Jump to content


Photo

I need help deciding. Should I pull the trigger?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 30 October 2017 - 06:42 PM

As some of you know, there's this zoom I've been after. Today I got pics from the seller. He says there's a bit of haze or cleaning marks. What do you think? Angenieux 25-250 for $1500.

 

 

zoom1.jpg

 

 

zoom2.jpg


Edited by Samuel Berger, 30 October 2017 - 06:53 PM.

  • 0

#2 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1137 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 30 October 2017 - 06:52 PM

I'd say the price is pretty relevant with this decision..


  • 0

#3 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 30 October 2017 - 06:54 PM

I'd say the price is pretty relevant with this decision..

 

$1500 for Angenieux 25-250.


  • 0

#4 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 30 October 2017 - 07:02 PM

So is "haze" a cleanable thing?


  • 0

#5 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1137 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 30 October 2017 - 07:19 PM

$1500 is pretty good. Not sure if haze is cleanable, but to be extra certain; ask for stills taken with the lens in question and see if you notice something which seems off with the image produced.


  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19705 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 October 2017 - 08:31 PM

The haze may only be noticeable when the camera is pointed into the sun or a hot sky.  The nicks and scratches are probably fine unless you stop down all the way at the wide-angle end of the zoom.  Truth is that you won't know until you shoot tests with the zoom.  A lot of contrast and color shifts can be corrected in digital color-correction.  I've shot before with the old Todd-AO 35 anamorphics, some of which have a strong yellow cast now, and some loss of contrast, and most of that can be corrected in digital color-correction.


  • 0

#7 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 30 October 2017 - 08:52 PM

David, thank you so much for your advice! I've ordered the lens and now I guess I just wait.

 

Macks, I saw some footage he took with it, it wasn't very long but I didn't see anything wrong, even though he used a Ursa.

 

I hate to bring this same old subject yet again but....since I'm shooting Techniscope...what is the equivalent of a 50mm?  I feel stupid asking this since my frame of reference (no pun intended) is this:

 

50mm.jpg

 

 

Edit: It looks like the explanation is here.. http://panalab.panav...f Explained.pdf


Edited by Samuel Berger, 30 October 2017 - 09:01 PM.

  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19705 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 October 2017 - 09:57 PM

Techniscope uses the same width as standard 35mm Academy/1.85 so a 50mm would have the same horizontal view as with those formats. Obviously the vertical view will be a lot narrower.

 

You'd have to define what you mean by "equivalence".  Equivalent to the view of a 50mm on an 8-perf 35mm horizontal still camera (Full-Frame 35mm / VistaVision)?  That's what most still photography articles use as the basis for discussing crop factor.

 

Equivalence in horizontal view?  Using the diagonal for determining equivalence only works when comparing the same aspect ratio.


  • 0

#9 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 31 October 2017 - 12:35 AM

Techniscope uses the same width as standard 35mm Academy/1.85 so a 50mm would have the same horizontal view as with those formats. Obviously the vertical view will be a lot narrower.

 

You'd have to define what you mean by "equivalence".  Equivalent to the view of a 50mm on an 8-perf 35mm horizontal still camera (Full-Frame 35mm / VistaVision)?  That's what most still photography articles use as the basis for discussing crop factor.

 

Equivalence in horizontal view?  Using the diagonal for determining equivalence only works when comparing the same aspect ratio.

 

I think the problem is how to phrase my question. Look at the following:

 

ride.jpg

 

For that shot they used a focal length of 100mm. But here's the thing: it was shot anamorphic.  So if I were to reproduce the shot exactly, I probably wouldn't be able to get it right with a focal length of 100mm since I only have half the height?

 

There are vast gaps in my knowledge, things I should know by now. Sigh.


  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19705 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 October 2017 - 12:50 AM

Standard anamorphic 35mm has a 2X horizontal squeeze, so on the same width negative, a 100mm anamorphic has the horizontal view of a 50mm spherical.  In other words, a 50mm spherical lens on 2-perf Techniscope would give you the same view as a 100mm anamorphic in 4-perf 35mm.  Think of an anamorphic lens as a normal lens with a wide-angle adaptor in front, except the adaptor only doubles the view in the horizontal direction.

 

The difference between the 50mm spherical 2-perf shot and the 100mm anamorphic 4-perf shot would be the depth of field, which would be more shallow on the 100mm if both formats are focused at the same distance and shooting at the same f-stop.  And of course the 4-perf version would be less grainy than the 2-perf version.

