Rehoused Hasselblad lenses for 8k?

[Nick Morrison]

Nick, looking forward to your guide. Thanks in advance for putting it together.
I also echo what Nick and Phil and Ketch say about using non internal shutter lenses. I am staying with the FE's.

And I am using a Hassie to PL mount adaptor that was not expensive and works great.

Thanks Peter. It keeps getting longer every week, so...taking a while!

For those wondering the "F" and "FE" lenses are essentially the same, and both have no leaf shutter. The FE's are just newer, and have electrical contacts at the bottom in the mount. I have to assume the FE's had slight optical tweaks/improvements to them (as Zeiss is well known for "tweaking"), but both "F" series work well for film production, on set work.

Most of our glass is probably "F" if I had to go back and check....

 

[Russ Fill]

Nick, looking forward to your guide. Thanks in advance for putting it together.
I also echo what Nick and Phil and Ketch say about using non internal shutter lenses. I am staying with the FE's.

And I am using a Hassie to PL mount adaptor that was not expensive and works great.

Can anyone suggest a good Hassel to PL mount... or even a Hassel to EF canon?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Can anyone suggest a good Hassel to PL mount... or even a Hassel to EF canon?

We use the Mirex Hassy to EOS T/S adapter. It's fantastic.

 

[PatrickFaith]

We use the Mirex Hassy to EOS T/S adapter. It's fantastic.

Hi Nick, thanks for the tip. Is there anyway to know if this adapter will cover 41 mm wide of the 8k weapon? (i.e. is there anyway of knowing if the adapter itself will not create a vignette on a 8k sensor?)

edit: btw i did find the duclos Icebox that i think would give the info if a converter would have problems ... but haven't seen any data from it recently: https://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/ice-box-image-circle-evaluation-from-duclos-lenses/

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hi Nick, thanks for the tip. Is there anyway to know if this adapter will cover 41 mm wide of the 8k weapon? (i.e. is there anyway of knowing if the adapter itself will not create a vignette on a 8k sensor?)

Not sure. PM me offline, maybe there's a way I can measure ours for you?

 

[jordan levy]

how can these lenses resolve les detail? doing some research i found this "The use of so-called alternative glass on Canon EOS bodies has been popular for some time, and sometimes the reasons are compelling and the reward is great. However there are also people experimenting with medium format lenses on Canon EOS cameras via an adapter, perhaps in the hope of achieving something closer to medium format levels of detail. Unfortunately this is not the case. Medium format lenses resolve more detail overall mainly because they have a much larger image circle and use much larger pieces of film, or larger digital sensors. However, the amount of detail resolved per millimeter may even be less than a good 35mm format lens."

 

[Nick Morrison]

how can these lenses resolve les detail? doing some research i found this "The use of so-called alternative glass on Canon EOS bodies has been popular for some time, and sometimes the reasons are compelling and the reward is great. However there are also people experimenting with medium format lenses on Canon EOS cameras via an adapter, perhaps in the hope of achieving something closer to medium format levels of detail. Unfortunately this is not the case. Medium format lenses resolve more detail overall mainly because they have a much larger image circle and use much larger pieces of film, or larger digital sensors. However, the amount of detail resolved per millimeter may even be less than a good 35mm format lens."

Yes. Generally speaking, the larger a lens's image circle, the less sharp it's prone to be. A quick look at Zeiss's MTF's tell you that Hasslebad glass are generally not quite as sharp as their Zeiss ZF/ZE and Contax counterparts. This is just a mathematical reality. What makes them "sharp" is they cover a massive 65mm negative, and THAT...is sharp.

That said, some Hassy's are still VERY sharp. The 50 2.8 F/FE can hold it's own against any full frame lens. Its frighteningly good.

And most Hassy's stopped down become...SHARP.

However, the beauty of shooting on Dragon is the sensor has so many pixels...it's generally not hard to outresolve. I believe Christopher Probst said Dragon gets outresolved at 100lp/m, which is basically a Super Speed wide open.

Which suggests most Hassy's should easily outresolve Dragon, even if they are not always "as sharp" as their full frame or cine cousins - ie they're probably more than "sharp enough".

