Converting Nikons to PL mount... Anyone intersted?

[Evin Grant]

At Cinegear I spoke to the guys at Century Optics about the possibility of adding PL mounts to my Nikkor set. They said it was possible but not financially viable till I reached about 50 lenses. I'm not sure how much each conversion would cost, probably around a grand per lens, but if we could pool our resources I'm sure we could get 50 Nikkors ready for the chopping block.
Is anyone here interested? If so post the model/mm/F stop and number of Nikkors or Canon FD, Leica R Lenses you'd like converted.
If I can come to a consesus about the project I'll contact Century again and start making the first move towards the project.
E.

[PaulClements]

A grand a lens to add PL mount to a Nikkor? That seems an aweful lot for just the mount. Bulk order on rehousing for around a grand each and I'd be up for that, though I'm doubtful a grand would cover that.

What will you do for your Nikon cameras then? Get them rehoused with a PL mount or simply never use the lenses for still photography again?

Have you actually seen how easy it is to change the adapter on the Red camera Evin? Perhaps they've designed something that doesn't require collimating everytime you change it, goodness only knows. But when the fmount adapter is as cheap as $500 it doesn't make financial sense to go that route to me, you might as well just buy a second red body and have one nikon and one pl :)

[Bruce Allen]

Thank you Evin. I am vaguely interested but have similar reservations to Paul. They are just adding a PL mount, right? Not doing anything like fixing the focus throw or adding hard stops to the 17-35? From having used the lens, it still seems like a major problem - I'm going to need to either buy an Arri LFF or something motorized to control it. Or have I gone wrong somewhere? I'm sad because Matt Garrett and I did tests with it on a 35mm adapter that totally concur with your review, but we hate its usability. Maybe we could give them a batch of 50 17-35s to rehouse? Even if they keep it with a Nikon mount, just fix the focus. Not sure if that's possible.

I would be very tempted to rehouse the new 80-200 2.8 AF-D I have just bought though! Talking of that, Evin, email me if you want to test it...

Cheers

Bruce
www.boacinema.com

[Bruce Allen]

Doesn't that Century conversion include rehousing too? Not just PL mount? Yes, the 8mm is a good candidate, as are the 24mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 etc. 58mm noct, anyone? Just don't see how the 17-35 will work nicely. And the 28-70 will extend, which interferes with the matte box. What is your planned follow focus solution?

I am arguing mainly because I am interested in your solutions to these problems - if you can make the 17-35 and 28-70 workable it would be a dream come true for me.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Evin Grant]

I don't see the 17-35 as being that much of a problem, a focus gear that has hard stops will fix the drift issue and the short focus throw can be compensated for by either a Willytech or a motorized focus system like the Red motors or the BFD (Bartec). The price is a guess and would not include rehousing. Spending any more than $1000 seems silly when the 18-50mm CF Red lens is only $6500. There are some lenses like the 28mm 1.4 and the 58mm 1.2 Noct Nikkor that are unique and I'd like as a compliment to my Red lenses. I'll ask about rehousing the 17-35mm though I doubt it will be affordable.

[Bruce Allen]

I don't see the 17-35 as being that much of a problem, a focus gear that has hard stops will fix the drift issue and the short focus throw can be compensated for by either a Willytech or a motorized focus system like the Red motors or the BFD (Bartec). The price is a guess and would not include rehousing. Spending any more than $1000 seems silly when the 18-50mm CF Red lens is only $6500. There are some lenses like the 28mm 1.4 and the 58mm 1.2 Noct Nikkor that are unique and I'd like as a compliment to my Red lenses. I'll ask about rehousing the 17-35mm though I doubt it will be affordable.

I have played with the Bartech - it is nice. But it is $5000 or so, right? Maybe CVB's solution is the winner, don't know. I have catalogued the motorized and manual follow focus devices in other threads partly because of my desire to use your recommended 17-35 which I agree is stellar.

The DPs I work with like to have an option apart from motorized focus, so let's look at that too. First, the Willytec is no longer available. To me that leaves only the Arri follow focuses - maybe Petroff or others but not sure. Would love your opinion on this - to my mind I'm going to have to test the 17-35 with gears and an Arri LFF. Again I have been trying the 17-35 on adapters for HDV cameras and am not impressed so far. Hence the leaning towards the Red lens.

Evin, if you want to rent an Arri LFF-1, a Bartech and other solutions and give em a go on your Nikons (maybe attached to an HD camera via 35mm adapter) I would be happy to split the rental cost with you. Matt Garrett and I have tried the RedRock FF on the 17-35 and it made things suck less but the lack of hard stops in the end was a deal-breaker. Matt Jeppsen of Freshdv has been testing the lower-end motorized options (Foveas, RedRock, I think) as well as the Bartech on various lenses including the Nikon and Zeiss (ZF mount) primes - I'd want to gather info and figure out if we really can pull focus on these suckers before committing to the PL mount option, because if we convert the 17-35 Nikon to PL mount and find that there isn't a workable focus solution, then we're up the creek without the proverbial paddle.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Bruce Allen]

I fail to see why would the 17-35mm be a problem. Granted, the 28-70mm isn't ideal because of its extension, but I don't think it's something that a little bit of ingenuity and effort can't overcome. The end solution may not be "elegant" (i.e.: adding an extension to the outer sleeve, etc.), but I can't see why it couldn't be made to work. This will be one of the little pet projects I'll be diving into once I get the RED and start measuring things and scoping out MBs, support and FF systems, etc. (that's why I had been looking at those Cinevate FF gears).

Something to keep me busy for a while (read: out of trouble). :ninja:

Cheers, Bruce!

Yep, I agree that we can probably overcome everything. Again, I'm happy to chip in with anyone on things like FF system rental so that we can test...

I have posted about those Cinevate gears multiple times before (a few months ago). They look great but there is a problem if the focus ring moves backwards & forwards as it does on some Nikons. Then RedRock seem better.

Cheers

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Evin Grant]

I'm relatively sure that a less expensive, reversed, low geared follow focus will eventually hit the market. As Red begins to dominate low to medium budget production more and more owners and rental houses will begin to find ways of overcoming the shortfalls of still lenses so they can stratify thier rental packages. And where ther is a market there is eventually a product.
E.

