Kamlan 70mm f1.1 (at last and in M4/3 mount)

cc99 said:

Tom Caldwell said:

There has to be more to Kubrick's lens than simply a huge aperture.

Click to expand...

It was the Moon Lens before it was Kubrick's.

Click to expand...

I don't do video, or have the time to watch them

What I meant is that with such a wide aperture there must have been a qualifier in design to get a useful depth of field. Generally speaking in my understanding faster lenses have more compressed dof at their widest settings. However I imagine Kubrick's ex-moon lens still managed to get sufficient dof in its optical design for good cinematography purposes.

A very special lens in many ways.

Standard camera lenses with very wide apertures can sometimes struggle to get nose and eyes in the same frame and both in focus. However this is not always the case and getting the image "correct" is just another challenge well worth taking.

The filter size is 77mm on the Kamlan 70/1.1 and I also don't think that combined nose/eyes focus when wide open is any real problem.

Tom Caldwell said:

cc99 said:

Tom Caldwell said:

There has to be more to Kubrick's lens than simply a huge aperture.

Click to expand...

It was the Moon Lens before it was Kubrick's.

Click to expand...

I don't do video, or have the time to watch them

What I meant is that with such a wide aperture there must have been a qualifier in design to get a useful depth of field. Generally speaking in my understanding faster lenses have more compressed dof at their widest settings. However I imagine Kubrick's ex-moon lens still managed to get sufficient dof in its optical design for good cinematography purposes.

A very special lens in many ways.

Standard camera lenses with very wide apertures can sometimes struggle to get nose and eyes in the same frame and both in focus. However this is not always the case and getting the image "correct" is just another challenge well worth taking.

The filter size is 77mm on the Kamlan 70/1.1 and I also don't think that combined nose/eyes focus when wide open is any real problem.

Click to expand...

Focal length and aperture define depth of field. There is no magical way to change that.

Tom Caldwell said:

What I meant is that with such a wide aperture there must have been a qualifier in design to get a useful depth of field. ... [The lens] still managed to get sufficient dof in its optical design for good cinematography purposes

Click to expand...

"Useful" depth of field is a matter of opinion. There is a lot of haziness in that movie. It's part of its visual style. "Amadeus" was much sharper, because they had ISO 250 film by 1989, and so could use conventional lenses.

cc99 said:

Tom Caldwell said:

What I meant is that with such a wide aperture there must have been a qualifier in design to get a useful depth of field. ... [The lens] still managed to get sufficient dof in its optical design for good cinematography purposes

Click to expand...

"Useful" depth of field is a matter of opinion. There is a lot of haziness in that movie. It's part of its visual style. "Amadeus" was much sharper, because they had ISO 250 film by 1989, and so could use conventional lenses.

Click to expand...

.... and so it would be nice to know the focal length of this special Kubrick lens and the nominal size of the sensor in the cinema camera it was used with?

Soft focus can be used quite well to create mood.

I will add some test shots to this thread when i can. The Kamlan 70/1.1 is not only a rare bird in itself, but it is not very well documented by revues either.

Tom Caldwell said:

cc99 said:

Tom Caldwell said:

What I meant is that with such a wide aperture there must have been a qualifier in design to get a useful depth of field. ... [The lens] still managed to get sufficient dof in its optical design for good cinematography purposes

Click to expand...

"Useful" depth of field is a matter of opinion. There is a lot of haziness in that movie. It's part of its visual style. "Amadeus" was much sharper, because they had ISO 250 film by 1989, and so could use conventional lenses.

Click to expand...

.... and so it would be nice to know the focal length of this special Kubrick lens and the nominal size of the sensor in the cinema camera it was used with?

Soft focus can be used quite well to create mood.

I will add some test shots to this thread when i can. The Kamlan 70/1.1 is not only a rare bird in itself, but it is not very well documented by revues either.

Click to expand...

I look forward to them! I've seen this lens for sale on eBay, and was curious, but unwilling to pull the trigger....Seems like it would be a marvelous portrait lens if the image quality is at least decent wide open.

The Oly 75 1.8 exists, but this is 1+ stops faster (and quite a bit cheaper), which is neat.

Tom Caldwell said:

.... and so it would be nice to know the focal length of this special Kubrick lens and the nominal size of the sensor in the cinema camera it was used with?

Soft focus can be used quite well to create mood.

I will add some test shots to this thread when i can. The Kamlan 70/1.1 is not only a rare bird in itself, but it is not very well documented by revues either.

Click to expand...

The lens in question is the Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7. It was specially made for NASA, and designed for medium format in a camera custom-built for NASA. Kubrick bought 3 and used it to film Barry Lyndon, which, like Amadeus, was shot on 35mm film. My understanding is Kubrick had to have the camera modified to fit the lens.

Here's an interesting article about adapting the lens:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

Tom Caldwell said:

it would be nice to know the focal length of this special Kubrick lens and the nominal size of the sensor in the cinema camera it was used with?

Click to expand...

The Zeiss 50mm f/0.70 was made for a medium-format Hasselblad NASA used, but Kubrick used it with a 35mm Mitchell BNP camera that was converted to accept it.

Tom Caldwell said:

Tom Caldwell wrote:.

.... and so it would be nice to know the focal length of this special Kubrick lens and the nominal size of the sensor in the cinema camera it was used with?

Click to expand...

Have you considered googling it?

Todd Yes said:

Todd Yes said:

Tom Caldwell wrote:.

.... and so it would be nice to know the focal length of this special Kubrick lens and the nominal size of the sensor in the cinema camera it was used with?

Click to expand...

Have you considered googling it?

Click to expand...

Nah, I am lazy, I was hoping someone else would do it for me. The results so far have confounded my optical knowledge already.

I seem to remember something on this site about it years ago.

Here y'are, courtesy of Mr Google:

"Kubrick's 50mm Planar with the subject at 2.5m (8.2ft) and the iris wide open would have had a depth of field of about 43mm (1.7″)"

So if the Kamlan 70/1.2 does better than this it is a bonus. When dof gets very narrow there is more pressure on the photographer to get their composition very correct.

... and yes I have had the Olympus 75/1.8 for years - great lens - but the Kamlan is a different kettle of fish in its own right. Heavy, manual focus, relies on user eyesight and whether or not we are into believing that focus peaking is our friend.

As far as the Kamlan dof is concerned a rough sight of eye and capture focused area gives me a a measured approximate 200mm or 8" dof wide open in indifferent late afternoon interior light. A whole lot better than what Mr Kubrick had to play with.

Of course late night dark dreamy images are still dependant upon situation and composition. But of course we can always stop the lens down and at f4.0 the lens comes alive.

I have not had much time to craft proper images but here are a few samples - jpg sooc Kamlan 70/1.1 wide open using the Panasonic G100 camera body (ie: there was no stabilisation involved beyond my grip and the speed of the lens)




Interior low available light - oof bokeh?




Euphorbia - good light - bokeh?




Weed, busy background, dof?




Bunch of useless keys, dof?




Inside artificial indirect light




Completely dark inside - light through window




Distant long exposure, neighbour's privacy protected by lack of tripod or any other form of stabilisation. Tree colours could not be seen by naked eye as it was completely dark.




Inside low available light

If given the chance to perform properly the prognosis is good.

--
Tom Caldwell

Tom Caldwell said:

I have not had much time to craft proper images but here are a few samples - jpg sooc Kamlan 70/1.1 wide open using the Panasonic G100 camera body (ie: there was no stabilisation involved beyond my grip and the speed of the lens)


Interior low available light - oof bokeh?

If given the chance to perform properly the prognosis is good.

Click to expand...

Just the type of shot looking for. Nice one Tom.

Would look lush for night time street portraiture.

[ o ]

Sigma f/1.4 85mm ex dg adapted on x0.71 gets close approx f/1.0 60mm around £250. Going to test this sigma afterwards choose Kamy or Sigma.

[ o ]

Just this week picked up f/1.4 30mm Sigma ex dc £87 : f/1.0 on x0.71 viltrox. Fastest lens I've ever had. For a night time street topic. People will be moving af on Sigma handy.


f/1.0 on x0.71 viltrox ef-m2 m4/3 autofocus adapter sigma f/1.4 30mm ex dc af. Autofocuses fine on my Gx7. My viltrox doesn't af that well on my E-M1.1 tested different ef lenses.

Due to moneys too tight to mention lol I pick up lenses I can utilise on multiple cameras, mirrorless from different brands, alongside dslr.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

A lens that can compete is also the M4/3 mount Sigma 56/1.4 which is fearsomely good and has good AF to boot. Has a very good reputation. It is obviously a Sigma aps-c lens remounted for M4/3 and even called a DC lens. A lens often recommended on this forum.

I am not flogging* the Kamlan 70/1.1for a living but only was curious about one which became more of a significant casus belli to get one after reaching dead ends on four earlier occasions.

Now that I have one I am glad that I persisted. In the realm of 70-75mm lenses built f1.1 is significant enough over the more common f1.4 fast lens and perhaps also f1.8 as in the Olympus 75/1.8 built especially for M4/3. Of course the Olympus 75/1.8 is neat, compact, sharp and easy-focusing and a very recommended lens that I already have. I also have the (FF) TTArtisan MF 75/1.5 in M42 mount which is a copy of a historical Zeiss Biotar. So I am up to my gills in lenses of that focal length (considering that i have missed a few others).

However the large(r) heavier MF Kamlan 70/1.1 is also a worthy lens for those that can never have too much of that focal length.

I made the stand and the lens is worthy of my simple recommendation - finding one is relatively easy - getting one might be harder.

* "Flogging "in the sense of "hard sell" - I could not care less if I was the only user of this quite capable lens type. From the serial number and the difficulty in acquiring one I don't think that there are too many actually in circulation.

Tom Caldwell said:

However the large(r) heavier MF Kamlan 70/1.1 is also a worthy lens for those that can never have too much of that focal length.

Click to expand...

