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 :)

New Fast Prime Set WOW

Scale

Scale

Thought I would chime in on the lens scale. (I feel like I'm walking out on to a rain-slicked precipice commenting on this thread, but that's really the only place to be these days).

The focus scales on the lenses I have tested are identical from Infinity to 6 feet.

From 6 feet to minimum focus they vary from lens to lens. A little bit.

Projection & MTF testing has been a revelation. All very hush hush of course, but those who get their hands on these lenses should have a lot to be pleased with.

(Here is where I should post a solidworks rendering of some future product :p)

Randy Wedick
Technical Consultant
Band Pro Film & Digital
 
randywedick said:
The focus scales on the lenses I have tested are identical from Infinity to 6 feet.

From 6 feet to minimum focus they vary from lens to lens. A little bit.
Click to expand...

That is pretty amazing... !

When the lenses vary under 6 feet is it because they compress the scale or because they extend the rotation...?

regards

Michael L
 
CF focus variation speculation

CF focus variation speculation

Michael Lindsay said:
That is pretty amazing... !

When the lenses vary under 6 feet is it because they compress the scale or because they extend the rotation...?

regards

Michael L
Click to expand...
I believe they vary because of the minimum focus which is less for wider lenses and the focus throw difference between the wides and longer lenses. There is only so much you can do with cam slope to compensate...It gets steeper (very quickly) as it gets closer..
 
So, are there any existing or announced lenses that will cover the Monstro sensor (other than 35mm still lenses) when it comes out?
 
Monstro sensor FF35 and larger is still a ways off. RED has announced their own electronic hybrid still/cine lenses that will cover FF35. They have shown renders of the EPIC 617 with a RED-branded lens as well.
 
Michael Panfeld said:
So, are there any existing or announced lenses that will cover the Monstro sensor (other than 35mm still lenses) when it comes out?
Click to expand...

The Zeiss Compact Primes cover the full 36mmx24mm (44mm image circle) of Full Frame 35, aka VistaVision. Available (right now!) for purchase from Abel Cine Tech.
 
Mitch Gross said:
The Zeiss Compact Primes cover the full 36mmx24mm (44mm image circle) of Full Frame 35, aka VistaVision. Available (right now!) for purchase from Abel Cine Tech.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mitch. But aren't these the same as the Zeiss ZF lenses for 35mm still use that have been rehoused with a PL mount instead of the Nikon mount?
 
Michael Panfeld said:
Thanks Mitch. But aren't these the same as the Zeiss ZF lenses for 35mm still use that have been rehoused with a PL mount instead of the Nikon mount?
Click to expand...

They are truly much more than that. Completely new housing construction, not just a change in mount. 12-bladed iris instead of 9-bladed for superior bokeh. Zeiss hand-selects the glass elements to put into the Compact Primes. They are built to a far higher tolerance than the ZF lenses.
 
They rotate the right way too... :) So there has been some changes to the mechanics as well.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
They rotate the right way too... :) So there has been some changes to the mechanics as well.
Click to expand...

Mirror image in the cad program? I've never seen one but I assume the ZE lenses (Canon EF mount) rotate the "right" way as well.

As you probably know the lineage is the Contax/Yashica Zeiss to the ZFs and now ZE and then Compact Primes. But the C/Ys focus in the "right" direction too so the change was really to deal with all the "wrong way" Nikon people :).

Mitch Gross said:
They (compact primes) are truly much more than that. Completely new housing construction, not just a change in mount. 12-bladed iris instead of 9-bladed for superior bokeh. Zeiss hand-selects the glass elements to put into the Compact Primes. They are built to a far higher tolerance than the ZF lenses.
Click to expand...

That's all true, but as we start thinking about full frame epics it is important to point out that generally when we dismiss still lenses for serious use their is a big distinction between most still lenses and the Zeiss C/Y and ZF,ZE,ZA.

Most modern autofocus lenses are VERY difficult to manual focus, with very short focus throw and almost no smoothness, dampening, or feel to the rotation. Even the older manual Nikons, Canon FD, etc. had pretty short focus throws and little dampening.

But the Zeiss C/Y and ZF,ZE,ZA have always had long focus throw and very smooth, dampened focusing that is quite acceptable (probably with add on gears) for movie use.

And there is a big cost difference between $250 for a Contax/Yashica F1.4 50mm or $660 for the same brand new in ZE/ZF mount - and the $4600 for the equivalent t1.5 Compact Prime. 12 bladed iris is nice and Zeiss may hand select the elements but their quality control is probably not that far off on C/Y and Z series and I suspect we would be hard pressed to see a difference. And the C/Y lenses were made when they could still use lead in the glass which apparently improved clarity. (AFAIK the lead isn't harmful in the glass - the issue is in the manufacturing.)
 
Michael Panfeld said:
Thanks Mitch. But aren't these the same as the Zeiss ZF lenses for 35mm still use that have been rehoused with a PL mount instead of the Nikon mount?
Click to expand...

Michael

They are not rehoused. They are a new mechanical design using the optical design and glass from the Z series primes. NOT the same lenses but similar optical performance. Greatly improved scales, iris etc.
 
Bravin the elements

Bravin the elements

16x9 Inc said:
At this time... I think only a few understand your signature... :sad:
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was wondering. Is that just time off for the Holidays? Political statement? Newest hush, hush Red Team hire :biggrin: ?

BTW - last time I was in Band Pro Mike did me a solid and I wanted to give him a shout out here on RedUser. :thumbup1:

Gotta run, I need to get over to Otto's and sign up to rent the lenses to be named on 2/15/10.

Cheers - #19
 
Anyone know what the practical 3D capabilities of a 95mm front element side-by-side 3D rig are?

95mm flush with each other matches my eyes perfectly. That coupled with the fact I'd hand hold and steady-cam the crap outta a side-by-side rig using two Epics and two 4lbs "Primos" has me thinking naughty thoughts about shooting an indie 4.5k 3D feature. :)

Some brief reading tells me for 3D you'd want to mostly stick to 18mm through about 40mm. However I am not sure yet what distances from the point of convergence this minimum interocular distance would allow.

Would such a rig allow for most practical use of the wide-normal range?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Do you have two cameras that are no wider than the lenses that will also fit side-by-side?
Click to expand...

Remember that side by side 3d Scarlet render? It was on Red.com back when if you clicked on the Scarlet or Epic graphics on the home page you were taken to the long "brochure" with the details of the original announcement on the 3rd.

Those Scarlets seemed to be flush with Red mini primes. I know you don't like to spend too much time on speculation but what do you think? I'd guess they are still hoping to allow for that, so it might also work on S35 Scarlets or Epics. It might be as simple as taking off the CF module.

BTW I might have re-formulated my post above since you responded.
 
Michael Hastings said:
Mirror image in the cad program? I've never seen one but I assume the ZE lenses (Canon EF mount) rotate the "right" way as well.
Click to expand...

Good point there. It's just so many people think of only the Zeiss ZF Nikon mount ones around here.... Caught myself doing it in that last post. Heh.

And the C/Y lenses were made when they could still use lead in the glass which apparently improved clarity. (AFAIK the lead isn't harmful in the glass - the issue is in the manufacturing.)
Click to expand...

And restrictions still have a lot to do with where the glass is made and with what processes. Also depends on the companies that make it and how they wish to deal with environmental issues, hazardous metals, waste, etc... Some glassmakers in this world have not moved away from using lead. Like Waterford Crystal, for example. Essentially the same glass recipe now for over 200 years. Various forms of glass, not necessarily for optics, still use lead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top