I am looking to buy a film slr but want to use cool old vintage lenses like m42 screw mount, minolta, contax etc (I already have some) and therefore look for a camera that allows lens adapting. Which mount respectively camera would you go with? SLR's I am interested in (price not bigger than 250€ preferably lower): Nikon F3 Canon F1 Olympus OM 4 Minolta XK (you can also recommend others)

I have a GH2 with MD rokkor vintage lenses, im gonna shoot mainly music videos (with a lot of moving shots, slow motion, low lights and exterior) and some short films in the future. 30min of clips is enought for me I need quality but i really like the vintage look, im lost there is too much patch and informations, so i call your experience, what is the best possibility for me ?

Thank you for your help

The online forums are brimming with opinions on what constitutes a good lens. And many of those commenters would have us believe that lens reviews, which consider factors like extraordinary resolution and an absence of aberrations and vignetting to be the hallmarks of good design, as entirely misguided. In sum, they prefer vintage lenses with character to optically flawless modern lenses, particularly mirrorless lenses which rely on in-body optical correction. Which is not to say that lens reviews are infallible: most don’t have the resources to measure sample variance, and the majority fail to mention factors critical to filmmakers, such as focus breathing, focus shift, and actual light transmission (T stops).

Yet, if one prefers lenses with character, exactly which imperfections are considered desirable? Mediocre resolution? Heavy vignetting? Starbursts? Cats-eye bokeh with onion rings? Loads of chromatic aberration? Barrel and pincushion distortion? Coma and astigmatism? Swirly bokeh? Ghosting and purple/green flares? Low contrast?

As far as in-body optical correction is concerned, I defy anyone in a blind test to determine which lens – the Olympus 45mm f/1.2 PRO or the Leica Nocticron – utilizes it on the GH5.

I don’t believe in magic: the characteristics of a lens are measurable and are able to be described. If that were not the case, lens reviews would be utterly meaningless. Even something as seemingly intangible as music can be evaluated: how closely does the performance adhere to the dynamics and phrasing dictated by the composer; is it legato or staccato; is there note-to-note tension; or is the music pushed and pulled beyond all recognition? A music critic working for the New York Times could write that a Mahler symphony conducted by Michael Tilson Thomas was dope, but unfortunately, that wouldn’t be very useful to readers.

For me, a great lens would be fast (f/2 or faster), have high resolution and contrast, good resistance to flare, warm color rendition, little vignetting or chromatic aberration and soft round bokeh with no onion rings. Not that I can’t appreciate some of the qualities of lenses like the Helios, but I’m not sure I’d want to sit through an entire feature film with swirly bokeh.

When looking at footage from vintage lenses, what are the characteristics that stand out and make them more desirable than modern lenses?

Over at cinematography.com, a forum member posted a link to a comparison by Shane Hurlbut of Cooke vs. Leica (the link is dead now I guess), and another forum member commented:

"I’ve watched it a few times and found it extremely interesting. When I first heard about the new Leicas, they seemed like a real lens for the future. Spec-wise as good as it gets. But then as I started to track down and watch productions shot on them I found myself noticing (repeatedly) this strange flatness to the images that somehow felt ‘off’ to me.

I couldn’t begin to pin down what it was about the look of the shows that felt off to me, but after seeing Shane’s comparison it became clear to me. The Leicas are just too perfect. In a still image you’d never notice it, but in motion it’s there – this almost imperceptible flatness to the image, that seems to rob them of some sense of depth.

I still can’t put it clearly into words, but something about the way the Leicas render moving pictures really puts me off. I don’t understand why I love the look from Master Primes (which are also kinda ‘perfect’) and yet the Leicas throw me, but there it is".

I realize Cooke lenses are supposed to be otherworldly, but what’s needed is a vocabulary that describes precisely what it is about certain lenses that rock one’s world, not ambiguous statements to the effect that ‘that lens is too clinical looking’ or ‘this lens is more organic looking’. Some readers will disagree (‘I just tell my client that idea sucks!’), but I believe it is incumbent upon visual artists to be able to explain, articulate and express the aspects of their craft: especially so in a collaborative medium like filmmaking.

Can anyone imagine the chief optical engineer at Leica or Cooke telling one of their underlings to add a touch more mojo to one of their designs?

