View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
kymarto
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 406 Location: Portland, OR and Milan, Italy
|
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:09 am Post subject: Fun page comparing 17 classic 25mm C mount lenses |
|
|
kymarto wrote:
Hi folks,
After taking stock, I realized I have 17 C mount cine lenses all around 25mm, so I decided to do a gallery comparing their rendering. Have a look here if interested
https://toby-marshall.com/galleries/bokeh-tales/a-comparison-of-the-bokeh-and-rendering-of-17-25mm-c-mount-16mm-cine-lenses/
Toby
[corrected Link Nov 2020] _________________ Vintage lens aficionado |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kds315*
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16619 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Thanks, great ressource this is Toby!! _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
chhayanat
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 11 Apr 2016 Posts: 244 Location: The Cow Belt
|
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:09 pm Post subject: Re: Fun page comparing 17 classic 25mm C mount lenses |
|
|
chhayanat wrote:
![Like 1](images/smiles/like-1.gif) _________________ Chhayanat
Pentax-M 28/2.8; 35/2; 50/1.4; 100/2.8; 80-200/4.5; 400/5.6.
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4; Pancolar 50/1.8 (black).
Film cameras:
Zeiss Ikon Volta 135/6.3 Sonnar 9cm x 12 cm plate/sheet film;
Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 521 75/3.5 Novar (post-War) 6cm x 4.5cm
Pentax MX x 2 (black);
Digital bodies:
Pentax K200D;
Samsung GX-20; |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
paulhofseth
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 05 Mar 2011 Posts: 571 Location: Norway
Expire: 2018-06-28
|
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
paulhofseth wrote:
Absolutely interesting, but the remarks on Kerns RX lens should take into account that their distance to the film plane is different from the ordinary ones, so the ordinary c-mount adapters will give the wrong focus. The extra correction in their design to compensate for the paillard reflex prism should in principle make them better suited to the thick sensor-glass of the MFT cameras.
p. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kymarto
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 406 Location: Portland, OR and Milan, Italy
|
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kymarto wrote:
paulhofseth wrote: |
Absolutely interesting, but the remarks on Kerns RX lens should take into account that their distance to the film plane is different from the ordinary ones, so the ordinary c-mount adapters will give the wrong focus. The extra correction in their design to compensate for the paillard reflex prism should in principle make them better suited to the thick sensor-glass of the MFT cameras.
p. |
Thanks for that! I will include that information; however this gentleman seems to differ with you on the point of backfocus. He says:
"Back Focus
The first thing to clarify is that the back-focus distance setting of RX and non-RX lenses is the same. In other words, both are designed to form an image 17.52mm behind the mount flange, which is the C-mount standard. You cannot simply "re-collimate" or "adjust the back-focus" of an RX lens to make it non-RX or vice versa.
Some confusion exists because the prism in a reflex Bolex acts to extend the light rays further back, so the "physical" distance between the mount and the film plane in a reflex H16 is actually 20.76mm, but the simple fact is that any C-mount lens fitted to a reflex Bolex will have its back focus distance extended back to this point."
Or did I misunderstand your point about getting wrong focus with normal C mount adapters? Mine, anyway,, allows focus past infinity with all my lenses, which is probably a deliberate choice by the manufacturer - acknowledging that people will be focusing via the sensor rather than distance scale - to make sure that people can achieve infinity focus. Certainly better to lose a bit of close focus rather than not being able to focus at infinity.
http://cinetinker.blogspot.com/2014/12/rx-vs-non-rx-lenses.html _________________ Vintage lens aficionado |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
paulhofseth
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 05 Mar 2011 Posts: 571 Location: Norway
Expire: 2018-06-28
|
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
paulhofseth wrote:
sorry I was wrong about back focus difference, but maintain that thicker sensor glass might be favourable.
Paillards own presentation of their c-mount lenses for 16mm RX states 17,52mm on page 11 of their brochure me 111/668mm and ME116/26 ad RX9 clearly states a film plane to lens seat distance of o,690 inches. "like the C mount", but underlines like the 16mm brochure does, that they can only be mounted on the RX models, but that lenses longer than 50mm can be freely interchanged.
p. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
blotafton
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1607 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
@kymarto I get to a page with 404 page not found. Is the gallery taken down? |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kymarto
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 406 Location: Portland, OR and Milan, Italy
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
kymarto wrote:
blotafton wrote: |
@kymarto I get to a page with 404 page not found. Is the gallery taken d
down? |
Sorry I didn't see this. Here is the working link
https://toby-marshall.com/galleries/bokeh-tales/a-comparison-of-the-bokeh-and-rendering-of-17-25mm-c-mount-16mm-cine-lenses/ _________________ Vintage lens aficionado |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|