Best way to combine 35mm DSLR lenses at DVinfo.net

Spike Spiegel · July 10th, 2008, 03:21 PM

Hey guys, I'm planning on getting the Panny HPX 500 soon and a Canon KJ20x5.8-KRS HDgc 20x 2/3" Lens.

Couple questions:

-how good is the KJ20x5.8-KRS HDgc 20x 2/3" Lens? Is it one of those lenses panny recommends to use that reduces CA with this camera?
-I have an excellent set of Nikor 17-35mm, 24-70mm, and 80-200mm lenses that pair up with my nikon d2x.. My question is, how can I use these beasts with the HPX? What adaptor would be needed, etc?

Any help/input muchly appreciated!!

Steve Phillipps · July 10th, 2008, 03:29 PM

You can use Redrock/Letus etc. 35mm adapters if you want to go that way, but you lose some resolution I gather (don't use them myself). What you can't do is just use a simple adapter ring as the back focus distance won't allow it. You can convert some tele lenses (like 300mm f2.8 etc.) but you need to have back of the lens removed and a new back end built by an engineer.
Steve

Spike Spiegel · July 10th, 2008, 04:21 PM

i didn't know there was a quality loss; kinda defeats the purpose for me then. I'm not really looking for a DOF i'm looking for the versatility the nikor lenses offer

Sergio Perez · July 10th, 2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Spiegel

i didn't know there was a quality loss; kinda defeats the purpose for me then. I'm not really looking for a DOF i'm looking for the versatility the nikor lenses offer

Depends on the adaptor- for 2/3 cameras, you would like to use one with a relay, like the new Letus Ultimate and the P&S Mini-35mm. Both will theoreticaly (since I haven't used them) not make you lose any quality. You'll however, lose some f stops for light sensibility (this is reported for the mini 35, not sure about the letus). Your images will have a more organic, filmic look compared to the stock lens, and, depending on the lens, much nicer bokeh. Just make sure to buy/rent top glass.

Robert Lane · July 10th, 2008, 10:39 PM

Currently the only 35mm DOF adapter for 2/3" inch cameras is the Pro35 from P+S Technik. The Letus Ultimate will eventually have a B4 adapter for the same functionality but it's not available yet.

With the Pro35 you can use any 35mm lens you want (with the appropriate lens mount) even the large and heavy ultra-teles like a 400mm f/2.8 but you'll need large film rails to support the weight.

Spike Spiegel · July 10th, 2008, 11:17 PM

thanks for the info Robert, will there be any unexpected loss of image quality using the pro35 or sudden CA issues if we try to pair the hpx500 with the pro35 and a set of nikor lenses?

Steve Phillipps · July 11th, 2008, 02:26 AM

My understanding (again, I don't use them) was that they use a spinning disc or something between the lens and camera which softens the image. Please correct me if I'm wrong! To my mind, if there is anything at all - except maybe an optical flat - in between lens and camera you'll lose quality to a greater or lesser extent.
Steve

Robert Lane · July 11th, 2008, 08:13 AM

Steve/Spike,

I can tell you that after using the Pro35 for years with lenses ranging from 14 to 600mm on cameras like the Varicam, F900 and now the HPX500 your concerns are unwarranted. Take a look at the "Alternative imaging" category, you'll see tons of info on all the DOF adapters, there's even a special section for the P+S adapters.

Steve Phillipps · July 11th, 2008, 08:20 AM

They are popular enough that they must produce acceptable images, but you'll never convince me that putting something in between the lens and camera won't degrade the image, it must do to some degree.
Steve

Robert Lane · July 11th, 2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

They are popular enough that they must produce acceptable images, but you'll never convince me that putting something in between the lens and camera won't degrade the image, it must do to some degree.
Steve

Nobody has ever claimed "zero" loss of any kind, but considering there is more information being transmitted to the imaging chips than can be captured there's plenty of head-room to allow for the minimal losses - which become near-imperceptible when setup properly.

