Jump to content


Photo

New lenses on the ACL


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 30 May 2016 - 12:41 AM

Hi everyone,

Like a few on this forum I am a student filmmaker, trying to get the most for the least amount of money as always. Luckily the ACL-mount leaves some wiggle room when it comes to the lenses you can buy.

So I hav decided to go with Nikon F-mount, but I want to fit modern lenses. Now I have found a company that converts the Sigma 18-35 F 1.8 (which has gotten good reviews) to a fully manual lens, with aperture control. But that only gets me so far.

The 18mm lens would be an effective 35-36 since the S16 crop so I am trying to cover the rest of the focal lengths.

Now I have an idea, purchasing a Tokina 11-20 F2.8 (T3) and use that. But since this is a modern DX lens, it will not allow for altering the aperture. Now the solution here that I am thinking is just getting a very good variable ND and shooting at 2.8 constantly for wide shots. There should not be too much focus pulling anyways.

But maybe someone here could shine some more light on my problem.

I really really love the 18-35 though, hence I was pretty quick choosing the Nikon mount...

C


  • 0




#2 rob spence

rob spence
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Director
  • Beaconsfield

Posted 30 May 2016 - 04:40 AM

Having a lens that only shoots wide open is too limiting, it will make your shooting a nightmare Why not try to find a proper S16 zoom...some of the zeiss S16  zooms come up for quite reasonable sums.


  • 0

#3 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1628 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 30 May 2016 - 04:46 AM

Not to mention most lenses shot wide open are soft and have artifacts in the corners.


  • 0

#4 rob spence

rob spence
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Director
  • Beaconsfield

Posted 30 May 2016 - 04:47 AM

This could be useful for you for example

 

 

http://www.ebay.co.u...EkAAOSwZ1lWeJOT


  • 0

#5 Volker Bendt

Volker Bendt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Other
  • Germany

Posted 30 May 2016 - 07:35 AM

Hi Carl,

before buying new stuff, why don't you just start with your Angenieux 9,5-57mm, get used to it,

and then find out your needs beyond this lens. I use my Nikkor lenses for telephoto only, too limited on the wide side.

Have fun,

Volker


  • 0

#6 Heikki Repo

Heikki Repo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 360 posts
  • Director
  • Finland

Posted 30 May 2016 - 07:41 AM

Angenieux 9.5-57mm apparently pretty much covers super16 cropped to 2.35:
http://www.vintagele...nieux-9-5-57mm/
  • 0

#7 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 May 2016 - 12:23 PM

The feature I shot last year, I shot mostly on a Cooke 20-100 and an Optar 9.5 as my wide angle lens. It worked out perfect. Wide open, we didn't have softness or any other artifacts on the Cooke lens.
  • 0

#8 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 30 May 2016 - 01:00 PM

Hi Carl,
before buying new stuff, why don't you just start with your Angenieux 9,5-57mm, get used to it,
and then find out your needs beyond this lens. I use my Nikkor lenses for telephoto only, too limited on the wide side.
Have fun,
Volker


Hi Volker,

I am not planning skip using the 9-57. It is more of a future plans. Since money is tight investments should be planned like 8 months ahead 😂

C
  • 0

#9 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 30 May 2016 - 01:09 PM

The feature I shot last year, I shot mostly on a Cooke 20-100 and an Optar 9.5 as my wide angle lens. It worked out perfect. Wide open, we didn't have softness or any other artifacts on the Cooke lens.


I found someone that modifies the Tokina 11-20 to full manual as well.

It is T3.1 but still a decent lens. So I might go for that.

C
  • 0

#10 rob spence

rob spence
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Director
  • Beaconsfield

Posted 30 May 2016 - 01:32 PM

Surely modifying lenses costs a fortune?


  • 0

#11 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 30 May 2016 - 01:36 PM

Surely modifying lenses costs a fortune?


Not as much as a PL zoom.

C
  • 0

#12 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1534 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 30 May 2016 - 04:43 PM

look for some 1 inch video zooms by Canon or TAmron. Older huge manual zoom lenses that cover s16. I use a Canon TV zoom 15-150 ƒ2.8.


  • 0

#13 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 May 2016 - 07:27 PM

Aperture controls a lot more than just exposure.  It directly correlates to the depth of field and general look of your image.  Locking it in place is really tying your hand behind your back.

 

I agree that it would be much smarter to get a decent 16mm zoom rather than trying to convert some stills lenses for use with a 16mm camera.  If you were shooting Super-16 then your choices would be more limited, but in regular 16mm there is a great variety of choices.  I suggest you look into a Zeiss 10-100 zoom or try to find a good Angenieux 9.5-57 HEC.  Right tool for the right job.


