Th13X3.5BRMU
 

Hi everyone. I just received this afternoon the Th13X3.5RMU.
Is midnight now and I just finished the back focus, no shooting today - tomorrow. Anyhow my first impressions are: It is 2X heavier than the 16X, 5 cm longer, CA, during the backfocus with the 16X I was always experiencing the magenta at the edges of the star, with this one nothing.
Detail off on the JVC and I feel that the sharpness is really better.
Breathing almost -0-.
I open this new thread as for sure more people will purchase or use the lens. Unfortunatelly I cannot post footage as I live in Bali and my internet connection is very slow.
I will try to share my experiences with the lens... with words.
With the idx battery pack no balancing trouble.
For the end: I bought it for 6.900 usd.
My distributor in Jakarta told me that is still overpriced and he can still make money out of this price. So this is it. I lock up and go to bed.
I think the wide point is ~18 - 20 , and the tele is ~ 180, I don't know exactly yet.
Panos B

I too am a big fan of this lens.
I had an opportunity to test the 13x3.5 lens a couple weeks ago. It is a very well made lens and wider than you would expect. It has much less CA (although it is still present to some degree) but the lens hardly breathes at all.
I'm throwing together a review now, but here is a sneak peak at the breathing comparison. (I posted this last week in another thread.)

Click here to view Quicktime loop of Breathing comparison

Here is the wide end field of view comparison. I established these FOV through physically locking the camera, changing lenses and marking the corners of the frame on a white board. I was surprised that the 3.5mm measured so much wider than the 5.5mm with the Wide adapter on. The wide adapter is supposed to render and equivalent of 4.5mm, so I assumed it would be somewhere inbetween.
I superimosed an image I quickly shot in a car to show how wide the lens really is in "the real world."

http://homepage.mac.com/timdashwood/...3xvs16xFOV.jpg

I recommended to the production company I work with to buy the lens, and they have. I should have it in my hands later this week.

Tim,

According to the angle chart it breaks down like this
16x -------------> 48 degrees
16x w/adapter ---> 58 degrees
13x -------------> 70 degrees

70 degrees is a HEAP of angle to have and I think ideal for nature documentary or tight interior. How is the CA out at 13x?

angle? can someone please explain the "angle" of the lens

thanks

Jon,

Click here for image.

Steve

panos,
can you give out the contact information on your distributor in jakarta.

No kiddin'. Even with shipping and customs it would be cheaper than the $9000.00 street price in the USA :)

--
Paolo

thanks steve, appreciated

Only 6900!?!?!?! thats awesome! Its on B&H for 8999 I may be able to buy it eventually.

I use to drool over cars... now it's a damn lens.

Congrats Panos!

price
 

The contact info in Jakarta is:
Alfatech
Wisma Kyoei Prince
Jl. Sudirman Kav.3
Jakarta 10220
Tl. +62-21-5723139
Fax. +62361 5724320
e-mail: info@alfatech-broadcast.com
Try to contact Mr Adie

Impressions: The lens is better overall.
CA still exists but it is more controlable and of a finer nature.
Occurs only at very high contrast situations, black against white and can be controlled with accurate exposure.
Color resolution better than the 16X, sharper and "sweeter" if I can say so. Very little breathing and more flexible use for shal. DOF as is usable at 1,4 appert. without problems at the end tele.
Sweet part between ~2,8. to ~8. at 11 still not serious negative characteristics.
The sizes compaired to 35mm are: ~24mm (wide) - ~300mm (Tele).
Still no time for serious testing. I am waiting for Tim's evaluation as I respect his oppinions very much. I tried the lens with his recipies and I found more attractive the Amelie (warm) one, but I used a knee at 85%.
Yes... very happy.
Panos B.

What's the US price?

you could fly to Jakarta pick up the lens. go shoot some awesome footage in a great country. fly home and still pay less than what b&h charges for the lens.

dan weber

And write it off your taxes. Hmmm.... guess I'll have to Google Jakarta.

Since this is what I do for work, (travel and shoot). I can give you a few tips on the cheapest way to travel.

I use www.sidestep.com as a tool to search for flight options at cheap prices. I find a flight option that works for me price wise and is on my airline of choice (United for me). I then write down the exact flight info and times and then go to the airlines direct website and use the multi-city search option. Insert all of the info that you wrote down and usually you will have a cheaper flight option than the one on on sidestep.

The best way to get through Jakarta is through Bangkok. You will arrive in Bangkok at 12:00 am and will need to get a hotel until you can catch your flight to Jakarta. The Miracle Grand is a 5 start hotel with the best breakfast you will ever find for around $55 a night. Google Asia Travel to make your reservation. They will also pick you up and take you back to the airport.

Dan Weber

That is awesome advice! I can't say I'm going to do it tomorrow - but that's really helpful, thanks for posting it.

Things like this is why I love being a DVinfo member!!!

Tim

Is there someone who can tell me what size of filter is needed with the 13X 3.5, Thank you

Filter size
 

Hi Tobie
82 mm filter size for the th13x3.5BRMU lens.

Regards
David Cubbage

Thank you David

My question wasn't clear. I was doing reference to the filter dimension using matte box 4X4 or 4X5.6.
Tobie

You would need a 85mm adapter ring for a clip-on matte box, the same as with the 16x stock lens.

If you were referring to filter coverage, a 4x4 seems to work fine, but a 4x5.6 would be a safer bet for the wide end.

