Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Any inexpensive lenses that give Panavision UltraSpeed look?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:05 pm    Post subject: Any inexpensive lenses that give Panavision UltraSpeed look? Reply with quote
Here's an article by Shane Hurlbut that mentions some of the characteristics of these lenses:

Quote:
Ultimately, Bill Paxton and I settled on the Panavision Zeiss Ultra Speed Primes. They had a nice yellow feel. They had a lower contrast, no up-to-date lens coating that flared nicely. When you took them down to an f-stop of a 2.0, the lens started to fall apart. This was magic; it was the Kodachrome feel of 1939, which is what we were going for.


https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/05/how-lenses-assist-in-storytelling/

And here is some test footage John Brawley made with them- now referred to as the PVintage.

https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/vintage-lenses/

Just wondering if folks on here can come up with some still lenses that provide a similar look.

Last edited by William35 on Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:47 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very interesting, and it applies to still photography as well.

Quote:
“How to Choose Glass”

This is all subjective and what is beautiful about filmmaking. Everyone has a different viewpoint, the reason films strike a chord with one person and not with another. But as a cinematographer, working with the director, production designer, editor, and costume designer, the visual lens choice will become very apparent.


If we want "a look" we choose our glass.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:35 am    Post subject: Re: Any inexpensive lenses that give Panavision UltraSpeed l Reply with quote
William35 wrote:
Here's an article by Shane Hurlbut that mentions some of the characteristics of these lenses:

Quote:
Ultimately, Bill Paxton and I settled on the Panavision Zeiss Ultra Speed Primes. They had a nice yellow feel. They had a lower contrast, no up-to-date lens coating that flared nicely. When you took them down to an f-stop of a 2.0, the lens started to fall apart. This was magic; it was the Kodachrome feel of 1939, which is what we were going for.


https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/05/how-lenses-assist-in-storytelling/

And here is some test footage John Brawley made with them- now referred to as the PVintage.

https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/vintage-lenses/

Just wondering if folks on here can come up with some still lenses that provide a similar look.


Would we know that, we'd sell them (Renamed of course...) on the cinbe forums and make bukuhs of $$$$$ - and would certainly keep that knowledge. Laughing Laughing Laughing

But thanks for the great business idea!! Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Superspeed, yellow, iffy coating.

Some of the large aperture Komuras ?
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Sanky%C5%8D_K%C5%8Dki

Superspeed, very yellow, better coatings -
The radioactive 50/1.4 Takumars ?

etc.

Its quite tough to evaluate still camera lenses by cine standards.
You may have to borrow and try a few. Luckily nearly all should be much cheaper to try; buy and resell and you should get your money back most of the time, real costs will be postage and transaction charges.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like what I'm seeing out of the Pentacon 135 and 50 1.8. This is from a review of the 50mm f1.8 at SLRLensReview. "The final note in the field tests is on color rendering. Color palette produced by the lens seemed a little bit warm, with some excess of yellow."
http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/misc/pentacon/533-pentacon-auto-50mm-f18-mc-m42-lens-review?showall=&start=1


PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Welcome William35!

How about M39 f1.5/58mm Zeiss Sonnar from 1940s?


PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the welcome! You mean the 50mm 1.5? I just looked it up and it's gorgeous. The Jupiter 3 looks like a cheaper Russian version. The bokeh is stunning with this lens. Very impressed.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Can anyone think of other lenses of different focal lengths that are similar to the Jupiter 3/Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 and might pair well with it? Thank you for that suggestion visualopins.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think it's largely bunk that cinematographers chose different lenses very often, given that for 60 or so years, 95% of Hollywood studio movies used Cooke lenses. These were extremely expensive and only the studios could afford to own them. Independent filmmakers had to rent their equipment, and it was the high cost of this that lead to other lenses of lesser cost being use such as Scorcese using the Zeiss Distagon for Taxi Driver. But let's be honest, if the budget had been big enough to use Cookes then that Distagon would never have been considered.

Modern post processing software has changed everything, you can achieve the 'look' you want in post, even down to rendering anamorphic-style flares.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
William35 wrote:
Can anyone think of other lenses of different focal lengths that are similar to the Jupiter 3/Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 and might pair well with it? Thank you for that suggestion visualopins.


Similar in what way? Other Sonnars like the 2/85 and 4/135 are somewhat similar in the smoothness of their rendering. Are we talking coated or uncoated? There is quite a difference between coated and uncoated Sonnar 1.5/50s


PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I think it's largely bunk that cinematographers chose different lenses very often, given that for 60 or so years, 95% of Hollywood studio movies used Cooke lenses.


Hi.

Can you link to some kind of evidence to back this claim up ? Do you mean the last 60 years or the first 60 years of cinema...


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

These were extremely expensive and only the studios could afford to own them. Independent filmmakers had to rent their equipment,


Yeah it's still the same today. A set of Cooke S5is cost about 250K. A set of Cooke anamorphic primes are pushing 400K....

Zeiss Maste Primes are similar.

Leica Summilux cine primes are the same....

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

and it was the high cost of this that lead to other lenses of lesser cost being use such as Scorcese using the Zeiss Distagon for Taxi Driver. But let's be honest, if the budget had been big enough to use Cookes then that Distagon would never have been considered.


Or they were maybe faster and smaller and lighter or ...had a different look ?

You can see some direct tests here if you like...

https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/vintage-lenses/

There's also a Vimeo link at the bottom where you can see all the lenses I discussed shooting in the same conditions. There are certainly differences...


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Modern post processing software has changed everything, you can achieve the 'look' you want in post, even down to rendering anamorphic-style flares.


It's the old photoshop argument. You can create anything in PS right ?

I like vintage lenses because they give me surprising and beautiful imperfections that interact in the real world in a way that you can never match and replicate in post.

JB

John Brawley
Cinematographer
Sydney Australia


PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Welcome JohnBrawley!


PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:23 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
bernhardas wrote:
Hi John,

Also Welcome from me.

My doormat also reads "vivre la difference". Very Happy

The cooke lenses have really nasty flare in your example video.


One mans bad is another man's good...

You know that anamorphic lenses flare like this and these particular Cooke lenses are prized for their lens flares by cinematographers ?

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6890554/all-the-lens-flares-from-jj-abrams-star-trek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format


JB


PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:58 am    Post subject: Re: Any inexpensive lenses that give Panavision UltraSpeed l Reply with quote
William35 wrote:
Here's an article by Shane Hurlbut that mentions some of the characteristics of these lenses:

Quote:
Ultimately, Bill Paxton and I settled on the Panavision Zeiss Ultra Speed Primes...

Would you trust Bill Paxton Wink ?


PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
William35 wrote:
Can anyone think of other lenses of different focal lengths that are similar to the Jupiter 3/Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 and might pair well with it? Thank you for that suggestion visualopins.


sure.. the Jupiter 9 (2/85) M39 version


PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Flare in motion pictures is like bokeh in stills shooting - vastly over-used in the modern age. Just look at the last Star Trek movie, it was ruined by the constant use of over-the-top flares. It all began with Babylon 5 - Newtek put a lens flare rendering feature into Lightwave and the creators of Babylon 5 put it to good use. But that was the stone age in terms of CGI and 20 years later there are so many other rendering tools available.

Sure, lens flare and bokeh have their place, a classic example being the trippy graveyard sequence in Easy Rider. But imagine if they'd shot the whole movie that way, it would be unwatchably cheesy.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting subject.

I think I'll try my radio active Canon FD 35/2 with some 85B filtered CineStill 800T and experiment with ratings.

Thanks

Texsport
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1