[PaulClements]

Evin, if you can find out from them the possibility of bulk rehousing 17-35mm nikkors, lets say 50 of them as per your suggestion. You could count me in if the price is right. At the end of the day rehousing a single lens is an expensive job. But if you are creating the components for 50 at a time it ought to vastly reduce the costs surely? Heck I'd probably get a few done because they'd have a good resale value if bulk rehousing is as uncommon as I expect it to be.

[martinnoweck]

evin,

thanks for your research - i am interested!

nikon 17-35mm
nikon 50mm
nikon 135mm
(nikon 300mm)

if technically possible with these lenses ...

kind regards,
martin

[Evin Grant]

Evin, if you can find out from them the possibility of bulk rehousing 17-35mm nikkors, lets say 50 of them as per your suggestion. You could count me in if the price is right. At the end of the day rehousing a single lens is an expensive job. But if you are creating the components for 50 at a time it ought to vastly reduce the costs surely? Heck I'd probably get a few done because they'd have a good resale value if bulk rehousing is as uncommon as I expect it to be.

Paul, unfortunately rehousing a 17-35 Nikkor will be a very costly endevor.
Schneider/Century already offers a rehoused 17-35mm Canon EOS lens and it retails for a cool $15,000! I think the only chance we have is a PL mount addition. But I'm trying to make this happen, stay tuned.
E.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/site/images/Photo2/0S2-CZ17-00.jpg
http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1102&IID=1218

[donatello b]

if the right price ..
80-200 nikor , 17-35, 135m, 180m

[KETCH ROSSi]

At Cinegear I spoke to the guys at Century Optics about the possibility of adding PL mounts to my Nikkor set. They said it was possible but not financially viable till I reached about 50 lenses. I'm not sure how much each conversion would cost, probably around a grand per lens, but if we could pool our resources I'm sure we could get 50 Nikkors ready for the chopping block.
Is anyone here interested? If so post the model/mm/F stop and number of Nikkors or Canon FD, Leica R Lenses you'd like converted.
If I can come to a consesus about the project I'll contact Century again and start making the first move towards the project.
E.

Hi guys,

as I have a complete new set of the ZEISS/f mount in order(do not buy at Zacuto as they are way more expensive then B&H) to use with a 35mm adaptor in my new XH-A1 canon(as the RED's come home) it will be great to be also able to use them in the RED cameras PL mount.

My main question is it there to be a gain in the PL mount vs, F mount?

Like for exemple with the 35mm adapter such as the Redrock M2 or SGpro or with the RED, the same 35mm SLR ZEISS lens is it going to change in any way if the mount it self is F or PL?

thanks in advance for your responces on this one.

Oh, if PL is the answer then yes I also will be interested in converting this four ZEISS F mount lenses to PL.

Ciao

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

[Paul Hazlett]

I found this site in a search and thought they might do PL mounts as
well.

there pricing seems well in line with buying the lenses and converting them.

http://www.rplens.com/products.htm

[Evin Grant]

That site is a joke. All he's doing is adding a focus gear and a step up ring.
And the lenses arn't even of the best vintage or focal length choices.

[Bruce Allen]

Hi guys,

as I have a complete new set of the ZEISS/f mount in order(do not buy at Zacuto as they are way more expensive then B&H) to use with a 35mm adaptor in my new XH-A1 canon(as the RED's come home) it will be great to be also able to use them in the RED cameras PL mount.

My main question is it there to be a gain in the PL mount vs, F mount?

Like for exemple with the 35mm adapter such as the Redrock M2 or SGpro or with the RED, the same 35mm SLR ZEISS lens is it going to change in any way if the mount it self is F or PL?

Ketch, I am in the same position as you. I'd like to take Evin up on his offer but don't know how the M2 or SGpro work with PL mount (projection distances, focus, etc may change with their different mount system?). 95% chance that it'll be fine (especially full-frame Nikons with their larger image circle), but it's stressful, since very few tests have been released of M2 with PL mount lenses. No tests available from SGpro. I asked them to send me their PL mount for testing (and to buy it on condition that I got decent results) but so far no dice. They want me to buy the whole thing without tests? I am in touch with one guy who has the PL mount and some Zeiss standard primes but he is shooting (using Nikons) and doesn't have time to test.

It was great meeting you at Cinegear by the way. Good to see you smiling and healthy and fit-looking. Glad you met my Steadicam operator friends too.

Cheers

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[KETCH ROSSi]

Yes Bruce it was a placer meet you at Cinegear, and to meet also your Steadycam operators friend was just a bonus as I intend to use extensive steadycam work on this film.

I will be more then available for any needs as far as to use the equipment I have in combination with any that we may test for this purposes or others, so again count me in for anything.

CIAO,

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

[KETCH ROSSi]

I was just told from one of the people at Century optics that the lens remaines exactly the same, just that with the conversion to PL mount you do not have to use an adaptor on a native PL mount camera.

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI

[albert rudnicki]

It would be soooo much easier if red boys could make an easily changeable Pl mount on the red.....

[Emanuel A.]

Add me to list.

[Tony Lorentzen]

Nothing new on this, Evin?

[wshultz]

It's an interesting idea, supposing Birger doesn't solve all these problems and ad a follow focus to boot. If the price is right I have
17-35
28-70
80-200
60 macro

[Evin Grant]

Nothing new on this, Evin?

To much of an ordeal with the Birger coming out.

[Joel Kaye]

To much of an ordeal with the Birger coming out.

Yeah - Birger's got the solution as long as it operates smoothly. But he's making the Canon one first... which seems a little backwards to me. I'm surprised no one here mentioned the Nikkor 85mm 1.4's - those kick butt.

[Evin Grant]

Indeed they do.

[Tony Lorentzen]

As do the 85mm f1.4 Zeiss ZF :-)

[Leon Trinidad]

In the new American Cinematographer, the article about Bourne Ultimatum stated that a nikon 28-70mm f2.8 and 80-200mm f2.8 were used for 70% of the movie. They were rehoused by Arri and that Arri had bought tons more to convert. Just found it interesting, wonder what Arri will do with those babies? Probably just milk it for rentals.

[PaulClements]

In the new American Cinematographer, the article about Bourne Ultimatum stated that a nikon 28-70mm f2.8 and 80-200mm f2.8 were used for 70% of the movie. They were rehoused by Arri and that Arri had bought tons more to convert. Just found it interesting, wonder what Arri will do with those babies? Probably just milk it for rentals.

Hi Leon,

Yeah it'd be a great move by ARRI if they began mass rehousing these lenses. With the amount of RedUsers wanting affordable options I'm sure they'd get plenty of takers. The lenses have a proven track record from their use in the bourne supremacy which would give producers and DP's confidence in their performance.