However...what Hassys DO have as an advantage is you're generally shooting down the MIDDLE/HEART of the glass. Even at 8K on Weapon, you're still shooting down the middle of the lens. Meaning...edge distortions, aberrations, anomalies...these are completely avoided...and what you get instead is an incredibly well controlled and balanced image.

So...win some...lose some.

 

[Emir Aksay]

Guys thanks for the info, I can't wait to see some images from these lenses with the 8k sensor..

 

[Zeb B]

Always wondered about all that extra light from a huge image circle bouncing around the internal sensor area. Seems like it would reduce contrast and invite weird gate flares etc. Seems like you should have only the image circle you need for the given sensor size. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Always wondered about all that extra light from a huge image circle bouncing around the internal sensor area. Seems like it would reduce contrast and invite weird gate flares etc. Seems like you should have only the image circle you need for the given sensor size. Any thoughts on this?

Image circle and vignetting affect bokeh: http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html

 

[Phil Holland]

Always wondered about all that extra light from a huge image circle bouncing around the internal sensor area. Seems like it would reduce contrast and invite weird gate flares etc. Seems like you should have only the image circle you need for the given sensor size. Any thoughts on this?

Two different parts of the equation. You have the exit pupil of the lens and you have the exit pupil of the mount.

Lens stuff. It's pretty common on higher end optics to "over design" the optimal image circle to minimize vignetting and aberrations like coma. The Zeiss Master Primes are a good example as they have a fairly generous design which has allowed us to use them on larger than S35 formats like MX 5K and Dragon 5.5k and 6K.

Mount stuff. The exit pupil of the lens mount however is a different bag of tomatoes. Flocking, stepping, and actual pupil design is a factor in keeping contrast relatively high and light spill extremely low.

 

[jordan levy]

i just bought my first one! 150mm f2.8 F, for $375…i guess ill have fun testing it out. im figuring it will be my long lens for my contax set anyway. i think i got pretty lucky as it was listed for $700, the price range for most, it was in boston not japan, the seller mantioned he bought this one by mistake, so i made him and offer and he excepted.
so nick, i just ordered the cheap fotodiox hasseldblad to eos adapter for now, $40…but im curious where you bought your higher end Tilt shift model you mention, the website i go to is not in english, is there a US retailer?
need that hasselblad thread going bad! haha, thanks again!

 

[Elsie N]

Yes. Generally speaking, the larger a lens's image circle, the less sharp it's prone to be. A quick look at Zeiss's MTF's tell you that Hasslebad glass are generally not quite as sharp as their Zeiss ZF/ZE and Contax counterparts. This is just a mathematical reality. What makes them "sharp" is they cover a massive 65mm negative, and THAT...is sharp.

That said, some Hassy's are still VERY sharp. The 50 2.8 F/FE can hold it's own against any full frame lens. Its frighteningly good.

And most Hassy's stopped down become...SHARP.

However, the beauty of shooting on Dragon is the sensor has so many pixels...it's generally not hard to outresolve. I believe Christopher Probst said Dragon gets outresolved at 100lp/m, which is basically a Super Speed wide open.

Which suggests most Hassy's should easily outresolve Dragon, even if they are not always "as sharp" as their full frame or cine cousins - ie they're probably more than "sharp enough".

However...what Hassys DO have as an advantage is you're generally shooting down the MIDDLE/HEART of the glass. Even at 8K on Weapon, you're still shooting down the middle of the lens. Meaning...edge distortions, aberrations, anomalies...these are completely avoided...and what you get instead is an incredibly well controlled and balanced image.

So...win some...lose some.

Nick, the above highlighted statement really caught my eye. If I understand your statement correctly, you are saying because the Dragon has so many pixels, it is likely you will have trouble finding glass that will match the resolution? And if that be true, will we hit a resolution "wall" (in respect to lenses) when shooting 8k?

 

[jordan levy]

Nick, the above highlighted statement really caught my eye. If I understand your statement correctly, you are saying because the Dragon has so many pixels, it is likely you will have trouble finding glass that will match the resolution? And if that be true, will we hit a resolution "wall" (in respect to lenses) when shooting 8k?

i took it as he was saying the opposite, that it wont be hard to outresolve the sensor. in context to what he saying i thought that's what made sense.

