prime cine lens for 1:1 macro on half frame format?

[jtk]

What's an ultra-high resolution cine lens that I could play with in an APS or "half frame" 1:1 slide/neg copy setup? I'm guessing it would be between 12mm and 15mm..might be Zeiss?

Use of conventional macro lenses such as Nikon/Leitz/Zeiss would make no sense because designed for much larger format (35mm ff).

 

[Dan Fromm]

You want a lens optimized for 1:1, not any old short focal length high performance macro lens. The likely is a very expensive Printing Ektar.

Why you want a short lens baffles me. What you want is a lens that's very good at 1:1. 55 mm MicroNikkors will do the job well.

Oh, and by the way, short Nikon Macro-Nikkors, Leitz Photars, Zeiss Luminars (Oberkochen) and Mikrotars (Jena) cover 4x5 at the high magnifications they're optimized for. Which short conventional macro lenses where you thinking of?

In my tests, back when I was testing a lot, the 25/1.8 Cine Ektar II reversed and shot at f/2.8 was very competitive with the 25/3.5 Luminar. But this was at magnifications >= 10:1, not what you want.

 

[Jim Jones]

An ultra-high resolution half frame cine lens optimized for 1:1 copying may be a rare and expensive item. Try the well-proven, available, and relatively affordable macro lenses for full frame first. You may well find such lenses adequate for your purpose, and much better than relying on what someone else says you should be spending your money on.

 

[ic-racer]

Use of conventional macro lenses such as Nikon/Leitz/Zeiss would make no sense because designed for much larger format (35mm ff).

This is the Makro Planar 60mm. Seems to make sense to me.

 

[jtk]

Thanks for thoughts so far.

It's true that common macro prime lenses do well up to 1:1 but they're not optimized for reducing 35mm frames to smaller formats (which was routine in ancient times, before APSc et al).

 

[btaylor]

I recall in my cinema days that a very common lens used in optical duplicating and effects were Nikkor macros. A lot of Mitchell reflexed Fries conversions came with Nikon lens mount for this purpose. I get why you are comparing 1/2 frame to a standard cinema frame, they are the same 18x24mm. Here is a difference though- when used in cinema applications the lenses are fully checked and adjusted, put up on a projector and collimated as they are much more critical than consumer applications.

 

[jtk]

I recall in my cinema days that a very common lens used in optical duplicating and effects were Nikkor macros. A lot of Mitchell reflexed Fries conversions came with Nikon lens mount for this purpose. I get why you are comparing 1/2 frame to a standard cinema frame, they are the same 18x24mm. Here is a difference though- when used in cinema applications the lenses are fully checked and adjusted, put up on a projector and collimated as they are much more critical than consumer applications.

Yes, that's the sort of thought that seems to apply...

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks for thoughts so far.

It's true that common macro prime lenses do well up to 1:1 but they're not optimized for reducing 35mm frames to smaller formats (which was routine in ancient times, before APSc et al).

If you're doing reductions, just reverse the lens to preserve the optimizations. It is as simple as that.

edit: Oh, dear, I got it backwards. OP, you want to work with a large subject in front of the lens and a small sensitized surface behind it. That's what lenses optimized for general out-and-about work are optimized for.' If you have a small subject in front of the lens and a relatively large sensitized surface behind it then you should reverse the lens.

 

[blockend]

Swiss Kern, Paillard, Angenieux, and others made superb lenses for the smaller movie formats, and are widely adapted*. Not many years ago you could pick up a professional 8mm or 16mm movie camera with a turret full of glass for small change. Not so now, at least on eBay.

*not sure about their macro capability.

 

[wiltw]

Thanks for thoughts so far.

It's true that common macro prime lenses do well up to 1:1 but they're not optimized for reducing 35mm frames to smaller formats (which was routine in ancient times, before APSc et al).

Hang on, I think you have some convoluted logic here!

1. The usual non-macro lens is optimized to perform well from about 9*FL (or about 1:7) to Infinity...18" to Infinity for an ordinary 50mm normal lens.
2. A macro lens is optimized to perform well from about 1:1 to Infinity

Therefore one could easily say that a macro lens does well at 1:1 and 1:2 and 1:3 and 1:7 to Infinity, isn't that true?!
And so, if you are reducing a 24mm x 36mm frame to fit 15x22.5mm, it is captured on the smaller format which captures it at 0.62X, or 1:6, and THAT magnification should be captured well, too!

 

[jtk]

For context, I duplicated thousands of slides using Sickles systems and Planars...and a lot with Nikon and Canon macro lenses. I'd bet on Planar, but those camera lenses were close enough for jazz.

Right now I suspect that Samsung 30 or 16 would be better than Can/ikon thanks partially to autofocus of the 30 that does work exquisitely at necessary closeness (but wants manual at close head/shoulders).

HOWEVER if I found one of those little Planars rolling uphill id like to play with it.

 

[jtk]

Reverse mount is of dubious utility and results in clearance issues. In ancient times people did that to take advantage of curvature, wrapping focus around bugs etc.