Arriflex mounted lenses for HZ-CA13U

[Enrique Vega]

Recently purchased a "new" HZ-CA13U for $399 off of ebay and have been researching lenses to be used with this adapter. I know Arri PL mounts are the recommendation, and the Arri bayonet and standard mounts can be easily modified to PL. Or so I hear. However, my lack of knowledge is making me question the quality of 16mm lenses available. I can't afford the very high end lenses. i.e.; more than $1,000. So I'm left with a couple of choices.

The first is the ANGENIEUX lenses. The zooms seem to be readily available. I'm wondering if the 9.5-57MM is sharper than the 12-120MM.

Then there is this Cannon C16 16mm Macro Zoom Lens C10x12 12-120mm which is a bayonet mount that I wonder if it is better than the Angenieux. It's been VERY HARD to get any information on this lens. I did run across a very old ad from Canon which I have attached to this post. It talks about incorporating fluorite into the glass and reducing chromatic aberrations to near theoretical limits. Also macro focusing to .04" sounds amazing! And then there is the Fast f2.2 maximum aperture, with optical performance that rivals prime lenses!

So is Canon just simply marketing their product against the established Angenieux lenses? Do the Angenieux lenses made in the 70's also have these characteristics? Or did Canon come out with a much better lens for that time period? Which would be better to have today for the $ limit I have set?

I know this may be old technology with the advent of the DSLR revolution. However, since prices for things like the JVC lens adapter have gone down tremendously, and the advent of the new lower priced HD recorders for 10:2:2, the JVC GY cameras are still a viable option.

Thank you for any information you can provide on which lens is best to get on a budget using the HZ-CA13U.

[Brian Drysdale]

Yes, the 9.5-57mm is sharper, plus the advantage of being wider and able to focus down to 2 ft. I expect there may be a demand for these lenses if the Scarlet interchangeable comes out.

I recall the Canon looking more contrasty than the Angenieux zooms. You need to check these old zoom lenses before you buy them, they were real workhorses and some weren't treated that well.

[Charles Papert]

If the Angenieux 12-120 is the one that I'm thinking of, that was generally found inside the blimped housing of the 16BL, I'd be hard pressed to recommend it for an HD camera...I recall it being soft and it breathed monstrously.

[Brian Drysdale]

Also common on many Eclairs and news cameras like the CP16.

Yes, they breath a lot and only focus to 5ft, quality varied a bit depending on condition, but even at their best they don't hold up to modern glass.

[Enrique Vega]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Yes, the 9.5-57mm is sharper, plus the advantage of being wider and able to focus down to 2 ft. I expect there may be a demand for these lenses if the Scarlet interchangeable comes out.

I recall the Canon looking more contrasty than the Angenieux zooms. You need to check these old zoom lenses before you buy them, they were real workhorses and some weren't treated that well.

Brian, thanks for the feedback. Can you explain how you would check the old zooms before buying? What would you look for? Also, you said the Canon was more contrasty. This could actually be a benefit, right? And the Canon focuses down to .04" as a macro. So would this be a sign of a better lens than focusing to 2 ft? Did you use these lenses back in the 70's? Not trying to date you, just desiring to talk with someone who knew the film industry during the time these lenses were actually being used.

[Enrique Vega]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

If the Angenieux 12-120 is the one that I'm thinking of, that was generally found inside the blimped housing of the 16BL, I'd be hard pressed to recommend it for an HD camera...I recall it being soft and it breathed monstrously.

Charles, please excuse my ignorance. I come from a photography background and have recently, within the last 4 years, been using the JVC GY-HD110U. I've read a little about "breathing" lenses and have assumed that as you change the zoom, that the focus actually changes. Is that what breathing means? If so, why would these older zoom lenses even be used for 16mm filmmaking? I can understand breathing on lenses designed for still photography, but you would think the cine lenses, especially the Angenieux would have compensated for this.

I also wonder when Canon started designing lenses for film AND if the fluorite and CA they claim actually made them better than the Angenieux.

Thank you for helping me figure out a time in history for cine lenses.

[Brian Drysdale]

The Canon wasn't a common lens, I only know of one company that used the Canon and that was ITN for shooting news, the Angenieux was much more popular. These lenses were used into the 1980s, although I mostly used Zeiss zooms, rather than these ones. The 9.5-57 is a newer design than their 12-120mm, which I believe is originally 1960s.

Breathing is a change in the image size as you adjust the focus, a zooming effect..

Apart from the optics, check the mechanics are running smoothly and the zoomed image stays centred, rather than move around as you zoom in and out. You should shoot tests and check the collimation (back focus) is correct, you'll need an optical technician to set this up, not a big deal and it's good idea to get it done with a new purchase.

