Normal lenses compared...

[Steve Oakley]

I got a super nice Vivitar Series 1 28 1.9 a few weeks ago. wasn't cheap at $275, but what a nice lens, including internal focus ! works great with a matte box. the only thing weird about it is that it has a tapered lens barrel making it tricky to keep the focus gear on it. I'm probably going to mod a lens gear to match the slope, or maybe just add a fat O ring onto the barrel to make up the difference.

I've got some really nice OM glass too, the 35-70mm F4 is nice, and cheap... but there is also a F3.5 out there as well, when the come around.

the problem with the dslr revolution is that its driven the price of the old glass up thru the roof. lenses that wouldn't of sold, or went for under $100 2-3 years ago are now fetching as much or more then their modern counterparts. this is in part due to 160-180 deg focus rotation, and real iris rings.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley

the problem with the dslr revolution is that its driven the price of the old glass up thru the roof. lenses that wouldn't of sold, or went for under $100 2-3 years ago are now fetching as much or more then their modern counterparts. this is in part due to 160-180 deg focus rotation, and real iris rings.

What the digital revolution SHOULD be spawning is an awakening by lens manufacturers that there is a REAL need for GOOD manual focus EF mount glass. People are snapping up screw-mount, kmount, f-mount, and other vintage glass very quickly. I could buy a razor sharp Nikon 1.8mm manual lens for a couple hundred bucks right now, new. But I'll pay nearly that much for a pristine vintage lens because of it's other qualities.

And modern AF glass is just the pits for use with follow-focus units. So I'll keep after it with the vintage glass until manufacturers wake up a bit and realize AF is NOT the answer for video.

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley

I got a super nice Vivitar Series 1 28 1.9 a few weeks ago. wasn't cheap at $275, but what a nice lens, including internal focus ! works great with a matte box. the only thing weird about it is that it has a tapered lens barrel making it tricky to keep the focus gear on it. I'm probably going to mod a lens gear to match the slope, or maybe just add a fat O ring onto the barrel to make up the difference.

Steve, I can't resist bragging about this now, but I found one of those at a market stall in London for £25, and couldn't believe my luck when I checked the eBay going rate.

The only down side is that my copy suffers from low contrast, and a general slightly washed out look.

How is yours?

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

I am jealous of every single one of those lenses. In terms of balancing budget and requirements, just about perfect. Congratulations.

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

Ack. Thanks. Sort of sad the lens hunt is done for now. Kind of enjoy it. What we all need is an 11-300 f1.4 so we can just worry about shooting like we did with real video cameras.

Right, quick update, I am jealous of every single one of those lenses minus the Porst 135 f/1.8, which I just snagged on eBay.

I must admit, I probably paid more than I would have hoped (£206), but I'm confident that the prices for fast vintage glass are going in one direction - up.

I will probably have to say goodbye to the Takumar 135mm f/2.5 and the Pentacon 135 f/2.8, that is, as long as the Porst doesn't disappoint. I reckon I'll make back most of that money.

[Steve Oakley]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

Steve, I can't resist bragging about this now, but I found one of those at a market stall in London for £25, and couldn't believe my luck when I checked the eBay going rate.

The only down side is that my copy suffers from low contrast, and a general slightly washed out look.

How is yours?

seems fine. old glass will be lower in contrast then new lenses because of the older technology, and because film back then was so contrasty, a lower contrast lens worked for better pix. if it seems really off... I don't know, maybe some one scrubbed off the "funny blue color" on the lens :(

I shot this with it....

Sennheiser G3 Wireless Mic Review on Vimeo

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley

seems fine. old glass will be lower in contrast then new lenses because of the older technology, and because film back then was so contrasty, a lower contrast lens worked for better pix. if it seems really off... I don't know, maybe some one scrubbed off the "funny blue color" on the lens :(

I shot this with it.... Sennheiser G3 Wireless Mic Review on Vimeo

Thanks very much for sharing that. I should qualify my comments about contrast. I was comparing the contrast in the f/1.9 to other vintage lenses I own. The closest one is the Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 close focus, which has much better contrast and saturation, as do most of the Takumars I own, which have great contrast, despite being old.

Your f/1.9 shares a similar look, but maybe a bit better than my one, hard to tell. I have seen a number of productions where the image is manipulated to look more like this lens, so it's not all bad. It has it's own style. Like a slight layer of white dust on the image. I think it's a usable look, and your footage looks nice. Regardless, the wide aperture is a must have in certain situations, and has on occasion produced a usable shot which would have otherwise been impossible.

I just checked mine to check your point about coating, and it looks like the coating on mine, which has a green tinge, is not worn or damaged, so it's a mystery.

[Perrone Ford]

Interesting that you filtered the lens anyway... Looks terrific by the way. I do find it somewhat ironic that the audio switch to the Sanken absolutely sounded LESS full and rich, though we do know it's a better mic. Sounds like someone pulled down the bottom two octaves when you switched! :)

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley

seems fine. old glass will be lower in contrast then new lenses because of the older technology, and because film back then was so contrasty, a lower contrast lens worked for better pix. if it seems really off... I don't know, maybe some one scrubbed off the "funny blue color" on the lens :(

I shot this with it.... Sennheiser G3 Wireless Mic Review on Vimeo

Steve, I took a second look at your video, and the image has grown on me a lot. There is a lovely 3d quality to the rendering and the muted colours are very classy looking. So I stuck my copy of the lens back on and did some more test shots, and it seems I had judged my one too harshly, it looks great in the right light - really great. I feel like I have a new lens!

[Joel Peregrine]

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

Right, quick update, I am jealous of every single one of those lenses minus the Porst 135 f/1.8, which I just snagged on eBay. I must admit, I probably paid more than I would have hoped (£206), but I'm confident that the prices for fast vintage glass are going in one direction - up.

Great investment! You'll notice a slight softening wide open - appears most visibly with backlit subjects as a slight halation. This completely disappears one notch closed down at 2.8, but in my opinion the extra 1 1/3 stop gained at 1.8 and the resulting lower ISO more than makes up for the slight loss of sharpness.

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

will probably have to say goodbye to the Takumar 135mm f/2.5 and the Pentacon 135 f/2.8, that is, as long as the Porst doesn't disappoint. I reckon I'll make back most of that money.

The only reason I can see for keeping the slower 135's is that they are so much more compact and weigh considerably less. With the Canon adapter ring and a UV filter the Porst 135 f1.8 gets very close to 2lbs.

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

Great investment! You'll notice a slight softening wide open - appears most visibly with backlit subjects as a slight halation. This completely disappears one notch closed down at 2.8, but in my opinion the extra 1 1/3 stop gained at 1.8 and the resulting lower ISO more than makes up for the slight loss of sharpness.



The only reason I can see for keeping the slower 135's is that they are so much more compact and weigh considerably less. With the Canon adapter ring and a UV filter the Porst 135 f1.8 gets very close to 2lbs.

Thanks for the feedback. I will probably only use it wide open in indoor or night shots to avoid the halation you describe. A new word for me, thanks. I now have a word for that wide open white fuzz I see a lot. Seems that it is slightly less of a problem with video than stills.

I may well keep the other lenses. I have to tell my wife I will be selling lenses to justify the new purchases. Sometimes I forget that it's just a story, knowing full well that I 'won't get round to it'

Anyway, I don't see them losing value any time soon, so really I am thinking of our future..

[Liam Hall]

Originally Posted by Martyn Hull

the hoodloupe i bought was useless do you know of any magnetic types that are a resonable price,

Try the LCDVF. They make one to fit the 5D/7D and one to fit the Rebel. I've used mine all round the world in a variety of shooting conditions and it's worked really well.

And don't get wound up by all these people buying every lens going - I once shot an entire documentary on a single prime lens.

[Joel Peregrine]

Hi James,

Fast glass is always a good investment. Just came across another lens to lust over - the Vivitar 135mm f1.5. Sharpens up at f2.0

DSC_7024 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

4lbs!

Originally Posted by James Donnelly

Thanks for the feedback. I will probably only use it wide open in indoor or night shots to avoid the halation you describe. A new word for me, thanks. I now have a word for that wide open white fuzz I see a lot. Seems that it is slightly less of a problem with video than stills.

I may well keep the other lenses. I have to tell my wife I will be selling lenses to justify the new purchases. Sometimes I forget that it's just a story, knowing full well that I 'won't get round to it'

Anyway, I don't see them losing value any time soon, so really I am thinking of our future..

[Joel Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

...one to fit the Rebel...

I soooo wish they wouldn't have that "Rebel" name sticking around. I almost bought 55D's instead of the T2i just so I wouldn't have to have the Rebel badge.

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

And don't get wound up by all these people buying every lens going - I once shot an entire documentary on a single prime lens.

Having an arsenal of lenses is mandatory for event videography - you practically never have control of lighting or how close you can be to your subject.

[Liam Hall]

What does event videography have to do with anything??

[Michael Liebergot]

What does event videography have to do with anything??

Liam, Event Video is what Joel does most often.