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 :)

Ultranon/Leonetti Superspeeds?

Mike 'Fireman' Ross

Mike 'Fireman' Ross

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Wellington New Zealand
Looking for some information on these lenses.

Did the Leonetti rehousing add anything significant to the Zeiss original housing? Better scales, longer focus throw?

Any particular problems getting them serviced?

BNCR mount... easy to convert to hard PL mount? I know you can get adapters and camera BNCR mounts...

Most importantly, they're said to be T1.4 so I presume they're Mark 1 Superspeeds? Or... are they real Superspeeds at all? I'd heard they might actually be rehoused Zeiss (?Contax?) stills lenses?

Anyone worked with them and have any general observations on them?


Thanks!

Mike
 
May have been built around the late eighty's and used along with Leonetti's Ultracam.
 
Matt Leonetti Jr. just bought an old Ultracam as a surprise for his dad. His grandfather invented the Ultracam. The lenses were rehoused but I would be happy to connect you with Matt Junior who may have more info... Also I believe he bought the camera from one of this forum's members overseas....
There were only about 13 cameras built......

The viewing system was pretty cutting edge....
 
I remember reading somewhere that these lenses were a mixture of stills lenses - some Contax yes for the 1.4's (I think), but maybe even some Leica's and Nikons? The point is....I remember reading that they weren't ALL Contax, as I'd imagined. They were a mix. Maybe they were all given the same coating, so they'd match?

And...if my memory isn't foggy...wasn't Poltergeist shot with these?

Forgive any inaccuracies here, I'm really jogging my brain on this one.
 
Thanks for the info so far, still nothing really solid.

Yes, I believe 'Poltergeist' was indeed shot on them.

Another piece of evidence that they aren't simply rehoused Superspeeds or B-Speeds is that a couple of sets I've seen discussed include a 135mm T1.4 - a focal length that was never part of a Zeiss Superspeed set. I do find it hard to believe they mixed and matched Leica or Nikon lenses, that's no way to produce a set.

Anyone with anything more solid?

Mike
 
Kobe Van Steenberghe said:
I asked for some information on this set: http://www.benl.ebay.be/itm/ws/eBay...ssPageName=VIP:watchlink:top:nl#ht_500wt_1413

This is the info I received: They cover Super 35mm. 18mm T1.9, 24mm T1.4, 28mm T1.8, 35mm T1.4, 50mm T1.4, 85mm T1.4, 135mm T1.8.
Click to expand...

Very interesting thanks... a neat-looking set... but 135mm indeed, plus the 18mm is T1.9 = definitely not 'real' superspeeds. Of less interest to me now.

Can I drift the thread slightly? The other option for fast cheapish primes that's occurred to me would be Canon K35, any opinions on how they stack up against Zeiss Superspeeds? Are they equally strong in rental market?

And, what of the new CP.2 Superspeeds? OK they're not *quite* as fast, at least going by the engraved scale, but at $4500 per lens are they going to make a significant dent in MK 1 & 2 Superspeed pricing on the used market?

Mike
 
In my opinion the Canon K35 lenses are superior to the early Zeiss super speeds, if you get a set that is taken care of, and or rehoused.

As far as rentals goes, most people know super speeds, and have no idea that the award winning K35 lenses are both fast and yummy.

Good Luck!

Dave
 
Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
Very interesting thanks... a neat-looking set... but 135mm indeed, plus the 18mm is T1.9 = definitely not 'real' superspeeds. Of less interest to me now.

Can I drift the thread slightly? The other option for fast cheapish primes that's occurred to me would be Canon K35, any opinions on how they stack up against Zeiss Superspeeds? Are they equally strong in rental market?

And, what of the new CP.2 Superspeeds? OK they're not *quite* as fast, at least going by the engraved scale, but at $4500 per lens are they going to make a significant dent in MK 1 & 2 Superspeed pricing on the used market?

Mike
Click to expand...


K35's are known by many DP's, however most have never shot with them so there may be some hesitancy renting them when other options exist...especially newer options. However they are lovely, fast and cover a full frame chip, which many other lenses can't claim.

If I found a solid set for the right price I'd snatch em up quickly.
 