Paul

[Michael Hastings]

Yeah - Birger's got the solution as long as it operates smoothly. But he's making the Canon one first... which seems a little backwards to me.

There are two reasons for this. 1) Birger already had a working Canon EOS mount that has been used in the scientific and industrial community for several years, so it was just doing a specific adaptation/extra features for RED. 2) Canon EOS lenses use electric motor drive for both focus AND IRIS so by simply issuing the proper electronic commands you get movement to whatever level of smoothness and precision the lens can provide (and considering how fast and good autofocus is, for our applications where the movement is typically much slower, this should be extemely smooth and precise).

Nikons on the other hand use a mechanical pin to drive the iris. While I am sure this is very smooth and precise on actual Nikon bodies - where they have been able to spread the expense of developing that over hundreds of thousands of bodies (and where they got to make their own design decisions) - it remains to be seen how well Birger can make that operate on a mount that has to adapt to whatever Nikon did AND they can only count on selling quantities in the dozens or maybe hundreds. It is a much more difficult engineering challenge than the Canon all electronic system.

Finally, both Canon and Nikon make some really excellent glass and when choosing the best of their respective lines the differences tend to be splitting hairs - particularly if your budget allows buying new lenses.

A brand new kit of Canons: 24-70 L series, 70-200L series with stabilization, and a 10-22 EFS is about $3500 - which is dirt cheap if you are coming from the pro video world. (The newly redesigned 16-35 L series is an alternative for superwide) These lenses are considered extremely good in almost anyone's book and for the most part whatever CA and vignetting bugaboos they are known to have occur outside of the S35 sensor size.

Given that you can easily use a Nikon lens on Canon, but not vice versa, it even allows you to use that old favorite Nikon you have.

[Joel Kaye]

Nikons on the other hand use a mechanical pin to drive the iris.

HSM Nikon's don't use a mechanical pin. It's all electronic.

Nonetheless, it sounds like we could be quite a long ways from ever seeing a Nikon Birger and should be thinking about Canon lenses instead.

[Erik Widding]

Nikons on the other hand use a mechanical pin to drive the iris.


HSM Nikon's don't use a mechanical pin. It's all electronic.

In my experience, Aqua is correct. Joel, which lenses are you referring to?

[Evan Owen]

It's been awhile Erik, welcome back!

How are things coming with the mount?

[Joel Kaye]

In my experience, Aqua is correct. Joel, which lenses are you referring to?

All the HSM versions of their lenses don't have the screw. Unless I'm wrong - I'm sitting here looking at the back of my Sigma HSM 70-200 2.8 and I don't see the screw...

And I'm sitting here looking at my 85mm 1.8 D lens and it does have a screw. My 18-70 G lens doesn't have the screw either. The HSM and G lenses have 10 electronic contacts and the D lens only has 5.

More to the point - can you anticipate timelines for the 2 versions to be released. A lot of RED's will be in the wild soon and I've pretty much decided to try your solution. And seeing as you're just now figuring there's a bunch of Nikon lenses with no screw for focus that's gotta mess you up a little. :-)

A little more info:
http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/1106sigma/

[Bill Goehring]

And I'm sitting here looking at my 85mm 1.8 D lens and it does have a screw. My 18-70 G lens doesn't have the screw either. The HSM and G lenses have 10 electronic contacts and the D lens only has 5.


Not sure what you mean by "screw," but my Nikkor 12-24mm DX G lens DOES have a flat "pin" that interfaces with the camera and opens and closes the aperature.

[Joel Kaye]

Not sure what you mean by "screw," but my Nikkor 12-24mm DX G lens DOES have a flat "pin" that interfaces with the camera and opens and closes the aperature.

We're talking about a focus screw. You can actually put a small flathead screwdriver in it and focus the lense. The aperture thingy is different. ("thingy" is the Nikon name for that part, right?).

Some of newest lenses in the past 5-ish years are the only ones with electronic focus. But they are some of the coolest lenses out there.

I think HSM is a Sigma designation. The Nikon designation is AF-S using the "Silent Wave Motor".

[Bill Goehring]

Understood.

[donatello b]

"it'd be a great move by ARRI if they began mass rehousing these lenses. With the amount of RedUsers wanting affordable options I'm sure they'd get plenty of takers"

as you see - you cannot put ARRI & affordable in the same sentence !!

[chuck colburn]

WOW! That's really interesting that Arriflex is going to rehouse still camera lenses. Considering their long relationship with Zeiss and the fact that they never produced lenses before I find this amazing. Did the article show any of the lenses? Do they rotate cinewise? As that would indicate that they have whole new focus helicoids which is no easy task espically if the stock lens has floating element(s).

[Erik Widding]

And seeing as you're just now figuring there's a bunch of Nikon lenses with no screw for focus that's gotta mess you up a little. :-)


Joel, reread Aqua's initial post that you quoted. He was discussing iris, not focus. I reasonably assumed your comments followed from that quote. Hence my question back to you.

BTW, Joel has not uncovered anything that we did not already know...

[Bill Goehring]

BTW, Joel has not uncovered anything that we did not already know...

So, Erik, considering the difference between the focusing technology on Nikkor D series lenses like my 20-35mm zoom w/ screw and Nikkor AF-S lenses like my 12-24mm zoom w/o screw, will both series be operable with the Birger Nikon Mount?

[Joel Kaye]

BTW, Joel has not uncovered anything that we did not already know...

That's good news. An update on reservations and ETAs for the different mounts would be very helpful. Thanks!

[Harmonica]

Great. We lost him again... Hey, can the CIA trace internet forum posts?

[Bill Goehring]

He's a cagey little cuss, kinda like a West River prairie dog, afraid if he stretches his neck out at the wrong time, some rancher's son might take his head off with a blast from a .22 rifle.

[Gary McClurg]

Not PL mount... but how bout the new P & S primes... yes just retooled Zeiss...

http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a682995edb4e7585256b4d001ebd57/2031a885fd32c263852572c70059af71?OpenDocument

[R. Gonzales]

I'd like to be added to the list please.

[albert rudnicki]

MEE2, please

[Tony Lorentzen]

Not PL mount... but how bout the new P & S primes... yes just retooled Zeiss...

http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a682995edb4e7585256b4d001ebd57/2031a885fd32c263852572c70059af71?OpenDocument

Yeah they're nice, but there's no way I'd pay that much for a rehoused lens. The 85mm Zeiss is around 900 USD and they want 3100 USD for the rehoused version. You can buy a lot of lens gears for 2200 USD!

[Leon Trinidad]

For the Rehoused Arri Nikon Lenses, the gears were reversed to rotate the same as cinema lenses. And knowing how Arri operates, I doubt they will be offering any of them for sale, prob only for rent.

I agree, don't spend money rehousing your lenses, instead buy more gear.

If anything it's nice to see that the Nikons performed excellent in a pro situation with Bourne Ultimatum.

[Gordon Prince]

I am interested.

[albert rudnicki]

The market of used lens is shrinking... prices rising, Birger....
Any news on the rehoused Nikons?

[Sanjin Jukic]

Also I am interested in that option.

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

Technovision of Italy did this ages ago. I got a chance to see and play with some of these lenses. The were fully rehoused. It's simply NOT POSSIBLE to ADD a PL mount to a Nikkor, unless you only need to shoot macro.

PL Mount flange focus is 52.00 mm + 2.0 mm for the thickness of the flange. That's an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM of 54 mm from the film plane. And that's pushing it, because A PL mount lockring tends to extend a few mm above the top of the PL flange. Any part of the lens just above the PL flange will be inaccessible.

Nikon flange focus is 46.50 mm. Do the math. You have to "eat" into the back of the Nikkor lens at least 7.5mm. The problem is, that's where the iris scale is (at least on the older AiS manual lenses). You have to completely re-engineer the iris drive. AND if there are any rear elements or cells or housing larger than 50mm in diameter they will not fit into the PL mount.

I regret having to be so strident here, but I don't want the younger/beginning users to be misled into thinking there will be a cheap "slap-on" option. When Century re-housed the Cooke Speed Panchros, they were a few thousand each, not counting the cost of the donor lens. This is back in the 1980's. Again, do the math. If I find that old price list I'll post the prices.

[albert rudnicki]

hmmm
Personally I am interested in 80-200 and 17-35 only, both have been successfully rehoused with the PL mount by Arri.
I guess those two +24-70 is what most of the would look for.
Jorge, what about those lenses ?
Thanks
Albert

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

I have NEVER heard of ARRI rehousing any lenses. ARRI only sells Zeiss lenses (with the rare exception of the ARRIScope anamorphic lenses which were made by Isco, but only a small number were made).

Stills zoom lenses are terrible to convert for cine use because they normally don't hold focus well during zooming, or with some of the new ones, they don't hold focus at all. There can also be image shift during zooming.

The only stills zooms that I know of that were converted to cine use are the 50-300 Nikon and the 150-600 Canon. But these were done by Century and Optex not ARRI. There are some other ones like a compact zoom that Century did, I think with Minolta optics. But you can't get that glass anymore.

[Alexis Hanawalt]

I have NEVER hear of ARRI rehousing any lenses. ARRI only sells Zeiss lenses (with the rare exception of the ARRIScope lenses which were made by Isco, but only a handful were made).

Stills zoom lenses are terrible to convert for cine use because they normally don't hold focus well during zooming, or with some of the new ones, they don't hold focus at all.

The only stills zooms that I know of that were converted to cine use are the 50-300 Nikon and the 150-600 Canon. But these were done by Century and Optex not ARRI.

It's in AC, multiple interviews online, etc. that Bourne Ultimatum used Nikon lenses rehoused by Arri. From AC Sep. 2007:


The production carried Cooke S4 primes lenses and an Arri LWZ 15.5-45mm zoom, but the crew “mostly used lightweight zooms that I had specially made from two Nikon digital still-photography lenses, a 28-70mm and an 80-200mm,” says Wood. “Arri in Munich converted them to lightweight cinema-style zooms, and they work quite well. The Nikon glass is brilliant.” Dierken notes, “We called them the Oliver Lenses, and they helped the operators shoot everything handheld with the documentary approach Oliver and Paul wanted. Unlike other zooms, which are either too heavy or too slow, these zooms opened up to T2.8 and were quite light. Arri made the housings in six weeks, and the lenses turned out to be very sharp and the contrast was quite good. [Still-photography] lenses turn the opposite of the way cine-style lenses do, which could have been unpleasant if we’d used a normal follow focus, but with the LCS-3 we were able to just reverse the gears. The lenses worked so well that we ended up shooting 70 percent of the movie with them, and now Arri is making more!

[Sanjin Jukic]

I have NEVER hear of ARRI rehousing any lenses. ARRI only sells Zeiss lenses (with the rare exception of the ARRIScope anamorphic lenses which were made by Isco, but only a small number were made).

Stills zoom lenses are terrible to convert for cine use because they normally don't hold focus well during zooming, or with some of the new ones, they don't hold focus at all. There can also be image shift during zooming.

The only stills zooms that I know of that were converted to cine use are the 50-300 Nikon and the 150-600 Canon. But these were done by Century and Optex not ARRI. There are some other ones like a compact zoom that Century did, I think with Minolta optics. But you can't get that glass anymore.

Read this, that all we know about that ARRI rehoused Nikon for Bourne Ultimatum:

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/nikon_bourne.jpg

[Alexis Hanawalt]

Ok, I beat you Third Man, but you did a way cooler job!

[vincelucero]

I'm interested. Count me in.

[fphgrb01]

Cinema technic, in case you know the corresponding details of Leica R lenses, is there going to be a technical problem rehousing them?

[Bruce Allen]

I think there is a market opportunity here for the first lens expert who stops saying "you kids won't like how expensive it'll be" and instead just posts on RedUser:

GROUP BUY - NIKON 80-200 2.8 REHOUSING
- Optics were used in Bourne Ultimatum
- I'll rehouse with PL mount, cine-style iris and a nice long, geared focus throw that goes in the right direction
If 5 people commit - $9500 + cost of lens
If 10 people commit - $6500 + cost of lens
If 50 people commit (or I take the risk and do some more) - $5500 + cost of lens
If you guys don't need the PL mount (just want nice focus and iris, can use Red Nikon adapter), I'll take $1000 off the price.

GROUP BUY - NIKON 28-70 2.8 REHOUSING
- Optics were used in Bourne Ultimatum
- I'll rehouse with PL mount, cine-style iris and a nice long, geared focus throw that goes in the right direction
5: $10,000, 20: $6500, 50: $5000 (Nikon mount version $1000 less)

GROUP BUY - NIKON 14-24 2.8 REHOUSING
- superb optics
- I'll rehouse with PL mount, cine-style iris and a nice long, geared focus throw that goes in the right direction
5: $12,000, 20: $9000, 50: $6000 (Nikon mount version $1000 less)

Whoever rises to the challenge will I'm sure be rewarded. Jorge? Century? Douglas Underdahl?

Dalsa is probably doing this with Leica still lenses. Red is probably doing this with Sigma still lenses. Panavision have done this with Nikons. SamCine and Century have done this in the past with Canons. Why are the independent lens experts scared all of a suden?

I think people would also be interested in taking cheap fast still prime camera lenses and just fixing the iris and the way they focus for cinema use. Again, maybe no PL-mount re-grinding needed. We have adapters for Nikon, Canon (and Leica, etc via Leica -> Canon adapters). You could also sell to all of those guys who bought 35mm adapters (RedRock, P+S Technik, Brevis, SGpro, Letus) and now realize they need workable lenses to pull focus with. If you posted on RedUser, DVXuser, all the 35mm adapter boards, etc, you would have a good response.

You could offer anything from converting old Nikon manual focus lenses to converting those new Zeiss manual-focus ones, to legendary Leicas, to a pricey set of Canon super speeds (say, 24mm f1.2L, 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L, 135mm f2L - but maybe those would be harder to convert due to their being modern).

Again, the first person who stops saying "you won't like the price" and starts saying "this is the price range" is the first person who'll get business.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Sanjin Jukic]

I think there is a market opportunity here for the first lens expert who stops saying "you kids won't like how expensive it'll be" and instead just posts on RedUser:

GROUP BUY - NIKON 80-200 2.8 REHOUSING
- Optics were used in Bourne Ultimatum
- I'll rehouse with PL mount, cine-style iris and a nice long, geared focus throw that goes in the right direction
If 5 people commit - $9500 + cost of lens
If 10 people commit - $6500 + cost of lens
If 50 people commit (or I take the risk and do some more) - $5500 + cost of lens
If you guys don't need the PL mount (just want nice focus and iris, can use Red Nikon adapter), I'll take $1000 off the price.

GROUP BUY - NIKON 28-70 2.8 REHOUSING
- Optics were used in Bourne Ultimatum
- I'll rehouse with PL mount, cine-style iris and a nice long, geared focus throw that goes in the right direction
5: $10,000, 20: $6500, 50: $5000 (Nikon mount version $1000 less)

GROUP BUY - NIKON 14-24 2.8 REHOUSING
- superb optics
- I'll rehouse with PL mount, cine-style iris and a nice long, geared focus throw that goes in the right direction
5: $12,000, 20: $9000, 50: $6000 (Nikon mount version $1000 less)

Whoever rises to the challenge will I'm sure be rewarded. Jorge? Century? Douglas Underdahl?

Dalsa is probably doing this with Leica still lenses. Red is probably doing this with Sigma still lenses. Panavision have done this with Nikons. SamCine and Century have done this in the past with Canons. Why are the independent lens experts scared all of a suden?

I think people would also be interested in taking cheap fast still prime camera lenses and just fixing the iris and the way they focus for cinema use. Again, maybe no PL-mount re-grinding needed. We have adapters for Nikon, Canon (and Leica, etc via Leica -> Canon adapters). You could also sell to all of those guys who bought 35mm adapters (RedRock, P+S Technik, Brevis, SGpro, Letus) and now realize they need workable lenses to pull focus with. If you posted on RedUser, DVXuser, all the 35mm adapter boards, etc, you would have a good response.

You could offer anything from converting old Nikon manual focus lenses to converting those new Zeiss manual-focus ones, to legendary Leicas, to a pricey set of Canon super speeds (say, 24mm f1.2L, 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L, 135mm f2L - but maybe those would be harder to convert due to their being modern).

Again, the first person who stops saying "you won't like the price" and starts saying "this is the price range" is the first person who'll get business.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Bruce sorry just to be clear with a connection between Panavision and Leica here:

Also to add that Panavision lives mostly from the renting of Panavision Primo L lenses with Panavision camera systems

that are based on Leica glass design from the lens designer Walter Mandler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mandler) a famous lens designer of Ernst Leitz Canada (Leica) at Midland, Ontario (http://www.elcan.com/About_ELCAN/ELCAN_History/).

1983 Ernst Leitz Canada begins work with Panavision for state-of-the-art cinematographic lens (http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_News/SuccessFiles/commercialOEM_panavision.php).

One of the first films shot with the Primo-L lens series was “Empire of the Sun" directed by Steven Spielberg (http://www.dga.org/news/v27_5/feat_catchmeifyoucan.php3).

[gdv]

I have an angenieux 180mm 1:2.3 APO with a Nikon mount.
I really like to have it with a PL mount but rehoused also.

[gdv]

hmmm
Personally I am interested in 80-200 and 17-35 only, both have been successfully rehoused with the PL mount by Arri.
I guess those two +24-70 is what most of the would look for.
Jorge, what about those lenses ?
Thanks
Albert
The 17-35 is a Sigma (I think) rehoused by Century from a 2000 series

[chuck colburn]

I thought that Century 17-35 was a Canon.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The Century / Schneider 17-35mm is a Canon. I don't know if they're still available or what the current price is (their site doesn't say), but it sure looks sexy for steadicam use. It was $15K...

I have a second Nikon 17-35 that I would love to have re-housed (I don't know how practical it would be). Same with some of my Nikkor primes like the 50mm and 85mm f1.4. I'd be interested if I could have a few done and for a reasonable price. So many of the re-housed lenses I see are expensive. really just makes more sense to buy used ultra-primes or superspeeds... But they're hard to find and it seems that with RED shipping to the common folk, a lot of people with used lenses are raising their prices.

[chuck colburn]

Got that right Jeff. Just a year or so ago those Canon K35's only fetched a few hundred or so each. lol

[Brent J. Craig]

Any rehoused Nikons I have ever used have always focused the wrong (Nikon) way.

I think it would be quite a job to make them go the right way.

Remember that Simpsons episode where the US embassy in Australia had that huge rig to make the toilets flush the proper 'merican way? It would be like that only with Lemo connectors.

[albert rudnicki]

In that case, what would be the price you're willing to pay for a complete make over.
Also how many people are interested?
Nikon(f2.8):
17-35
28-70
80-200 (70-200)

Canon (f2.8)
16-35
24-70
70-200

I think we should keep the list simple...
With this information it'll be much easier to communicate with the makers.

[chuck colburn]

Any rehoused Nikons I have ever used have always focused the wrong (Nikon) way.

I think it would be quite a job to make them go the right way.

Remember that Simpsons episode where the US embassy in Australia had that huge rig to make the toilets flush the proper 'merican way? It would be like that only with Lemo connectors.

You could use a reversable follow focus unit be it a mechanical or electrical one. Or better yet get some nice Contax lens made by Zeiss, they almost all focus cinewise.

[albert rudnicki]

ooops

[puntociego]

Was Bourne Ultimatum shot with the Red one?

pablo

[Steve Sherrick]

evin, why the knock on rplens? Peter has been great to deal with and he can put together a kit based on what you want. Aside from the delvin focus gear, he removes aperture click stops, adds 80mm stepup and checks out the lenses pretty thoroughly. Did you have a bad experience with them?

[Peter Shanelaris]

I would be very interested.

Best,
Peter

[Uli Plank]

Was Bourne Ultimatum shot with the Red one?


If they found a way to rehouse a mechanical drive for pulling that Kodak Vision2 through a Red ?

Regards,

Uli

[Ted Chu]

Count me in!

Nikon 14mm ED
Nikon 17-35mm ED
Nikon 28-70mm ED
Nikon 80-200 ED

BTW, $1000 per lens is cheap for a Century conversion.

Ted Chu
http://tedchu.com

[Tony Lorentzen]

Guys, I think Evin let this go ages ago. There might be another compromise underway, though. But with compromises comes drawbacks - just how
much only time will tell.

[Vico Martin]

I worked with my nikon glass last three years (Gerrilla, P+S) and I´m in love with it. Work in 4k and have the chance to change in a second to nikon in a full PL Film!!!!, for 1000 Dollars?? Yes!!!

Count me too. 4 of them.

80-200
36-72
50
24

[Augusto Alves da Silva]

I was reading this post and it doesn´t make much sense to me....Why would anyone have the Nikon lenses converted in PL mounts?
1- There are Nikon to PL adaptors
2- Nikon photo lenses (at least the ones I buy not the DX) or Zeiss ZF are capable of doing Full Frame, something that the Zeiss Master Primes etc...don´t becaiuse are designed to smaller sensors 35mm cine sensors.
3- When you change the mount to PL you won´t be able to use in every camera.
4- After all this why spending 1000 a lens? Just to say you have rehoused PL mount custom made Nikons? Actually you could ask duclos lenses (www.ducloslenses.com) and they have a huge range of PL mount Nikons and not only to suit your needs. They are the BEST.
Thank you for reading

[Shane Kelly]

I was reading this post and it doesn´t make much sense to me....Why would anyone have the Nikon lenses converted in PL mounts?
1- There are Nikon to PL adaptors
2- Nikon photo lenses (at least the ones I buy not the DX) or Zeiss ZF are capable of doing Full Frame, something that the Zeiss Master Primes etc...don´t becaiuse are designed to smaller sensors 35mm cine sensors.
3- When you change the mount to PL you won´t be able to use in every camera.
4- After all this why spending 1000 a lens? Just to say you have rehoused PL mount custom made Nikons? Actually you could ask duclos lenses (www.ducloslenses.com) and they have a huge range of PL mount Nikons and not only to suit your needs. They are the BEST.
Thank you for reading

I think Matt Duclos, Stuart from focus optics,et al, need to step in here. Apart from the new Allstar mount, I'm pretty sure that there is no viable nikon to pl adapters.

[FocusOptics]

I think Matt Duclos, Stuart from focus optics,et al, need to step in here. Apart from the new Allstar mount, I'm pretty sure that there is no viable nikon to pl adapters.

There is no nikon to pl adapter. At infinity pl mount is 52mm or 2.047in from the film plane the nikon is 46.5mm or 1.831in from the film plane. The differents is 5.5mm or .216in. the pl mount has to go into the lens towards the front 5.5mm or .216in there is no room. If you dont worry about going in 5.5mm then yes you can use an nikon to pl adapter you will also lose infinity and long footage marks. And you also lose stop like putting macro baffels on the back of the lens.
Stuart

[Matthew Duclos]

We've got something in the pipe.

[Tim Duran]

What am I missing here? I thought the new Scarlet took Nikon lenses with no modifications. Are we going with Nikon for cost reasons only or do they provide an advantage I'm not aware of? I have a slew of Nikon lenses I would consider converting if I'm not shooting myself in the foot when Scarlet is out. Thoughts please.

[Zul, Y]

We've got something in the pipe.

Does that mean you have plans for a nikon to pl adapter or are you rehousing more nikon lenses? Haha

[Jaime Vallés]

What am I missing here? I thought the new Scarlet took Nikon lenses with no modifications. Are we going with Nikon for cost reasons only or do they provide an advantage I'm not aware of? I have a slew of Nikon lenses I would consider converting if I'm not shooting myself in the foot when Scarlet is out. Thoughts please.
With the proper $500 mount, both the Scarlet and Epic brains can take Nikon lenses. However, They're not recommended for the 2/3" Scarlet since the size of the sensor will crop the field of view, meaning the wide-angle lenses will look telephoto.

You should absolutely be able to use Nikon lenses on the S35 Scarlet, however.

[Tim Duran]

Jamie, thanks for taking the time to respond. I read Reduser regularly and recall posts last year when the specs for Scarlet were released a lot of comments on buying the fixed lens Scarlet v. third party lenses like Nikon. At that time many people were thrilled about using there Nikon and Canon lenses. Is this limitation the reason a lot of people are now seeming to be more in favor of the fixed lens package?

[George A.]

I would be interested, not with Nikon, but with a few Canon FD lenses.

Canon FD 135mm F2.0
Canon FD 200mm F2.8
Canon FD 14mm F2.8

What's the latest word?

George

[Zul, Y]

I would be interested, not with Nikon, but with a few Canon FD lenses.

Canon FD 135mm F2.0
Canon FD 200mm F2.8
Canon FD 14mm F2.8

What's the latest word?

George

Canon lenses would be nice too since they focus "cine-wise"

[Tom Lowe]

I would be very interested in a straight Nikon-to-PL mount conversion for the 14-24G. Kind of like what Duclos did on the Nikon 80-200.

I don't have the $$$ for the Ruby 14-24, as much as I would love to buy one.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

slap a pl on my zf lenses and ill be siked

[Peter Matthes]

We've got something in the pipe.

