VinceC
Veteran
35mm movie lens coverage makes sense.
A movie image size is equivalent to half-frame for 35mm still photography -- (More precisely, Barnack doubled the size of the movie format by feeding the film past the shutter horizontally instead of vertically).
A movie image size is equivalent to half-frame for 35mm still photography -- (More precisely, Barnack doubled the size of the movie format by feeding the film past the shutter horizontally instead of vertically).
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
I will double check the article to make sure I got it right.
Kiu
Kiu
summaron
Established
A movie image size is equivalent to half-frame for 35mm still photography -- (More precisely, Barnack doubled the size of the movie format by feeding the film past the shutter horizontally instead of vertically).
And VistaVision returned the complement by turning the movie camera on its side and running the film horizontally (thus the telephone-line like, horizontal scratches). Techniscope, on the other hand, halved the 35mm frame to create its own budget version of widescreen. A VistaVision lens, in theory, could be used on a rangefinder with impunity.
What was design like of the f/.7 Zeiss lens that Kubrick used on "Barry Lyndon?" Perhaps it could be a basis of the wished for Zeiss ZM f/1 lens.
Last edited:
#FT2_8*fffg.
Member
A Zeiss ZM f1 should be a modified Sonnar type.
An F0.7 lens would only make sense for Super 8 and 16mm cameras; the famous Kubrick lens was the size of a 400mm f2.8 Nikon, and focusing had to be done via ground glass in back after every shot. It sat just a few milimeters away from the film plane.
A F0.7 for 8mm or 16mm would only be about the size of a fast normal in 35mm format; about Noct. Nikkor size.
Pentax actually does make some F0.75 security camera lenses that would have coverage for a super 8 camera, but these are in CS mount, not C mount, and not compatible with any Beaulieu or other C mount movie camera system.
An F0.7 lens would only make sense for Super 8 and 16mm cameras; the famous Kubrick lens was the size of a 400mm f2.8 Nikon, and focusing had to be done via ground glass in back after every shot. It sat just a few milimeters away from the film plane.
A F0.7 for 8mm or 16mm would only be about the size of a fast normal in 35mm format; about Noct. Nikkor size.
Pentax actually does make some F0.75 security camera lenses that would have coverage for a super 8 camera, but these are in CS mount, not C mount, and not compatible with any Beaulieu or other C mount movie camera system.
Last edited:
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
You are right and I was wrong, the original Zunow 1.1 was meant for the 35mm cine industry covering the 18x24mm format and never redesigned for the 24x36mm
I will have proof later,
Kiu
I will have proof later,
Kiu
Bill58
Native Texan
I can't understand Photo-Arsenal's business model.
Their prices are 3-4 times higher than the usual market rate, usually outlandish.
Yet, they list hundreds of items per week (astronomical eBay fees).
Do they just sit on a huge inventory and hope to rope in the occassional sucker or desperate collector who "has to have" something at any price?
It's mind boggling, but usually when you search eBay for some rare item you'll encounter dozens of their listings.
What's the story?
They are 100% crooks--stay away!
jmanivelle
Well-known
To revive an old thread...
this was shot with a chrome Zunow 5cm 1.1 LTM on a Leica M9M:

Zunow 5cm 1.1 LTM by JM__, on Flickr
this was shot with a chrome Zunow 5cm 1.1 LTM on a Leica M9M:

Zunow 5cm 1.1 LTM by JM__, on Flickr
jmanivelle
Well-known
Share: