Jump to content


Photo

35mm film lens' for 5k


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Mike BeresfordJones

Mike BeresfordJones

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Sydney

Posted 01 July 2010 - 10:50 PM

Cannon and Nikon as well as others are touting their cameras, either now or soon to be with “full 35mm” chips. Or as I understand it 5K more or less. 5D and 7D etc.
This size equates to their old 35mm film cameras and lenses. This size being larger than 35mm film as the film was moving across rather than down.
Their lenses work with this format but PL mounting a D5 for example means that not all your film lenses will cover, right?

As no one is yet making industry standard top end lenses for D5’s etc. Lieca have stepped into the frame with their “soon to be” range. I have copied from a lens review post below..

“Leica lenses have been a mainstay on my still camera for longer than I care to admit. As part of their new PL mount series, venerable lens manufacturer Leitz is now offering the Leica Summilux (f1.4) design lens models to be released with 18mm, 21mm, 25mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm and 100mm focal lengths. These weigh around 4 lbs., and will be delivered later this year to Band Pro, their exclusive worldwide distributor.

Seven more models are also on their way, bringing the set to a total of 15, ranging from a 12mm to a 150mm. All of them feature common 95mm front threads, with a common location for focus and aperture gears to facilitate faster lens changes on set. Pricing is comparable to other PL mount lens sets: the eight lens set runs approximately $178K USD.”

I am guessing these are aimed at the growing "stills camera for motion"(5D etc) market as well as the Epic/Scarlet market.

Now here is the part I cant seem to get answered. Will the Cooke S5’s or Zeiss’s new ranges or indeed any 35mm film lenses cover this “new” size of chip?
Are the back elements large enough to cover 5K.

Sorry if I am being really dull and missing something obvious here. Any help would be much appreciated.
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 02 July 2010 - 02:33 AM

As no one is yet making industry standard top end lenses for D5’s etc. Lieca have stepped into the frame with their “soon to be” range. I have copied from a lens review post below..


Hi,

The new Leica range do NOT cover FF35mm. Optically an 18mm f1.4 would not be possible in that format which explains why the wide Zeiss CP's are very slow.

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Ryan Patrick OHara

Ryan Patrick OHara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:21 AM

As no one is yet making industry standard top end lenses for D5’s etc. Lieca have stepped into the frame with their “soon to be” range. I have copied from a lens review post below..


Yes... I'm sure Lieca did not make a set of lenses that cost $178,000 for a $5,000 DSLR H264 compressed video camera. Renting these lenses for a week from otto nemenz could probably buy you two brand new 7D's. :)

Currently the compact primes are the only big choice for FF35-PL mount. They are rehoused/revamped ZF's. They are great quality lenses, especially now they focus the 'right' way and have a more proper cinema lens housing. They are relatively affordable to the DSLR market and are a very nice fit, considering they can have their mount changed for Canon or Nikon. The only down sides to the lenses is an inconsistent maximum aperture across the set, the fastest lenses not being the sharpest all the way open, and although i have not experienced the following, color matching seems to be a little off with some lenses. This list is negligible for the most part, and especially when using on a DSLR. I say this because if you're gonna make a list of issues using a DSLR, these minor imperfections of a pretty good lens set is the least of your worries.

I don't think we are going to see FF35 anytime soon. The Epic (which isn't even FF35 until future releases of the same camera) has been delayed. Arri won't abandon S35mm anytime soon, Panasonic is going 4/3rds, and Sony probably won't be the first to venture that route. If anything it will be Canon, but they have bigger things to solve and focus on versus trying to change an industry standard. And I certainly hope the change is not soon... because I fail to see it's use. Sure it allows more space for pixels meaning either higher resolution or larger photo-sites, which offer benefits, but outside of that it cannot use the great cinema lenses we have today AND the larger sensor means a change in FOV, which, in this case should decrease DoF overall. And I'm terribly sick of 35mm shallow DoF as it is. I don't want everything to look like a T/1.4 on the 5D. UGh. I'm over it. I want my T/4 back, please... now i'm not a lens technician, but i'm going to go on a limb and surmise that since the taking lens will have to project the light upon a larger sensor, to make a lens for FF35 with an aperture equivalent of a spherical 35mm lens, it will need to gather more light, yes?

Anyhow, I don't see the advantages for the time being. I'd rather see 2k/4k as the standard, and simply see an increase in latitude, sensitivity, and noise reduction. I don't need to cram more pixels onto a chip. Please.

(that turned into a rant.... I apologize. it's late.)

Edited by Ryan Patrick OHara, 02 July 2010 - 03:24 AM.

  • 0

#4 David Bowsky

David Bowsky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Oakland, CA

Posted 02 July 2010 - 04:05 AM

Optically an 18mm f1.4 would not be possible in that format which explains why the wide Zeiss CP's are very slow.


Okay, I'm fascinated by that statement because I don't know enough about optics at this point. Is there any easy way to explain why a lens can't get there, or too much for a post on a forum?
  • 0

#5 Chris D Walker

Chris D Walker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Other
  • Cornwall, United Kingdom

Posted 02 July 2010 - 05:17 AM

Okay, I'm fascinated by that statement because I don't know enough about optics at this point. Is there any easy way to explain why a lens can't get there, or too much for a post on a forum?


As I understand it:

An f-stop corresponds to the focal length of a lens. So, for an 18mm lens at f/1.4 the aperture would be 12mm (approx.) and at f/2 the aperture would be 9mm. Focal length of lens divided by aperture.

What has to be taken into account is firstly the wider lenses are typically retrofocus designs, which requires more optical elements and each absorbs a small amount of light. So, in a hypothetical lens with a maximum open aperture of f/1.4 the actual transmission could be an f/2 or greater, thereby the reason cinematographers use T-stops which do measure the actual transmission of light to a film plane.

Second, a Full-frame sensor has twice the area of Super35, meaning you would need twice the amount of light to attain the same exposure (assuming they have an identical speed rating). A Super35 lens with an F-stop of f/1.1 can realistically have a T-stop of T1.4 provided that you're using the best lenses available anywhere. A Full-frame lens with an F-stop of f/1.1 would have a T-stop of T2 provided that you have the best lenses availble anywhere.

The problem with using Full-frame lenses with extremely wide apertures is that they would be large, very heavy and impratical for production shooting re: pulling focus on any steadicam, dolly or handheld shot.

You can get there, but it's investing a lot of energy and workmanship for little in return.

Edited by Chris D Walker, 02 July 2010 - 05:19 AM.

  • 0

#6 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 July 2010 - 02:31 PM

i'm going to go on a limb and surmise that since the taking lens will have to project the light upon a larger sensor, to make a lens for FF35 with an aperture equivalent of a spherical 35mm lens, it will need to gather more light, yes?

Anyhow, I don't see the advantages for the time being. I'd rather see 2k/4k as the standard, and simply see an increase in latitude, sensitivity, and noise reduction. I don't need to cram more pixels onto a chip. Please.


A 50 mm f 1.4 lens transmits that much light regardless of the gauge / sensor size you use it on. On a larger gauge than designed to cover, the lens image would simply vignette, not go darker. Larger format cameras do not need more light on the sensor / film plane than smaller ones. If so then you would need light meters with a "sensor size/ gauge" setting.

I do agree that FF35 is a fad. Anyone who is tried to pull focus on a 5D mkII at anything over f4 for theatrical projection can tell you it is not as easy as it seems, slowing things down, needing more takes, realizing later the footage is out of focus and therefore unusable, etc.

There is a reason why 35mm motion picture frame size is the standard: is the biggest frame size that is manageable to work with from focusing issues to image quality. It is arrogant for camera manufacturers to simply discard over 100 years of practical tradition, proven frame size and push for a larger format simply because they can. Again, only those who have been trying to keep the camera focus consistent on the 5D can understand the challenge

A person whom I know traveled to Africa with a 5D and a smaller HDMI monitor to gather footage for a documentary, running gun style, but with assistants. They came back to discover that 90% of the footage was unusable due to focus issues. Had they stuck to 2/3" or even S35 frame size, they would have been OK. Being not familiar with the FF35 format and desiring to go big, they discovered point blank that bigger is not always better. ;)

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 02 July 2010 - 02:32 PM.

  • 0

#7 Ryan Patrick OHara

Ryan Patrick OHara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:54 PM

A 50 mm f 1.4 lens transmits that much light regardless of the gauge / sensor size you use it on. On a larger gauge than designed to cover, the lens image would simply vignette, not go darker. Larger format cameras do not need more light on the sensor / film plane than smaller ones. If so then you would need light meters with a "sensor size/ gauge" setting.


Hmmm maybe I needed to reword that. I meant, if you were to make a lens FOR FF35 sized sensors, and you wanted it to be the equivalent T/Stop of a spherical 35mm film lens, since it would have to have the same 'brightness' yet spread it over a larger area, it would have to collect more light.

I do know that a 35mm lens will project the same light despite sensor size. My point was manufacturing a lens for FF35 would require more light gathering, as it needs to disperse the image across a greater sensor area.

