as per above:

start with 50mm

Nikon has a $99 50mm f1.8

Then u can get a zoom... 70-300mm f4 around $130

then u can come down to a 12-24mm

Shallow DOF is a bit of an art - there is a post somewhere around here about the DOF calculator online.

Generally, the longer the focal length, the shorter the DOF (okay okay, it has a lot more variables, but it's a place to start).

Take a look at the sample footage James put up on micro35.com - he points out the focal lengths he is using in the movies.

yeah still trying to read up in the DOF stuff....rather confusing...but I'm only just beginning. Don't actually have a camera yet. Waiting to hear about James adapter and how it performs with a variety of cameras before I purchase.

Andrew - you should consider investing in a guide written by Barry Green over at DVXUser.com

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=12272

Although it's specific to DVX100 it is a great book/DVD for explaining a lot of DV stuff you should know.

here's the info on the DOF calculator:

Michal, go to http://www.dudak.baka.com/dofcalc.html and plug in the lens you want along with the F-stop and subject distance, hit "Calculate Depth of Field". It will answer all your questions.


__________________
www.lunaticfringepictures.com

Another question that applies
 

With James' adapter and nikon lenses...are there any particular series of lenses that it's designed specifically for...or any series it WON'T work with? Are there other adapters/stepdown rings etc that allow any nikon lens to work?

Start learning now
 

One fun, direct way to learn all this stuff---how to use fixed-focal-length lenses, manipulating DoF &c---is to shoot stills. Nothing will teach you this stuff faster.

Re: Another question that applies
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Andrew C. Stewart : With James' adapter and nikon lenses...are there any particular series of lenses that it's designed specifically for...or any series it WON'T work with? Are there other adapters/stepdown rings etc that allow any nikon lens to work? -->>>

According to James: The mount situation has been taken care of. Nikon, Canon AF and MF, pentax, PL, and OCT-19 will be available.

So pretty much if you have a lens that works with any of these mounts you are probably in good shape.

Thanks brian...

I've been looking at some other Nikon lenses and some say AI, some AIS, some for what I assume to be different cameras(Sigma, Nikkor, Vivitar, Tamron, etc). I just didn't know if the mounts were the same or different...or at least compatible in some way.

Also...what does everyone recommend in ways of Autofocus and Manual?

I would assume that the AF in a lens wouldn't work with this type of an adapter and that MF would give you more control anyway. Is that the general concensus?

I can't speak for others, but my strategy has been to invest in some high quality lomo cine primes with manual focus and assume I will invest in a follow focus rig sometime soon.... well, as soon as microfocus shows up!

vingetting??
 

will any focal length lenses get vingetting?? for example, if i were to use a 28mm f2.8 lens will it vingette with the micro35???

on some of the wide angles i have the glass thats on the side that connects to the body of the camera is smaller than my 50mm.

when i use this lens with my agus35 i get the vengetting.

I can't speak for all lenses, but my lenses as wide as 18mm haven't caused any problems.

Part of the problem is not zooming in far enough on the ground glass. ALL lenses vignette at some point. Zooming in tighter means you lose some of the image, but don't vignette. In an SLR everything is placed so that the 35mm frame is well within the circle of light projected by the lens, thus, no vignetting!

Brett

You could draw a rectangle of size 36x24mm on a piece of paper, that's the size of 35mm still film, and hold that as far from your camcorder as where your groundglass normally is. Now zoom in until you have the boundaries of the rectangle exactly in your view. This should be the approprate zoom level, so no still lens wil give you any vignetting (only maybe some fisheye, which will give the same vignetting with a still camera).

Good luck,

Steven

i figured out what i was doing wrong... i needed to move my camera further away from the GG then zoom in... i just have my camera set at the wrong distance to the gg.

I wouldn't know... i have no gg or 35mm adapter!!

:(:(:(:(

Close up lems for FX1, how many diopters?
 

I own FX1E and want to buy close up lens for it, achromatic. How many diopters close up lens will need for Micro 35? What is best strength, so lens focusing is about in the middle, when focusing on ground glass? How close is ground glass from camera lens, approximately, in Micro 35?

Why Lomo So Popular? What/Where to Buy?
 

I've heard a number of people saying they are getting/have gotten Lomo lenses for use with the micro35. Could a couple of these folks briefly explain why and how? I mean, there are some really nice lenses made outside of Russia by companies like Nikon, Canon, Leica, Olympus etc. Yes I know Lomo made spy satellite lenses which, while quite cool, isn't in itself enough for me to jump on the bandwagon.

I'm hoping someone could also explain how one would go about buying non-used Lomo gear and what might comprise a serviceable set of Lomo lenses for use on a micro35. The used Lomo stuff on eBay is rather frightening looking; typically rusted or beaten or otherwise very like something from the bowels of the Soviet empire circa 1957. I'm sure some of it is fantastic, but I'm partial to things like warranties and that new gear smell.

The Lomo web site is also quite bizarre, which is undertandable, as they are a Russian company.

Any insight into the mystery of Lomo appreciated. Thanks!

Radek,
The micro35 (pre-assembled unit) uses an achromat that has a focal length of 125mm.

The macro is about 4 inches from the gg. (The macro is mounted on a 72mm ring.)

Hope this helps Radek! We should have more detailed information up on the new website when it's released in the upcoming week.

James
www.micro35.com

<<<--
Originally posted by James Hurd :
We should have more detailed information up on the new website when it's released in the upcoming week.
www.micro35.com
-->>>

Hey James, have you done any HDV tests? I'm kinda curious as to whether the Micro35 is likely to work with the upcoming Panasonic HVX200. I'm hoping to get to NAB to see that camera in person. (I know it's not HDV) :-)

You can try the Hawk lenses - Lomos with the same glass and that new gear smell you love so much. Basically add a zero or two to the price, though.

Movie lenses are made to smaller circles of confusion than stills camera lenses. A 35mm movie frame is equivalent to a half a 135 stills 35mm camera frame. Because we have essentially a half frame negative blown up to the size of a cinema screen, the acutance of the lens must be higher.

Zeiss, Canon, Cooke, and a very few other companies still make lenses to this specification. Check the prices of new Zeiss Primos.

Leica and Nikon lenses are made to cover the stills movie frame and even though they are plenty sharp enough if you're finishing on HD or DVD, their focus barrels aren't built for racking (i.e. the image could well shift from side to side as you rack focus back and forth), and their aperture settings have clicks in them (hard to pull aperture during a shot). They are designed to cover more negative/gate area and to be enlarged a lot less, so their unit cost is less. Also, they are designed to sell. A lot of lenses, for not a lot of money each lens.

Movie lenses are designed to work. Not that many sold, not particularly cheap. They have to be good.

Lomos are USSR movie camera lenses. The first two numbers of the serial number typically indicated the year of manufacture. The late 80's and early 90's (around the fall of the Berlin Wall) give you the most modern lenses. Like at least one US manufacturer, the spy camera business was dying out, so they turned their attentions to the next best thing. After that I don't know what happened, but I think they went the way of all things Soviet - i.e. ended up in the West.

I have a set of lenses from the 80's and another set from the 90's. The 80's set looks like the ones you're describing, and the 90's set looks like the ones that were rebarrelled and used on "The Titanic" and other movies. (I know, my friend a lens tech had a Lomo 18mm and a Hawk 18mm lens X-rayed and flouroscoped to check the internal element layout and coatings.)

You've seen a lot of movies shot with Lomo lenses, only the people using them were a little ashamed to tell you. They've just come out of the closet a little, is all.

Because Lomo had pretty good optical designers who were basically free of worry about selling the lenses they made, they tried, and in a lot of people's opinions, succeeded, in making good, serviceable lenses that are built like tanks and keep on ticking, to mix a few metaphors.

I bought my Lomo 18 around six years ago for $250, with case, hood, focus and aperture gears. Care to find out how much a comparable western 18mm lens costs? Heck, care to buy just the gear rings for that amount of money?

Say no more.
Cheers
Chris

Thank you Chris

but where to buy?
Any homepage available?

Hi Jochen
google lomo lenses
mainly ebay but a few dealers around the planet
mainly used but some used
I got mine from my Australian pal who got it from LenFilms and MosFilms direct.
sorry, no direct dealer, which leads me to think that they are no more.

Chris - great info and thanks for sharing. I picked up a handful of lomo primes from 18mm-100mm. Question is, how can I evaluate the quality of the lenses? Any tips?

umm... shoot something with them?
No, if they're clean and n good shape, they'll probably yield great images.
Just project an image by holding them up so they can project onto a wall and check the sharpness etc. I think you'll be pleased.
Or, of course, you can just rent or borrow, heck, just buy a used Konvas camera and blast off a few feet...

Well, I am planning on the micro35-style test, if you know what I mean and I think you do!

Brian, I think that your micro 35 and video chain side will be the major determining factor of image quality. The lens side of things has already been taken care of, in that you now have lenses that will yield superior images. In terms of bokeh, color cast, contrast, etc., please don't forget that we're going to video. The definition even of high def is 2,040 lines per screen. The definition of 35mm film negative is around 65,000 lines per millimeter, with a contrast range of around 4,000:1 instead of TV's roughly 20:1. I think that in our case the quality and design of the ground glass/image field will dicate our final image quality, it being possibly the weakest link in the chain as far as contrast and acutance go.

Chris - I acknowledge micro35 will not address the limitations of video as you've described (resolution, contrast range, etc.) But I don't see how you conclude the micro35 may be the weak link? As you pointed out, television itself is the crudest of all we've described, with resolution around 600 lines, which seems to be to be the weakest link of all. micro35 softens the image, but I don't see how it contributes to resolution loss in vertical lines. Granted it also softens the image somewhat, which some (myself included) see as an added benefit instead of throwing the pro-mist filter on to compensate for video's overt sharpness

Hi Brian
I was thinking more in practice. The lens on the camera is a pretty known quantity, as is the Lomo end of the rig. The only unknown here is the lens mount and the imaging system, the other parts have been around for awhile, that's all I meant by it. So I think that if the lens mount is true and square, that's pretty easy to get right. It's straight machining accuracy and after the lens mount is set, it's essentially a fixed part, it doesn't move. Nor do the lenses, etc. The spinning/vibrating glass part is the part that has me thinking/worrying/estimating. Seems to me the weakest link of the lot.
Far better to try and find/make some kind of doublet/lens combo to make (and capture) an aerial image as they do in optical printers, with no moving parts at all, nothing to get dirty, diffuse, worn, that kind of thing.
If you look at a Panavision or an Arri you can see that not only are they precision instruments, they are built like tanks to last for a long while of wear and tear. The Lomos belong to that heritage.
The video cameras of today are less well built in general, and the micro 35? Can't tell you much, but that spinning gg has me a little concerned...

As to visual acutance, well, as you said, you can always add a filter to knock it down if it's too much, but you can't add more (optically) if it isn't there. Don't much like the present methods of digital enhancement, as you can see. I used to shoot fashion and beauty headshots with Zeiss lenses on Hasselblads, and I agree, the Softar look is great in some cases. Wouldn't use them on industrial shoots, however.

Cheers
Chris

What about these Hawk lenses? where they can be bought? And if it´s possible what prices rate they have?

These ones look interesting and a good investment anyway, so, i hope to hear!

i now have access to a nikon 80-200 1:2.8 D, but i´m worried about it´s weight!

hawks are basically repackaged lomos. I know that a few rental companies here have them, and I know that Cameron's company has some. They were advertised in filmmaker's mags awhile back. So I'd say "rare and expensive", like Panavision lenses for sale.

With the heavier lenses you'd be better off making a lens mount that carried both the lens and the camera body. That way you could change the tripod mounting point so that it was more at the center of gravity of the rig, rather than being too far back (if you mounted the rig via the camera's tripod mount and hung the lens out front, so to speak).

Some of the longer/heavier stills lenses have their own tripod mounts because they're so heavy that the camera just hangs off the back of them by their lens mount. Of course, that's just stills cameras, so in our case a modified or manufactured lens/camera mount would be the ticket.

I do believe that the original 15mm rod mounting systems were made to support the heavier zoom lenses as well as their matte boxes and focus mechanisms, so maybe that's the way to go, if your lens has a small enough barrel diameter.
If not you'll have to end up by building up the 15mm rod system with a platform to raise the camera (or just making one yourself/having one made), and then adding a dovetail plate on the bottom of it to take care of the CG issue.

Cheers
Chris

I believe the micro35 comes WITH 15mm rods for support of the micro35 and (presumably) any additional lens support (though you'd have to get the lens-to-rods mount)

Yes, i was thinking of something like this. The lens has a little "tail" and i supossed it was to attach it to a tripod or a plate to the rods.

I think it´s nice to have a zoom lens like this. Maybe would be better to get fixed focal, probably this way i would be able to get one or two stops more of light (to recover the ones lost in the adapter). In darker shots would be useful. But during day and strong sun, it won´t be that bad!

If there is a way to get a follow focus to it, then half way is done!

I know James wants to make some FF joining the Mc35, how would be to make step rings, just like for round filters with different diameters? would it be a way to get it done?

So these hawks are out. Man, why they don´t make cheap ones! we should have DYI optics here too! ;D

Ivan - maybe I'm missing something. Why don't you just buy some lomos off of eBay?

Brian, don´t worry, the only missing thing is i´m saving every cent i earn to buy HVX... Then i will eagerly jump on them! I´ll look in eBay anyway to see if there are cheap ones.

The good thing about Micro35 is we will be able to change for whatever we want (or have), whenever we want! I love that! ( i mean, without having to pay 1500$ for any mount (look for nikon mount in Mini35)!)

Boy - there's a topic. Can someone explain to me why I can buy a 100mm lomo for around $100 but the mount is $350?? these mounts are unbelievably expensive - and don't even get me started on PL mounts!

Thanks. Where can buy such 72 mm achromat inexpensively? How much would be?

4 Lomo Lenses - Which Ones to Keep for Micro35??
 

Hi all,
I just imported 4 Lomo lenses from Kiev (they came with a Konvas 35 mm movie camera).

I'm gonna sell the Konvas and 1 lens to recoup some $$$. Which three should I keep for the micro35 (to be used on DVX100)?

My lenses:
Lomo 70mm
Lomo 50 mm
Lomo 35 mm
Lomo 28 mm

Thanks,
Earon
Vancouver, BC

I'd say keep the 50, the 35 and the 70. That should cover most of your basic needs until you can get a couple of more lenses.

Joshua, Thanks
Which other ones - a greater range of telescoping lenses?
Thanks,
earon

personally, i'd take the 28mm over the 35mm.. if you have limited lens options i'd say get the widest you can and the longest you can.. then pick something in the middle.