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 :)

mini Primes Vs. Old 35 film lenses

William Scott

William Scott

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Arkansas
I have 3 old minolta 35mm film lenses a 28mm, 50mm, and a 100mm.

I was wondering if I should try and adapt these lenses to fit on the interchangeable 2/3'' scarlet, or whether I should just break down and buy a couple mini primes.

I am a film student so I'm working on a budget but I want to have basically the lens selection I have with my minolta.

and if I was to adapt these minolta lenses what's the best way to do it...

thank you for your time,
William
 
The 2/3" Scarlet is going to be a huge focal length multiplier. Save them for the S35 or a DSLR...
 
William Scott said:
and if I was to adapt these minolta lenses what's the best way to do it...
Click to expand...


get 3 mini primes: the 8mm, 12mm and 25mm. They're the closest to what you have now.

The 28, 50 and 100mm lenses will become roughly ~100mm, ~200mm and ~400mm lens respectively. and they will be soft as hell because they aren't designed for a tiny sensor packed full of photosites, but rather for a comfortably large piece of 24*36mm film.
 
Thats what I expecting...just making sure though.
mini primes it is...

thanks alot guys,

William
 
The mini primes are so cheap there is no reason not to buy them. I would buy a whole set if there was a way to get them on a B4 mount camera.
 
Mini-primes in "C mount"?

Mini-primes in "C mount"?

Will mini-primes also be made in "C mount" for people who purchase the "C mount" Scarlet.

It would be bad to have to change the mount in the field between mini-prime mount and "C mount" to change lenses.

And C mount mini-primes could be use on other C mount cameras and for machine vision markets etc.
 
What is the difference between the PL and the C mount?
please excuse me if I sound naive...

thanks,
William
 
C mount is round & threaded, PL is not.
 
I sure hope that even if the miniprimes won't come in c-mount there will be a simple adapter (think m42 to canon/nikon mount) to use c-mount glass on the mini pl mount and vice versa.

And sorry for recommending the 12mm, every time I've dealt with 2/3" glass before has been on shoots with the si-2k and we've always had a set that has a 12mm in it, but I guess the 16mm should be close enough.

But as already mentioned - when buying miniprimes there shouldn't be an excuse to not buy the whole set - I believe there will be a "kit" price for the 5 of them that will be cheaper than to buy them seperately.
 
C mount, 12mm

C mount, 12mm

Juhan Malmstein said:
I sure hope that even if the miniprimes won't come in c-mount there will be a simple adapter (think m42 to canon/nikon mount) to use c-mount glass on the mini pl mount and vice versa.

And sorry for recommending the 12mm, every time I've dealt with 2/3" glass before has been on shoots with the si-2k and we've always had a set that has a 12mm in it, but I guess the 16mm should be close enough.
Click to expand...

Most 2/3" lenses that are wide tend to stick back past the thread of a C mount, and it looks like the mini-PL mount extends past where the C thread ends, so I don't see how you could adapt the lens to C mount unless you take the mini-PL mount off.

Using mini-PL on the camera and adapting C mount lenses to it does not see like it would work because the locking ring on the mini-PL mount would probably be too far out from the focal plane.

So that would mean changing the mount plate on the front of the camera every time you want to switch from mini-prime to C mount megapixel lens, and that would not be good, in the field you could get too much dust and grit in the camera etc plus the extra time and stripping the screw holes out from changing the mount 1000 times in a month.

12mm is a great focal length for 2/3", 8mm or 9mm is a little too wide and they tend to have more CA and barrel. 16mm is a bit too long for interior shots.

I have a C mount 12mm f/1.4 5megapixel Fujinon that is in a very sturdy. The T/ stop seems a bit low perhaps because the newer glass types are lead free and not as clear as the older glass types. It looks quite sharp on a TV camera, but at 3K even small issues are much easer to see.

There is a shortage of very good C mount lenses for 5 to 10+ Megapixel cameras in the 2/3" size and smaller. With machine vision advancing their should be a market for the mini-primes in C mount other than just for the C mount Scarlet.
 
We don't know what the flange depth is on the mini-PL mount yet. I am hoping that it is designed in such a way that c-mount lenses can be adapted with a screw on flange plate similar to the c-mount adapters for Bolex bayonet mounts. I agree on the 12mm. This is a must have focal length for 2/3".
 
I was wondering what would be more advantageous a Pl mount or a C mount...I don't have any money invested in either yet. I just want to get whatever mount works the best and if possible is compatible with other Cameras.

thanks,
William
 
Universal

Universal

William Scott said:
I was wondering what would be more advantageous a Pl mount or a C mount...I don't have any money invested in either yet. I just want to get whatever mount works the best and if possible is compatible with other Cameras.

thanks,
William
Click to expand...

C mount is almost 90 years old or so and is universal for cameras with 16mm some Super16mm and sensors 1" and smaller, in the case of scarlet 2/3" which is really 11mm diagonal about.

2/3" is smaller than regular 16mm camera frame, so most C mount movie camera lenses will cover a 2/3" sensor.

Mini-PL is a new mount with only the special lenses from RED for it, like no 12mm (?) so is very limiting for lens options, even if the mini-PL lenses are very good they would the all you can get with not other brands in that mount.

PL mount is an ARRI version of the BNC type mount , but smaller backfocus and metric. PL is a standard mount, not not so much for 2/3" size sensors, Super16mm lenses cover a larger image circle, in general the best results are when the lens image circle matches the format used, if it is larger so will be the image spot, thats why SLR lenses would be soft on a small 2/3" sensor for the most part, as would 35mm movie PL lenses, unless they are better than 180lp/mm, most are closer to 60-80lp/mm to maybe 100lp/mm at best and not wide open.

For a 2/3" sensor at least 5 megapixel rating is needed and to get 3K resolution probably better or at least using only the prime stop of about f/4.0 to f/6.3, any stops smaller or larger will require more sharpen that will bring up the sensor and compression noise issues, of you have to live with softer results.

If the mini-prime come is C mount then you can use any standard C mount lens along with them, but if you get the mini-PL camera then you need to just use the few mini-PL lenses, or swap the mount on the camera back and forth to swap mounts to match the lens you want to use.

There are PL to C mount adapters since the PL back-focus is larger than C mount, but it looks to me like the mini-PL is too small and close to the sensor to adapt, you would need C mount mini-primes. It may be possable to make a PL to mini-PL adapter but I/m not sure what that gets you other than a few high priced Super16mm PL lenses.

Some people don't like C mount because it can un-screw when you use a follow focus and the lens focus binds, PL has pin to hold the lens from rotating under the force of focus by follow focus.

Some people think the focus is not positive on C mount, but that would only be if the lens was bent or the mount is bent or otherwise not in good order, the flange stops the lens to the focal plane so if the mount and flange are both flat the focus should be positive. It may take a bit longer to change lenses in C mount since you need to rotate them several times, but PL locking rings can stick and take a moment to un-do as well, so its mostly the follow focus issue, and if the lens focus turns easily the lens should not un-screw under the force of the follow focus.

The mini-PL mini-primes probably have better mounts than most C mount lenses though, and may have less backlash in the focus threads, or at least we would hope so?

C mount lenses marked RX are made only for the Bolex RX cameras and NOT for sensor cameras since the reflex prism is not in those.
 
"C mount lenses marked RX are made only for the Bolex RX cameras and NOT for sensor cameras since the reflex prism is not in those."

I have used the Switar macro 26mm f/1.1 on m4/3 sensor cameras (Panasonic GH1) with a registery distance of 17.5mm. It exhibits a softness signature at 1.1 similar to the "Legacy" Zeiss Sonnar lenses, and sharpness increases remarkably as the lens is stopped down...( it's one sweet lens)

There are many interesting c-mount Lenses, including ultra fast (0.95) machine vision lenses that are super sharp and can be had at a reasonable price.

If adapters are used with a c-mount lens, one simply uses loc-tite to secure the lens to it's adapter, then there are no problems with the lens comming free in the adapter mount.
 
Last edited:
in ari or glass

in ari or glass

J_Doane said:
"C mount lenses marked RX are made only for the Bolex RX cameras and NOT for sensor cameras since the reflex prism is not in those."

I have used the Switar macro 26mm f/1.1 on m4/3 sensor cameras (Panasonic GH1) with a registery distance of 17.5mm. It exhibits a softness signature at 1.1 similar to the "Legacy" Zeiss Sonnar lenses, and sharpness increases remarkably as the lens is stopped down...( it's one sweet lens)
Click to expand...

The flang to focal of an RX lens will NOT be right in air the RX tells you NOT to use it on a camera other than Bolex RX models. The NON-RX marked lenses are for focus through AIR.

The OLPF and cover glass thickness add issues for lenses desigined to focus through air also but they are NOT as thick as the prism in a RX camera.

I would think Zeiss would be horrified by your saying that any lens they have ever made looks like an f/1.1 RX lens through mostly air.

In a compressed camera like Scarlet if you over-sharpen to compensate for the RX lens you will bring up noise and macro-noise compression artifacts. For the most part I think people who claim that RX lenses are usable have not done a side by side with the non-RX version of the same lens model.

What's a 3K camera for is the image spot is spread over 9 to 27 or more pixels? Why not just shoot SD and save some money. "That damn Scarlet is TOO sharp, I need very soft fast lenses to blur it down?"
 
3691409854_4600fee5d3_b.jpg


Switar macro 26mm @ f/2.0...m4/3 sensor...

Dear Dan, Just throwing out real world experience, verses the theoretical and vapor ware...

The Zeiss sonnar is a 1920's lens design, known for its unique signature... duh, when you have a depth of field of mm...there is going to be a lot of softness and bokeh...so signature is mostly all you have to look at:)

Jupiter 3 KMZ sonnar 50mm @ 1.5...

3298360470_4983a895bc_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Apples and oranges

Apples and oranges

J_Doane said:
Switar macro 26mm @ f/2.0...m4/3 sensor...

Dear Dan, Just throwing out real world experience, verses the theoretical and vapor ware...

The Zeiss sonnar is a 1920's lens design, known for its unique signature... duh, when you have a depth of field of mm...there is going to be a lot of softness and bokeh...so signature is mostly all you have to look at:)

Jupiter 3 KMZ sonnar 50mm @ 1.5...
Click to expand...

First the KMZ lens is NOT made by zeiss, period. Its a so called Russian copy with glass of questionable formulation. Even Zeiss Jena is/was not the same company as the western Zeiss Oberkochen.

I have one of those, I know what IT looks like.

Your stopping your f/1.1 lens down to f/2 and using it on a 4:3 4/3" sensor CANNOT compare to a 16:9 2/3" sensor with a MUCH smaller sensor area.

You did not make the 1K crop size of a 3K image from the 2/3" 16:9 sensor area. Using a MUCH larger sensor area on a reduced size image will make any lens look sharper because you make the circle of confusion smaller relative to the frame height at the angle of view. If you crop your image so that it is 1K from Scarlets sensor and compare to the mini-primes at the same stop then you would have a way to see what the images will look like on a movie screen.

Most people want their lens needle sharp wide open and at all other stops, and so if you purchase the non-RX lenses for use with in air focus you should get better results than the RX lenses which were NEVER ment to be used other than with a large thick block of glass behind them.

There is nothing "theoretical " about why Bolex marked the special lenses with RX on them, it was to keep people from using them on the wrong kind of camera.

Was the KMZ lens photo also made on the 4/3" camera, if so then you have under expressed its sharpness since you CANNOT use a lens made for SLR frame on a small sensor and expect anything sharp since the lens sharpness is in RATIO to the full image circle, if you crop a part of that image circle you get a larger spot relative to the frame height, so you have a 16mm lens on 4/3" which makes the spot smaller than on Scarlet, and a SLR lens on 4/3" which makes the spot larger in relative tearms, so you have got every thing mixed up. If you had a Zeiss Sonar MADE for a 4/3" camera then you could compare it, otherwise you are just showing what everyone knows, over coverage makes soft images, what's that prove?
 
Hi Dan,

I'm still learning everything here, and it is quite a challenge to keep up with everything as you can imagine.

I've got a quick theoretical question to clarify, if you have a moment.

Let's say we have three lenses made for three different sized sensors. A 30mm for a 2/3" sensor, a 30mm for a 1.6 crop (Canon APS-C), and a 30mm for Full-Frame. Lets also assume that the actual optical engineering of these lenses is on par with the high end of average lenses for that size (in terms of grind, etc). Now lets imagine that these all use the amazing Olsenmount technology and are completely interchangeable without adapters of any kind. In terms only of sharpness (as in, lets forget about FOV changes) which lens would be best on the 2/3" sensor?

Based on what I've read, I would say the lens made for the 2/3" sensor, followed by the 1.6 crop followed by the FF. Is that correct?
 
Ok...Dan, I'll leave ewe and your circLe of confusion...till we have something to talk about besides conjecture and vaporware..

best regards, John
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top