Jump to content


Photo

schneider lens quality


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 kevin jackman

kevin jackman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 350 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 October 2007 - 09:23 AM

ive really been wondering about the lens quality of schneiders for awhile. mabye somebody can shed some light on the topic. ive noticed on the old arri standard mount primes there are two different lenses available with the same focal lengths. for example, you can have the 16mm in an f1.9 with the glass very recessed into the back of the lens and the elements very small. the other 16mm is an f2 and the front element is comparativly massive and sits at the front of the barrel. does anybody know what the difference is between the two lines of schneiders and what the quality difference is?
  • 0

#2 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 20 October 2007 - 02:29 PM

does anybody know what the difference is between the two lines of schneiders and what the quality difference is?


The smaller lens is a Xenon, which is a basic Gauss design. The design is similar to the Schneider 50mm & most 50mm f/2 or so designs.
The larger is a Cinegon, which is a retro-focus or reverse-telephoto design. It has a negative section at the front, which reduces the focal length of a longer lens section, which allows more space in the rear.
Zeiss Distagons are retro-focus designs. The Xenon design would be similar to the Zeiss Planar design.

http://www.rondexter...us_and_tele.htm

The Cinegon ought to have less light fall off in the corners than the Xenon.
The Xenon is an older design, but it's probably slightly contrastier since it has fewer elements & is set deeper in the mount giving it more of a lens shade.

I've never had a chance to compare the two for sharpness.
  • 0

#3 Nick Norton

Nick Norton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago

Posted 07 November 2008 - 04:34 PM

Does anyone else have an opinion on the topic?


Thanks-
nicholas
  • 0

#4 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:30 PM

Me and my guys have always called them Snotter-Krudnuts. It depends on what look you want and what quality you need. They don't suck. Most of the criticisms I've heard on them is that they are softish. That's not always a bad thing, necessarily. I've seen a few production photos of A Clockwork Orange and it looks like they shot some or much of it with ordinary Schneiders. Footage from my old Arri IIB looked fine. But, no one that I know would try to defend them in a comparison with any good lens, even Lomo OCT18s.

Leo and Max seem to know the most about them. Lotsa' folks here have had experience with them since so many have had their hands on a IIC, whether they'll admit it or not.
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

CineLab

Tai Audio

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Visual Products

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Glidecam

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Willys Widgets