Take a look at the plethora of demo samples on the web and on this forum and decide for yourself. And if you feel that the minimalistic loss these adapters cause is too much for you then you'd better be thinking of a RED-type of rig where DOF adapters aren't required - or shoot film.

Personally I feel naked if I don't have a Pro35 on the front of my rigs; I don't shoot ENG work and would never use ENG-style lenses (unless it made more sense for the shooting method) because they just don't create the same organic feel the Pro35 provides. But now we're talking personal preferences and shooting style, not the technical aspects.

Judge the available clips with your own eyes.

Steve Phillipps · July 12th, 2008, 03:41 AM

It's not true that there is more info being transmitted than the chips cn handle. 35mm lenses don't have anywhere near enough resolving power to satisfy a 1/3" chip (according to the maths done by engineers like the BBC's Alan Roberts, don't fully understand it myself I must admit!!!) I think one of the reasons why the softening of the image with these adapters is not an issue is that it's actually desirable for the look you're after - the sort of "organic" look you mentioned. I'm sure they do the job very well, and I know there are many happy users producing compelling results out there.
One thing I would not do though is judge anything by looking at things on the web! Mobile phone pics can look OK on the net!
Steve

Robert Lane · July 12th, 2008, 09:34 AM

If the technical aspects of light transmission are more important to you than what the image actually looks like then by all means, don't even think of using a DOF adapter.

I've seen that very BBC report and it's fuzzy math as far as I'm concerned; considering that pro-line DLSR's are just now catching up to the full resolving power of the best APO glass (as tested by several independent labs across the world) - and that every *video* camera on the market today (cameras like RED/SI2K are excepted) have far less resolving power than even consumer-grade DSLR's that report just doesn't add up. Not to mention that DSLR's nor video cameras are still incapable of capturing the entire gamut of color that film can...

But this is a debate for another time and a different topic category.

Spike - I forgot to address your initial question:

The Canon lens you're referring to is entry-level HD glass; it's going to work just fine on the HPX500 but it's won't be a top-performer by any means (I don't remember if it has CAC on-board or not). The Fujinon lens you saw on Nick's post (HAc15x7.3) is by far a superior lens for any HD camera - but it's also 4-times as expensive. You get what you pay for.

Spike Spiegel · July 13th, 2008, 12:16 PM

Hey Robert, thanks very much for your input! That 29k lens is a bit out of budget, but I do have a selection of the following lenses, I would REALLY aprpeciate your input as to which lens would be a better choice for the money> i can probably extend my budget by 3-5k more if it can accomodate a better lens!

CANONS:

KJ16x7.7B-IRSD HDgc 16x 2/3" Lens (8k USD)

KJ20x5.8-KRS HDgc 20x 2/3" Lens (7k USD)

FUJINON:
XA17x7.6BERM 17x 2/3" Panasonic (8k USD)

At the moment, the fujinon looks like the best option as it is especially meant to pair with the p2hd line from Panny. Do you think its a good choice or is there a slightly better choice for a budget of 13-15k for a lens? Thanks!!

Robert Lane · July 13th, 2008, 10:15 PM

Gee, Spike. Why don't you give me a really tough question like, what shoes to wear tomorrow? (laughs)

Seriously, that's a tough choice. Unfortunately unless you live near a place like Abel Cine or Zacuto where you can literally see the differences between the lenses in-person it would be an impossible task to make a recommendation.

Truthfully, you will not see any appreciable difference between those lenses - other than zoom range and how the lens rings operate. Canon has a slight edge when it comes to CAC circuitry, but none that you'd detect between these lenses (if any have CAC on-board, that is, I can't remember).

If your goal is ultimate image quality, then I would not purchase ANY of those lenses. Get with one of the forum sponsors and RENT the ultra-high quality HD glass (like the Fuji or a similar Canon) instead and save the cash for when you can purchase your own. I know, most people hate the idea of renting anything, but trust me when I say that you'll see the difference in your imagery (re-look at Nick's sample post) and your clients will appreciate the ultra-professional quality you'll be delivering. That is assuming your compositional and lighting skills are up to the task.

