Lenses for M35

[Jochen Stolle]

Thank you Chris

but where to buy?
Any homepage available?

[Chris Leong]

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.

[Brian Valente]

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?

[Chris Leong]

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...

[Brian Valente]

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

[Chris Leong]

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.

[Brian Valente]

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

[Chris Leong]

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

[Ivan Hurtado]

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!

[Chris Leong]

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

[Brian Valente]

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)

[Ivan Hurtado]

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

[Brian Valente]

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

[Ivan Hurtado]

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)!)

[Brian Valente]

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!