 

This advantage in terms of getting a deeper focus is something that Leone took advantage of when shooting in full sunlight (remember he was using film stock that was only 50 ASA but that would give him an f/16 in direct sunlight.)

 

From "For A Few Dollars More" (I suspect these shots were done on a 25mm, particularly the second one -- may have even been an 18mm):

 

ffdollarsmore2.jpg

 

ffdollarsmore1.jpg

 

Sometimes you can't always trust an old interview where someone said they used a "100mm", particularly when talking about 65mm productions or VistaVision, I think some cinematographers were mentally converting the numbers to the standard 35mm equivalent.  Though usually when talking about anamorphic, they used the correct numbers.


  • 0

#11 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 31 October 2017 - 01:02 AM

David, thank you so much for your patience and guidance. That is the exact answer I was looking for.

 

I do suspect that 25mm was as wide as he went before OUATITW but that's just a guess.

 

Edit: I guess you edited your post, hadn't seen the 18mm thing. Thanks


Edited by Samuel Berger, 31 October 2017 - 01:05 AM.

  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19705 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 October 2017 - 12:23 PM

Probably 25mm was the widest that Leone used since he used the 25-250mm a lot, but the 18mm existed and shooting Techniscope does tend to push you towards the shorter focal lengths because the vertical crop to 2.35 can make a shot "feel" tighter, so one tends to compensate by going wider.  However, outside one can always just back up the camera...


  • 1

#13 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 31 October 2017 - 06:08 PM

Yes, thanks David! Very, very helpful explanation. There's a lot covered in this.


  • 0

#14 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:39 PM

The haze may only be noticeable when the camera is pointed into the sun or a hot sky.  The nicks and scratches are probably fine unless you stop down all the way at the wide-angle end of the zoom.  Truth is that you won't know until you shoot tests with the zoom.

 

Well I've finally received it. There were a few scratches the original pics didn't make very clear and I don't know if they will affect image quality. I wish I had a PL-to-MFT adapter to test the zoom with the BMPCC.

What's odd about the scratches is that they are on the second lens element, not the front. I wonder how that might have happened. Front element is fine, the "haze" he mentioned is negligible.

 

So you say the scratches won't be a big issue unless I'm at 25mm with the f-stop up to 22?

 

scratches.jpg


  • 0

#15 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1578 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:18 PM

Scratches inside have to be from poor servicing, someone unskilled trying to clean inside at some point. I wouldn't worry about it showing up on the image, scratches have to be pretty deep, not just in the coatings, in order to really affect the image. But it does mean the lens has been dismantled by someone and may be out of tolerance.

If you're interested in getting the best image quality from your zoom, what I would suggest is having a good tech check the back-focus and project the lens. You definitely want the lens back-focus correctly set to within 0.01 mm to maintain focus through the zoom range, and have your camera flange depth checked to match it. This really is critical.

Projecting the lens will tell a technician if the zoom mechanics are in tolerance, if the centering of adjustable elements is still correctly set, and any other potential optical issues you might want to be aware of. It shouldn't take long to check and set back-focus and do an assessment on the test projector, but it's definitely worth doing if you're serious about image quality.
  • 0

#16 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1578 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:21 PM

If you can make friends with a rental house service tech, they might project the lens for you for a six-pack. :)
  • 0

#17 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:23 PM

Thanks as always Dom. I guess I'll send it to Bernie. I just can't afford to waste any more money at this point, in for a penny, in for pound. Might as well have it checked out.


  • 0

#18 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:25 PM

If you can make friends with a rental house service tech, they might project the lens for you for a six-pack. :)

 

Ha! I take it that it takes more than shining a flashlight through the lens. ;-)

There are some service places in China that rehouse the whole thing, but that's too much money.


  • 0

#19 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1578 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:51 PM

Ha! I take it that it takes more than shining a flashlight through the lens. ;-)
There are some service places in China that rehouse the whole thing, but that's too much money.


It mainly takes a $50,000 test projector and the experience to read the projection. :)

The main issues with old zooms, apart from dust/fungus/scratches/haze which mainly affect contrast, is wear to the mechanics or decentration of lens elements. These can cause things like focus drop offs within the zoom range, backlash causing focus shifts depending on the direction you turn the zoom ring, and softness or aberrations on one side of the image. Sometimes these aren't overly noticeable issues on the actual film, sometimes they're not too hard to fix, but I think it's always worth knowing about. Ultimately a film test is best, but it helps to know what you're testing for.
  • 0


Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Opal

The Slider

Ritter Battery

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

CineLab

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

The Slider

Technodolly

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Willys Widgets