FWIW, if, as one forum member noted, Hurlbut was indeed comparing a 75mm lens to a 100mm, and if indeed he dismissed it as inconsequential, and viewers were none the wiser, then that is fucked up big time as well.

Few would dispute the artistry of Christopher Doyle, who swears by Zeiss, Cooke and Angénieux lenses, but were I to shoot something with any of those lenses, no doubt my YouTube channel would be inundated with comments saying my images look soulless, sterile and clinical. Because most of the magic is in set design, camera movement, focus pulling, focal length, costume design, lighting, haze machines and grading as much as anything else that makes an image look cinematic.

It’s also about time that certain forum members shut the fuck up and admitted that brand loyalty is all they care about. A Canon fanboy over at EOSHD refused to acknowledge that the EOS R has more in-body sharpening than any other FF mirrorless camera even though PDN’s rigorous lab tests prove it. Blackmagic Design ambassador John Brawley refused to recognize that the thinner filter stack of the BMPCC4K is ruinous the performance of native fast wide angle lenses even though Brian Caldwell said it was so. And I believe Tony Northrup demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that Canon’s supposed superior color science is nothing but rubbish.

thanks guys!

Gear used on both videos:

• Panasonic GH2 cam with flowmotion hack
• Two Minolta MD lenses, 28mm F1.8 and 50mm F.17
• Sigma 19mm F2.8
• Mostly shot with: a rig, tripod, table slider and handheld

My goal is to eventually work more with commercial artists and especially to learn as much as possible about cinematography and cinematic aspects used in music videos.

Would love to receive some feedback on both videos!

Cheers,

D

I recently purchased a Helios 44-2 58mm lens as well as a Jupiter 12 35mm lens. I did a little research and purchased I believed to be the correct adapters to use the lenses on my Panasonic Lumix GH4. Sadly, I've grabbed a 'Keycay L39 to M4/3' and a Fotasy L39 to M4/3 neither which allowed me to focus the lens once secured to the camera.

Im also wondering what kind of adapter would allow me to use the Jupiter lens, as well.

Any input is appreciated!

The lens comes with Rafcamera M45-M42 adapter and with PZF macro bellows (Its not the most precise bellows in the world, but its perfect for this lens because it extends 2x more than other usual more expensive bellows)

Located in Ukraine, Odessa city. Will ship worldwide. Can accept only Payoneer (Make A Payment service from Payoneer to Payoneer account 0% fee) or any Card to Payoneer (Request a Payment service) with 3% fee. Ask $200 ( or $180 without macro bellows) + shipping and payment fees.

do you have any tips on which lenses to choose in this focal range. They should be vintage lenses and below 140€ (I know this is probably though for the 24mm). They should be relatively fast (below 2.8), plenty sharp and have an analog, film look like color rendition. I know that everybody wants these, but maybe you have some ideas. Have a great day. V

OKS 15mm T2.0 + ND

OKS 20mm T1.9 + ND

Yashica 50mm f1.4 +ND

OKS 15mm T2.8

OKS 20mm T2.8

OKS 25mm T2.7

Yashica 28mm f2.8

Yashica 50mm f2.8

OKS 15mm T4

OKS 20mm T4

OKS 25mm T4

Yashica 28mm f4

Yashica 50mm f4

OKS 15mm T5.6

OKS 20mm T5.6

OKS 25mm T5.6

Yashica 28mm f5.6

Yashica 50mm f5.6

OKS 15mm T8

OKS 20mm T8

OKS 25mm T8

Yashica 28mm f8

Yashica 50mm f8

Lens Flare test. Added Yashica ML Zoom 35-105. Same as previous test all shoot in RAW, processed in DaVinci Resolve with ARRI LogC timeline and Alexa LogC to Video LUT. No any additional color correction.

