Well, you should reach out to Dan Kanes and let him know! He posts frequently on Reduser, and I'm sure he'd love feedback from more working DPs who would potentially be renting his lenses.
I try to avoid Reduser, for my sanity's sake.
Jump to content
48 replies to this topic
Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:26 PM
I try to avoid Reduser, for my sanity's sake.
Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:43 PM
I'm definitely one of those guys that was surprised by the initial focal lengths. But as a novice I am probably mostly influenced by the lengths of the vintage sets I've been seeing for years.
Almost anything that's been within reach for purchase have been 35/50/75, or 40/50/75 with a 100mm as a possible one to get down the line.
In the interview he mentions 32/50/85 as in the works, and if I had the option of only one choice that would be set I'd get, but they've got their reasons for which ones to start with.
Suffice it to say, I'm kinda over the moon that SOMEBODY is attempting to pull off lenses for this price range.
There's clearly a market for this in the same way there's a market for those Rokinon Xeens.
They must have seen some of us mounting old anamorphic projector lenses onto our cameras and figured it was time for another option.
Why now, would I spend 5-15K on an Old Lomo when these are actually less expensive and possibly better in most ways?
Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:56 PM
Hell if they come out and I have the spare cash I'll certainly grab a set.
Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:45 PM
Posted 27 April 2017 - 10:19 PM
I think the focal length choice will really depend on the size of sensor you are working with. For Alexa XT/4:3/Mini, Red VistaVision (cropped to 18x22mm), and 4-perf 35mm, I think 40mm is plenty wide. Wes Anderson shoots his films mostly on a 40mm, I believe.
But on shorter sensors where you will have to crop in more, 40mm is often not wide enough - on an F55, Red Epic/Dragon, and C300, it's not really wide at all. On the wide end, Lomo Round 35mm, Kowa 40mm, and Cineovision 24/25mm are all heavily distorted and soft until stopped down quite a bit. So I think most people would want to avoid using those lenses if they didn't need the field of view.
Yes!! Totally agree!
Actually, it sounds like the guy who designed the lenses was doing exactly that before getting hired to make these. In some eyes, that could be seen as a dubious distinction - but again, only time will tell. I think designing the wider focal lengths will prove to be much trickier than the 65mm.
Posted 27 April 2017 - 10:54 PM
So far we've really only seen the 65mm in action and housings (mock-ups?) for others. Although the test footage looks good so far, who knows what a wider 40mm could look like. It's the focal length I would need first , though, and I hope it's up to the same standards.
I don't know much about the designer, but I would think it would take years to design a lens as complicated as an anamorphic unless you took an existing one as the basis for rehousing.
Not sure about patents these days.
I read that 20th Century Fox realized too late that they only owned the rights to Chretian's original design but not anamorphic as a concept, so the other studios quickly got a hold of their own lenses to avoid having to licence from Fox.
But I digress.
Posted 27 April 2017 - 11:17 PM
Dan Kanes posted on Reduser that they would let Matt Duclos do a 'Lens Guts' teardown video after the lenses are released next year. So I guess we will find out how they were made then!
The funny thing is that a lot of the old vintage lenses like Cineovision and JDC were re-housed stills or cine spherical lenses combined with cylindrical elements made by the Shiga optical company in Japan. These companies were not making lenses from scratch - they re-purposed Cooke Panchros, Canon K35, Zeiss Standards and Super Speeds, etc. And many DPs love these lenses. So I don't see what the problem is with using the same methods today.
A lot of the classic Panavision anamorphic lenses are rumored to be based on Cookes, Nikkors, Leica, and Zeiss glass as well. So as long as the lens makes a nice image and is easy to work with, I'd be happy.
Posted 27 April 2017 - 11:24 PM
The Joe Dunton Xtal Xpress anamorphics are based on Cooke S2 and S3s, and apparently there's a lot of Nikon glass in Panavision's lenses.
Posted 27 April 2017 - 11:35 PM
Many of the PV anamorphics sport Olympus and Pentax prime elements as well.
Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:36 AM
I've also heard that Panavision uses Nikon glass, but from an interview I read, some of the early Panavisions were using the same glass from the Bausch and Lombs cinemascope lenses that the industry was moving away from.
Posted 28 April 2017 - 11:34 AM
That thread is getting a little heated with some inflammatory claims being made about the origins of the design. If patents have been infringed it could get messy, but of course until a production run has shipped out no-one outside the company can really say what's inside the housing.
Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:28 PM
It seems Dan Kanes has answered your question regarding this issue, and it's purely down to one of the prototypes not being properly finished. I'm not sure that using that footage in the promo material was a good idea, but at least there's an explanation.
Posted 28 April 2017 - 02:18 PM
I was there (at NAB 2017), touched the lens, and played with it at the Tiffen booth on a RED Weapon (or whatever).
The lens that has been produced so far is a prototype. Its so prototype in fact, that there is no edge coating on any of the optical elements, so a lot of the issues people have with the lens will be fixed during the first manufacturing run.
The guy said he wanted to get a lens together to show, so he left some things out.
They are not spectacular, nor are they C/G-series competitors. They have a nice clean look, and feel good to use. They really don't fall apart wide open, nor do they produce any interesting characteristics at any other stop level. They look very similar to the new Angenieux anamorphics that were at the show.
I would like to test them further.
Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:05 PM
Just saw that, thanks! So it was due to lack of edge blackening paint on one of the elements then. Hopefully, we can see them in-person at Cinegear.
Maybe I'll bring the 3C with 200' mag of short ends if I can find an anamorphic ground glass before then. Would be interesting to see how the lens looks on 35mm film.
Posted 28 April 2017 - 06:09 PM
This thread has hit home! I'm about to begin a laborious process with Panavision as we tear apart existing anamorphic lenses and rebuild them in order to cover the Alexa 65 sensor. Not an easy job!!!
Posted 28 April 2017 - 08:38 PM
Thanks for the report, Jay!
Posted 28 April 2017 - 08:50 PM
None David. I can't stand the Hawks. They're too heavy and feature too many optical issues that we try and avoid with anamorphic lenses.
Posted 30 April 2017 - 08:23 PM
I'd be curious to hear about that process Greg, but understand if it's proprietary info you can't discuss. (I've actually just started working for Panavision again after about 10 years.)
With the Primo 70 sphericals out in the wild and getting some use it might be time for a new range of larger format anamorphics to be developed.
Posted 01 May 2017 - 02:05 PM
One issue though is that the bigger sensor cameras have a widescreen aspect ratio already -- the Red VV sensor is almost 2:1 and the Alexa 65 sensor is 2.2 : 1 I believe, so there isn't much need for 2X anamorphic lenses unless you don't mind cropping the sides. This is what 1.3X makes more sense for those new cameras, until someone makes a 4x3 large sensor camera.