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 :)

Celere lenses by Hanse Inno Tech

Scott and Dan, if you can't find a set of Celeres locally to test, I might be willing to send you mine to evaluate. Definitely very interested in seeing the results...especially on Helium!
 
Just shot on these this week. Was not a challenging shoot for lenses but was interesting. There are some odd design choices but overall they perform well besides a couple of the lenses in the set I used needing some maintenance
 
Lee Saxon said:
I'm very curious why they're hiding what lenses these are rehoused, but also how much they actually have in common with those lenses after changing the front elements...
Click to expand...
I think that association with the other brands would profoundly affect the appeal of these to the pro crowd. Unfortunately the pro crowd is very much affected by the brand loyalty along the lines of "nobody got fired for buying IBM" If Celere brand can establish itself along CPs, CNEs, etc. it would put it firmly into "black" profitability wise. If they are associated with the "S" or "R" brands it will be a tough sale at the price point of CPs or CNEs.
In either case it is going to be a tough sale given the new crop of cine lenses Sigma and Tokina included. FF coverage gives it some hope.... still tough thus ;-(
All that has nothing to do with the actual optical performance- this is strictly brand perception issue....
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
I think that association with the other brands would profoundly affect the appeal of these to the pro crowd. Unfortunately the pro crowd is very much affected by the brand loyalty along the lines of "nobody got fired for buying IBM" If Celere brand can establish itself along CPs, CNEs, etc. it would put it firmly into "black" profitability wise. If they are associated with the "S" or "R" brands it will be a tough sale at the price point of CPs or CNEs.
In either case it is going to be a tough sale given the new crop of cine lenses Sigma and Tokina included. FF coverage gives it some hope.... still tough thus ;-(
All that has nothing to do with the actual optical performance- this is strictly brand perception issue....
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite, my thing is transparency, not brand loyalty. By trying to downplay any connection to "R" they come across to me trying to downplay that these are stills rehousings. It's a shame, too. "R" makes great looking lenses, they just have mechanical/manufacturing tolerance issues, which a rehouse would address.
 
Lee Saxon said:
I'm the opposite, my thing is transparency, not brand loyalty. By trying to downplay any connection to "R" they come across to me trying to downplay that these are stills rehousings. It's a shame, too. "R" makes great looking lenses, they just have mechanical/manufacturing tolerance issues, which a rehouse would address.
Click to expand...
It's one thing to speculate about the origins of these lenses, but stop spreading FUD. The guys from Hanse Inno Tech have said repeatedly that they are not using Rokinon glass. Based on where they are located, I would anticipate that their glass comes from other, well-respected lens manufacturers in the area.
 
Tom Greenberg said:
It's one thing to speculate about the origins of these lenses, but stop spreading FUD. The guys from Hanse Inno Tech have said repeatedly that they are not using Rokinon glass. Based on where they are located, I would anticipate that their glass comes from other, well-respected lens manufacturers in the area.
Click to expand...
First of all there is nothing disrespectful about Rokinon or Samyang. They are great value that has been proven in the field to produce stellar results. In the righ hands of course as they are only tools- the craftsmen that use them are the key.
If Celere is not based on their designs and glass, albeit with different front element and maybe rear element coatings :
What is Celere design based on?
If it is based on "well-respected lens manufacturer" glass- who is that "well-respected lens manufacturer" Why don't they disclose that?
Some investigative reporting here ;-)
I think disclosing it would please Lee and maybe few others looking for transparency, but hurt their appeal in the eyes of majority.

BTW if someone invested their money in them he or she will defend them to the death no matter what. It's only natural to be biassed for obvious reasons ;-) no offense.
I have 29 years of experience- intimate knowledge of cine lenses as a lens tech. I also do not sell any lenses for this very reason- so I can be brand agnostic....
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
BTW if someone invested their money in them he or she will defend them to the death no matter what. It's only natural to be biassed for obvious reasons ;-) no offense.
Click to expand...
I'm not offended. Yes, I own Celeres, and yes, I will defend them. I own them because I actually personally tested them against likely competitors (which I doubt you or Lee have done) and felt like they performed well above their modest price range (and maybe heritage). So I voted with my hard-earned dollars. With your experience, I'm sure you know that designing a kick-ass lens can be equal parts science, art, magic and luck. When all those things come together you can have something special, and I think that's what happened with the Celeres. Of course you are welcome to disagree, that's what makes cinematography art, not accounting.
 