I just did a google for the later version of the 12-120, on which you can read the comments here (bearing in mind they're trying to sell it): http://www.cinematechnic.com/product...2-120_T21.html

[Enrique Vega]

Thank you Brian for providing the additional information. Boy, wouldn't it be nice if there was a modern review of all these vintage lenses. I've been hunting and pecking the web looking for information and, even though I am now more aware of these vintage lenses, I'm still not sure which ones were the best and which ones are worth using with the digital video cameras.

My search has turned up a Russian Zoom lens used for the Kinor 16OPF12-1 2.5/10-100mm. Seems Tim Dashwood was interested enough in these to buy one for his personal use several years ago. I wish I could get a more detailed review from him on this lens, but after reading and seeing some of the video footage he captured with this lens, I think it may actually be better than the Angenieux? And maybe even the Zeiss 10-100 zoom?

Any thoughts on the Kinor 16OPF12-1 zoom?

BTW, you wouldn't happen to know if the Kinor uses the same diameter as the Arri bayonet mounts? Just wondering because it seems adapters for Arri mounts are available and are easily installed by an end user with a little mechanical knowledge.

[Enrique Vega]

Just found some great info on the Canon Macro Zoom Lens for motion picture photography. Seems Canon received an Academy Award for this lens in 1973!

Academy Awards, USA (1973)

I happen to find this via a youtube video on the Canon’s new FK14.5-60 wide-angle cine zoom lens shown at the 2011 NAB Show. Seems that Canon is getting back into cine lenses from what I'm reading. I wonder what this new lens is going to cost?

[Enrique Vega]

Well, I decided to go with a brand new 16OPF12-1 2.5/10-100mm. s/n 910020 because it IS NEW, or let's say old stock but never used. I believe this is the same lens Tim Dashwood used to make some of the tests originally made on the HZ-CA13U COPLA.

I wish I could read Russian so I could translate the test results for the lens. Seems it is considered high resolution glass with 79 lines per mm at F=10mm, 76 lines per mm at F=50mm, and 65 lines per mm at F=100mm. Now if I could understand what this means and how other zoom lenses compare, then I would be set.

Now to figure out if this mount can be converted to a PL mount so I can use it with my adapter... BTW, is this considered an OCT-19 mount?

... just amazed at finding such a new old lens...

[Brian Drysdale]

Canon have been making cine zooms for Super 16 for quite a few years.

I wouldn't get too excited by those resolution figures, the old 16mm Cooke Varokinetal (CVK) 9-50mm zoom claimed 200 line pairs/mm and I've Just checked up on on the Zeiss T2 10-100mm and it's just 160 line pairs/mm. Hopefully those figures in your spec sheet are line pairs rather than TV lines, but even at that they're not that good for 16mm.

I believe you can get a OCT-19 lens remounted to PL mount, but you'd need to check with a lens technician.

[Brian Drysdale]

Having looked at a Russian lens specialist's comparison on another forum with a Russian lens giving similar resolution figures to this particular lens that he thought it was optically better than an Angenieux 10-150mm. Although, that particular Angenieux zoom was regarded as a soft lens in its day..

Not really comparing like with like, but it does give a bit of a comparison..

[Enrique Vega]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Canon have been making cine zooms for Super 16 for quite a few years.

I wouldn't get too excited by those resolution figures, the old 16mm Cooke Varokinetal (CVK) 9-50mm zoom claimed 200 line pairs/mm and I've Just checked up on on the Zeiss T2 10-100mm and it's just 160 line pairs/mm. Hopefully those figures in your spec sheet are line pairs rather than TV lines, but even at that they're not that good for 16mm.

I believe you can get a OCT-19 lens remounted to PL mount, but you'd need to check with a lens technician.

Great info! Now we have a comparison to look at. Wow! Seems the Cooke and Zeiss are way better in terms of resolution. I guess that is the reason they cost so much more. I wonder what the Angenieux zooms resolutions are?

You wouldn't happen to know how these resolutions translate to digital video do you? I mean, how does the 720p of the JVC GY cameras translate to the stated resolutions?

I've been checking on the OCT-19 to PL and have come to the conclusion that there are no simple adapters. Seems a lens tech is going to have to make the change. At this point I've gotten a quote of $250 for the change to a PL mount.

[Brian Drysdale]

A bit hard to do a direct transfer, because you need to take into consideration the whole system Contrast in also a factor in how sharp your images look as well.

There was a resolution test done on a number of HDV cameras a few years and I think the JVC camera's resolution came out at about 650 TV lines horizontally with the stock lens, the Canon XL H1 came out best. I expect if you do a search in through the past threads you'll find the precise figures. Of course that figure would improve with better glass fitted.

[Shaun Roemich]

I've been wrong before but having owned a COPLA previously, the distance from the mount to the rear lens element looks to me like it may not fit inside the adaptor... Again, it has been a while since I had mine and only mounted a couple of ciné primes but I'm not sure that lens will mount...