Thread: Canon FD vs K35

Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 132
  1. #91  
    Senior Member Jacek Zakowicz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,309
    The newer version K35s were 50mm T1.4/1.5 not 55mm. I guess that would correspond with Canon transition from a 55 breach mount aspherical to 50mm nfd
    Jacek Zakowicz, Optitek-dot-org, jacek2@optitek.org
    Professional Broadcast and Digital Cinema Equipment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #92  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,085
    Can you determine the age of the lens from the serial number?

    Are we simply in some sort of nostalgia cycle and will early EF-mount glass be the next hot commodity?

    My 85mm f1.8 and 28mm f1.8 are ready to skyrocket in value....

    https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00968/00968.pdf

    More evidence that the 24, 55, and 85mm are similar to FD (same number of elements and groups)–the 35mm meanwhile appears to be the most complex design and the physically largest...

    To what extent do we like these lenses because they are bad? Modern designs are sharper.

    The old Sigma 20mm f1.8 is ready to skyrocket in value....
    Last edited by Matt W.; 12-08-2019 at 12:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #93  
    Senior Member Satsuki Murashige's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    To what extent do we like these lenses because they are bad? Modern designs are sharper.
    For some, they may just be chasing the vintage trend. When the season turns, they may look elsewhere. But I think many people specifically don’t want sharpness and clarity. Instead they want character, personality, funkiness - whatever you want to call it. A tool that helps to subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) differentiate their work from the majority of stuff out there.

    I do think that there are many cases where such a ‘vintage’ look is not well thought out. It’s not enough to just slap an old lens on the camera or a stocking on the lens, without also considering how that will complement your locations, production design, your lighting and exposure choices, use of practicals, and incorporating the look into the story. But ideally all work needs the same level of care and thoughtfulness, regardless of the tools used. So it’s not so much about the tools, but how well they are used.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #94  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Satsuki Murashige View Post
    For some, they may just be chasing the vintage trend. When the season turns, they may look elsewhere. But I think many people specifically don’t want sharpness and clarity. Instead they want character, personality, funkiness - whatever you want to call it. A tool that helps to subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) differentiate their work from the majority of stuff out there.

    I do think that there are many cases where such a ‘vintage’ look is not well thought out. It’s not enough to just slap an old lens on the camera or a stocking on the lens, without also considering how that will complement your locations, production design, your lighting and exposure choices, use of practicals, and incorporating the look into the story. But ideally all work needs the same level of care and thoughtfulness, regardless of the tools used. So it’s not so much about the tools, but how well they are used.
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I always liked using heavy Classic Soft-style filtration, so I suppose personally I like a softer look.

    But it does feel a bit culty to me, particularly eBay prices. What makes a Kowa Cine-Prominar or a Baltar that much better than contemporaneous designs from other manufacturers other than scarcity?

    Why aren’t the faux-vintage lenses flying off the shelves? Or are they? I do like the look of the Blackwing 7s but those seem quite different from the rest. And I love the look of Cooke S2/S3s but they’re bad performers, whereas when I owned the aforementioned 20mm f1.8 Sigma I was put off by the softness. Was that just bias?

    Part of the trend toward softness is imo format. Arri/Zeiss have comparisons of Ultra Primes, which are focused on sharpness, against Signature Primes focused on “rendering” and I think the evolving preferences toward rendering over clinical sharpness derive from 35mm film being relatively soft and digital being sharper. When I shot 4x5 I remember there was a trend toward vintage lenses with 8X10 because you could get “sharp but soft.” Maybe that’s the appeal. I agree lighting matters, too. Imo there’s a reason Richardson and Kaminski prefer hard light…. But ig both of them just used filtration. (Signature Primes are still more clinical than I would personally prefer.)

    Is it possible the vintage market will be overtaken by the faux-vintage market?

    Should I buy a set of those bad Sigma f1.8 primes from before their successful Art line and be the next innovator? Probably not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #95  
    To me fd’s are well built lenses and the lineup is very good. And they got some sort of 70’s look in the coatings that I like. But most of all its difficult to find good fast glas from the same brand 14mm to 1000mm. FD’s long focus swings and more sturdy builds compared to the EF line together with the good prices just makes them atractive I guess.
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se/axis
    VFX / Flame / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #96  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    To me fd’s are well built lenses and the lineup is very good. And they got some sort of 70’s look in the coatings that I like. But most of all its difficult to find good fast glas from the same brand 14mm to 1000mm. FD’s long focus swings and more sturdy builds compared to the EF line together with the good prices just makes them atractive I guess.
    That makes sense. Well I am going to give them a try. What would you recommend to start with? (For full frame.)
    Last edited by Matt W.; 12-08-2019 at 05:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    That makes sense. Well I am going to give them a try. What would you recommend to start with? (For full frame.)
    I got these and like them enough to send them away to have them rehoused. The 14mm does not cover monstro if you dont modify the hood which is quite simple to do.


    FD 14mm f/2.8L
    FD 24mm f/1.4 S.S.C. ASPHERICAL
    FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C.
    FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C. ASPHERICAL
    FD 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. ASPHERICAL
    FD 135mm f/2


    Not really sure what the difference is between the SSC and the none SSC. But as I see it all the fast ones from this list are great lenses. The weak ranges as I see it is around 20mm and 35mm.

    https://cameraville.co/blog/list-eve...lens-ever-made
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se/axis
    VFX / Flame / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #98  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,492
    What I want out of a lens for a narrative project is this - I want to have some highlight bloom if I want it at a stop below a 2.8-2ish. I want poor corner illumination and sharpness to help me point the viewers eye in the right direction. Mostly on wides. on an 85, I don't care so much, but if I can do a shot on an 18mm and still have soft corners and darker corners, great. The film I am shooting right now, we are shooting on illumina s35mkIIs at 5k on gemini. The 18mm covers the sensor, but the corners are soft as fuck. That's a nice look on an 18. There are lots of shitty vintage lenses. There are some good ones as well. There are also some really shitty modern lenses (Zeiss cps come to mind). It all come down to what you want. Also, lenses at at 2 and lens at a 5.6 are two different things. Then you can fuck with nets and filters, and prisms and all kinds of shit. It just comes down to what you want.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #99  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    I got these and like them enough to send them away to have them rehoused. The 14mm does not cover monstro if you dont modify the hood which is quite simple to do.


    FD 14mm f/2.8L
    FD 24mm f/1.4 S.S.C. ASPHERICAL
    FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C.
    FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C. ASPHERICAL
    FD 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. ASPHERICAL
    FD 135mm f/2


    Not really sure what the difference is between the SSC and the none SSC. But as I see it all the fast ones from this list are great lenses. The weak ranges as I see it is around 20mm and 35mm.

    https://cameraville.co/blog/list-eve...lens-ever-made
    I think S.S.C. is marketing speak for multicoating and was implemented silently in some models like early T* coating. So those might all be S.S.C.

    14mm is expensive.... this is where (as someone without money for big name lenses) the FD mystique confounds me. $3000 for a 14mm f2.8 FD L, while the 14mm f2.8 EF L (identical optical design) is $600 used.

    Then I consider the costs of K35s with full cinema mechanics and the lack of even basic hard stops on the EF version and suddenly it all makes sense. I just live in another world where $1k is a fairly expensive lens and I forget that mechanics are worth much more than glass.

    I wonder if the EF 35mm f1.4 L would match well, but it seems to be a bit more modern. Even the original 35mm f1.4 MK1 version is far newer than the EF 14mm f2.8.

    But I bet the 50mm f1.0 would be as good match (other than mechanics).

    And thanks, I will start with a smaller set but try to include those listed over others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
    What I want out of a lens for a narrative project is this - I want to have some highlight bloom if I want it at a stop below a 2.8-2ish. I want poor corner illumination and sharpness to help me point the viewers eye in the right direction. Mostly on wides. on an 85, I don't care so much, but if I can do a shot on an 18mm and still have soft corners and darker corners, great. The film I am shooting right now, we are shooting on illumina s35mkIIs at 5k on gemini. The 18mm covers the sensor, but the corners are soft as fuck. That's a nice look on an 18. There are lots of shitty vintage lenses. There are some good ones as well. There are also some really shitty modern lenses (Zeiss cps come to mind). It all come down to what you want. Also, lenses at at 2 and lens at a 5.6 are two different things. Then you can fuck with nets and filters, and prisms and all kinds of shit. It just comes down to what you want.
    This is what I'm getting at. What separates character from poor performance? For me I guess it's anything that enhances the impression of depth and contrast rather than obscuring it. Highlight bloom makes bright spots look brighter but an entirely washed out scene does the opposite. Barrel distortion adds depth, complex or pincushion distortion looks weird. Soft corners and vignetting are desirable, I agree.

    Why the Zeiss CP hate? Just sort boring or actually bad?
    Last edited by Matt W.; 12-08-2019 at 07:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #100  
    Senior Member Satsuki Murashige's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    This is what I'm getting at. What separates character from poor performance? For me I guess it's anything that enhances the impression of depth and contrast rather than obscuring it. Highlight bloom makes bright spots look brighter but an entirely washed out scene does the opposite. Barrel distortion adds depth, complex or pincushion distortion looks weird. Soft corners and vignetting are desirable, I agree.
    It all comes down to personal taste. There is no objective right answer, only what looks good to you.

    That said, I think a lot of common tastes come from our shared enjoyment of what has come before. If you love ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ or ‘Ben Hur’, then you’re going to have a certain understanding of ‘epic’ widescreen period cinematography that many other people share. Similarly with ‘The French Connection’ for gritty cop action film, ‘The Godfather’ for dark moody period drama, etc. The grainy pushed film texture, handheld camera, and active zoom lenses of ‘French Connection’ would seem counterintuitive for ‘Lawrence’. And so with lenses - distorted vintage Cineovision anamorphics with super blue lens flare would be great for a dark thriller, but might be odd for a beauty commercial or romantic comedy. Master Primes would be great for a clean sharp ‘thru the window’ look, but if you’re doing an ensemble drama with aging actresses, then the ‘bad performer’ Cooke Speed Panchros might be a better choice.

    Also, I think the ‘performance’ of a lens is only relevant criteria if you need that aspect for a particular shot. If you’re shooting an architectural project and your client absolutely cannot have any distortion, or if you have a movie with a lot of night exteriors and need good performance at T1.4, etc. Otherwise, it’s whatever looks good and sets the right mood for you. But if you want to own all of your own lenses rather then rent as needed, then this is going to be a problem. Unless you’re fabulously wealthy, I guess...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts