Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Projector lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since I started this thread, I'll continue instead of starting a new one. There is still an opportunity to create a more comprehensive thread on projector lenses. When I have the urge, I search the MFL site for information. What seems to be missing, in addition to a broader representation, is any comparison of lenses. What brought me here today is a recent purchase.

I bought a projector lens off ebay that had been in a projector sale. It was identified as a Colorplan. When I received it, I saw that it is an Elmaron 2.8/100. Should I be upset? This caused me to start looking at the various Leitz projector lenses. I found Elmarit as well as Elmaron, Colorplan, of course, then there's Hektor, Dimeron, and more, I'm sure. Then Zeiss has Prokinar and Kipronar - anything more than a syllable switch?

I'd appreciate some comments about these various lenses. Comparisons too if possible. Any to avoid. Are some virtually the same as others?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
Since I started this thread, I'll continue instead of starting a new one. There is still an opportunity to create a more comprehensive thread on projector lenses. When I have the urge, I search the MFL site for information. What seems to be missing, in addition to a broader representation, is any comparison of lenses. What brought me here today is a recent purchase.

I bought a projector lens off ebay that had been in a projector sale. It was identified as a Colorplan. When I received it, I saw that it is an Elmaron 2.8/100. Should I be upset? This caused me to start looking at the various Leitz projector lenses. I found Elmarit as well as Elmaron, Colorplan, of course, then there's Hektor, Dimeron, and more, I'm sure. Then Zeiss has Prokinar and Kipronar - anything more than a syllable switch?

I'd appreciate some comments about these various lenses. Comparisons too if possible. Any to avoid. Are some virtually the same as others?

I had colorplan twice, I sold both. nice color, render. Elmaron I had 150/2,8, has nice bokeh. I believe same case with 100/2,8. If you like bokeh more, then you should be happy. (almost same with meyer diaplan bokeh).
Hektor has similar bokeh like elmaron but older coating.
Kipronar is older than prokinar, and need more effort to use it.

sample of my elmaron 150


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smile such a lovely bokeh chicken.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Suat. That picture has nice sharpness and pop. Did you not like your Colorplans?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have tested and used quite a few projection lenses, which may be seen here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When it comes to projection lenses, the Schneider/ISCO Cinelux outclasses everything else and they come in a wide range of focal lengths from 24mm to at least 120m.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
I have tested and used quite a few projection lenses, which may be seen here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums


Yes you have, thank you. Are there any that stand out to you in any ways, including value?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
kds315* wrote:
I have tested and used quite a few projection lenses, which may be seen here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums


Yes you have, thank you. Are there any that stand out to you in any ways, including value?


I seems to like the Visionars the most, counted by how often I use them. But it is very subjective.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Visionars are old designs from the late 60s, single coated, longer ones are huge and very heavy and worst of all, you won't find one in the US because they were only sold in the Communist Bloc and one or two european countries. They aren't cheap to buy and the great weight would make shipping one from Germany to the US an expensive proposition.

The Cineluxes are state of the art designs with advanced multicoatings, low, extra low and ultra low dispersion glasses, aspherical surfaces, etc. They are also very common in the US and can be found pretty cheap as the digitalisation of movie theatres has meant there has been a huge number of them becoming redundant in recent years. ISCO Ultra Stars are equally as good, slightly lower contrast overall, but perhaps a hair sharper, however they are bigger and substantially heavier then a Cinelux. The Cinelux lenses sold for about 3000USD a piece and do perform like you would expect a 3 grand lens to - stunningly, their one weakness is purple fringing on highlights, but Photoshop's RAW loader can remove that with a couple of clicks.

The Visionars do have funkier bokeh and a more characterful rendering due to being less highly corrected.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the 2.8/100 Diaplan and agree that its rendering is very close to if not exactly like Trioplan. That is why I have it - an affordable alternative. Besides that practical reason, I'll admit that taking a lens that wasn't intended or designed for photography and making it work on a camera is a pretty cool thing. We appear very clever.

Now, I'll back up some to a question I should have asked from the beginning (if I didn't). What advantage is there to using a projector lens? I might at one point have said cost, as with the Diaplan, but that isn't necessarily true for other Projector lenses, or at least anymore. To put this in a better perspective, in comparison to camera lenses, how do the projector lenses compare? Besides not having diaphragms, which we know and accept, are we gaining sharpness? Are we really? Using Ian's choice of Cinelux as the crème de la crème of projector lenses, are they as sharp or sharper than the camera lenses we recognize for that attribute?

Since I've already started using and am seeking another projector lens, this is a bit like ready-shoot-aim, but not too late for me to do a sanity check.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me it is the ability to use low f-numbers (as projector lenses are usually fast, at least some) at longer focal lengths. And many are very sharp indeed. If it is only about sharpness, then there are better alternatives.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pentacon 100mm f2.8







PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great Trioplan replacement Chris!


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:07 pm    Post subject: projection lens details unavailable? Reply with quote

For taking pictures , various makers liked to put a lens diagram in ads and on the outside of the box. In contrast, projection lenses seem to be well kept secrets.

I have mostly been using the ancient Colorplan for projection until some years ago I found a P-Planar which I like better. For taking pictures the V-nex and the "samt" tubes made by mr. Heitchen are excellent. Besides some enlarger optics, I have tried a fast Angenieux projection lens with good results.

I remain ignorant about the construction of Leitz Elmaron 50mm made in Austria as well as the more recent Elmarit projection lenses. No replies to my question on the Leica user forum some time ago.

Conclusion: as part of the history of optical technology, as well as for potential users, it would be interesting to assemble details about projection lenses.

p.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks and a Happy New year to you and yours Klaus...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Schneider publish all their projection lens diagrams and stats, here's the Cinelux f2 37.5mm which I have mounted in a helicoid in E mount and it is truly a stunning performer, one of my very favourite lenses and my go-to for low light work indoors along with the 32.5mm and 55mm versions.



PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Schneider publish all their projection lens diagrams and stats, here's the Cinelux f2 37.5mm which I have mounted in a helicoid in E mount and it is truly a stunning performer, one of my very favourite lenses and my go-to for low light work indoors along with the 32.5mm and 55mm versions.


What if you were to compare to a 2.4/35 Flek?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I own a 2.4/35 Prakticar which is a Flek and really like it. The Cinelux is superior in all regards other than the purple fringing on bright highlights, but that is a one click to remove job.

Here's my 2.4/35 Prakticar wide open on my NEX-3, sharp but not stunningly so, good macro contrast, very good microcontrast, good saturation, very smooth bokeh, I just think it's a beautifully rendering lens that makes painterly images with almost pastel tones, shame I don't shoot much in that style and hence use some of my other 35s more often:





Here's the Cinelux on NEX-3, markedly sharper, much higher micro and macro contrast, more saturated, to my tastes, equally good bokeh, 3d pop to match any of my Zeiss T* lenses:

These were taken on 11th December 2014, up here in the far north of England at that time of year there is no sunlight to speak of most days, and this was a dull, gray day, the sort that really sorts the men from the boys when it comes to optics, and to my eyes, the Cinelux shines like no other lens I have ever used (other than my other Cineluxes).

This wheelbarrow show has real 3D and is not at all flat, which amazed me as the scene is very dull and gray overall, the light was very gray and dull (2-3pm, mid December, at 56.4N is gonna be dull!)



100% crop, I don't have anything with superior sharpness and microcontrast than this and it is at f2, which I find amazing, it's surely outresolving the sensor:


Later that same day, it's getting dark, note the purple fringing around the light above the doorway, just to the left of the man's head, I didn't correct it but could have done:


I went inside the shop and snapped this of some wine bottles, it's a pretty dimly lit shop:


100% crop, look at the left side of the frame, you can see the individual printing ink dots in the letters like the Q and the A, that's as good as a very good macro lens like the Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55:



In this indoor shot you can see the purple fringing, I didn't correct it. The two pairs of scissors are hanging on the same nail and are maybe half an inch apart, so the fall off from focus to blurred is very fast and very smooth, which I think is a big part of why it has such 3D, along with the exceptional microcontrast and very linear response to all visible frequencies between 400 and 700nm, as shown in the graphs on the technical data page I posted.



