Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Super 16 Glass recommendations on a somewhat limited budget?

Jeffrey Loewe

Jeffrey Loewe

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
1,835
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
CO and UT
Website
woodblock-creative.com
So I've got a project coming up that might take me to Japan to shoot a unique sports trip into some extremely rural parts of Japan. The concept for what we want to do will be driven by shooting 240fps and 300fps quite frequently. We didn't have the budget to rent a Phantom or any other High speed camera.

I was hoping some knowledgeable folks around here could recommend some Super 16 glass for the trip in the price range up to $2000. Due to the nature of the trip, zooms would be preferred. I'm a little unfamiliar with Super 16 glass so I'm open to anything. I realize the budget isn't the greatest but we need to work within our means for this shoot unfortunately.

Thanks in advance!
 
The Canon zooms are great. 8-64 and 6.6-66 are also out there. I was tempted to get one for the BMPCC but then realized there were many other things in front of it on the wishlist.
 
I know of one new set of high resolving S16 glass on its way. Pretty affordable too. Prototypes are supposed to be available in January. I've seen the early glass and it is indeed nice and sharp.
 
Phil, keep us posted if you can. Are these primes or zooms you speak of?
 
$2k isn't going to buy you much in the way of super 16mm lenses. But, I am pretty sure regular 16 lenses cover 2k just fine. On a $2k budget I would look for the older Ziess 10-100, the t3 one. Stay away from the ang. 12-120s, they suck. If you can find an ang. 10-150 in good shape, that should be a kind of great lens. Also the 9.5-57 ang. Can be good. If shopping for old Ang. Zooms, look for ones that say H.E.C. On them. Those were the latest greatest coatings and are notably sharper than the older versions. Then I would grab an Ang. 5.9 for wide angle, and one of the 400-500$ Ziess Jenna 180mms for telephoto. That should cover you for everything, and cost around $2k.

Nick
 
That's cool Phil, thanks for the heads up. Looking forward to an announcement. Since Jeff is looking for zooms:

Aesthetic,
the Cooke 9-50 T2.5 god's gift to 16. Such incredible skin texture and highlight rolloff. (Super 16 variants are 10.4-52 T2.8 or 10.8-60 T3, that extra range in the T3 version is nice)

Range and quality,
the Canon zooms. Take your pick based on focal range, they all perform admirably (the "best" 16mm zooms).

Beat-the-shit-outta-it cheapo,
the Angie zooms. There are many old threads here and other forums discussing the superiority of different models; there is a big difference from a cheapo "coke can" piece of crap and a real quality one you pickup from a reputable dealer (owned by one loving DP etc etc). The 9.5-57 is regular 16 only but a whopping f/1.9 in a zoom. Pretty soft until f/4 but a great range and lightweight. 12-120 is indeed crap.

The standard bearers are really the Canon zooms, if you can deal with the size and weight. I shot a feature entirely handheld on the 11-165 and 8-64 T2.5 lenses. (One is supposedly slower but opened up a smidge wider than it's witness mark). Somehow they intercut with the Zeiss superspeeds (in terms of color, contrast, sharpness; emotional texture you decide!).

If you hate Canon stills glass as much as I do don't be put off--the coatings, design, glass, something is entirely different in 16mm land, the only recognizable trait is the pink-ish bloom from big highlights.

Can't agree with Nick more on all points, though the Zeiss 10-100 has been pretty junky everytime I've messed with one. a wide angle prime in addition to whatever zoom you choose is such a damn good idea. Century and Zeiss have some great ones, Angie far and away cheapest I believe.

If purchasing everything you want passes 2K--some dealers many owners might be willing to let you take the lens out on an affordable extended rental.
 
The Cooke 9-50 is a stellar lens. I left it off the list just because if you can only afford one zoom, the 50mm isn't much on the long end. Plus, i would be pretty suprised if you could find one for less than $2500.If looking at Ziess 10-1s, look for the T* marking on the front. It looks like they can be had for around a grand. Definately want a good one not a beater.
 
Hi Jeffrey

I'm selling a Zeiss 10-100 (Optex 12-120 PL conversion) on eBay at the moment, on behalf of a colleague. I've tested this on the Scarlet and it covers the 2k image nicely, and had the T* coatings. However, I have heard (but not personally tested) that the Canon S16 zooms are sharper.

All best

Alex
 
Few lenses are sharper that the T2 loess 10-1. It's snappy as hell. A lot of people liked the canons for their range, but I always found them low contrast and washed out looking compared to Ziess speeds or the 10-1.

Nick
 
Phil Holland said:
I know of one new set of high resolving S16 glass on its way. Pretty affordable too. Prototypes are supposed to be available in January. I've seen the early glass and it is indeed nice and sharp.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tips Phil and everyone! Phil care to share any more info? Also curious with Steve if they're Primes or Zooms?

The Canon's I've found so far seem a bit to pricey for this situation though.
 
