View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
strangelove
Joined: 04 Apr 2013 Posts: 106 Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:36 pm Post subject: Would OM lenses make a good, consistent set for video? |
|
|
strangelove wrote:
After collecting a small assortment of seemingly random lenses to use with video, I've realized I need to stop picking up random lenses and build a set of consistent lenses I can use for video work... on my last shoot, I shot with 4 lenses from 4 different makers/eras, and it was impossible to get a consistent look in post. My first inclination was to try to build a set based on my favorite from the bunch (a Leica Elmarit-R f2.8/90 - love that Leica look), but trying to put together a fast set of Leica-R lenses is likely to cost as much as a set of cine lenses. So I've reconsidered my other lenses, and as I really like using the Olympus f1.4/50, I'm wondering if the rest of the OM lenses (probably of the f2 variety) have a consistent look across the line? Overall, they seem reasonably priced. Any thoughts?
Oh, and the cameras I'm shooting on have EF mounts (but different crop factors), so whatever I end up with needs to be adaptable to EF |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gardener
Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gardener wrote:
Personally I think that OM is the best legacy option for EF mount since you can switch lenses without pulling out the adapter. The problem is availability and prices - tele Zuikos in f/2.0 cost more then Canon AF analogs, and are fairly rare, wide 2.0 are more common but also run in hundreds of dollars. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SXR_Mark
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 506 Location: England
|
Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SXR_Mark wrote:
I have quite a lot of Zuikos, and they are always fine lenses. But whether they have the 'consistent' look you want I am not sure because I am not a good enough photographer to know what this really means.
As Gardener has pointed out, the f2 lenses (21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 85mm, 100mm) will cost a lot. I only have f2.8 at best (except for 50mm of course).
I have read the the 35-70mm with constant f3.6 aperture is a good lens for video as it stays in focus when zoomed. This is the top spec 35-70mm (there are, I think, 3 others) and is quite pricey, but probably less than the f2's. It is a good lens, though I haven't used mine much. You will need an adapter with the exact correct thickness to benefit from the constant focus though.
Mark _________________ Olympus OM-D E-M1 for everything |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Basilisk
Joined: 21 Mar 2013 Posts: 356 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Basilisk wrote:
If you want a set, you might consider the Samyang primes - almost certainly the best value f1.4 set (apart from the 14mm at f2.. Though you have a bit of a gap between 35 and 85, so you might have to find a fast 50 from a different manufacturer; there are plenty of options for those. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gardener
Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:23 am Post subject: Re: Would OM lenses make a good, consistent set for video? |
|
|
Gardener wrote:
strangelove wrote: |
it was impossible to get a consistent look in post. |
If you have a chance, take a look at US version of The Killing and check out how in intro every 2-3 second cut is very obviously made with a different lens. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Basilisk wrote: |
If you want a set, you might consider the Samyang primes - almost certainly the best value f1.4 set (apart from the 14mm at f2.. Though you have a bit of a gap between 35 and 85, so you might have to find a fast 50 from a different manufacturer; there are plenty of options for those. |
+1
50/1.2 from Samyang is already announced for 2014 btw. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
strangelove
Joined: 04 Apr 2013 Posts: 106 Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
strangelove wrote:
thanks for the replies. I was actually on a shoot yesterday and the director brought along 3 of the Rokinon (aka Samyang) lenses she had just bought. Unfortunately, the aperture blades on the 35 got stuck when I closed them down to f11.0, and the 85 flared horribly when I aimed the camera even remotely in the direction of the sun. I ended up not even trying the 24 and just told her and her editor they'd have to play around with different looks in post (it was for a music video, so she was fine with it). So based on that bad experience, I think I'm going to avoid them (however, I think I also like the idea of using an old set) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
strangelove
Joined: 04 Apr 2013 Posts: 106 Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
strangelove wrote:
SXR_Mark wrote: |
I have quite a lot of Zuikos, and they are always fine lenses. But whether they have the 'consistent' look you want I am not sure because I am not a good enough photographer to know what this really means.
As Gardener has pointed out, the f2 lenses (21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 85mm, 100mm) will cost a lot. I only have f2.8 at best (except for 50mm of course).Mark |
I've found that some of the wider f2 (especially 28 & 35) seem to be available for somewhat reasonable prices (like $200-250), and I was debating just picking up the 21/f3.5 for cheap until I can find the f2 for a good price
but in addition to the consistent look, I was also wondering about the focus throws - do they tend to be fairly long or short?
SXR_Mark wrote: |
I have read the the 35-70mm with constant f3.6 aperture is a good lens for video as it stays in focus when zoomed. This is the top spec 35-70mm (there are, I think, 3 others) and is quite pricey, but probably less than the f2's. It is a good lens, though I haven't used mine much. You will need an adapter with the exact correct thickness to benefit from the constant focus though. Mark |
I haven't looked into that one because I've been trying to find a set I can use consistently around 2.8. I did read about the 35-80/2.8, and I've definitely considered it after what I've read, but it's not cheap either, and I figured it'd need to be stopped down to at least 4.0 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
strangelove
Joined: 04 Apr 2013 Posts: 106 Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
strangelove wrote:
Gardener wrote: |
Personally I think that OM is the best legacy option for EF mount since you can switch lenses without pulling out the adapter. The problem is availability and prices - tele Zuikos in f/2.0 cost more then Canon AF analogs, and are fairly rare, wide 2.0 are more common but also run in hundreds of dollars. |
The availability of so many lenses rated at f2 is the primary reason I'm interested in it. And due to the crop factors I'm working with (1.6 for APS-C and ~2.4 for BMCC), I don't think I'll need too dramatic of a tele. Right now, I'm leaning towards trying to build to 21, 28, 35, 50 & 85 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10959 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Asahi Takumars have very consistent 'look' -- color, contrast -- and feel...
35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2.5
Gardener wrote: |
Personally I think that OM is the best legacy option for EF mount since you can switch lenses without pulling out the adapter. ... |
No different than M42-EF _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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 |
|
|
strangelove
Joined: 04 Apr 2013 Posts: 106 Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
strangelove wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
Asahi Takumars have very consistent 'look' -- color, contrast -- and feel...
35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2.5
Gardener wrote: |
Personally I think that OM is the best legacy option for EF mount since you can switch lenses without pulling out the adapter. ... |
No different than M42-EF |
I hadn't considered the Takumars, although I have picked up a few m42 lenses - is there a fairly fast Takumar around the 18-24 range? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
I just measured a few OM lenses:
21/2 has a focus throw of 50mm (of 190mm)
35-80/2.8 has a focus throw of 57mm (of 220mm)
50/2 macro has a focus throw of 160mm (of 197mm)
90/2 macro has a focus throw of 180mm (of 218mm)
100/2 has a focus throw of 155mm (of 187mm)
Measured a bit randomly, there are thinner and thicker parts on the lenses. At least % or degrees can be calculated if needed. _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
strangelove
Joined: 04 Apr 2013 Posts: 106 Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
strangelove wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
I just measured a few OM lenses:
21/2 has a focus throw of 50mm (of 190mm)
35-80/2.8 has a focus throw of 57mm (of 220mm)
50/2 macro has a focus throw of 160mm (of 197mm)
90/2 macro has a focus throw of 180mm (of 218mm)
100/2 has a focus throw of 155mm (of 187mm)
Measured a bit randomly, there are thinner and thicker parts on the lenses. At least % or degrees can be calculated if needed. |
wow, thanks! I was hoping for a vaguer "they're pretty short/long/about normal" response, but the detail is appreciated! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|