Shot this in bright sunlight with the 30mm Cinelux, again on NEX-3, to my eyes, those grapes are absolutely rendered in 3d; I marvelled at this picture and 3 and a half years on, I haven't tried a lens that could match this. My Planar T* 1.7/50 and Distagon T* 2.8/35 have the Zeiss 'pop' but don't produce a 3d rendering like this does, the Cinelux also outclasses my other first rate 35s like the Zeiss Opton Biogon 2.8/35, Schneider SL-Angulon 2.8/35, Topcor RE 2.8/35, Hexanon 2.8/35, Zeiss Skoparex 3.4/35, Canon FL 2.5/35, Olympus Zuiko 2/35 and Minolta MD 2.8/28, all of which I would not hesitate to take out and shoot with, but in any marginal light situation, the Cinelux kills em all. if only they had apertures, I'd use em constantly. I actually chopped up my 90mm Cinelux and fitted the 18 bladed aperture from an old brass Ross lens then mounted it in a helicoid with a Sony A mount and use it often on my Sony a850
24mp FF, wouldn't swap it for any Zeiss or Leica 85 or 90mm.



Anyways, I am always amazed by the Cineluxes and love them deeply, I have piles of pictures, many of which were posted here but ost to the crash, so if you want to see more, I can repost.

P.S. here's your 'favourite' view with the Cinelux 37.5, just to show that even though it's f2, it can be used at infinity, or due to my focussing, probably just shy of infinity:



PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It might be less surprising how well these things perform when you see they are a current production item and cost 2,611 USD plus tax, there's multiple state of the art technologies inside - aspheric elements, low dispersion glass, high refractive index glass, nano coatings and all that jazz. Oh, and being this beautiful deep lustrous gold finish with a Canon L-like red ring, they are perhaps the ultimate in lens bling, if you like that sort of thing - who else is shooting a golden lens?

Here's my 90mm that I fitted an iris to, before I put a helicoid on the back, I think it's a thing of beauty, and it performs as good as it looks, I much prefer it to my Sonnar 2/85 or Biometar 2.8/85, and I love both of those Zeiss classics, they are on the 'never part with' list:

#1.


#2.


#3.


How it performed after I modified it and mounted it on my a850 24mp FF:

#1. The bokeh is as smooth as any lens I have used, which is how I like my bokeh, so to me, this is exceptional:


#2. I intended it mostly for portraiture, but it might be a bit too sharp for flattering ones:


#3. Now it has an iris, it can also do great duty as a general taking lens, this was closed two stops, which I think is f4 and it's critically sharp everywhere and there is no trace of any CA or purple fringing on highlights:


100% crop:


#4


100% crop:


#5


100% crop:


#6. 11th January 2015, abysmally dully and gray light conditions but look at the contrast and 3d pop:


#7. I think it makes the most beautiful, painterly images sometimes because it renders so smoothly - a sign of being corrected to a very high level. As a rule of thumb, the higher the level of aberrations present in a lenses performance, the crazier the bokeh. So when a lens produces nothing but the smoothest, creamiest rendering of anything outside the focal plane, completely blurring out even the busiest of backgrounds, then it must be remarkably free of aberrations and therefore highly corrected.


#8. It's not perfect - note the CA on the rim of the glass:


#9. . Purple fringing on the highlights, and green CA behind the plane of focus, but again, I could have corrected it, none of which is present if you close the iris even one stop, however:


#10. Look how the cup pops out in this terribly flatly lit low light scene in my kitchen:


#11. 11th January 2015 again and look how the brown people still stand out from the gray brown background, truly exceptional coatings on this lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks stefan ...now I miss that lens LOL
woodrim wrote:
Thanks, Suat. That picture has nice sharpness and pop. Did you not like your Colorplans?

I like it, but I think it doesn't has something special for me.
I like elmaron more, but when my friend asked it for him, I couldn't resist Smile

cinelux series was made in better way. it has better coating than older projector lenses. but OOF area is boring (it's subjective I know), yet I keep some cinelux/ultra MC for the reason Ian said above.
I still keep old ones, because taking pictures not always need perfect lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good summation. I found the Colorplan to be very good but nothing special too.

Older lenses are indeed where you find the crazier bokeh, with projector lenses these end up mostly being triplets or Petzvals, and the former give you that liked by some, bubble nonsense that is so overdone these days. Petzvals are quite another matter, here's a 1.6/50 Petzval projection lens: