Part of the problem is not zooming in far enough on the ground glass. ALL lenses vignette at some point. Zooming in tighter means you lose some of the image, but don't vignette. In an SLR everything is placed so that the 35mm frame is well within the circle of light projected by the lens, thus, no vignetting!

Brett

You could draw a rectangle of size 36x24mm on a piece of paper, that's the size of 35mm still film, and hold that as far from your camcorder as where your groundglass normally is. Now zoom in until you have the boundaries of the rectangle exactly in your view. This should be the approprate zoom level, so no still lens wil give you any vignetting (only maybe some fisheye, which will give the same vignetting with a still camera).

Good luck,

Steven

i figured out what i was doing wrong... i needed to move my camera further away from the GG then zoom in... i just have my camera set at the wrong distance to the gg.

I wouldn't know... i have no gg or 35mm adapter!!

:(:(:(:(

I own FX1E and want to buy close up lens for it, achromatic. How many diopters close up lens will need for Micro 35? What is best strength, so lens focusing is about in the middle, when focusing on ground glass? How close is ground glass from camera lens, approximately, in Micro 35?

I've heard a number of people saying they are getting/have gotten Lomo lenses for use with the micro35. Could a couple of these folks briefly explain why and how? I mean, there are some really nice lenses made outside of Russia by companies like Nikon, Canon, Leica, Olympus etc. Yes I know Lomo made spy satellite lenses which, while quite cool, isn't in itself enough for me to jump on the bandwagon.

I'm hoping someone could also explain how one would go about buying non-used Lomo gear and what might comprise a serviceable set of Lomo lenses for use on a micro35. The used Lomo stuff on eBay is rather frightening looking; typically rusted or beaten or otherwise very like something from the bowels of the Soviet empire circa 1957. I'm sure some of it is fantastic, but I'm partial to things like warranties and that new gear smell.

The Lomo web site is also quite bizarre, which is undertandable, as they are a Russian company.

Any insight into the mystery of Lomo appreciated. Thanks!

Radek,
The micro35 (pre-assembled unit) uses an achromat that has a focal length of 125mm.

The macro is about 4 inches from the gg. (The macro is mounted on a 72mm ring.)

Hope this helps Radek! We should have more detailed information up on the new website when it's released in the upcoming week.

James
www.micro35.com

<<<--
Originally posted by James Hurd :
We should have more detailed information up on the new website when it's released in the upcoming week.
www.micro35.com
-->>>

Hey James, have you done any HDV tests? I'm kinda curious as to whether the Micro35 is likely to work with the upcoming Panasonic HVX200. I'm hoping to get to NAB to see that camera in person. (I know it's not HDV) :-)

You can try the Hawk lenses - Lomos with the same glass and that new gear smell you love so much. Basically add a zero or two to the price, though.

Movie lenses are made to smaller circles of confusion than stills camera lenses. A 35mm movie frame is equivalent to a half a 135 stills 35mm camera frame. Because we have essentially a half frame negative blown up to the size of a cinema screen, the acutance of the lens must be higher.

Zeiss, Canon, Cooke, and a very few other companies still make lenses to this specification. Check the prices of new Zeiss Primos.

Leica and Nikon lenses are made to cover the stills movie frame and even though they are plenty sharp enough if you're finishing on HD or DVD, their focus barrels aren't built for racking (i.e. the image could well shift from side to side as you rack focus back and forth), and their aperture settings have clicks in them (hard to pull aperture during a shot). They are designed to cover more negative/gate area and to be enlarged a lot less, so their unit cost is less. Also, they are designed to sell. A lot of lenses, for not a lot of money each lens.

Movie lenses are designed to work. Not that many sold, not particularly cheap. They have to be good.

Lomos are USSR movie camera lenses. The first two numbers of the serial number typically indicated the year of manufacture. The late 80's and early 90's (around the fall of the Berlin Wall) give you the most modern lenses. Like at least one US manufacturer, the spy camera business was dying out, so they turned their attentions to the next best thing. After that I don't know what happened, but I think they went the way of all things Soviet - i.e. ended up in the West.

I have a set of lenses from the 80's and another set from the 90's. The 80's set looks like the ones you're describing, and the 90's set looks like the ones that were rebarrelled and used on "The Titanic" and other movies. (I know, my friend a lens tech had a Lomo 18mm and a Hawk 18mm lens X-rayed and flouroscoped to check the internal element layout and coatings.)

You've seen a lot of movies shot with Lomo lenses, only the people using them were a little ashamed to tell you. They've just come out of the closet a little, is all.

Because Lomo had pretty good optical designers who were basically free of worry about selling the lenses they made, they tried, and in a lot of people's opinions, succeeded, in making good, serviceable lenses that are built like tanks and keep on ticking, to mix a few metaphors.

I bought my Lomo 18 around six years ago for $250, with case, hood, focus and aperture gears. Care to find out how much a comparable western 18mm lens costs? Heck, care to buy just the gear rings for that amount of money?

Say no more.
Cheers
Chris

Thank you Chris

but where to buy?
Any homepage available?

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.

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?

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...

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

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.

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

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

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!

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

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)

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

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

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)!)

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!

Thanks. Where can buy such 72 mm achromat inexpensively? How much would be?

Hi all,
I just imported 4 Lomo lenses from Kiev (they came with a Konvas 35 mm movie camera).

I'm gonna sell the Konvas and 1 lens to recoup some $$$. Which three should I keep for the micro35 (to be used on DVX100)?

My lenses:
Lomo 70mm
Lomo 50 mm
Lomo 35 mm
Lomo 28 mm

Thanks,
Earon
Vancouver, BC

Hi all,
I just imported 4 Lomo lenses from Kiev (they came with a Konvas 35 mm movie camera).

I'm gonna sell the Konvas and 1 lens to recoup some $$$. Which three should I keep for the micro35 (to be used on DVX100)?

My lenses:
Lomo 70mm
Lomo 50 mm
Lomo 35 mm
Lomo 28 mm

Thanks,
Earon
Vancouver, BC


I'd say keep the 50, the 35 and the 70. That should cover most of your basic needs until you can get a couple of more lenses.

I'd say keep the 50, the 35 and the 70. That should cover most of your basic needs until you can get a couple of more lenses.

Joshua, Thanks
Which other ones - a greater range of telescoping lenses?
Thanks,
earon

personally, i'd take the 28mm over the 35mm.. if you have limited lens options i'd say get the widest you can and the longest you can.. then pick something in the middle.

Hi guys. New to the idea of a 35mm adapter, so I was wondering how do we mount lenses onto the micro35? I'm assuming that different lens manufacturers use different mounts, so how do we connect them to the micro35? Does it use some sort of standard mount and we use an adapter to adapt from the standard to whatever type for the lens we want?

I've heard people talka bout Lomo lenses (cause they are cheap) and so I'd assume we'd need a special Lomo to micro35 lens mount adapter?

Aaron

That was what I was about to say...but the one in the middle must be the 50mm of course because that's the most standard one around.

I wish I had a 70mm lens for the DOF and indoor shooting. For outdoors or on a big set a bigger lens, 135mm or more, would be useful.

Aaron, welcome to the discussions...

James is implementing the common 35mm lense types ie. Nikon, Canon for sure... not sure about others like Pentax.

Getting Nikon lenses is the safe bet as their system is the "uniform" for most (all?) their lenses...

That being said, James has outfitted the adapter for use with LOMO lenses (ie. Russian spy satellite lense company that evolved to make lenses for film cameras in Mother Russia) - that is what Larry McKee's group used and that's what is meant on James' site about "LOMO prototype"...

Hope this helps - if you take half a night and comb the posts, you'll find all you need to know...

Does LOMO produce zooms? And if so, given the fact that we're essentially going to DV and through another piece of glass (If you're using DVX etc) then would the apparent "inferiority" of zooms really matter? I'm asking because if I could get away with a nice zoom, it could save some $$ no?

Aaron

If at all possible. I would be inclined to try to keep all the lenses rather than break up a set. It will be more hlpful if you later decide to sell your Lomo lenses.
An intact set is more likely to be marketable. Also, mixing and matching later when buying a replacement for the lens you sell may introduce difficulties such as colour between different replacement lenses.

If at all possible. I would be inclined to try to keep all the lenses rather than break up a set. It will be more hlpful if you later decide to sell your Lomo lenses.
An intact set is more likely to be marketable. Also, mixing and matching later when buying a replacement for the lens you sell may introduce difficulties such as colour between different replacement lenses.


Well - I suggest the 35 to the 28 (partly because that's just how I shoot, but that's just me) because he will have to get some more wide lenses - probably a 25 and an 18 (and you can find both for not too much), and once he has those wider lenses he's going to wish he had the 35, not so the 28.

You do see Lomo's up to 80, but I don't recall seeing one longer than that. You usally get moved on to Jupiters (which I believe use a different lens mount and have to be adapted to OCT-19, but I could be wrong). 100 and a 135 Jupiter wouldn't be a bad choice, but personally I'd get some wide stuff before I got longer lenses - but again that's just me.

For zooms, you're looking at Fotons. They're big and heavy and not terribly sharp or fast - I've seldom seen them below T3 actually. If you have a good set of primes, and you're locked into a russian mount, I'd say forget the zoom. You could probably get an angenieux or something and adapt it to a russian mount (or adapt all of your russian lenses to a PL mount) but either way, it can get expensive fast and really cancel out the money you save buying russian primes. Personally, I'd say forget the zoom.

Hey guys. I'm curious will the micro 35 work with single chip cameras that have filter mounts as small as say 37mm?

It sure will!

james
www.micro35.com

just a suggestion... but KEEP THEM ALL....

the little bit that you get now will cost you more later.... keep the set...

im working with one right now with a micro35. my camera is a pv-gs50 and has 27mm threads.

I'd be interested in any of those LOMO's. Let us know which you decide to sell and for how much.

Andy

I will be happy to sell you a Nikon 50mm f.1.4 lens I just picked up from eBay - I haven't even unwrapped it and I decided to go the Lomo route.

Let me know if you're interested! I will sell at the same price I paid for it which is around $75

Brian

Do you still have that lens available? If so, do you have a PayPal account I can transfer the money to? A lot easier than mailing paper around the country!

Brian I will buy your lens..can you send me pics please?

obin@dv3productions.com

Hey guys -

I can't believe you remembered this post!

Here's the deal: I have a couple of nikon lenses I picked up expressly for the Micro35. A 50mm and a 105mm. They are nice lenses! I am going to hang on to them for now until I get my OCT-19 mount for my lomos. At that point, I'm willing to part with them.

BTW - you can also check eBay - look under mf nikon lenses category. You can still get basically the same lens and price. I've seen a bunch there.

I'd be interested in any of those LOMO's. Let us know which you decide to sell and for how much.

Andy

Andy,
I'd be selling only one (probably the 35mm) and only with the Konvas 2 - 35mm film camera. It will make thecaera a little easier to sell.

thanks for asking

I'd keep 'em all absolutely. One thing that would help you is to check the serial #s of the lenses. the first two numbers are the year they were made. If they are 80 or later, they are probably pretty good lenses. Anything before that I've heard sketchy stuff.

But really, if you are going the 35mm route, why would you give up a lens for maybe $80-100?

PLUS you may consider pulling the OCT-19 mount off the Konvas and keeping it (or maybe even sending it to James - sorry james - ) since it could greatly help you get an OCT-19 mount much sooner.

This is the route Larry took, and he's the Micro35-Lomo god!

Hi everyone. Been lurking finally posting. I am a composer turned filmmaker and am a noobie when it comes to things optical. I own a DVX 100a which I am very happy with. Really want 35mm DOF and plan to purchase micro35 when it is available. On that note...

I purchased these lenses on ebay from www.kievcamera.com for $25.00 each. Seller has a lot of good feedback. These are from the early nineties according to the serial #'s and the photos look like they are in good condition.

I am awaiting their delivery. Hoping I found something good and that I didn't waste my money. Figured it was worth a shot. Anybody care to comment about the quality of these lenses and if they will work with the planned micro35 LOMO mount.

35mm movie camera Lens OKC 2-100-2 100 mm LOMO "MINT"

35mm movie camera Lens OKC 1-50-6 50 mm LOMO "MINT"

Welcome, James! As far as I have read at micro35.com, the LOMO mount which has been tested is the OCT-19.

I emailed you off the boards about Kiev Camera. Please post here when you get a opinion about the lenses you bought.

Thanks brian...

I've been looking at some other Nikon lenses and some say AI, some AIS, some for what I assume to be different cameras(Sigma, Nikkor, Vivitar, Tamron, etc). I just didn't know if the mounts were the same or different...or at least compatible in some way.

Also...what does everyone recommend in ways of Autofocus and Manual?

I would assume that the AF in a lens wouldn't work with this type of an adapter and that MF would give you more control anyway. Is that the general concensus?

Regarding Nikon Af, Ai, AIS, Zooms, etc...

Nikon has had the same physical mount since something like 1940. The Ai and AIS designations came later, and refer to connections in the lens for cameras with electronic metering (and here may be a difference for cameras with DOF buttons as well? My knowledge doesn't go back that far!). But essentially, any Nikon Ai, AIS, and AF lens should work on a current lens mount. For Nikon still bodies, you would lose some things like metering (and obviously AF if you had a pre-AF lens). But none of that applies to the Micro35 anyway, as the lens will be strictly manual; the mount is just "holding the lens in place" with no mechanical/electronic coupling.

Nikon AF lenses in such a scenario will just be MF lenses, and the focusing ring will work normally (though some consumer AF lenses will have TINY focusing rings.) A couple Nikon lenses (for instance some of the 80-200 2.8 zooms) have an AF/MF switch on the body as well. Some people feel that many AF lenses just don't have nice focus damping, some of them do feel a bit "loose" to me as well; you could visit a photo rental place and handle theirs to see what you think.

Also, "IF" in the lens number means "Internal Focusing". "ED" signifies (as I recall) their low-dispersion glass.

There are many websites with spreadsheet-type comparisons of Nikons (and Nikon mount sigmas, vivitars, etc). Some Nikon lenses are stellar, other are so-so. Some of their very old, non-ai lenses are legendary for sharpness and flare control as well... they've made fab optics for decades.

Better Nikons lenses will be (in the 65mm and longer ranges) the fast ones, generally speaking. If you get a zoom, get a 2.8, not a 4.5-5.6 (Which would kill the whole reason you want 'em for a Micro35 anyway, right?) Many wide Nikons under 35mm length are decent to stellar as well, as these weren't of consumer interest. Some of their 20's are classics.

You might consider, when going with Nikon, to get their AF lenses; this way you could get a D70 or D50 affordable digital SLR and have a "pro-ish" digital still as well. (The D70 is actually a bit better then the D100) (Same goes for Canon EOS I suppose).

Also, there's a wealth of focusing tubes, close-up sets, reversing rings, and teleconverters for Nikon, so if you want to get esoteric with extreme closeups (or shooting wierd textury stuff for compositing), these could be fun as well. And photography rental houses should have a huge stock of Nikon glass, up to the $12,000 400 F4's.

Some wonderful Nikon AF's: the 50 1.8... the 85 1.8 (considered one of the best fashion lenses of all time--gorgeous and compact)... the 180 2.8, and just about any of the (huge) 300 and 400 2.8's. The 300F4 is stellar; The 80-200 2.8AF is one of the most useful lenses you could own for long work; it just seems to have "soul" with it's sweet compression and color rendition. (You can get these on ebay cheap; they're a tough pro-lens that came in several variants). The 18-35 3.5-4.5 is nice, if a bit slow (but can be found for under $400)... the fast wide-zooms are excellent but very very expensive.

Hope that helps! --MC