Rehousing FF35mm Still Glass as Cinema Lenses?

[Tom Lowe]

So are we about to see a cottage industry spring up converting Canon, Nikon and CZ FF35mm still glass into legit cinema lenses?

What all is involved in that rehousing process, and how much will it cost?

Let's say I wanted to rehouse a Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L lens for cinema work, what is involved and how much will it cost, roughly?

[David Mullen ASC]

Isn't that what companies like Century Precision Optics do? Rehouse still glass for cine use? Maybe you could talk to them. Not cheap though...

[Tom Lowe]

Not cheap though...

:waaa: I'm looking for cheap.

[David Mullen ASC]

Cheap would be to just change the mounts on a still lens if you can't change the mount on the camera, though there are flange-depth issues.

But taking out all the glass elements and rehousing them for cine use, with better cams for focus-pulling, larger rings, better markings, etc. -- you're essentially building a whole new lens minus the glass, which you got from the still camera lens. And doing it one lens at a time, you've lost the original benefits of mass-production that made the original lens cheaper to purchase.

Rather than take apart still camera lenses one at a time and rehouse them, it would be cheaper to buy the glass elements directly from the manufacturer and set-up a factory to build cine lenses. Of course, that doesn't work for the individual lens owner.

[Tom Lowe]

It's fine if the mounts stay the same - Canon or Nikon. FF35mm Scarlets and Epics will be able to fully utilize them. Maybe it's best just to live with the limited focusing abilities of the lenses as they are. The only real advantages to rehousing them would mainly related to focus-pulling, right?

[Poi Boy]

I think you are going to see a new breed of lenses ushered in by Red's new entries into the market. They will be better and cheaper, smaller and lighter than the used Pl glass.
Aloha
-A

[Jeff Kilgroe]

:waaa: I'm looking for cheap.

Cheapest solution is to put a Canon or Nikon mount on the EPIC FF35 and run with lenses that cover FF. Or go with the new RED mount lenses. I'm hoping that RED takes their FF35 lenses and gives them many features we like for cinema glass.

[Nova Invicta]

Ignorance is bliss!
When will people get it into their heads that the reason motion picture lenses are expensive is because they are engineered to withstand extremes of tempreture, constant focusing with motors (not internal stills types that purely focus), to not image shift when you re-rack the focus aside from the high level of optical glass. Cooke did not garner its reputation by compromising any part of its comstruction the same is true for Zeiss or Panavision lenses.
Nikon, Canon etc make great stills lenses and yes these have been adapted for cinematography over the years but top end cinematographers know the most important element of cinematography is not the camera but the lenses they are the eyes to the world.

[martinnoweck]

it's funny how the subject of how-to-rehouse-still-lenses-and-how-much-would-it-cost comes up every couple of weeks on this forum.

not that i wouldn't be interested ;-)

but i did some research during the last year and we are talking 5000 - 10000 euros per lens, as david pointed out in his post you are throwing away everything but the glass (at least with shorter focal length). i talked to p&s, dedoweigert and vantage - simon baechler (also on this forum) asked another lens expert in switzerland, but i think it was too expensive. the lens experts from the mentioned companies also have to see the still lens first ... then they can fix a final price - which makes it hard lower the costs for bulk orders of many still lens users.

so changing the mounts is the better / cheaper way to go.

regards,
martin

[Dave Blackham]

I think the point is it is clear that stills glass may be appropriate for some users. Obviously not all. My reading of it is Red think so too if the new cameras support Nikon and Canon mounts amongst others to support a wider range of users. Id recon Red are changing the options available to users and likely to change the working practices also.

Not every one shoots with a larger crew in a Hollywood type style. There are many people shooting specialist work which requires specialist kit and perhaps more esoteric specialist lenses.

Personally I'm not after cheap but am after good value and excellent quality. I had been looking at Leica and Zeiss/Contax glass to see what may be possible.

What is becoming more apparent is not to modify the lens but to change the mount system on the camera, there a whole range of other options become possible. But didn't Red just do this ?

Dave

[pango]

What is becoming more apparent is not to modify the lens but to change the mount system on the camera, there a whole range of other options become possible. But didn't Red just do this ?

