Blackmagic Forum

Hey everyone,

Over the past 6 years or so I’ve been collecting and filming with vintage lenses that I use for both documentary and personal content on my Blackmagic cameras:

In this video I discuss why I think that as filmmakers it is a good idea to invest in vintage glass and the reasons that made me do it.

I also touch on the differences between the ones that I own and why I picked them.

Hopefully this gives you a little more info if you are already looking into getting some vintage glass or a bit of motivation and inspiration to start diving into it.

Hope you enjoy this video!

Let me know if you have any questions and which vintage lenses are your favourite .

Cheers,
Flo

I use them allot, specially the helios 44/2 58mm, is use the pentax 50mm f1.4 als allot. In total i have 6 vintage lenses that i use. Besides the pentax 50 f1.4 and the helios 58mm i have a helios zoom 28/70mm f3.5, a helios 135mm f2.8, a takumar 55mm f2.8 and a Chinon 28mm f2.8. I have a few others that i never use. The takumar 55mm i use as a anamorphic lens with a great joy anamorphic adapter on it.

I really only use two these days, both are zooms, the Tokina ATX Pro 28-70 2.6-2.8 (Angénieux design), which isn't all that vintage (from the 1990s) and an Angénieux 17.5-70 Super 16 zoom from the 1970s. Both have advantages and disadvantages but certainly have some character. The Angénieux has by far the worst focus breathing I have seen on any lens, which is odd because it's a cine lens. I also have a couple of film-era Nikon Ai-S and AF-D lenses but don't use them much for video.

However, if I ever get one of the new L-mount BMD cameras that'll open up the possibility to use my larger set of vintage film-camera lenses, including rangefinder lenses (M and LTM mounts) and Minolta Rokkors. The Rokkors are practical and match nicely from lens to lens in terms of colors and character; the rangefinder lenses are a more motley bunch but I find the focusing tabs on them are quite useful for video and they bring amazing character.

I use Zeiss C/Y on EF and Minolta on Sony.
Takumars are also very nice and fit both with the right adapter.

Akantha wrote:I use them allot, specially the helios 44/2 58mm, is use the pentax 50mm f1.4 als allot. In total i have 6 vintage lenses that i use. Besides the pentax 50 f1.4 and the helios 58mm i have a helios zoom 28/70mm f3.5, a helios 135mm f2.8, a takumar 55mm f2.8 and a Chinon 28mm f2.8. I have a few others that i never use. The takumar 55mm i use as a anamorphic lens with a great joy anamorphic adapter on it.

I've seen amazing stuff with the Takumar and a few of my friends use it! How do you like the Helios zoom?

Brad Hurley wrote:I really only use two these days, both are zooms, the Tokina ATX Pro 28-70 2.6-2.8 (Angénieux design), which isn't all that vintage (from the 1990s) and an Angénieux 17.5-70 Super 16 zoom from the 1970s. Both have advantages and disadvantages but certainly have some character. The Angénieux has by far the worst focus breathing I have seen on any lens, which is odd because it's a cine lens. I also have a couple of film-era Nikon Ai-S and AF-D lenses but don't use them much for video.

However, if I ever get one of the new L-mount BMD cameras that'll open up the possibility to use my larger set of vintage film-camera lenses, including rangefinder lenses (M and LTM mounts) and Minolta Rokkors. The Rokkors are practical and match nicely from lens to lens in terms of colors and character; the rangefinder lenses are a more motley bunch but I find the focusing tabs on them are quite useful for video and they bring amazing character.

I really need to start looking into zooms! For doco work it would be super handy.
The main reason I love the 6K FF is for the options and versatility it gives when it comes to using different lenses.

Uli Plank wrote:I use Zeiss C/Y on EF and Minolta on Sony.
Takumars are also very nice and fit both with the right adapter.

Nice! Takumars keep coming back, might have to check them out haha!

I primarily use my vintage Minolta Rokkor on my Sony when not using it with the Minolta SRT-102. I refuse to use it with a MD to EF adapter because of the additional crop the glass element gives.

I’d definitely be interested to test out the Minolta lenses on the L Mount Full Frame Blackmagic cameras via a MD to L Mount adapter. That would be cool to see them in their full glory.

However, Ancient Optics cinevised a couple sweets of Minolta Rokkor lenses. I’d love to get my hands on those and try them out on the URSA Cine 12K. My mouth is watering at that prospect.

For now here’s a shot I did with the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 on the Sony A7IV.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a set of Nikon F-Mount AIS prime lenses with apertures f1.4 and a couple of "for Nikon" Sigma lenses that I accumulated back in the dinosaur days of groundglass 35mm adaptors prior to Year 0BR (before RED).

When I want to keep things simpler, I have a Tokina 17-35mm.

More recently I got hold of a pre-owned Laowa 25-100mm zoom which has a comparable "look" to the Nikons when those are properly masked to avoid veiling flare.

Just to be contrary, the accompanying image was shot on a SI2K camera with converted speedbooster (originally for the original BMPCC) and 40mm Voigtlander for Nikon lens.

The older "big" Ursa confers an image I still favour compared to what seems to be a more clinical look from the Ursa Mini 4.6K camera family even though it is easier to cook the highlights with it. The accompanying clip was shot with Nikon lenses.

Seems as good a place as any to ask - can anybody here recommend a good adaptor for Canon FD and M42 mounts?

I've got some FD glass that I use for stills that I'd like to use on my newly acquired BMCC6K, and I'm looking at getting a Helios 44-2. Thanks.

Chris Cronin wrote:Seems as good a place as any to ask - can anybody here recommend a good adaptor for Canon FD and M42 mounts?

The cheap adapters such as those from Fotodiox can work, but I've had better luck spending the extra bucks on Novoflex. The internal flocking seems better (no reflections) and measurements tend to be more precise so you can achieve infinity focus; I haven't always been able to do that with some of the Fotodiox ones. Metabones also makes regular adapters (as well as their better-known speedboosters) and based on the ones I have they're well made.

Brad Hurley wrote:The cheap adapters such as those from Fotodiox can work, but I've had better luck spending the extra bucks on Novoflex. The internal flocking seems better (no reflections) and measurements tend to be more precise so you can achieve infinity focus; I haven't always been able to do that with some of the Fotodiox ones. Metabones also makes regular adapters (as well as their better-known speedboosters) and based on the ones I have they're well made.

Thanks, I'll check these out. I don't mind forking out a little more on a Metabones if I need to.

Any word on the quality of Urth or K&F Concept adaptors?

timbutt2 wrote:I primarily use my vintage Minolta Rokkor on my Sony when not using it with the Minolta SRT-102. I refuse to use it with a MD to EF adapter because of the additional crop the glass element gives.

Second that. None of those glass adapters from MD to EF is really good.
Sometimes I use one if I need very soft sides, being too lazy to do it in post

timbutt2 wrote:For now here’s a shot I did with the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 on the Sony A7IV.

I 'Leitaxed' my 58mm f1.2, I think those 58mm are the only Minolta Rokkors you can adapt to EF. It's such a beauty on our UMP 4.6K.
Currently some of our students are shooting with some of my Rokkors and a Century Optics anamorphic on Sony. Looking forward to their results.

Chris Cronin wrote:Seems as good a place as any to ask - can anybody here recommend a good adaptor for Canon FD and M42 mounts?
I've got some FD glass that I use for stills that I'd like to use on my newly acquired BMCC6K, and I'm looking at getting a Helios 44-2. Thanks.

If that BMCC6K is EF, there's no good adapter for FD. Helios 44-2, just like other M42, can be adapted with a small ring adapter. You may need to try a few, until you find one that's focusing to infinity, but they are dead cheap.

Chris Cronin wrote:Any word on the quality of Urth or K&F Concept adaptors?

I don't know the Urth ones, but I use a few K&F for MD to Sony, and they are not too bad. Not Novoflex or Metabones quality, but better than the no-names.

Chris Cronin wrote:

Brad Hurley wrote:The cheap adapters such as those from Fotodiox can work, but I've had better luck spending the extra bucks on Novoflex. The internal flocking seems better (no reflections) and measurements tend to be more precise so you can achieve infinity focus; I haven't always been able to do that with some of the Fotodiox ones. Metabones also makes regular adapters (as well as their better-known speedboosters) and based on the ones I have they're well made.

Thanks, I'll check these out. I don't mind forking out a little more on a Metabones if I need to.

Any word on the quality of Urth or K&F Concept adaptors?

I have both Urth and K&F for various adapters and I much prefer Urth. I have 3 of them and they are all extremely well built and secure.

robert Hart wrote:I have a set of Nikon F-Mount AIS prime lenses with apertures f1.4 and a couple of "for Nikon" Sigma lenses that I accumulated back in the dinosaur days of groundglass 35mm adaptors prior to Year 0BR (before RED).

When I want to keep things simpler, I have a Tokina 17-35mm.