OKS-15mm-T2.0

OKS-15mm-T2.8

OKS-15mm-T4

OKS-15mm-T5.6

OKS-15mm-T8

OKS-15mm-T11

OKS-15mm-T16

OKS-20mm-T1.9

OKS-20mm-T2.8

OKS-20mm-T4

OKS-20mm-T5.6

OKS-20mm-T8

OKS-20mm-T11

OKS-20mm-T16

OKS-25mm-T2.7

OKS-25mm-T4

OKS-25mm-T5.6

OKS-25mm-T8

OKS-25mm-T11

OKS-25mm-T16

Yashica-28mm-f2.8

Yashica-28mm-f4

Yashica-28mm-f5.6

Yashica-28mm-f8

Yashica-28mm-f11

Yashica-28mm-f16

Yashica-50mm-f1.7

Yashica-50mm-f2

Yashica-50mm-f2.8

Yashica-50mm-f4

Yashica-50mm-f5.6

Yashica-50mm-f8

Yashica-50mm-f11

Yashica-50mm-f16

Yashica-Zoom35-105mm-35mm-f3.5

Yashica-Zoom35-105mm-35mm-f5.6

Yashica-Zoom35-105mm-35mm-f8

Yashica-Zoom35-105mm-35mm-f11

Yashica-Zoom35-105mm-35mm-f16

Yashica-Zoom35-105mm-50mm-f3.5

Yashica-Zoom35-105mm-50mm-f5.6

Yashica-Zoom35-105mm-50mm-f8

Yashica-Zoom35-105mm-50mm-f11

Yashica-Zoom35-105mm-50mm-f16

I need your help. I want to build a lens set from affordable but superb vintage lenses for cinematography. These 3 brands would be adapted via an passive adapter onto my Samsung NX1.

Focal lengths I am generally interested in: 24 or 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm

I'll need some experts opinion on which brand to go for. I don't know wether to go for Contax Yashica, Canon FD or Minolta vintage lenses so hit me up with your knowledge and recommendation. It is much appreciated.

I am throwing in an assortment of vintage lenses along with their m4/3 lens adapters! The highly sought after Minolta MD Rokkor-X 24mm f2.8 AND the Minolta MD Rokkor - X 45mm F2 Konica Hexanon AR 28mm f3.5 Brand New in Box New Old Stock never used Kalimar 28mm f2.8! Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f1.4 Konica Hexanon 57mm f1.8 (needs work) Konica Zoom Hexanon 65-135mm f4 (needs cleaning).

I also have a spare Chinar 28mm f2.8 I'll throw in as well if you need more than one 28mm or need an extra 28mm prime for a second camera. This is a ton of glass all in very good shape. Im only asking for $350 for all of the above and not really interested in selling just one lens for 50 bucks. I really need to clean out my camera bag and raise some cash to get another GH2. Anyone have a GH2 and willing to trade for all the above...that would be nice too!

Cheers, C

I have a set of Arri Zeiss lenses, in standard mount with PL adapters. The set is 24/32/50/85 all lenses have arri pitch gears installed, and 80mm fronts. The 50/85 are clickless, but the 24/32 have not been de-clicked. Glass is very nice, though the 24 has some cleaning marks on the front. These lenses range from the late 60's to early 70's and are the pre T* coating. I'll also throw in a set of Tiffen diopters +1, +2, +4.

You can view photos of the set here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1d97lhvt6...YCmieGkwa?dl=0 Also, you can view a promo spot shot with these lenses here: http://www.savagehenryfilms.com/port...cs-7-layer-set (sorry for the excessive flares, but the client gets what they asked for!)

Looking for $7500 for the set.

Don't know too much about it's specs, but I do know O'Connor fluid heads are legendary!

Pan and tilts fine, has a bit of a squeak when panning. Should be able to fix with some lubing.

Gitzo tripod has a ball head with 3/8" mount. Also works fine, just old.

Pictures show actual item.

$400 OBO.

I hope to avoid still lenses for mechanical reasons and also to get that "warmth" and organic nature one might get from older cine lenses. I might consider older still lenses that are all manual and have good mechanics.

Versatility, size and weight are my major concerns. I'm not trying to find optical perfection here. In fact imperfections (low corner sharpness, flaring, etc.) are welcomed as I prefer older glass with digital capture anyways if it gives me good center sharpness.

Modern cine zooms are huge and bulky and expensive and I'm not looking to rent. That's why I've been thinking about older lenses mostly. Ideally something that could be converted to EF mount. Flexible budget depending on the lens.

I've been digging the net for some days now and I've come mostly empty handed. Only option I found was this small 1kg Optar 25-80 T3.4 but I was hoping to widen my options. (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?31664-Optar-25-80mm-PL-mt-Lens-for-sale)

Any suggestions?

• Post photos taken with your vintage manual lenses at wide open aperture, preferably at f/1.4 or faster, but other lenses with slower max apertures are also welcome.