Dave

Absolutely : The actual mount is now where you screw the adapter plate and that is great because it means you can put ANY optics in front of those sensors. Kubrick would not have had to "destroy" cameras for fitting his astronomical Zeiss lens for Barry Lyndon, just have a suitable adapter plate machined.

Paradoxically, this new freedom means that you don't need guts anymore for crazy experiments with expensive equipment ... which may make them less fun. :tongue:

[Dave Blackham]

Absolutely : The actual mount is now where you screw the adapter plate and that is great because it means you can put ANY optics in front of those sensors. Kubrick would not have had to "destroy" cameras for fitting his astronomical Zeiss lens for Barry Lyndon, just have a suitable adapter plate machined.

Paradoxically, this new freedom means that you don't need guts anymore for crazy experiments with expensive equipment ... which may make them less fun. :tongue:

Im not sure about less fun:-) The Third Man posts other threads on this board seems to be having a field day with his IMS mount and various stills lenses.

Dave

[Zack Birlew]

Well, as I'm finding out on my D90, focusing on the 35mm+ scale is pretty hard to do, especially when you try to follow someone moving towards or away from the camera. Makes me appreciate the job of focus pullers all the more, real troopers those guys.

But, I've also learned that you can get by with still lenses, even though their focus points change on you, and all you have to do is adjust by eye. It's tricky but you can get used to it. However, I will say that a follow focus is a must for any interchangeable lens movie camera.

[Tom Lowe]

Zack, the D90 is not even a full-frame camera, like the FF35 Scarlet and Epic will be. The larger sensor and faster available lenses will make FF35 even more difficult to pull focus on.

The reason that the rehousing issue is going to become one of ever-increasing interest to people on this forum is that there really is not a lot of FF35 cinema glass out there! This is Vista Vision format, not PL. Is there any Vista Vision or FF35 cinema glass even out there?

The temptation is going to be the stunning image quality and very low price of lenses like the Nikon 14-24, or Canon 35mm 1.4 L.

[alex trettenero]

ps technik has a very interesting ff35 mm lens set based on zeiss lenses, all with 95 mm diameter and nikon mount. price is very interesting.

[J. Bernard Vallon]

I've found that some of the old sturdy nikon AIS manual primes keep there marks reasonably well, and on a properly collimated camera, hit the focus points pretty accurately by measuring alone. Zooms are another story, as are the cheap lenses.

A cheap solution might be to invent a follow focus with a clutch, one that can adjust its through according to the focus through of the lens on the camera.

[Nils J. Nesse]

Link to the P+S Technik Digital 35 Lenses (http://www.pstechnik.de/en/optics-lensset.php)

P+S have basically put a shell on the Zeiss ZF lenses, with focus gears and uniform front diameter. The focus puller will appreciate the better focus markings.

They still focus in the wrong direction. The P+S lenses I used also had much stiffer focus action than my ZF's with focus rings.

The P+S lenses are something like 3x the price of the ZFs.

[Poi Boy]

rehousing is not the answer, too many compromises and way expensive. The new Red electronic lenses will be the way to go.
Aloha
-A

[Evin Grant]

Example: Century/Canon 17-35mm T3

Original lens: Canon EOS 17-35 f2.8 L USM $1100
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2290/2043705492_7347fed529_o.png
Rehoused: $15,000
http://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/site/images/Photo2/0S2-CZ17-00.jpg
And I don't even think they rebuilt the focusing because it's a very short throw.

[martinnoweck]

evin,

where / when did your lens database disappear?

regards,
martin

[Tom Lowe]

So is it fair to say that FF35 primes like the Canon 35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2 are going to be more useful than zooms due to breathing issues?

[James T Mather]

I shot a drama using unmodified Nikon primes and had no breathing issues - focus puller wasn't crazy about the short throw/reversed mechanism but he did a great job despite initial reservations.

The zooms will breathe a lot generally.

[J. Bernard Vallon]

Generally primes breath a lot less than zooms. However, my 28-70 f2.8 nikon doesnt breath. not at all.

[Tom Lowe]

Well FF35 motion picture is certainly going to open up a brave new world in terms of lenses. :)

[Evin Grant]

Most of the floating element still lenses don't breath much.

The lens tests are still here they're just buried. Try a search including Nikon, Lens and review.

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1471&highlight=nikon+lens+review
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=166&highlight=nikon+50mm+lens+test