XL-H1/Mini35 with Canon 85mm 1.2L

[Troy Aitken]

Greetings to all.

I have the XL-H1 combined with the new mini35 adapter. I have just purchased the 85mm 1.2 Canon lens that must have power to focus maually. I am using my digital Canon camera to focus the lens, then detaching the lens to put it on the mini35 at the same distance in order to use this lens. Does anyone know of any solution from a third party souce to give this lens power without the magnification of the Canon ef adapter? I would like a set up to focus with this lens on the mini35 along with power to the lens.

Any comments would be greately appreciated

Regards

[Michael Maier]

I don't think there's a solution. but quite frankly, I never understood why somebody would spend close to 10k on a mini35 just to shoot with sub par still lenses. For that kind of money you would think people would want to use PL lenses or at least BNCR. I understand the Nikon fascination from the M2 crowd, because they are in the lower end of the spectrum, but spending 10k to shoot on still lenses and on auto digital lenses on the top of that doesn't make any sense to me. Good luck though.

[Tony Tibbetts]

Is that an EOS mount? If so good luck. You should get a new mount and use manual lenses. PL lenses are a good idea. Nikon or Canon FD if you're on a budget. I'm a little confused as to why you went this route.

[Shawn Alyasiri]

I think you're out of luck with that lens and the mini - I've got both. Every other lens works but that thing... I think even the new version MKII is that way(?)

You can get the Canon adaptor though (the $400) thing and I'm pretty sure the H1 powers it/works with it, etc. Can't recall, but I thought you could control the aperture with the iris wheel as well, where with the mini you're wide open at 1.2 (and you need to be tack-on with that lens).

I gave up and bought the Zeiss super-speeds - much easier to work with. The other EF lenses work well enough - but again, you're wide open to whatever aperture they are.

If you're in a pinch, get the 50mm 1.4...

Best of luck...

[Jon Bickford]

when using EF lenses if you mount them on an EOS body, hold down the depth of field preview button and remove the lens while still holding the button down it will stay at whatever aperture the EOS body was set at so you can stop it down to anything you like and re-attach it to the mini 35 stopped down.

the 85mm 1.2 is a pretty pricey lens and you can likely sell it for enough money to buy a 85mm 1.8 AND a 50mm 1.4 neither of which have your focusing problem.

[Troy Aitken]

Greately appreciate the advice and the comments as well. The thing that I am concerned about is obtaining a clean image. Doing tests myself I have observed a varying amount of grey noise. Especially in the highlights. The poorer the lens quality the more noise. With the Canon 85mm 1.2 I find the image to be extremely clean with gorgeous bluring. The whites are extremely pure and clean. It has a silky look to it and razor sharp. This is all obseved with the HDV compression on to tape. I have yet to capture HD-SDI and then tweaking the image in post for a more filmic look. I am looking for lenses that don't add their own noise to the GG. Can someone show a sample clip or frame to show white areas with movement along with the lens or lenses used and of course the custom preset.

Thank you for your time.

Best Regards,
Troy Aitken

[John Colette]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

I don't think there's a solution. but quite frankly, I never understood why somebody would spend close to 10k on a mini35 just to shoot with sub par still lenses. For that kind of money you would think people would want to use PL lenses or at least BNCR. I understand the Nikon fascination from the M2 crowd, because they are in the lower end of the spectrum, but spending 10k to shoot on still lenses and on auto digital lenses on the top of that doesn't make any sense to me. Good luck though.

The lenses aren't really the problem with the Mini 35 - it's the ground glass - which slightly diffuses the image, and the glass *between* the ground glass and the CCD that have the greatest effect on image quality. If you want to talk Chromatic Aberration - look at tthe Sub Par Zeiss lens on a Sony HDV one piece camera - but then it's a *great* tool for the price.

"Sub Par" is a bit of a tough call - there are a *lot* of rehoused Nikons that are set up for Cine use - the optics are what they are - professional 35mm imaging devices. They breathe [especially the 85mm 1.4] and they need adaptation to use a follow focus - but I spent $10k on a mini 35, and 3k on a set of lenses that are now geared, and that I own. I also have 105 and 135mm lengths in the kit [unlike superspeeds]. They actually work very well on the Mini 35 because 35mm still lenses have a wider edge to edge area that PL mount primes. [which start at US$15k for a crap set second hand....]

[And I think that a 10k adapter is still pretty "low end" cost wise - it's half the price of a single Arri Master Prime. It's a *lot* less than a 2/3" broadcast lens.]

So why do it? Because I can walk out of my studio in two minutes flat and shoot. I have just finished a 15 minute corporate with this kit, and noone says " oh - Nikons eh? well - not so great..." - the client is b;lown away with the look of the images - it's not film - but it's not 1/3" video either!

It's cheap, effective and a quick way to collect imagery that I can use - and for the $10k I paid for the 400 series - well - that's my choice....I think that a mattebox, or an Arri studio follow focus is an expensive piece of kit. The Mini 35 is built like a tank, and gives you a "look" - not film - but not like video either. The Nikons are a good way to get useful images easily.

Anyway - that's my take on it - noone has a gun to you head saying "buy a mini 35"...