View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mr_tibbs2004
Joined: 23 Jul 2021 Posts: 141 Location: United States
|
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2022 2:43 am Post subject: Cine lenses better for FF or APS-C? |
|
|
mr_tibbs2004 wrote:
Today on a whim I bought a camera lot with a Minolta Auto Wide (cool camera!) and some Kodak cine lenses. I ended up with a Kodak Anastigmat 63mm f2.7 and a Anastigmat 15mm f2.7, both "Lumenized". If my research is to be believed this puts these lenses in the 1947 to 1948 time frame. That's pretty cool!
So, in researching adapters for these lenses I find myself in a pickle, FF or APS-C sensor? I own both a Sony A7ii that is my latest toy for vintage FF lenses (in fact, I do not own an AF lens for this camera), and a Fuji XT-1 that I still own and love. After actually holding these Kodak cine lenses I can see just how small format these lenses are. I originally intended to use these lenses on the Sony, but now I'm wondering if the smaller sensor of the Fuji would be better? Any help here? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kathala
Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 143
|
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2022 6:13 am Post subject: Re: Cine lenses better for FF or APS-C? |
|
|
kathala wrote:
[quote="mr_tibbs2004"]Today on a whim I bought a camera lot with a Minolta Auto Wide (cool camera!) and some Kodak cine lenses. I ended up with a Kodak Anastigmat 63mm f2.7 and a Anastigmat 15mm f2.7, both "Lumenized". If my research is to be believed this puts these lenses in the 1947 to 1948 time frame. That's pretty cool!
So, in researching adapters for these lenses I find myself in a pickle, FF or APS-C sensor? I own both a Sony A7ii that is my latest toy for vintage FF lenses (in fact, I do not own an AF lens for this camera), and a Fuji XT-1 that I still own and love. After actually holding these Kodak cine lenses I can see just how small format these lenses are. I originally intended to use these lenses on the Sony, but now I'm wondering if the smaller sensor of the Fuji would be better? Any help here?[/quote]
Both of them are for 16 mm film, not 35 mm film/APS.
Even the 63 mm barely covers m43 [url]https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotocrit/albums/72157659585016838/[/url]
Hold them in front of each camera to determine their coverage and see whether pursuing [i]any [/i]adaptation is worthwhile to you.
...and whilst you're at it, I'm sure we'd all appreciate a little sample photo or two:) I know I would[/url] _________________ Photography Reference Tables:
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aJ5F8XM6t5AK4bydthcDoiwhsh5CUx3N
My Art and Books: ChristianSchnalzger.de
My Exploration of Panoramic Photographic Storytelling:
flickr.com/photos/hach_und_ueberhaupt/
The better you look, the more you see (B. E. Ellis) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 921 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2022 5:00 pm Post subject: Re: Cine lenses better for FF or APS-C? |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
kathala wrote: |
Both of them are for 16 mm film, not 35 mm film/APS.
Even the 63 mm barely covers m43 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotocrit/albums/72157659585016838/)
Hold them in front of each camera to determine their coverage and see whether pursuing any adaptation is worthwhile to you.
...and whilst you're at it, I'm sure we'd all appreciate a little sample photo or two:) I know I would |
Many of the wider cine lenses are for 8mm film. So coverage will be minimal.
In my experience c-mount lenses 35mm and longer will usual cover MFT (but not with much spare) most below that start to show vignetting even on MFT. The other cine lenses I've tried have even smaller image circles but at least the sensor on my Pentax Q gets coverd. Often these lenses are rather soft & unimpressive on digital sensors, but they are fun to play with |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 11097 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2022 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
"Cine" lens...LOL! Be specific by specifying camera format...
Now a Cine lens for 35mm movie camera will definitely cover FF sensor... _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2022 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
"Cine" lens...LOL! Be specific by specifying camera format...
Now a Cine lens for 35mm movie camera will definitely cover FF sensor... |
Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that 35mm cine camera is moving the film with the perforations on the vertical, so the actual format is quite a bit less than that of a 35mm still camera. That is, instead of the image length being 36mm, it's 24mm.
I know that "D" mount lenses are for 8mm cameras and "C" mount lenses are for 16mm cameras, but I don't know what the lenses are called for 35mm cine cameras. "B" mount?
Anyway, to the topic, I've some experience with a couple of C-mount lenses I own. They're Kern Paillard. I have one in front of me, it's a 25mm f/1.4 Switar, made for the Bolex REX Reflex 16mm cameras.
I bought a 16mm adapter for my APS-C Sony NEX-7. The above Switar has an interesting "look" -- very warm. But the vignetting is rather severe. The corners are completely gone. I'd imagine that with a FF camera, a 16mm lens would provide an almost circular image.
However, I need to mention one more thing and that is that this lens achieves infinity focus at about 2 feet, so obviously my adapter has issues. And perhaps with an adapter that achieves actual infinity focus, the vignetting won't be as severe.
One more thing about cine lenses that bears mentioning, especially if you're into really high magnification photography. I picked up a 1/2" Wollensak "D" mount (i.e., 8mm cine) lens somewhere and, recalling that wide angle lenses make very good macro lenses when reversed, I got the idea for an experiment. I decided I would mount the 1/2" Wollensask backwards to the front of my Tamron 90mm macro. To do this, I got an old 49mm lens cap, drilled a 1/2" hole in the center, and glued that Wollensak onto the cap. Then I went outside to take pix with the setup, see how it would do.
I was amazed. The magnification was incredible, and most surprising of all, the images weren't vignetting at all on my APS-C camera. So, if you've got a short focal length D-mount lens laying around and a decent macro lens, you might want to give this little experiment a try for yourself. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/
Last edited by cooltouch on Thu Aug 25, 2022 11:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mr_tibbs2004
Joined: 23 Jul 2021 Posts: 141 Location: United States
|
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mr_tibbs2004 wrote:
Thanks to all for the input! I knew I was venturing into uncharted for me when I purchased these lenses, but I was looking for something with character! After seeing the physical size of the lenses I started to wonder if they would work on the FF sensor. I didn't have a ton of hope for the 15mm, but thought the 63mm might be fun!
I'll try them on the Fuji first to see if they cover that sensor and go from there. Who knows, they might be fantastic fun! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 921 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2022 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
visualopsins wrote: |
"Cine" lens...LOL! Be specific by specifying camera format...
Now a Cine lens for 35mm movie camera will definitely cover FF sensor... |
Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that 35mm cine camera is moving the film with the perforations on the vertical, so the actual format is quite a bit less than that of a 35mm still camera. That is, instead of the image length being 36mm, it's 24mm.
I know that "D" mount lenses are for 8mm cameras and "C" mount lenses are for 16mm cameras, but I don't know what the lenses are called for 35mm cine cameras. "B" mount?
Anyway, to the topic, I've some experience with a couple of C-mount lenses I own. They're Kern Paikkard. I have one in front of me, it's a 25mm f/1.4 Switar, made for the Bolex REX Reflex 16mm cameras.
I bought a 16mm adapter for my APS-C Sony NEX-7. The above Switar has an interesting "look" -- very warm. But the vignetting is rather severe. The corners are completely gone. I'd imagine that with a FF camera, a 16mm lens would provide an almost circular image.
However, I need to mention one more thing and that is that this lens achieves infinity focus at about 2 feet, so obviously my adapter has issues. And perhaps with an adapter that achieves actual infinity focus, the vignetting won't be as severe.
One more thing about cine lenses that bears mentioning, especially if you're into really high magnification photography. I picked up a 1/2" Wollensak "D" mount (i.e., 8mm cine) lens somewhere and, recalling that wide angle lenses make very good macro lenses when reversed, I got the idea for an experiment. I decided I would mount the 1/2" Wollensask backwards to the front of my Tamron 90mm macro. To do this, I got an old 49mm lens cap, drilled a 1/2" hole in the center, and glued that Wollensak onto the cap. Then I went outside to take pix with the setup, see how it would do.
I was amazed. The magnification was incredible, and most surprising of all, the images weren't vignetting at all on my APS-C camera. So, if you've got a short focal length D-mount lens laying around and a decent macro lens, you might want to give this little experiment a try for yourself. |
There are quite a range of image sizes for each of the cine film formats (at least half a dozen for 35mm IIRC) but most are smaller than the FF stils size. I think most 35mm cine lenses are probably in on of the Arri mounts or Sony FZ, I know very little about these
c-mount is used for a wide variety of sizes beyond 16mm film lots of CCTV stuff (from 1/3" to 4/3") and some 8mm. I'm pretty sure some I've picked up were the latter.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance for more info on all these.
I like the idea of using cine lenses as diopters for macro. It's probably the best way to get something from cs mount lenses but isn't the working distance an issue? I've got that 1/2" Wollensask (it can be used normally on the Pentax Q) so will have to give that a try |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2022 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
DConvert wrote: |
I like the idea of using cine lenses as diopters for macro. It's probably the best way to get something from cs mount lenses but isn't the working distance an issue? I've got that 1/2" Wollensask (it can be used normally on the Pentax Q) so will have to give that a try |
To be honest, it was several years ago when I conducted this experiment and I've used that Wollensak in its current configuration only a couple of times since. But as I recall, yes, the working distance is quite close, but really no more than you might encounter with a 50mm lens and bellows attachment. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AlixColvin
Joined: 07 Jun 2022 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AlixColvin wrote:
Thanks for the idea. I will surely try this out. But before that I want to visit https://www.topessaywriting.org/samples/overpopulation here because I want to complete my essay assignments and on that website, I can read essay samples for free. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rloewy
Joined: 31 Jul 2023 Posts: 17 Location: United States
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2023 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rloewy wrote:
My experience with Kodak S mount cine lenses is on MFT cameras - and even on these, not all lenses cover the entire sensor.