Alex Veitch said:
Hi Jeffrey

I'm selling a Zeiss 10-100 (Optex 12-120 PL conversion) on eBay at the moment, on behalf of a colleague. I've tested this on the Scarlet and it covers the 2k image nicely, and had the T* coatings. However, I have heard (but not personally tested) that the Canon S16 zooms are sharper.

All best

Alex
Click to expand...
Care to send or PM me an example I could take a look at? What price?
 
The 15-150 is slow, not particularly sharp, and 15 is not wide enought be truly useful. The 10-150 is an allaround better lens.

Nick
 
Jeffrey Loewe said:
Thanks for the tips Phil and everyone! Phil care to share any more info? Also curious with Steve if they're Primes or Zooms?

The Canon's I've found so far seem a bit to pricey for this situation though.
Click to expand...

They are primes. I tested out prototypes a bit ago in a form that wasn't exactly ready for public consumption, but they will be visible in Jan as far as I know. You should be able to score a set fairly quickly after that. There will be 4 or 5 lenses at launch from what I understand.

More soon. I can say that they resolve detail nicely and are sharp, which is good. That's pretty much what I was testing.
 
Be careful on the topic of the Angenieux 12-120 as used for news work or its successor the Angenieux 10-150. On my film camera a CP16, the 12-120 was the sweeter sharper lens. The 10-150 had an excellent reach any sick dog would be proud of. As for image crispness though, it was well behind the 12-120. The 10-150 was on the very borderline of vignetting on Standard 16mm. It took only an added Series 9 filter in the end and you had your vignette in the corners. After I converted the CP16 to Super16, the 10-150 vignetted from wide to about 14 and again from about 20 to 35, pretty much close to what the ENG 2/3" zooms do on the SI2K. For about $850 give or take, from Ken Hale at Whitehouse AV, you can have a new-old-stock Angenieux 17.5-70 which will cover Super16mm film. I bought one when the 10-150 needed work for separated elements. It was less expensive to buy the lens from Ken, with albeit a shorter zoom range. Ken supplies them in original CP-Mount (CP-GSMO) and PL-Mount. For this lens there is available, an added wider-angle optic which goes on the front complete with new focus marks. I did not find that to be as sweet as the bare lens but I did not try to trouble-shoot it either as I had a Kinoptik 5.7mm for desperate wide shots f I needed them. I use the 17.5-70 on the SI2K camera. I am advised that the SI2K flavour of "Super16" is slightly smaller than the Super16mm film frame. Whether the Epic or Scarlet or Red One see the same image circle in their 2K flavours I do not know. The SI2K is a sensor comprised of 2048 x 1152 active five-micron pixels. The lens was fine on the original Red One M at 2K but I do not know how it fares with the MX sensor. Please treat my comments with some suspicion. I am no expert by any means. Test on the SI2K can be found here. Note the focus movement breathes, a lot. ---------------- http://vimeo.com/4896665 ------------- Test of Kinoptik 5.7mm and Angenieux 17.5-75 on CP16R here. The re-mount was home machined which is why there is a very slight corner vignette. If the lens is correctly centered there should be none ----------------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43KPM55B-FU ------------------- This following clip which is Super16mm on the same CP16 camera with the Angenieux 10-150 is of poor resolution due to several generations of processing via Super16mm SD telecine, MiniDV post in "I-Movie" dub to VHS, subsequent rework of the VHS to eliminate worst of dropped audio. ---------------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-r6sg1RQ0Y -------------------- I posted it so you can observe the vignette.
 
Last edited:
Robert,

One of the things about Ang. lenses of that vintage is that they were terribly inconsistent. If you had a 12-120 that was better than a10-150, that is an anomaly, not the norm. I have owned, or at least used a ton, all of the lenses I am referencing here. The 12-120 is almost universally known to suck big monkey balls. None of the Ang. zooms held a candle to the ziess 10-1. Actually, I have a 12-120 sitting in my lens cabinet that I would be happy to give away to anyone who wants it.

I would also caution against basing any claim of sharpness on a CP camera be it a CP-16 or a gizmo. Neither of them were pin registered. I loved the GSMO and owned 4 of them, but they were not in the same league as an SR or an AATON.

As to the 12-240, a good one was pretty good, a lousy one sucked. At 2k, I think it would probably b pretty ok for most stuff. Particularly at a fat stop. The 17.5-whatever it was was a lousy lens over all just like the 15-150. I think they were both designed for 3 tube TV cameras and adapted to work with film cameras, but I may be mixing up my time scale on that.

Nick
 
Jeffrey Loewe said:
Thanks again everyone!

Any opinions on the Angenieux 12-240?

I've seen some samples that don't look to bad and found one locally.
Click to expand...

I have a super copy of the 12-240. The range is unbeatable, it's why Kubrick loved it so much. Not razor sharp, and doesn't cover s16, only regular 16, but as a "trick lens" that can blast in on someone with a 20:1 range it's certainly "interesting". I'm guessing by 30 or 50mm it starts to cover s16. Don't quote me on that, but I seem to remember the image circle expanding as we zoomed in.

Hope this helps, at least a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top