I bet you do, Panama Red.

:lol:

[Evin Grant]

Jeez, talk about a zombie thread, you guys dig this up from 08!
Much has changed since then, although there are still some Nikkors I'd like to see in PL, specifically the 17-35 or 17-55 f2.8 zooms.

[Matthew Duclos]

Jeez, talk about a zombie thread, you guys dig this up from 08!
Much has changed since then.

Exactly what I was thinking.
You say 17-55mm, eh?

[George A.]

Dear Matthew,

Would it be hard to "cinematize" Canon FD lenses, sort of what you did with the Tokina?

They do rotate cine-wise, they have great glass, usually they are made with metal casing etc.

The PL mount and gears would be easy... how about making the focus throw longer? I guess that's the tricky part, even though the rotation is ok.

Would this be expensive?

Thanks!
George

[Matthew Duclos]

Dear Matthew,

Would it be hard to "cinematize" Canon FD lenses, sort of what you did with the Tokina?

They do rotate cine-wise, they have great glass, usually they are made with metal casing etc.

The PL mount and gears would be easy... how about making the focus throw longer? I guess that's the tricky part, even though the rotation is ok.

Would this be expensive?

Thanks!
George


Are you referring to older, manual FD lenses?

[Larry McKee]

You say 17-55mm, eh?

Why do I get the feeling you are already working on this?

[George A.]

Are you referring to older, manual FD lenses?

Yes Matthew.

Thanks!
George

[Antoine Fabi]

Are you referring to older, manual FD lenses?

Hmmm....

Good call George!

The FDs are in the closet since the day RED announced the FD mount could void the warranty...

BUT
i would love to know how much it'd cost to convert them to PL.

I kept all of them because they are wonderfull lenses.

Exceptional image signature.

The FD images had a wonderfull look i just can't approach with the Zeiss ZFs.

Matthew ?


Antoine

[Zul, Y]

Are you referring to older, manual FD lenses?

Yes please, haha. Their FD "L" primes are nice.

14mm 2.8
24mm 1.4
50mm 1.2
85mm 1.2

[George A.]

Are you referring to older, manual FD lenses?

So what do you think Matthew? Can it be done? Especially increasing the focus rotation, since the direction is already correct. I assume the PL mount and the focus gear won't be a problem, or too expensive.

Best,
George

[Matthew Duclos]

So what do you think Matthew? Can it be done? Especially increasing the focus rotation, since the direction is already correct. I assume the PL mount and the focus gear won't be a problem, or too expensive.

Best,
George

This is all very simple, in theory.
As with any lens conversion, it can be done cheap and quick. But that's not how I would do it. This is, of course, all theoretical... Increasing the focus throw be a large project. These lenses are helical driven focus mechanisms which means you would have to take the entire lens apart, design and manufacture matching helicals that travel at a rate that allows a 360 degree throw while maintaining travel from infinity to minimum focus distance. All of this while still maintaining the dimensions and tolerances set forth by the manufacturer of the original lens. On top of that, each focal length has a different mechanical design, so each lens would require it's own redesigned focus helical.
Second, the PL mount is simple to adapt to any blank surface at the rear of the lens given the proper physical dimensions are available. However, this would be sloppy and probably wont las very long. Adequate mounting surfaces must be considered to attach a larger mount to in a way that also permits control of back focus adjustment (shims).
So far we are looking at 50%-80% of the original lens housing being replaced. At this point, yes a focus gear would be an obvious, simple addition.
The complication in doing such a conversion (older lenses, not available to purchase new) is the prototyping and designs may vary drastically from model to model considering their age and use. Additionally, is with any production, cost is drastically effected by quantity. RED has made a perfect example of this with their Red Pro Primes. They are awesome quality at a relatively low cost due in large part to their production quantity.
So in short, yes. It can be done.
Will it be cheap, no.

[Sanjin Jukic]

This is all very simple, in theory.
As with any lens conversion, it can be done cheap and quick. But that's not how I would do it. This is, of course, all theoretical... Increasing the focus throw be a large project. These lenses are helical driven focus mechanisms which means you would have to take the entire lens apart, design and manufacture matching helicals that travel at a rate that allows a 360 degree throw while maintaining travel from infinity to minimum focus distance. All of this while still maintaining the dimensions and tolerances set forth by the manufacturer of the original lens. On top of that, each focal length has a different mechanical design, so each lens would require it's own redesigned focus helical.
Second, the PL mount is simple to adapt to any blank surface at the rear of the lens given the proper physical dimensions are available. However, this would be sloppy and probably wont las very long. Adequate mounting surfaces must be considered to attach a larger mount to in a way that also permits control of back focus adjustment (shims).
So far we are looking at 50%-80% of the original lens housing being replaced. At this point, yes a focus gear would be an obvious, simple addition.
The complication in doing such a conversion (older lenses, not available to purchase new) is the prototyping and designs may vary drastically from model to model considering their age and use. Additionally, is with any production, cost is drastically effected by quantity. RED has made a perfect example of this with their Red Pro Primes. They are awesome quality at a relatively low cost due in large part to their production quantity.
So in short, yes. It can be done.
Will it be cheap, no.

Matthew,

sound good.

Could you give us approximative costs or price for that sort of conversion per lens.

[Matthew Duclos]

Matthew,

sound good.

Could you give us approximative costs or price for that sort of conversion per lens.

lol. I'll save you some time and money. It's not worth it.
You can purchase NEW lenses that are far better quality for much less than it would cost to re-house lenses such as these.

[George A.]

I perfectly understand Matthew.

I wonder if there are any FD lenses that have acceptable focus rotation travel distance for cine work.

Then, the only challenge would be a solid PL mount (and the focus gear).

Best,
George

[George A.]

In fact, are there any still lenses that have a focus throw as long as (or at least comparable to) cine lenses?

George

[Sanjin Jukic]

lol. I'll save you some time and money. It's not worth it.
You can purchase NEW lenses that are far better quality for much less than it would cost to re-house lenses such as these.

Matthew,

totally agree.

But I'm still satisfied with some of the old and new still lenses like a Canon FD (not at all with new EF-L), Angenieux, Leica-M, Leica -R, Nikkors,...