For example, the Kodak Cine Ektar 15mm 2.5 will not, I suspect your Anastigmat 15mm f2.7 will likely be the same, not even MFT sensor coverage.
The Kodak Cine Ektar 25mm 1.4 is just a bit smaller than the MFT sensor. I would imagine the 1.9 is the same, but I do not have any experience with it. FWIW, the 25mm 1.4 was Kodak's most expensive Cine lens - and it shows, the resolution and sharpness is rather astonishing for it's age.
The 63mm 2.7 Anastigmat is my favorite Kodak Cine lens (so far), it covers MFT fine with a little bit of vignette. It is quite frankly, a lens that is always a joy to use. I always get lovely results from it.
I also own the 102mm 2.7 lens, it will also cover the MFT sensor.
FWIW, my other 16mm cine lens is a Kern Pailard Pizar 26mm 1.9 (c mount) - it will not cover the
I have heard, but never confirmed, that the Wollensak Velostigmat 25mm 1.5 covers an APS-C sensor and I would imagine the 1.9 would do the same - but as I said, no experience with it.
Here is a sample of the 63mm 2.7 wide open on an Olympus E-PL7 MFT camera:
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
rloewy
Joined: 31 Jul 2023 Posts: 17 Location: United States
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2023 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rloewy wrote:
Edit - I have recently acquired a copy of the Kodak Cine Anastigmat 50mm 1.6 - this one does not vignette at all on an MFT sensor. It does swirl a lot however.
Sample image on an Olympus E-PL7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kathala
Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 143
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kathala wrote:
rloewy wrote: |
Edit - I have recently acquired a copy of the Kodak Cine Anastigmat 50mm 1.6 - this one does not vignette at all on an MFT sensor. It does swirl a lot however.
|
I love this look! Great sharpness, even greater swirl. And so much field curvature that the drummer is in focus, despite apparently sitting much closer to the camera than the couple in the centre. _________________ Photography Reference Tables:
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aJ5F8XM6t5AK4bydthcDoiwhsh5CUx3N
My Art and Books: ChristianSchnalzger.de
My Exploration of Panoramic Photographic Storytelling:
flickr.com/photos/hach_und_ueberhaupt/
The better you look, the more you see (B. E. Ellis) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4745 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
C mount lenses have a 1 inch diameter and a 32tpi thread. D mount lenses are smaller. This should help identify which is which.
C mount will cover MFT, possibly with some vignetting on wides. D mounts have a tiny image circle.
Adaptors are most likely not available for D mount lenses as the flange focus distance is too short for MFT cameras.
C mounts, though they have the same threads, might have different FFDs. Though normal 16mm lenses use the same 17.523mm length. CS lenses, with the same thread will only manage macro as they have a 12.526 mount. _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4713 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
1 inch is usually the sweet spot regarding coverage of C-mount lenses to MFT. Any wider gets mechanical vignetting... _________________ Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16667 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2023 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Nordentro wrote: |
1 inch is usually the sweet spot regarding coverage of C-mount lenses to MFT. Any wider gets mechanical vignetting... |
Yep indeed, this translates often to 25mm focal length (personal experience). _________________ 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 |
|
|
arri
Joined: 13 Jul 2014 Posts: 95
|
Posted: Sun May 12, 2024 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
arri wrote:
Only longer foci are usable with FF cameras. I just bought a Kern, Aarau Macro Switar 150mm f/3.3
This lens can be use with full size sensors but the C-Mount socket has to be change. I want to give the lens a M42 or T2 mount socket.
The Macro Yvar is not a tele lens that´s why it is usable with the larger format. A Schneider Cine Tele Xenar 150mm f/4 can be us with APSc cams when the frame reducing ring in the rear is removed.
The kind of the lens design is important for the covered image circle. All lenses are made for a film size and when you use it for a larger format you will lost quality, this is a fact. Since the digital cameras are on the market the photgraphers find that the swirls and muddy backgrounds are beautiful. But this kind of background is a sign of the usage of a too lage format.
A Dallmeyer Kinematograph 2" f/1.9 covers FF but only a circle of ~20mm has a good quality. The rest of the pictures shows high distortion, CA and PA and no sharpness, reduced contrast.
It is the photographers choice to use it or not.
This dicuss is not realy new. In the large format photography you can find similar chats about this theme. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rloewy
Joined: 31 Jul 2023 Posts: 17 Location: United States
|
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
rloewy wrote:
Olympus OMD E-M10 iii w/ Kodak cine Ektar 25mm 1.4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|