If you just absolutely *have* to own your own glass for now, then pick out a high-quality SD lens (used) instead. They're all over the 'net for thousands less than buying entry-level HD glass and the image quality will be superb on the 500.

Talk with one of the forum sponsors about locating an appropriate SD lens - and build-up your savings in the meantime for the super-HD glass you really want. That high-quality lens can stay with you for decades as you migrate upward in your camera equipment.

Take a look at a comparo by Matt G. from this forum; it's a great example of how a good SD lens will look on the 500.

http://www.vimeo.com/1244031

July 10th, 2008, 03:21 PM	#1
Spike Spiegel Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 429	Best way to combine 35mm DSLR lenses Hey guys, I'm planning on getting the Panny HPX 500 soon and a Canon KJ20x5.8-KRS HDgc 20x 2/3" Lens. Couple questions: -how good is the KJ20x5.8-KRS HDgc 20x 2/3" Lens? Is it one of those lenses panny recommends to use that reduces CA with this camera? -I have an excellent set of Nikor 17-35mm, 24-70mm, and 80-200mm lenses that pair up with my nikon d2x.. My question is, how can I use these beasts with the HPX? What adaptor would be needed, etc? Any help/input muchly appreciated!!

July 13th, 2008, 10:15 PM	#14
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,788 Images: 15	Gee, Spike. Why don't you give me a really tough question like, what shoes to wear tomorrow? (laughs) Seriously, that's a tough choice. Unfortunately unless you live near a place like Abel Cine or Zacuto where you can literally see the differences between the lenses in-person it would be an impossible task to make a recommendation. Truthfully, you will not see any appreciable difference between those lenses - other than zoom range and how the lens rings operate. Canon has a slight edge when it comes to CAC circuitry, but none that you'd detect between these lenses (if any have CAC on-board, that is, I can't remember). If your goal is ultimate image quality, then I would not purchase ANY of those lenses. Get with one of the forum sponsors and RENT the ultra-high quality HD glass (like the Fuji or a similar Canon) instead and save the cash for when you can purchase your own. I know, most people hate the idea of renting anything, but trust me when I say that you'll see the difference in your imagery (re-look at Nick's sample post) and your clients will appreciate the ultra-professional quality you'll be delivering. That is assuming your compositional and lighting skills are up to the task. If you just absolutely have to own your own glass for now, then pick out a high-quality SD lens (used) instead. They're all over the 'net for thousands less than buying entry-level HD glass and the image quality will be superb on the 500. Talk with one of the forum sponsors about locating an appropriate SD lens - and build-up your savings in the meantime for the super-HD glass you really want. That high-quality lens can stay with you for decades as you migrate upward in your camera equipment. Take a look at a comparo by Matt G. from this forum; it's a great example of how a good SD lens will look on the 500. http://www.vimeo.com/1244031 Last edited by Robert Lane; July 14th, 2008 at 08:37 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

July 10th, 2008, 03:29 PM	#2
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	You can use Redrock/Letus etc. 35mm adapters if you want to go that way, but you lose some resolution I gather (don't use them myself). What you can't do is just use a simple adapter ring as the back focus distance won't allow it. You can convert some tele lenses (like 300mm f2.8 etc.) but you need to have back of the lens removed and a new back end built by an engineer. Steve

July 10th, 2008, 04:21 PM	#3
Spike Spiegel Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 429	i didn't know there was a quality loss; kinda defeats the purpose for me then. I'm not really looking for a DOF i'm looking for the versatility the nikor lenses offer

July 10th, 2008, 10:39 PM	#5
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,788 Images: 15	Currently the only 35mm DOF adapter for 2/3" inch cameras is the Pro35 from P+S Technik. The Letus Ultimate will eventually have a B4 adapter for the same functionality but it's not available yet. With the Pro35 you can use any 35mm lens you want (with the appropriate lens mount) even the large and heavy ultra-teles like a 400mm f/2.8 but you'll need large film rails to support the weight.

July 10th, 2008, 11:17 PM	#6
Spike Spiegel Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 429	thanks for the info Robert, will there be any unexpected loss of image quality using the pro35 or sudden CA issues if we try to pair the hpx500 with the pro35 and a set of nikor lenses?

July 11th, 2008, 02:26 AM	#7
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	My understanding (again, I don't use them) was that they use a spinning disc or something between the lens and camera which softens the image. Please correct me if I'm wrong! To my mind, if there is anything at all - except maybe an optical flat - in between lens and camera you'll lose quality to a greater or lesser extent. Steve

July 11th, 2008, 08:13 AM	#8
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,788 Images: 15	Steve/Spike, I can tell you that after using the Pro35 for years with lenses ranging from 14 to 600mm on cameras like the Varicam, F900 and now the HPX500 your concerns are unwarranted. Take a look at the "Alternative imaging" category, you'll see tons of info on all the DOF adapters, there's even a special section for the P+S adapters.

July 11th, 2008, 08:20 AM	#9
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	They are popular enough that they must produce acceptable images, but you'll never convince me that putting something in between the lens and camera won't degrade the image, it must do to some degree. Steve

July 12th, 2008, 03:41 AM	#11
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	It's not true that there is more info being transmitted than the chips cn handle. 35mm lenses don't have anywhere near enough resolving power to satisfy a 1/3" chip (according to the maths done by engineers like the BBC's Alan Roberts, don't fully understand it myself I must admit!!!) I think one of the reasons why the softening of the image with these adapters is not an issue is that it's actually desirable for the look you're after - the sort of "organic" look you mentioned. I'm sure they do the job very well, and I know there are many happy users producing compelling results out there. One thing I would not do though is judge anything by looking at things on the web! Mobile phone pics can look OK on the net! Steve

July 12th, 2008, 09:34 AM	#12
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,788 Images: 15	If the technical aspects of light transmission are more important to you than what the image actually looks like then by all means, don't even think of using a DOF adapter. I've seen that very BBC report and it's fuzzy math as far as I'm concerned; considering that pro-line DLSR's are just now catching up to the full resolving power of the best APO glass (as tested by several independent labs across the world) - and that every video camera on the market today (cameras like RED/SI2K are excepted) have far less resolving power than even consumer-grade DSLR's that report just doesn't add up. Not to mention that DSLR's nor video cameras are still incapable of capturing the entire gamut of color that film can... But this is a debate for another time and a different topic category. Spike - I forgot to address your initial question: The Canon lens you're referring to is entry-level HD glass; it's going to work just fine on the HPX500 but it's won't be a top-performer by any means (I don't remember if it has CAC on-board or not). The Fujinon lens you saw on Nick's post (HAc15x7.3) is by far a superior lens for any HD camera - but it's also 4-times as expensive. You get what you pay for.

July 13th, 2008, 12:16 PM	#13
Spike Spiegel Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 429	Hey Robert, thanks very much for your input! That 29k lens is a bit out of budget, but I do have a selection of the following lenses, I would REALLY aprpeciate your input as to which lens would be a better choice for the money> i can probably extend my budget by 3-5k more if it can accomodate a better lens! CANONS: KJ16x7.7B-IRSD HDgc 16x 2/3" Lens (8k USD) KJ20x5.8-KRS HDgc 20x 2/3" Lens (7k USD) FUJINON: XA17x7.6BERM 17x 2/3" Panasonic (8k USD) At the moment, the fujinon looks like the best option as it is especially meant to pair with the p2hd line from Panny. Do you think its a good choice or is there a slightly better choice for a budget of 13-15k for a lens? Thanks!!