Lenses suitable for PL/motion picture conversion.

[Dave Blackham]

Id like to propose a combined database for lenses suitable for motion picture work and/or conversion to PL mount. There's some really useful data on this board but its not that easy to sift through.

I know there are a number of people that have expert knowledge here but is there some one with some time and willing to compile a list of such lenses.

For my part Im happy to do some of the leg work but I don't have the specialist knowledge to comment.

Any takers ?

thanks,

Dave
UK

 

[Larry Gebhardt]

Dave...are you asking about converting still lenses, or adding PL mounts to, for example, Arri Standard and/or bayonet mounted lenses?

The former, according to several top lens guys, can be extremely involved...I had one very well known LA lens tech say that he does not work on most of the modern still lenses as they are just too complicated, and I presume that due to the relatively low cost, sometimes not worth the effort (cost).

Having said that, a PL converted Nikon 17-35mm and others like it would be really nice (If the flange focus depth issues were able to be resolved somehow).

Larry

 

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

"Suitable for motion picture work" would be a matter of opinion. In my opinion, no still camera zoom lens is suitable for motion picture work.

I also would personally avoid any auto-focus lens, or any lens without a mechanically driven iris. And I would not even consider using a plastic bodied lens if there were no other lenses left on the planet.

Since all 35mm still format lenses are designed with flange focal distances shorter than 52mm, NONE of them are easily convertible to PL mount. The only way a conversion is possible is by extensively modifying or even designing a new housing for the optics.

This would then raise the price to the several thousand dollars per prime level that is strictly enforced by the "international lens cartel", in order to keep young people out of the film business...

 

[Dave Blackham]

Yes, Im talking principally about modification of stills lenses. Clearly some may be very involved but others could be worthwhile but perhaps for more specialist uses.

Ones I know that are suitable, but don't know the conversion issues are

Zeiss 60mm Macro T3 Y/C mount
Zeiss 100mm macro T3 Y/C mount

Canon 300mm L f2.8
Canon 400 mm L 2.8

Peleng 8mm f 3.5 fisheye

I've seen some Hassleblad macros re mounted also.

Id like to add to the list and also know if other of the Zeiss/Contax and Leica lenses can be fitted with a PL mount subject to the issues of flange to sensor issues being resolved or if a complete rehousing job needs to be done.

Im told for instance, but I have no first hand knowledge that the SP Tamron Adaptall lenses provide high image quality are relatively strait-forward to remount.

Dave
UK

 

[Michael Lindsay]

This would then raise the price to the several thousand dollars per prime level that is strictly enforced by the "international lens cartel", in order to keep young people out of the film business...

This made me laugh hard... Thank you!!!

its obvious even with my lay knowledge that longer focal lengths, Macros, and very retrofocal tilt or shift designs are the easyist to put PL mounts on.

regards

Michael

Additionally if people are happy with only shooting very very close you can put a PL mount on most lenses.

 

[FMG battery]

This would then raise the price to the several thousand dollars per prime level that is strictly enforced by the "international lens cartel", in order to keep young people out of the film business...

ehehehehehe

 

[Dave Blackham]

"Suitable for motion picture work" would be a matter of opinion. In my opinion, no still camera zoom lens is suitable for motion picture work.

I also would personally avoid any auto-focus lens, or any lens without a mechanically driven iris. And I would not even consider using a plastic bodied lens if there were no other lenses left on the planet.

Since all 35mm still format lenses are designed with flange focal distances shorter than 52mm, NONE of them are easily convertible to PL mount. The only way a conversion is possible is by extensively modifying or even designing a new housing for the optics.

This would then raise the price to the several thousand dollars per prime level that is strictly enforced by the "international lens cartel", in order to keep young people out of the film business...

It could well be that there arn't many suitable lenses and that answer would be fine or it may be there are specialist lenses that have some limitations. It also seems to me that the new Red line up offers alternative mounts to accomodate alternative glass which may also challange the 'international lens cartel' perhaps this in it self may be good news.

Dave

Dave

 

[Larry Gebhardt]

"I also would personally avoid any auto-focus lens, or any lens without a mechanically driven iris."

Hey Jorge...this is something i have thought about many times...how hard generally would it be to rebuild the iris section of say, a Nikon "G" type lens to put in a lever/iris ring, to control the Iris? I once rebuilt a Canon 150-600 back end myself (to convert to PL mt.) and had to replace the small iris with a larger one from Edmund Scientific, and then machined a control ring to actuate the new iris lever. Works like a charm and it is one of my most used lenses. At the time, Century was charging a bunch for their PL mount conversion and I saved a ton of money doing it myself (using a local CNC machine shop).

I know this would be a factor of the complexity of a given lens design, but I would think that there would be a large market to convert , say, Canons and Nikon - G's to provide manual iris rings.

By the way, I love the 24mm Zeiss you sold me a couple of years ago...managed to find the rest of the set ... all multicoated (I already had the 16mm and the 32mm). I do need a 50mm front element if you have one or know of one.

Thanks

Larry

 

[donatello b]

in spring of 2007 there was a tamron 28-105 f2.8 (adaptall) that had a PL mount on it that was on Ebay ..went for little under $800 .... perhaps lens that use a universal type mount might be more PL material ??

 

[Matthew Duclos]

We get calls about this all the time. Jorge pretty much has it right.
Converting a still lens could very well cost far more than just buying a legitimate PL lens. There are so many different aspects to consider when attempting to convert a lens. I would guess that making anything less than 1000 conversion "kits" would never be cost effective. on top of that, you still have to consider the amount of time and labor required to prepared the host lens for conversion. Not to mention the fact that with many lenses, it isn't even physically possible due to clearance issues.

Now lets assume that you invest thousands of dollars to convert a really nice zoom lens to PL mount... Great now you can mount it to a PL camera. You're still gonna have CRAZY image shift, focus loss, non-repeating focus, inaccurate distance marks, short focus throw, and other issues that come with still lenses.

If I may use my typical automotive metaphor once again...
Lets say your ferrari has no wheels and you need to put some on it to drive. Simple enough.. But the nice Italian wheels are 5 lug and really expensive and hard to find.
So you go buy a set of 4 lug import wheels.
Now, you get your mechanic to drill new holes so that you can put the tiny little import wheels on your 5 lug Ferrari. Awesome! Now you have wheels on your car. But you can't go very fast and you cant corner hard. If you hit a nasty bump, you'll probably spill your coffee everywhere. Get it? You can modify the wheels to fit, but you'll have crappy quality and they will prevent your Ferrari from performing anywhere near its potential.

A still lens by any other mount is just a still lens.
The ONLY good still lenses I have ever seen work well are the Canon 150-600, Nikons professional telephoto lenses, and the Leica Modular Telephoto System.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Now lets assume that you invest thousands of dollars to convert a really nice zoom lens to PL mount... Great now you can mount it to a PL camera. You're still gonna have CRAZY image shift, focus loss, non-repeating focus, inaccurate distance marks, short focus throw, and other issues that come with still lenses.

If the lens is then used in a traditional cine style workflow, then yes, non-repeating focus, inaccurate distance marks, short focus throw, etc. are real problems. But If the lens is used in a hybrid cine/EFP or EFP workflow where all focusing is via sight focusing by the camera operator, in the case of RED One, using 1:1 image magnification, edge color, and racking focus, then non-repeating focus, inaccurate focus marks, and short focus throw are simply non-factors. In sight focusing none of those limitations come into play – and yes there are numerous non-union, mid to small crew genres of production with RED One where all focusing is done via sight, rather than traditional focusing using an AC. Also, as you know, all stills lenses don’t breathe heavily, and all of them are not heavily limited by breathing. In the case of stills zooms on RED One, far and away most users are using them as variable primes in genres where it isn’t practical to walk to each framing between shots takes, for reasons of safety, subject sensitivity, etc. I can easily afford cine lenses, I own many of them, and I use them when they are the best choice for a production or portion thereof. But I also own and use many 35mm stills lenses on RED One for those projects where they make the best sense. On RED One I usually traditionally focus cine lenses (with some exceptions), and always sight focus 35mm stills lenses.

The ONLY good still lenses I have ever seen work well are the Canon 150-600, Nikons professional telephoto lenses, and the Leica Modular Telephoto System.

It is a Canon FD 150-600 f/5.6L with a Century PL mount that I use for nearly all my long focal length sports and nature shooting with RED One. You did a great job of servicing my 150-600 a few months ago – it is smooth and accurate. I also use several Nikon telephotos and zooms on one of my REDs with a Nikon mount – and the results have been excellent. All focusing is via sight focus/1:1 image magnification when using the 150-600 and these Nikon lenses in our workflow.

 

[Matthew Duclos]

Good to hear you're enjoying your 150-600. You seem to own the only still lenses that I would recommend. Consider me a lens snob..

I very much agree with you on the issue of using other still zooms as variable primes. It does negate the image shift issue while zooming. I still see major image shift while focusing on a lot of established still lenses. Not a big deal if you sight focus and and don't change focus during the shot. But still limiting none the less.

The fact is, converting a $1400 still lens will still cost far more than the lens its self.
Not the case with the more exotic telephoto lenses from Nikon, Canon, and Leica.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Converting to PL and re-housing is not making sense for the most of individual RED users.

Maybe a big rentals can find economic sense.

As we know it costs too much and it's better to get a "real" PL lenses can start with RED PL lens choice to the highest offers from Arri/Zeiss MP, Hawk (if you prefer anamorphic) or Angenieux PL zooms.

I can see in this topic case that Universal Interchangeable Mount is only one and the best solution to meet all lens requests for RED1, EPIC or even Scarlet.