcasm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top