Thanks for the thoughts folks, keep 'em coming. If I find out more about the Ultranons I'll post it here for reference.

Looking at it all round, I think I'm going to try to make the case for the capital investment to buy MK 2 Superspeeds; the only reason I'm buying T1.3 lenses is that T1.0 aren't available... apart from budget constraints, speed is first requirement with rentability a close second and size/weight a close third. RPP and Cine Xenar are big and aren't fast enough, K35 are good lenses but not quite so fast and less well known, CP.2 aren't fast across the range (nothing to touch 18mm T1.3), and I haven't heard many with a good word to say about Illuminas...

Of course what I really want are a set of RPSSs but they don't exist... yet... (RED Pro Super Speeds :D )

Mike

Mike
 
I sold Matt one of my 2 cameras along with a 24 / 35 / 50 & 135 Ultranon lenses. They are rehoused Contax Zeiss glass, which is very close to Superspeeds. The 24 -135 cover FF35mm the 18mm does not cover 5k , there is also a 15mm which I have never seen.

I still have an 18mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm & 135mm that I will be using tomorrow on an Omega commercial, shooting 35mm Kodak 5213 with a Fries Mitchell.

Not sure what I will do with the other Ultracam body, I had 2 of 15 built.
 
The k35s are excellent lenses. Honestly, I wouldn't rent mine out as they are too rare and difficult to replace if some guy trashes one. I would certainly take them over a set of super speeds. To be fair, 2.8 is the new 1.4. There is almost nothing I shoot at screaming wide open, unless I am trying to get super shallow depth of field because the director has a hard on for "the 5d look". The new fast cameras make 2.8 a totally useable stop. If you can find a set of the Kinor 35 style lomo standards, they are pretty great lenses. I really like the way they look, and they are nice and contrasty. The kinor styles can be converted to PL without being sent anywhere, you can just buy the mount from SPB sale. The 22 is a great lens, the 28 is good, I don't like the 35mm, but that may just be mine, the 50 is great and I love the hundred. Late 80's early 90s are the way to go. This is the lens series I am talking about -
https://sites.google.com/site/olexserviceskonvas/used-equipment-sales/prime-lenses-of-cine-cameras
It's just the standard speeds that are easy to convert, the superspeeds need to go away.

Nick
 
Hey Mike, I own a set of both Mk I super speeds and K35s, but the K35s are still in BNCR mount for now. I agree with what everyone has said so far, and I also think you have the right idea with going for Mk IIs if you plan on renting them. However, here are my thoughts of the Mk Is vs. K35s:

I love them both equally! The biggest difference is that triangular bokeh in the Mk Is. Once you stop down past 2.8 the 3 blade iris design makes the bokeh very triangular and only gets more so as you stop down further. I once had a shot with a Seagulls in the background, but they looked like little triangles in the sky... very distracting. Luckily, wide open they are almost circular and stopped down a little they still have a very pleasing (to me anyway) football shaped bokeh. The K35s have the nicest bokeh ever!

They both have issues wide open, but I can't say one is better or worse than the other wide open. Just different. The Mk Is can have a really crazy (in a bad way) flare wide open. It changes color and looks terrible, but I rarely come across it. You have to pointed at the sun or a big ass HMI to get this weird flare. But the K35s have their own weird thing wide open. Maybe its just my lens, but on my last shoot the out of focus areas in the foreground looked more smudged than out of focus. Not sure how to explain it, but I didn't like it. Stopped down just a touch and all was good. Both loose contrast wide open and both flare much easier, but the Mk Is flare a lot easier.

K35s have an aperture of T1.3 - T22 (except the 24 and 18 are both T1.5 - T22). The Mk Is have T1.4 - T11. I think the second number is the bigger difference here. T11... sucks.

K35s focus rotation is all over the map. Every lens has a different focus throw. The smallest is the 35mm with a 90 degree rotation, while the 55mm and 85mm both have about a 270 degree rotation from my rough eyeball estimate. The Mk Is are consistently 180 degrees across the set, so they win in that department for my purposes.

K35s also have a tiny little lip on the front of the lens that makes it impossible or at least terribly precarious to clip on a matte box. My Samcine rehoused Mk Is have a nice fat solid front to clamp on to.

The K35s are longer, but I'm not convinced they are heavier than my set of Mk Is. I don't have a scale handy, but I'll try to weigh them as well.

I don't think I'll ever sell either set, because I really do love them. I could never choose which one to sell! They both have so much character and fun little quirks. That is what appeals to me about old glass... the happy and lucky accident will happen every once and while because of those lenses and Master Primes don't have accidents :)

I think no matter what you decide, it will be the right decision. Good luck!
 
Hey Clint, here's a tip - put a 77mm filter ring (a quality one) on the front of the k35s. It's exactly 80mms and makes the front have more surface area for a clip on MB and with a standard MB the iris isn't buried in the reflex prevention ring. I used haze filters that I busted out with a bunch and cleaned out the glass. I tried cheap chinese filters but they save a tenth of a penny by making them a little skinnier than the fancy ones.

ALso, SPB sales did my BNCR to PL conversions and they did a nice job and were affordable.

nick
 
Nick Gardner said:
Hey Clint, here's a tip - put a 77mm filter ring (a quality one) on the front of the k35s. It's exactly 80mms and makes the front have more surface area for a clip on MB and with a standard MB the iris isn't buried in the reflex prevention ring. I used haze filters that I busted out with a bunch and cleaned out the glass. I tried cheap chinese filters but they save a tenth of a penny by making them a little skinnier than the fancy ones.

ALso, SPB sales did my BNCR to PL conversions and they did a nice job and were affordable.

nick
Click to expand...

Nice tip! That will come in handy :) Thanks.
 
Hi,

The Canon K35 are simply amazing.

We have two sets and they rent constantly.

Sharper than Zeiss Superspeeds, especially when used wide open (however, paired with ISO 800 etc, there's less and less reason to use them wide-open). They cover full frame (36mm x 24mm)!
Compact and light.

We shot both 35mm film, RED ONE, RED EPIC and ALEXA with the K35 and they are stunning, very cinematic. They really match unbelievably well with digital sensors.

The only very slight drawback is the shorter focus throw of the 35mm prime, but we use a different follow focus gear with the Arri FF-4 - no problem. And it's not that bad by any means.
Other than that, we love everything about them: character, sharpness, bokeh (amazing due to the 14-blade iris), size, weight.... and the list goes on.

I can tell you that, if 2-3 years ago many DPs were not so familiar with the K35s, they really, really took off in the last year or so. Everybody wants to shoot them nowadays, we are getting calls from all over the country, especially from DPs shooting on EPICs and ALEXAs. As I said, they really shine on those cameras.

Once Monstro (larger sensor) comes out, the K35s will continue to match the EPIC perfectly - no portholing, no vignetting of any kind.

George

P.S. By the way - the lenses are so small than one can use 3x3 filters on them without vignetting, even in 5K! We use Arri LMB-2 with 3 stages (!), two 3x3s and one Series 9, and there's no vignetting whatsoever. This whole combo keeps the EPIC unbelievably small - truly the IMAX power in a package smaller than Super16.

P.S. 2 -- Wanted to take some pics for this thread, but to prove my point, both sets are out at the moment!
 
George A. said:
the lenses are so small than one can use 3x3 filters on them without vignetting, even in 5K! We use Arri LMB-2 with 3 stages (!), two 3x3s and one Series 9, and there's no vignetting whatsoever. This whole combo keeps the EPIC unbelievably small - truly the IMAX power in a package smaller than Super16.
Click to expand...

I always wondered if that LMB-2 would cover those lenses... now if I can just find one with filters :)
 
Stephen Williams said:
Wow they look expensive! Matt did well!
The 24-135 all have 16 iris blades so the bokeh is round at all stops, the 18 has way less & does not have round bokeh
Click to expand...

Wow that's interesting. That means that in the conversion, these Contax lenses had new iris blades fitted. Contax glass normally has 6 bladed irises. Also the 24mm is interesting, as Contax only made a 25mm (2.8). Maybe they made some adjustements? Cool set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top