No I do not disagree about their performance, built quality or ergonomics. They are all fine.
Lee asked a question about their transparency and I answered- about their transparency exclusively. To be clear ;-)
 
Wow. A lot FUD on this glass by folks who have never used them.

These lenses just won the Optics award at CINEC 2016. The judges for the CINEC awards have a little experience.

They are not simply "rehoused" still lenses. Of course the glass has to come from someplace - the elements actually come from Japan, Germany and one element from Singapore if it's really critical for you to know. Panavision used elements from Nikon still lenses in their E series lenses - but would you call them a "rehoused" still lens? Of course not. Because the DESIGN is different.

MANY modern lens designs are obviously "inspired" by other lens designs. That's kinda logical.

The focus is a 250 degrees turn. And the close focus on the 18.5mm is 9". So ... To suggest that these lenses are just an "S" or an "R" rehoused with a rear and/or front element swapped is very silly.

I think they are hands down the most exciting cinema lenses in the price range - and I talked to several rental houses that have them and they are all ordering a second or third set now.
 
I worked as a Panavision lens tech in the '80s
The Supers Speeds, Ultra speeds WERE nicely rehoused mishmash of Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax lenses.
No color matching what so ever. And it's not silly- it's the truth.
One thing about rental houses- I've been around the Los Angeles rental houses for 25 years- They will not buy ANYTHING that their best clients don't twist their arm into buying by threatening to go elsewhere. It's been like that for a couple of decades now. The ones that break that rule learn very quickly about wasted resources from 7 figures worth of gear sitting on shelves for years collecting dust and worthless....
Seen that few times...
Again- these are good lenses. Trade show awards are just that- trade show awards.
I've been part of a lens design team many times over at Century Optics. Trying to convince me or others like me here that you can just grab one element from here, another from there and come up with a set of primes is just.....silly ;-)
 
Tom Greenberg said:
It's one thing to speculate about the origins of these lenses, but stop spreading FUD. The guys from Hanse Inno Tech have said repeatedly that they are not using Rokinon glass. Based on where they are located, I would anticipate that their glass comes from other, well-respected lens manufacturers in the area.
Click to expand...

Now hold on a minute. He said *if* they were associated with certain brands, some people would have a problem with that. Not only did I not say anything about whether or not they actually are associated with any such brands, I said that if they were there would be no reason to have a problem with that!

If that's somehow anti-Celere FUD, "I anticipate their glass comes from other, well-respected manufacturers" with no basis is *certainly* pro-Celere FUD.

Tom Greenberg said:
...I actually personally tested them against likely competitors (which I doubt you or Lee have done)...
Click to expand...

Mark L. Pederson said:
Wow. A lot FUD on this glass by folks who have never used them.

These lenses just won the Optics award at CINEC 2016. The judges for the CINEC awards have a little experience.

... To suggest that these lenses are just an "S" or an "R" rehoused with a rear and/or front element swapped is very silly.
Click to expand...

Jeez, guys. I made two statements: (a) that like any lens-maker doing rehousings (or whatever you want to call it) they should cite their sources and give credit where it's due and (b) that if the lenses they rehoused (or whatever you want to call it) were not "prestigious" brands, that would not deter me.

Neither of those opinions require me to have tested the lenses, neither of those opinions are changed by these lenses producing stellar test results, and neither were even particularly anti-Celere. Dial back the hype a bit. I just like to have all the facts before I, you know, sell my 21/2.8 ZF.2 for the new Milvus version because Zeiss claims "new coatings," and whatnot.
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
The Supers Speeds, Ultra speeds WERE nicely rehoused mishmash of Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax lenses.
Click to expand...

Jacek Zakowicz said:
Trying to convince me or others like me here that you can just grab one element from here, another from there and come up with a set of primes is just.....silly ;-)
Click to expand...

I think you convinced yourself :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top