For example shot in very dark street in Vienna at Josephsplatz 5 with the Arch which is an entrance to Michaelerplatz in the background

and it is at the front of the house (Palais Pallavicini) where was living Harry Lime (Orson Welles) in the famous movie "The Third Man" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041959/) (1949):

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/A015_C002_0110JH.0003528.jpg
Shot handheld in available light at wide open @ f1.2 (very short DoF) on RED1-M with Canon 50mm FD f/1.2, ISO 320, 24FPS, shutter 180.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/A015_C002_0110JH.0003927.jpg
Shot handheld in available light at @ f/2.0 on RED1-M with Canon 50mm FD f/1.2, ISO 320, 24FPS, shutter 180.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/A015_C002_0110JH.0002374.jpg
Shot handheld in available light at wide open @ f1.2 (very short DoF) on RED1-M with Canon 50mm FD f/1.2, ISO 320, 24FPS, shutter 180.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/A015_C002_0110JH.0004484.jpg
Shot handheld in available light at wide open @ f1.2 (very short DoF) on RED1-M with Canon 50mm FD f/1.2, ISO 320, 24FPS, shutter 180.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/A015_C003_0110FV.0000821.jpg
Shot handheld in available light at wide open @ f1.2 (very short DoF) on RED1-M with Canon 50mm FD f/1.2, ISO 320, 24FPS, shutter 180.

[Sarah C.]

In fact, are there any still lenses that have a focus throw as long as (or at least comparable to) cine lenses?

George

The Canon 17-35mmF2.8 USM/L (full frame 35mm) lens is a tad too long a throw for fast still photography.. for me anyway. You can check out a slow rack focus I did the other day when trying it out on a Canon 7D.. http://vimeo.com/9719447 (the shot I'm referring to starts at about 0:45sec in) It goes slowly from the books in the foreground to books on the racks deep in the store. --Not graded footage. Not as long a throw as any cine lens I've used, but longer than pro-video/broadcast 2/3" lenses I've shot with(such as Canon or Fujinon). It is also very smooth, and very sharp--as long as I don't use cheap filters in front of it.

ALSO... the Canon 300mmF2.8 USM/L (non-IS) that I have has different modes(switch on side of lens) for the focus.. long and short throws. Very handy for shooting sports action that is all over the place, or trying to get a precision spot-on focus point especially when using a tele 2x (which I also have).

~s

[Sanjin Jukic]

There are many Leica R, Leica M and older Carl Zeiss still lenses with pretty long focus throw.

[Sanjin Jukic]

What is the point of showing these images above?

It's about to show that for me in the near future with new M-X sensor upgrade should be possible to get speed of lens down for a stop or two and

with that get DoF lager that is easy to focus. Also the lens will get sharper and with more contrast in overall image quality.

This is something compared to shooting a high speed film stock and pushing it later in processing.

The best still lenses are still able to compete pretty good optically with many of cine lenses (primes or zoom)

as Zeiss showed us with its set of lightweight and excellent Compact Primes

that are actually based on Cosina made in Japan still glass elements in its design and construction.

This was confirmed to me by one of Zeiss's main guys on Carl Zeiss stand at IBC last year.

[Antoine Fabi]

lol. I'll save you some time and money. It's not worth it.
You can purchase NEW lenses that are far better quality for much less than it would cost to re-house lenses such as these.

Here i respectfully disagree Matthew.

I immensely prefer the image i shot with the FDs over ANY of my Zeiss ZFs.

Technically why ? i dont no...you're the expert, maybe this particular sensor loves the FDs, but my eyes can't lie to me, i definitely prefer the image coming from the FDs with the RED.

Is it possible to convert the FDs without rehousing them ?

I dont need them to be "full cine" $$$

All i want is the PL mount.

Thanks

Antoine

[Matthew Duclos]

Here i respectfully disagree Matthew.

I immensely prefer the image i shot with the FDs over ANY of my Zeiss ZFs.

Technically why ? i dont no...you're the expert, maybe this particular sensor loves the FDs, but my eyes can't lie to me, i definitely prefer the image coming from the FDs with the RED.

Is it possible to convert the FDs without rehousing them ?

I dont need them to be "full cine" $$$

All i want is the PL mount.

Thanks

Antoine
I respect your respectful disagreement, but I must respectfully disagree your disagreement.
Older Canon glass does have a very nice feel about the image that it produces. But you can't argue that the quality and materials in modern lenses is more advanced and better (by the numbers).
I wasn't referring to preference. I was referring to the cost of a full rehouse vs. the cost of a new lens. Can't argue there ;)

And again, this is all theoretical. I'm not a reduser sponsor so I cannot comment on what Duclos Lenses would charge for such a procedure. However, there are several very competent sponsors here that I'm sure would be able to give you a price quote.

[Sanjin Jukic]

About Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical:

"This Canon lens is an amazingly effective lens and a superb design in itself.
Of course it lacks the sparkle and transparancy in small details that we can
see in better designs, but they are of lower maximum aperture.
Some commentators called the Canon FD 1.2 aspherical
the best standard lens in the world. It is hard to disagree."

A quote from a famous lens expert Erwin Puts, a photography lens analyst and tester >>> (http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page81.html)

[Antoine Fabi]

I dont doubt a second that, by the numbers, new glasses are better.

You perfectly know what i mean Matthew...

All i was asking, is it possible to just convert the FD to PL without rehousing them.

Thanks

Antoine

[Sanjin Jukic]

I dont doubt a second that, by the numbers, new glasses are better.

You perfectly know what i mean Matthew...

All i was asking, is it possible to just convert the FD to PL without rehousing them.

Thanks

Antoine

Antoine,

as we know that already exists FD to PL mount conversion(s)

I would suggest that you ask Les Bosher in South Wales, UK for a quote.

"We Specialise in Lens & Camera Conversions, Lens Mounts & Adapters.

We only sell what we make ourselves , so can offer you a good price.

We are able to convert Canon FD Lenses..."

Les Bosher, Camera Engineer >>> (http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/)

[Matthew Duclos]

I dont doubt a second that, by the numbers, new glasses are better.

You perfectly know what i mean Matthew...

All i was asking, is it possible to just convert the FD to PL without rehousing them.

Thanks

Antoine

Yes. It is possible.

[Antoine Fabi]

Thanks Matthew.

I'll send you a email :)

Antoine

[Matthew Duclos]

Thanks Matthew.

I'll send you a email :)

Antoine

I would suggest contact a REDUser sponsor that specializes in lens service.
I'm just here to provide advice and share knowledge. :)

[George A.]

Dear Matthew,

I will also send you an e-mail, if it´s all right.

All the best!
George