More recently I got hold of a pre-owned Laowa 25-100mm zoom which has a comparable "look" to the Nikons when those are properly masked to avoid veiling flare.

Just to be contrary, the accompanying image was shot on a SI2K camera with converted speedbooster (originally for the original BMPCC) and 40mm Voigtlander for Nikon lens.

Beautiful image, Robert!

timbutt2 wrote:I primarily use my vintage Minolta Rokkor on my Sony when not using it with the Minolta SRT-102. I refuse to use it with a MD to EF adapter because of the additional crop the glass element gives.

I’d definitely be interested to test out the Minolta lenses on the L Mount Full Frame Blackmagic cameras via a MD to L Mount adapter. That would be cool to see them in their full glory.

However, Ancient Optics cinevised a couple sweets of Minolta Rokkor lenses. I’d love to get my hands on those and try them out on the URSA Cine 12K. My mouth is watering at that prospect.

For now here’s a shot I did with the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 on the Sony A7IV.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't tried Minolta lenses yet but I did see the Ancient Optics ones and they seem to be incredible!
Beautiful shot as well!

Florent Piovesan wrote:Hey everyone,

Over the past 6 years or so I’ve been collecting and filming with vintage lenses that I use for both documentary and personal content on my Blackmagic cameras:

In this video I discuss why I think that as filmmakers it is a good idea to invest in vintage glass and the reasons that made me do it.

I also touch on the differences between the ones that I own and why I picked them.

Hopefully this gives you a little more info if you are already looking into getting some vintage glass or a bit of motivation and inspiration to start diving into it.

Hope you enjoy this video!

Let me know if you have any questions and which vintage lenses are your favourite .

Cheers,
Flo

Flo,

Good Stuff - Thanks for sharing the video with us.

I've had a set Canon FD Lenses (28mm, 50mm 85mm) for about 15 or so years going back to the pre-Blackmagic days when i had a hacked Panasonic GH1. Those early GH cameras seemed so sharp to me that I preferred a vintage lens to soften up the rough edges a bit. I grew up shooting 35mm film on my dad's old Agfa camera. Since that is how I learned, I liked shooting manual.

Then when I switched over to a MFT BMCC 2.5k I used and really enjoyed them with that camera as well. Here is a short film I did with that combo a few years back.



And I just picked up the BMCC6k during the 40% off sale (Thank You Blackmagic) So I look forward to trying out these old lenses with the full frame as well. To me Vintage lenses are a bit like comfort food.

I try out the Auto Takumar 55 f1.8 the later version without the SMC logo so I assume this will be single coated lens which suppose to produce nicer bokeh than multi coated lens. It has the right amount of contrast close to the way my eyes could see, similar to Canon FD but with punchier colours even when the aperture is wide open. Nice build quality. The only thing I don't like is the focus breathing which is quite bad.

Focus breathing shouldn’t be a huge issue on a 6K camera. In the days of analog film, correcting it in post meant expensive optical work. These days, a bit of keyframing will cure it in those cases where it becomes obvious at all.

I'm going to use it on the BMCC 2.5k MFT with Metabones x64 SB.

There is a wave of expensive rehoused or retuned lenses for the vintage look because modern sensor and glass has become so clean and sharp. I think the next wave is older digital cinema cameras getting rehoused, once a big budget feature were the DOP demand a certain look out of that camera's sensor the trend will happen.

OK, that’s a different situation. I’ll try to compare my Tak vs a Rokkor in that respect.

Oddly, by far the worst focus breathing I've ever observed on any lens is on the 17.5-70 Angénieux Super 16 cine lens. That lens is at least parfocal, but maybe people didn't do focus pulls much back then (mine dates from the 1970s according to Angénieux, based on the serial number).

OK, checked it.
The Rokkor 55mm f1.7, which is another fine lens with pretty similar character is breathing nearly as much as the Super-Takumar 55mm f1.8.
Surprisingly, a Rokkor-PG 50mm f1.4 is breathing considerably less. But then, that lens is analytically sharp and lacks the 'personality' of the former two. Also, it's bokeh is not as sweet.

Auto Takumar 55mm f1.8 looks very organic, detailed and a vibrant colour 3D pop with the BMCC 2.5k and x64 Metabones SB. The lens is not too sharp to show the false detail much in that sensor, also surprisingly clean looking image maybe not sharp enough to pick out all the noise yet the image is sharp. A perfect balance in IQ with this lens and camera? Just wish the focus breathing was better.