  • 0

#14 JB Earl

JB Earl
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Other
  • NE PA USA

Posted 25 August 2016 - 03:43 PM

Howabout Rokinon/Samyang lenses in Nikon mount?  You can get 10mm, 16mm, 24mm etc , manual aperture, inexpensive, and will certainly cover Super 16.   But Mitch is right, a proper cine zoom will be better for a lot of reasons


  • 0

#15 Heikki Repo

Heikki Repo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 360 posts
  • Director
  • Finland

Posted 25 August 2016 - 05:32 PM

The biggest problem I see with these lenses in addition to mechanical issues is that they are so slow. It's not a problem for digital cinema cameras with native asa of 800 but with 16mm film faster lenses certainly defend their place.

 

The last piece I was shooting involved some low light scenes in an old industrial building during daytime. We didn't have much time or budget for lighting, so most of the stuff was a combination of natural light and one HMI. We shot on 500T without filters. Because of this f2.8 was luxury, most of the time the aperture was between f2 and f2.8, at times even between f1.3 and f2.

 

For that project we used rented Optar Illuminas (PL), quite nice quality though soft wide open.

 

After that experience I find it difficult to even think about slower lenses. Which is a good thing, as it keeps me from buying any lenses. I already own a mixed set of Kern Switars (10mm and 16mm) and Contax Zeiss (28mm and 50mm) and three out of those four have apertures larger than f2. Switars aren't the most optimal lenses for smooth focusing during a take, but they are very lightweight, quite sharp and definitely faster than Rokinons, cine zooms and many cheaper modern wider end lenses.


Edited by Heikki Repo, 25 August 2016 - 05:33 PM.

  • 0

#16 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 25 August 2016 - 06:35 PM

The biggest problem I see with these lenses in addition to mechanical issues is that they are so slow. It's not a problem for digital cinema cameras with native asa of 800 but with 16mm film faster lenses certainly defend their place.

 

The last piece I was shooting involved some low light scenes in an old industrial building during daytime. We didn't have much time or budget for lighting, so most of the stuff was a combination of natural light and one HMI. We shot on 500T without filters. Because of this f2.8 was luxury, most of the time the aperture was between f2 and f2.8, at times even between f1.3 and f2.

 

For that project we used rented Optar Illuminas (PL), quite nice quality though soft wide open.

 

After that experience I find it difficult to even think about slower lenses. Which is a good thing, as it keeps me from buying any lenses. I already own a mixed set of Kern Switars (10mm and 16mm) and Contax Zeiss (28mm and 50mm) and three out of those four have apertures larger than f2. Switars aren't the most optimal lenses for smooth focusing during a take, but they are very lightweight, quite sharp and definitely faster than Rokinons, cine zooms and many cheaper modern wider end lenses.

 

So I am trying to figure out if there is anyone that has shoot on this that I can look at.

I have a really good lens maker that could probably convert 2 switars for a good price to make them cine-worthy (PL-mount and bigger barrel). I am just curious how the sharpness turn out and afraid of differention in color.

C


  • 0

#17 JB Earl

JB Earl
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Other
  • NE PA USA

Posted 25 August 2016 - 07:58 PM

I think Switars are all C mount, so there would be no way to use them on PL mount as the flange distance is too short.  

They would fit directly on the ACL though.  You could try a large diameter focus gear to help with focus pulls.

 

 

 I too would like to see how they perform wide open or around T2


Edited by JB Earl, 25 August 2016 - 08:01 PM.

  • 0

#18 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 25 August 2016 - 08:03 PM

I think Switars are all C mount, so there would be no way to use them on PL mount as the flange distance is too short.  

They would fit directly on the ACL though.  You could try a large diameter focus gear to help with focus pulls.

 

 

 I too would like to see how they perform wide open or around T2

 

Then maybe my lens maker is lying, but he actually confirmed there is no issue for him to convert the C-mount to a PL. He actually manufactures new housing for the lens and has been converting lenses since mid-70s so maybe he the new housing can fit the distance...

C


  • 0

#19 JB Earl

JB Earl
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Other
  • NE PA USA

Posted 25 August 2016 - 08:21 PM

I doubt he's lying.  I'm surmising here:  If he is rehousing perhaps he is recessing the lens elements deeply inside the PL mount ( if they are small enough in diameter)  I imagine it would be an expensive proposition.  

 

Any optical experts here that can weigh in?


Edited by JB Earl, 25 August 2016 - 08:22 PM.

  • 0

#20 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 25 August 2016 - 09:36 PM

I doubt he's lying.  I'm surmising here:  If he is rehousing perhaps he is recessing the lens elements deeply inside the PL mount ( if they are small enough in diameter)  I imagine it would be an expensive proposition.  

 

Any optical experts here that can weigh in?

 

Well it isn't cheap. But for a fully funtional F1.6 lens it is a good deal, 1500 dollars in fact.

C


  • 0


Abel Cine

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Pro 8mm

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Glidecam

Zylight

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Quantum Music Works

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Quantum Music Works

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Zylight

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Pro 8mm