• List the lens, the camera, and the aperture (includes speedboosters!)

I have a Marantz PDM661 solid state audio field recoder and a 35mm Minolta MC W. Rokkor - HH f1.8 lens for sale.

1) Marantz PMD661:

The quality of the internal electronics is so high, that you don't need a preamp (see an input noise ranking of many field recorders here: http://www.audiotranskription.de/mikrofoneingangsrauschen , scroll down to about the middle of the page).

Its a 2 channel recorder with phantom powered XLR inputs. For more info try the internet (or ask me via PM). Its a very solid built (e.g. metal housing) and it is in "like new" condition.

Included is the recorder, DC adapter, 2GB SD card (not in the picture), shoulder strap, manual, software CD, original box.

Asking 400 EUR (or best offer) + shipping from Germany.

2) 35mm Minolta MC Rokkor f1.8:

This was one of the best lensen available at its time. Its fast and renders a beautyfull boke. Its sharp and gets rid of the "electronic look" on all digital cameras. It really shines when used for portrait and beauty shots. And because of its metall body and smooth mechanics, the lens has a very nice feel when used.

The lens has a Minolta standart mount and a 55mm filter thread. Its focal length is 35mm and the iris can be opend up to f1.8. Focus distance is marked in meters and feet and close focus limit is about 30cm/1.0ft. (angle of view: 64° , optics: 8 lenses in 6 groups)

The lens is in nearly mint conditions (see picture, can send more just PM me). The only flaw it has, is a painting scratch on the bajonet mount, which was caused by an adapter. This scratch has no influence on functionallity and can't be seen when the lens is mounted to a camera. All lenses are scratch and dust(!) free. The iris is free of oil, all mechanical parts are working smooth and precise and the iris ring snapps in firmly. At all time the lens was handled with great care and stored accordingly.

Included is the lens and front+rear caps.

Asking 250 EUR (or best offer) + shipping from Germany.

Any recommendations? Aperture doesn't matter that much since moon is so bright.

For me it is actually a Konica Minolta A2, for which I was clever enough to buy the 6-AA-battery accessory while it was still available. The A2's original LiIon battery has long died, but using the standard batteries the A2 is still a quite usable 8 MPixel camera to take where you wouldn't take anything of too much value with you. And the A2 is also one of the few digital cameras that are so "analog-camera-like-to-operate" that you can hand them even to 80+ aged people to take a photo with.

What's your oldest digital camera still ready for shooting?

Cheers, D.

It has a Nikon TV-nikkor zoom macro 12.5-100mm 1:1.6 lens which i have unscrewed out of the camera and wish to use it on my Panny GH2 but have no clue what mount to use to do the same. I tried asking all the DP's and techies i know but they have no clue on the lens. Even google hasnt been able to help at all. Can someone who knows their lenses well share any info on this and recommend me a mount for this lens for my GH2? Links to the right mount or names will be much appreciated.

I've searched for answers but came up with nothing, if there is an answer please point me in the right direction and close this thread. Forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong category.

I'm using the GF2 (hacked) for filming with old vintage lenses. I mainly use a Canon FD 50 mm 1,4 and a Canon FD 28 mm f2,8. When I try to shoot wide open the image gets all blown out (of course) and a ND-filter would help me with that. But when I shoot in any of the My colour modes the image is fine.

So what does the My colour mode (except the obvious effects) do that I can't do in manual mode? I know there's no manual controls when recording video so does it really matter what mode I shoot in? I'm thinking that the custom My colour mode (without changing any settings to the colour) is cheaper than a variable ND-filter, if the mode doesn't do something wierd with my video...

I am selling this VERY VERY RARE great lens in excellent condition!

I am from Hungary, Europe.

I can receive money via Paypal.

Price: 799 USD + 29 USD shipping cost worldwide (as priority and registered mail with tracking code)

Worths to take a look about this rare lens:

http://camerajunky.wordpress.com/tag/carl-zeiss-jena-pancolar-80mm-f1-8/

If anybody is interested, please PM me! ;)

Have a nice weekend for everybody on this forum! ;)

I already read about Helios lenses, Here is a good example of the kind of bokeh I'm looking for :

Rokkor This one's pretty extreme

I hope some people are willing to share their knowledge on these crazy lenses ;) Thanks