Epic W with vintage Super 16 Zooms

[troyword]

Hi Fellow Redusers,
I was at Red NYC today with two of my Vintage Super 16 zooms. I wanted to check the lens coverage on Epic W particularly for slow mo frame rates. I tested a Canon 8-64 and an Optex converted 10.8-60 Cooke. Both work great on the Dragon sensor with full coverage at 2.5K. But some very weird results occurred on the Epic W. The lenses covered 3.5k no problem and 4K from about 12mm onward with a very slight soft vignette. But it was impossible to achieve infinity focus on either lens unless you zoomed to say 40 or 50mm. It wasn't a camera back focus issue, because we double checked the Epic W with a Red 100mm prime and both of the S-16 lenses focused fine on the Dragon sensor bodies. So I am wondering if it is a microlens conflict with the smaller pixel pitch of the Helium sensor. Does anybody have access to a Super 16 zoom and a Helium sensor cam they can test this on? Just want to make sure it wasn't operator error on my part. Troy

 

[Steve DiMaggio]

I dont but I have seen some weird infinity issues with some of my wider leica r's

I just chalked it up to how sharp the 8k is in focus

steve

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hi Fellow Redusers,
I was at Red NYC today with two of my Vintage Super 16 zooms. I wanted to check the lens coverage on Epic W particularly for slow mo frame rates. I tested a Canon 8-64 and an Optex converted 10.8-60 Cooke. Both work great on the Dragon sensor with full coverage at 2.5K. But some very weird results occurred on the Epic W. The lenses covered 3.5k no problem and 4K from about 12mm onward with a very slight soft vignette. But it was impossible to achieve infinity focus on either lens unless you zoomed to say 40 or 50mm. It wasn't a camera back focus issue, because we double checked the Epic W with a Red 100mm prime and both of the S-16 lenses focused fine on the Dragon sensor bodies. So I am wondering if it is a microlens conflict with the smaller pixel pitch of the Helium sensor. Does anybody have access to a Super 16 zoom and a Helium sensor cam they can test this on? Just want to make sure it wasn't operator error on my part. Troy

Hmmmm interesting. Helium's pixels are so small, we are def in uncharted territory. Love to know more about what's going on here.

Part of the charm of Helium is idea that S16 glass may cover 4K.

Opens up LOTS of creative possibilities...

Love to hear about what you find...

 

[Jose Espinosa]

I'm super interested in the findings as well.

 

[A. Clint Litton]

A 100mm lens may not be the best option for determining the correct flange depth of a camera/mount, but it certainly is strange that you would see such a difference. Did the zooms appear to hold focus through their focal range on the Dragon? Have the S16 zooms been checked out and collimated by a lens tech recently? Really hoping it's still some combination of the lenses and/or the Epic-W mount being out of whack.

 

[Vance Colvig]

Better is to check the back focus with the widest lens in the Red Store. Best way is to check a wide reference lens with a collimator to insure proper flange to sensor distance, then check your zooms. The shorter the focal length, the more critical the proper back focus distance becomes.

 

[troyword]

Better is to check the back focus with the widest lens in the Red Store. Best way is to check a wide reference lens with a collimator to insure proper flange to sensor distance, then check your zooms. The shorter the focal length, the more critical the proper back focus distance becomes.

Yes the 100mm was just what was at hand from another body there on the showroom floor. I would assume that the lenses were at fault. But the results were so strange. Both lenses focus and hold focus on both the Dragon body at Red and my own personal Scarlet Dragon. The Cooke had briefly been on a collimator that day and seemed ok but didn't get a thorough check. However, none of this means that the lenses don't need adjustment. I am wondering if it is a issue with the depth of the rear elements on these lenses. The Cooke is approximately 1 1/8 inch and the Canon 1 inch from the camera side of the PL mount. For what it is worth the lenses looked amazing on the Epic W. The Cooke was truly spectacular in a Vintage way. I just couldn't focus past about 15 feet and get the image sharp. The Canon was slightly better but still couldn't achieve infinity focus. If anybody has a Helium sensor body in NYC, I'm happy to bring these lenses over and see if the results are repeatable.

 

[Josh Tyron]

I was able to test a Zeiss 11-110 the other day. I found the coverage to be pretty much the same. Fine at 3.5k and almost covering 4k. It wasn't a super scientific test but I don't recall having any trouble with achieving sharp focus at any range. If anyone is interested it actually appears to be a great lens for high frame rates but it does breath a lot.

 

[troyword]

I was able to test a Zeiss 11-110 the other day. I found the coverage to be pretty much the same. Fine at 3.5k and almost covering 4k. It wasn't a super scientific test but I don't recall having any trouble with achieving sharp focus at any range. If anyone is interested it actually appears to be a great lens for high frame rates but it does breath a lot.

Hey Josh,
Any chance you could measure how deep the rear element projects from the camera side of the PL mount on that lens? The two lenses I tested were 1 1/8 inch for the Cooke and 1 inch for the Canon. I have a feeling the depth of the rear element may be significant on these Super 16 zooms with Helium. I tested my lenses again on another Dragon body and they were completely fine focus-wise.

 

[Josh Tyron]

Sorry Troy I already returned the lens. It belongs to Tom Greenberg. He might be able to measure it for you. I think he had Peter Sensor at RP Lens so the PL conversion. He may also know the depth.