The ARMY OF THE DEAD are eating this $5800 (or more) 35/1.5 Canon RF lens ALIVE!

CameraQuest

CameraQuest

Head Bartender
Staff member
Local time
12:47 PM
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
6,647
Location
over the hills from Malibu
View My Gallery
OK, so you say you are a serious Canon RF collector looking for something really special.

No problem. Be careful what you ask for...

Available this moment on Ebay Australia for the next 1 day 16 hours and counting down
is a deliciously rare Canon 35mm F1.5 - yep THE ONE.
Oh boy. But it might be a tad high.
As I am writing this its only $7499 Aussie or about $5745.10 US.

What's so special you ask?

According to the seller this little lovely
photographed the entire move ARMY OF THE DEAD along with a 50/.95 Canon.

Yep, Canon collectors are eating this one up.

CLICK HERE IF YOU DARE THAT APPETITE.

Bon Appétit.


EDIT that underpriced lens closed at $7,654.26 USD
 
A Canon 85/1.5 went for $4800 on Ebay not long ago. Vintage high-speed lenses are generally low-production, and the Canon lenses are often found with bad glass. The film industry is going after vintage lenses, lens shops are busy converting classics to Cine lenses.

Glad I completed my collection of Eleven different Canon 50mm RF lenses. For less than the price of the Canon 50/0.95 selling for now.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
The film industry is going after vintage lenses, lens shops are busy converting classics to Cine lenses.
Click to expand...

Why is that? Do they want to make movies with an old-time look? I've read that they prefer softer lenses for romantic comedies. I'd have thought they already have enough of those, though. Is there something else that is special about classic lenses that is needed for film? Good OOF bokeh, maybe?
 
So I was wondering what sort of movie would benefit from this lens, so I read the plot for The Army of the Dead. Here is the first part:

"A United States military convoy traveling from Area 51 collides with a car on the highway outside Las Vegas. The convoy's cargo, a zombie, escapes, killing and infecting several soldiers before heading into the city. There, they infect most of the city's population. After a military intervention fails, the government quarantines the city. Six years later, casino owner Bly Tanaka and his associate Martin approach former Las Vegas resident and mercenary Scott Ward about a job to recover $200 million from his casino vault in Las Vegas before the military deploys a tactical nuclear strike on the city..."

Perhaps someone with experience in cinematography could explain how this lens, or any lens, could possibly save this movie. I think a better title would have been Zombies 11.
 
Movie Teaser at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H83kjG5RCT8 > Reviewers haven't been terribly kind: "... jesus christ what a mess this movie is. An unholy conglomeration of ideas and concepts shamelessly ripped off from other better movies thrown together into a frankenstein's monster of a film that pretty much exemplifies all of Snyder's worst tendencies ..." But whatever floats your boat. Some people dig this stuff.

Regardless of the context, I give kudos to the guy for taking risks and doing something different technologically--blending some very special vintage lenses with modern ultra high tech digital cinema cameras. Snyder discusses his cinematography here: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUJPpAXyBxA > The whole film is shot wide open with the vintage Canon 'dream' lenses, absurdly small depth of field, "crazy creamy bokeh sort of thing." There's also a lot about FX and blasting zombies into shreds, but whatever, skip the weird stuff and wait for the lens discussion. Does it save the movie? Naaa. But its creative and interesting and I appreciate his enthusiasm.
 
ptpdprinter said:
.....Perhaps someone with experience in cinematography could explain how this lens, or any lens, could possibly save this movie. I think a better title would have been Zombies 11.
Click to expand...

I watched it. While hardly a candidate for movie of the year, it did keep my interest. Plus visually, it's stunning. Shooting wide-open with these two exotic lenses gives the picture a very unique look.

Jim B.
 
Rob-F said:
Why is that? Do they want to make movies with an old-time look? I've read that they prefer softer lenses for romantic comedies. I'd have thought they already have enough of those, though. Is there something else that is special about classic lenses that is needed for film? Good OOF bokeh, maybe?
Click to expand...

Why do any of us use Sonnars or Tessars? Technically better lenses exist.
Technical Perfection is fine for some images, not so much for others. I've made a couple of Rangefinder Coupled Meniscus lenses for some photographers.

Someday I'll have to make another "Astigmar", half Sonnar/ Half Xenon.
 
Am I missing something here? The lens up for auction does not look at all like the modified lens used to make the film. Am I supposed to believe that the lens was returned to its former condition after all the expense to convert it to a cine lens? Or, maybe, that the owner of the lens in Australia believes that since one copy of that lens was used to film a movie, every copy must be hyper valuable. Then again, I might just be dense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan
I'm just a little concerned that yet more of these lenses are being lost. Or so it seems. Conversion to cinema lens not always reversible....for multiple reasons. If the old lenses are being adapted, not an issue of course.

I know there are folks lamenting the conversion of old cinema lenses to RF mounts too 😱
 
oldwino said:
When your content sucks, an interesting "look" may be all you have to offer.
Click to expand...

When millions of people spend millions of $ on such movies, then it is "successful". Producers collect such profits and they enjoy life. We can complain and complain, but it will not change the facts.
 
raid said:
When millions of people spend millions of $ on such movies, then it is "successful". Producers collect such profits and they enjoy life. We can complain and complain, but it will not change the facts.
Click to expand...

This is true. Money talks the loudest.
I can still grumble about it...
 
rfaspen said:
I'm just a little concerned that yet more of these lenses are being lost. Or so it seems. Conversion to cinema lens not always reversible....for multiple reasons. If the old lenses are being adapted, not an issue of course.

I know there are folks lamenting the conversion of old cinema lenses to RF mounts too 😱
Click to expand...

There are also people who say that a dream lens should stay in LTM for use with a Canon camera and not a smaller M body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
What Were They Thinking? A compendium of camera design blunders and omissions
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
6K
chuckroast
C
Back
Top Bottom