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 :)

Using a BNC lens on RED ONE with BNCR mount ?

If the FFD is the same, then it should not make any difference to the sensor if you can physically fit the lens in the mount (by removing part of the BNC mount)? I am confused by what Duclos said about focusing.

John F. what was your solution for the rehoused Super Baltar?
 
Michael Panfeld said:
If the FFD is the same, then it should not make any difference to the sensor if you can physically fit the lens in the mount (by removing part of the BNC mount)? I am confused by what Duclos said about focusing.

John F. what was your solution for the rehoused Super Baltar?
Click to expand...

I was told the FFD was different. I guess thats the main thing we need to confirm first, because if it is the same, then all one would need to do is trim the cylinder on the BNC lens! How do we confirm FFD of BNC vs BNCR?

UPDATE: the FFD between BNC vs. BNCR is the same. However, the problem with modification lies in stripping the metal -- Read my post below about the issue with focus mechanism.
 
Last edited:
In the case of the Super Baltars in BNC, the rear of the lens has four metal rings which are actually part of the focus rotation mechanism -- threads on the outermost rings move up and down as the user rotates the focus ring (see attached photo). Therefore, removing (even partially) the rings in order to fit the BNCR hole MAY totally mess up the focusing mechanism.

I've never opened up one of these SB BNC lenses before, nor do I have a spare one to experiment on, so I can only INFER that the glass needs those rings to focus. I don't know why Baush & Laumb would put all that extra metal on the rear of the lens if it wasn't important.

Now, if REDUSERs want to donate towards a spare lens we can experiment on, then let's put some money together- I've got lens techs and machinists ready to do it. I am personally not willing to make a $2k mistake !! But if we all chip in a few hundred for R&D on the lens, it could prove fruitful who knows. :thumbsup:
 

Attachments

  • Rear.jpg
    Rear.jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 0
My understanding is that B&L sold the SBs without a focusing mechanism. All lenses had the backend added afterwards by lens techs, production houses etc.
 
Michael Panfeld said:
My understanding is that B&L sold the SBs without a focusing mechanism. All lenses had the backend added afterwards by lens techs, production houses etc.
Click to expand...

Does that mean we can strip the back portion of the lens (how ever much is necessary) and itll still function correctly? Whats your take...
 
function correctly? Do you mean will the lens create an image, of course. Do you mean will it focus, then no. You need a focusing mechanism/mount. B&L sold non-funtioning lenses, in the latter sense.
 
Looks like "game over" for this project !! :-(
It's a shame, there's some beautiful BNC glass out there, I'd like to use with my RED.

I have seen some BNCR mounts for DSLR's that dont seem to get narrow on the back, maybe they could support a BNC straight back...
 
Double bummer. First, that you couldn't get those lenses to wrk on a Red One, and secondly because I could have saved you a lot of time had I come across this thread earlier! I had several sets of BNC lenses that I wanted to use on a Red One couple years ago. I tried everything and talked to everyone just like you did. I got the same answers and the same outcome... Its impossible I think. It really is a shame :(
 
Clint Lealos said:
Double bummer. First, that you couldn't get those lenses to wrk on a Red One, and secondly because I could have saved you a lot of time had I come across this thread earlier! I had several sets of BNC lenses that I wanted to use on a Red One couple years ago. I tried everything and talked to everyone just like you did. I got the same answers and the same outcome... Its impossible I think. It really is a shame :(
Click to expand...

Did you go as far as actually stripping the metal?
 
I did not. I was not that brave. Plus, it looked like I would mess stuff up if I started stripping metal away and I wanted to sell them if I couldn't use them. Maybe I should have experimented with one of them... oh well. Next time :)
 
Has anyone looked at converting the mounts to BNCR or PL. Not a DIY conversion, but through a real lens tech shop?

BTW, I assume that what Clint found for the RED ONe applies to the EPIC/Scarlet as well?????
 
This is not a lens design problem, it's a money problem.. what you want done is a partial to full rehousing of the lens, to fit your modern camera.
If you can afford it, and you shop enough, there are technicians who can do this. however, it may cost you more than your camera.
RE: B&L selling the lenses originally, they had multiple camera houses as customers... who used to be able to afford machinists and techs who could make the mounts the house needed for their cameras.... that's why you bought "lens heads" VERY few owner operators bought them that way...
Let's also remember that major clients were the military and industrial imaging departments, who had people on SALARY to build mounts...
 
Update: This is a new adapter that ciecio7 is selling. This may be a valid option. I contacted the seller and he said that the "tube" is 40mm or 1.56" from the lens mount flange "ledge" to the bottom where it attaches to the Scarlet/EPIC. That should at least cover the shorter BNC mount lenses and may just cover the longer BNC mounts.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=261054695548&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123

Now the hurdle will be getting him to send one to RED so that Jarred can give approval. Perhaps some encouragement from potential customers?

The seller has an excellent reputation for mount adapters.

Thoughts?
 
Looks like the tube is wide enough for the BNC's.. seems promising for EPIC/Scarlet users. I don't see how this could work for my RED ONE, though. Let us know if you try it and what your findings are...

Nice update!!
 
I never understood the desire to put a 50 year old mount lens on a modern camera. Does it give a cool retro look from the old glass? I was using BNCR cameras when I got started as an AC in the early 80's, and they seemed old back then. Granted the Panavision mount is just a variation of the original BNC mount and was basically a Mitchell movement with better glass.
 
There is a charisma and nostalgia with older glass that some of us desire. It's similar to how some people still desire using old polaroid cameras, not because the photos were super amazing or the engineering was better then, but simply because of nostalgia. For me, it's an aesthetic choice and mostly for artistic pleasure.
 
Brian,
There is definitely magic in putting older glass on a super high res electronic camera. I still love my Mark 3 Superspeeds wide open on the Epic. The original Cooke Speed Panchros are very nice too. One of my biggest regrets was passing up a set when a tabletop director friend retired. They were the Century rehoused version, PL mount, nice spread out focus scales in bright yellow, and every single one had been modified for close focus. All actions smooth as butter. $6,500 for the set of six. And he was throwing in a (still lens modified) Zeiss 60 macro! At the time, it was too rich for my blood, plus I figured that it would be a vanity purchase and not a rentable set of lenses. BOY WAS I WRONG.
Cheers,
Harry
 
Guys,
I was just thinking... the "old glass" conversation reminds me of (my imaginary) line in the sand regarding the Pro-35 adapter.
I would always size up a cameraman as a "video" guy when his comment was "We have such great Fuji and Canon zooms. I don't know why anyone would put that spinning, soft, wobbly piece of glass in front of such a nice sharp camera"
I would always size up a cameraman as a "film" guy when his comment was, "Oh my god that looks amazing! I want to use this all the time!!!"
Probably mine own biases at work, but as cinematographers we walk a line between tech and art. Personally if I am going to lean in one direction, I lean art. I'm not really about counting pixels or line pairs or steps on a grey chart.
I think there are lots of times where we want to use modern glass, and do justice to the person, landscape, or product in front of us.
I think there are some other times where we want to take our image to another place, and vintage glass can be a subtle (or not) method for this.
No right or wrong.
Cheers,
Harry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top