 

[Ulf Krentz]

As far as I understood we have the same pixel size on Dragon 8K just more overall size, so no this won´t chance.

 

[Michael Hastings]

i took it as he was saying the opposite, that it wont be hard to outresolve the sensor. in context to what he saying i thought that's what made sense.

I also think that is what he was saying.

Basically all of the modern pro style lenses i.e. canon L and similar for Nikon and others, are being made to match the capabilities of the newer 25 to 35 megapixel cameras so should handle Epic Vistavision just fine. The main argument for Medium format lenses would seem to be the relatively low cost used lenses, and maybe the lack of distortions given that you are shooting through the center portion of the lens. Also the older manual lenses tend to have fairly long focus throws so maybe suitable for movie work without major mods.

 

[Elsie N]

i took it as he was saying the opposite, that it wont be hard to outresolve the sensor. in context to what he saying i thought that's what made sense.

Hope that's the case... would rather not have to buy lenses that cost as much as the camera, and still leave resolution on the table.

As far as I understood we have the same pixel size on Dragon 8K just more overall size, so no this won´t chance.

Agree with your statment Ulf, just was wondering if the extra pixels were going to be harder to record.

I also think that is what he was saying.

Basically all of the modern pro style lenses i.e. canon L and similar for Nikon and others, are being made to match the capabilities of the newer 25 to 35 megapixel cameras so should handle Epic Vistavision just fine. The main argument for Medium format lenses would seem to be the relatively low cost used lenses, and maybe the lack of distortions given that you are shooting through the center portion of the lens. Also the older manual lenses tend to have fairly long focus throws so maybe suitable for movie work without major mods.

The high megapixel numbers on the stills cameras and the lenses to match do make sense that the lenses should be able to out resolve current and announced sensors.

 

[Zeb B]

Two different parts of the equation. You have the exit pupil of the lens and you have the exit pupil of the mount.

Lens stuff. It's pretty common on higher end optics to "over design" the optimal image circle to minimize vignetting and aberrations like coma. The Zeiss Master Primes are a good example as they have a fairly generous design which has allowed us to use them on larger than S35 formats like MX 5K and Dragon 5.5k and 6K.

Mount stuff. The exit pupil of the lens mount however is a different bag of tomatoes. Flocking, stepping, and actual pupil design is a factor in keeping contrast relatively high and light spill extremely low.

Understood, but using a lens that was designed for Medium Format film on a little bitty digital sensor seems like there is 800% more image cone entering the sensor area than is required. Can't be good for contrast and flare. Wondering if anyone has done a test related to this

 

[Ulf Krentz]

Agree with your statment Ulf, just was wondering if the extra pixels were going to be harder to record.

Ah OK. Yes, as you will be using the outer part of the image circle that is not as good as the center I agree. That´s where the MF glass might shine.

 

[paul ross jones]

I have a few has fe lenses that I have used with my contax 645 (with an adaptor) and p65 phase one back.
Honestly there is very little difference in look than my canon lenses (50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2) when i tested them side by side. Sure the res is way higher with the back and the latitude better, but showing the shots to my colleagues - (with a the 645 crop to confuse them) nobody could tell the difference.
I belive the medium format look is marketing bullshit- from my experience of shooting stills for 20 years. Sure, a 6x7 film camera with a fast lens has a unique look, but a lot of the tiny slice of focus look got lost when medium format shrunk to the small 645 format.
So, saying that has lenses on a tiny format (even the weapon is tiny) will look cool with the hassleblad lenses at only f2.0- it will look just like a normal 35mm lens at f2.0- probably a lot softer. You are only using a tiny part of the coverage- all the claimed "mojo" is lost.

I have the 110 f2 as well as the rest of the contax collection still, so happy to run a test for someone. I brought these and believed the look was special, but was bitterly disappointed.

Don't waste you money. I challenge anyone to find a medium format shot in my shots in my portfolio (www.paulrossjones.com). They are in there, mixed up with 35mm.

Paul