I could still be mistaken though.
  • 0

#8 Mike BeresfordJones

Mike BeresfordJones

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Sydney

Posted 02 July 2010 - 04:48 PM

Thanks all, very insightful, especially that bit about the DOF being impossible to work with. As you say 35mm at F4!! HOWEVER...speed does count when you are in low light OR at high speed frame rates which I find myself in more often these days. In so far as 35mm having been right for 100 years...well my friends "times, they are a changing" with the advent of 3D but that is another topic altogether.
  • 0

#9 Ryan Patrick OHara

Ryan Patrick OHara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 July 2010 - 05:10 PM

Thanks all, very insightful, especially that bit about the DOF being impossible to work with. As you say 35mm at F4!! HOWEVER...speed does count when you are in low light OR at high speed frame rates which I find myself in more often these days. In so far as 35mm having been right for 100 years...well my friends "times, they are a changing" with the advent of 3D but that is another topic altogether.



Hahaha, well 3D, if anything, supports our desire to shoot T/4 or higher. :)

In my opinion, 3D works best with deep stops. So the advent of 3D is one I welcome... plus as a cinema lens owner, I welcome double lens and camera package rentals! hahaha.
  • 0

#10 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 July 2010 - 06:11 PM

As I understand it:

. . . a Full-frame sensor has twice the area of Super35, meaning you would need twice the amount of light to attain the same exposure (assuming they have an identical speed rating).


Where, oh where did you read that? Do light meters have film gauge / sensor size settings to compensate exposure between 16mm, S35mm and FF35?
  • 0

#11 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 July 2010 - 06:40 PM

I do know that a 35mm lens will project the same light despite sensor size. My point was manufacturing a lens for FF35 would require more light gathering, as it needs to disperse the image across a greater sensor area.

I could still be mistaken though.


Gotcha. I am no expert either. My empirical understanding of it says no, FF35 and S35mm lenses would have pretty much the same light gathering capabilities. I cannot find any indication to the contrary online. However, for medium format and beyond, what you say seems completely reasonable, as for 65mm lenses a f2.8 is as bright as they seem to get, and for 4x5 and 8x10 f5.6 seems to be the limit as well.
  • 0

#12 Ryan Patrick OHara

Ryan Patrick OHara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 July 2010 - 07:32 PM

Where, oh where did you read that? Do light meters have film gauge / sensor size settings to compensate exposure between 16mm, S35mm and FF35?


No no, it's not something WE have to compensate for on our end. It is in the design/manufacturing stage... after which, the lens will, of course, be correctly labeled in the factory with accurate T-stop aperture markings on the barrel. And then the corresponding T-stops of a FF35 lens and 35mm lens will be the same exposure.

FF35 will simply have to gather more light than a 35mm lens at the same stop, because it has to disperse that light over a greater area.

Edited by Ryan Patrick OHara, 02 July 2010 - 07:34 PM.

  • 0

#13 Ryan Patrick OHara

Ryan Patrick OHara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 July 2010 - 07:46 PM

No no, it's not something WE have to compensate for on our end. It is in the design/manufacturing stage... after which, the lens will, of course, be correctly labeled in the factory with accurate T-stop aperture markings on the barrel. And then the corresponding T-stops of a FF35 lens and 35mm lens will be the same exposure.

FF35 will simply have to gather more light than a 35mm lens at the same stop, because it has to disperse that light over a greater area. But then again, it will have a different FoV. That might cancel out... I am not certain. We need a real lens guru.


  • 0

#14 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 July 2010 - 03:10 AM

No no, it's not something WE have to compensate for on our end. It is in the design/manufacturing stage... after which, the lens will, of course, be correctly labeled in the factory with accurate T-stop aperture markings on the barrel. And then the corresponding T-stops of a FF35 lens and 35mm lens will be the same exposure.

FF35 will simply have to gather more light than a 35mm lens at the same stop, because it has to disperse that light over a greater area.


You can use FF 35mm lenses on a 16mm camera and the amount of light at the film plane doesn't change at a particular stop. The F stop is relationship between the the focal length and diameter of the entrance pupil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

Larger sensor/format cameras use longer focal lengths for the same angles of view than smaller ones, rather than spreading out light.

You get the effect you describe when using a range extender, which spreads the image from a lens over a larger area. This was used to create a 35mm 20 to 1 zoom using a 16mm zoom, but it lost 2 stops in the process.
  • 0


Tai Audio

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Glidecam

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Opal

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Metropolis Post