Filter size
 

We tested my Petroff matte box for vignetting at Ste-Man (distributors of Petroff) with the 13x3 on the camera when I picked up the box.

Their 4x4 frames cannot be made to shadow the lens at full-wide in any rotation. So with the Petroff at least there is no reason to put yourself in the position of buying the more expensive 4x5.6 filters. Other brands may be different, so one should certainly test before buying.

I did get the 4x5 matte box though, so if a wider lens becomes available (not likely) I'll still be able to pop in the bigger frames and filters.

I love my Petroff and suggest anyone in the market for a matte box check it out. Very nice.

Tip

matte box
 

I have ordered a vocas M.B. and I am planning to use 4X4 filters unless someone can give a positive info that the 4X%.6 are needed.
For the C.A. of the lens, over f8 in clear sky shots I get C.A. at the lower edges of the lens.
It is embarassing because this glass costs more than the camera.
I am thinking of many senarios, one being that there is a problem with the ccds or there is an issue with the detail as I see the CA through the fine paterns only, palm leaves, trees etc.
I hope that if we load more filters and stay under f8 it would be better.
In comparison with the 16X I think that the CA is ~30 -40% less.
We had full moon 2 days ago, I shot it and it was really nice, with the 16X it had a red bump over the circle.
As I didn't have the chance to test the lens through a real project yet, still testing it slowly in my garden and in my office, I am wondering if somebody could post his experience with it, give us a few advises and maybe ways to avoid the CA.
Bright days seem to be the enemy of the 1/3" Fujinon lenses and this makes me feel frustrated here in the tropics with a magic hour that last ~ 15min.
The guys that mount directly the nikon lenses have noticed any CA that looks like the one we get from the 16X stock lens?
I cannot download footage for the moment, an answer in words would be enough for me.
Waiting for your creative comments.
Thanks - Panos B

Has there been any resolution tests comparing the 13x to the 16x? I am interested to see how sharp the 13x is with the detail off. With the detail off using the stock lens, the image is quite soft.

Yes. I performed that exact test on all detail settings with both lenses.
I haven't uploaded the results yet. I'm still analyzing them, but I can email you the frame grabs now if you want.

Tim

Tim,
Does the 13X appear to have better rez?

Can you email them to me aswell please Tim. Many thanks!

Tim, why not post them since we're all interested?

I haven't had a chance to carefully scrutinize the results in order to quantify the resolution difference, but when comparing the frame grabs it is clearly obvious that the 13x is much sharper.

These were originally exported as uncompressed TIFF, but I did these versions as Jpeg to make them smaller for download. However, the file size is still 23Mb.

These were all shot statically at F4, with the same camera body locked in the same position with both lenses at the same focal length (around 15mm.)
Using 15mm at F4 is probably the best possible scenario for the stock lens.

http://homepage.mac.com/timdashwood/..._rez_tests.zip

Thanks Tim.

I'm not sure how you'd quantify it but you can sure see there is a clear difference in sharpness.

On my stock, I get progressive vignetting after 40 and wide open in low light I have an awful gradient of green to magenta through the whole image. Anything like that on the wide angle?

Wow, big monster thanks for those, Tim. Not only are they a good comparison between the two lenses, they're a great reference for the all different detail settings.

(I recommend anyone wondering about the detail settings, particularly the Horizontal and Vertical sub-settings, download these.)

WOW! that looks much better to me. It would be interesting to now have people compare the HD100 with the 13x lens and the other fixed lens HD cameras to see the results in detail. If the HD100 "only" at 720p could hold it's own compared to 1080i cameras then now it would look even better with the better lens. Those with the fixed lens cameras are stuck with that lens with no hope of ever getting a better lens. I'm sure as time passes HD lens options will get even better but the fixed lens cameras will still be stuck with the same lens technology

As of right now the HD100 is the only HD camera in this price range that at least has an option for a high quality HD lens. The Canon right now only has it's main 20x lens.

Tim, very interesting stuff. Thank you.

Holy crap. That looks like the same amount of difference between the HD100 and the Varicam when I was in on the 4 cam/Adam wilt test.

I think close scrutiny of the charts would show that my above statement is hyperbole, but I think it takes the HD100 a place very close to the Varicam, based on just pure res.

13x vs. 16x
 

We shot last weekend with 2 cameras - A cam was Tip's with 13x, I was running B cam with stock lens, mainly shooting close-up inserts etc. not matching shot. But there is an obvious difference in the 2. The 13x has an overall quality from edge to edge that is outstanding, while I would rate the 16x as being just adequate. Anyone doing high-end HD for delivery to channels like Discovery or PBS should invest in the 13x - it turns the HD100 into a true pro tool.

Thanks to Tip and Paolo for coming out and making it a fun shoot!

Lance

So is anyone in the USA selling this lens for the price he got in Jakarta?

Thanks for the kind words...
 

Lance,

Thanks very much for the nice post. Much appreciated! Everyone was very professional and the shoot really was fun. I did enjoy working with you, Paolo, John and the rest of the crew very much.

And that ice cold pitcher of Bass afterwards was as good as it gets, next time I won't wimp out after one. Thanks Paolo!

Tip

thank you Tim
 

Thanks Tim for your great dedication. The job that you do is fantastic. I really wait to hear your detailed opinion about the 13X.
When do you plan to post your comments?
Panos Bournias

Ditto and echo this....