I have a Rokonon 85/1.4 in EF mount, with a Viltrox 0.71 adapter, to give a 60/1.0. This combo is actually smaller and lighter than the Kamlan. Voigtlander actually makes a 60/0.95, but I found $800 too expensive for such a niche lens.

cc99 said:

Tom Caldwell said:

However the large(r) heavier MF Kamlan 70/1.1 is also a worthy lens for those that can never have too much of that focal length.

Click to expand...

I have a Rokonon 85/1.4 in EF mount, with a Viltrox 0.71 adapter, to give a 60/1.0. This combo is actually smaller and lighter than the Kamlan. Voigtlander actually makes a 60/0.95, but I found $800 too expensive for such a niche lens.

Click to expand...

This June I met up with a dude to purchase Roki Samyang 85/1.4. Couldn't get it to work properly on my Gx7 with Viltrox x0.71 EF-M2. Reckon because it's a mk1 Viltrox I hav, it only focal reduces autofocus lenses.

Nowadays I need all the help I can get I'm just not fast enough manually focusing for street portraits with fast lenses missed focus a whole lotta. Probably have to be Samsung 85/1.4 ex dg autofocus in ef mount listed on viltrox x0.71 compatibility list. I can then also utilise it on my 7r2, as well as if I pick up a full frame canon dslr once more.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

This June I met up with a dude to purchase Roki Samyang 85/1.4. Couldn't get it to work properly on my Gx7 with Viltrox x0.71 EF-M2. Reckon because it's a mk1 Viltrox I hav, it only focal reduces autofocus lenses.

Click to expand...

I had a similar problem with my E-M1.2. Since my EF lenses are all manual focus, I covered the electrical contacts with a carefully-cut sliver of tape, and everything worked perfectly. I also have a mk1, as best as I can tell.

cc99 said:

Tom Caldwell said:

However the large(r) heavier MF Kamlan 70/1.1 is also a worthy lens for those that can never have too much of that focal length.

Click to expand...

I have a Rokonon 85/1.4 in EF mount, with a Viltrox 0.71 adapter, to give a 60/1.0. This combo is actually smaller and lighter than the Kamlan. Voigtlander actually makes a 60/0.95, but I found $800 too expensive for such a niche lens.

Click to expand...

I have the Canon EF 85/1.4II lens and it has a similar effect to your Rokinon. I have not checked its relative size but guess that it is larger than the Kamlan 70/1.1 even before the adapter is fitted. My old EF 85/1.2 MkI certainly is (larger) both of these lenses are quite capable. But the Kamlan has all my attention at the moment and I am actually quite liking it. I also quite enjoy the process of manual focusing. With some practice and by using screen magnification combined with focus peaking the focusing issue can actually be quite quick and of course is all part of the enjoyment of crafting an image.

Tom Caldwell said:

I also quite enjoy the process of manual focusing. With some practice and by using screen magnification combined with focus peaking the focusing issue can actually be quite quick and of course is all part of the enjoyment of crafting an image.

Click to expand...

I adored my E-P1 2010 2011 manual focusing with adapted manual lenses. Manual focusing a fully manual lens makes me feel I'm doing something to make a photograph, not entirely relying on a computer aka digital camera.

Day before yesterday photographing with under £10 Hoya 135mm f/2.8 as it does bubbles m42 mount on my M1.1. Shared couple photos on flower thread. Shall share 3 photographs on Autumn Fall thread.



Just now purchased fully manual focus 10mm f/2.0 TTArtisan. I will have time to manual focus for the topics I want to photograph urban london. A lot smaller lighter than adapting my Sigma 10-20 + my viltrox.



[ o ]

Still autofocus lenses such a boon urban london, nearly all my photographs this year autofocus. I couldn't have got a lot of them without autofocus as the moment often fleeting london and or theres lots of hustle bustle I just want to take the shot keep on moving. I'm just not fast enough manual focusing urban london.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

Just now purchased fully manual focus 10mm f/2.0 TTArtisan. I will have time to manual focus for the topics I want to photograph urban london. A lot smaller lighter than adapting my Sigma 10-20 + my viltrox.

Click to expand...

Because TTArtisan didn't change the optics for m43, just the mount, the edges of the frame look terribly smeared because of the thicker filter stack on m43. The exact same lens, adapted to E-mount, will look perfectly fine on a camera with a thinner filter stack. It's not a bad lens, it's just a bad lens on m43 specifically. If you read good reviews of it, and saw good sample photos of it, on other brands of cameras, and are confused as to why the one you got looks so terrible on your m43 camera... now you'll know why. You didn't get a bad copy, you're just using it on the wrong camera, and exchanging it for another copy won't improve things.

I hated it and returned it for a refund. You might be okay with the image quality, but if you're not, get the Laowa 10mm f/2 instead, as the optics in that were actually designed for the m43 filter stack, and the edges of the frame are much much much better.

Todd Yes said:

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

Just now purchased fully manual focus 10mm f/2.0 TTArtisan. I will have time to manual focus for the topics I want to photograph urban london. A lot smaller lighter than adapting my Sigma 10-20 + my viltrox.

Click to expand...

Because TTArtisan didn't change the optics for m43, just the mount, the edges of the frame look terribly smeared because of the thicker filter stack on m43. The exact same lens, adapted to E-mount, will look perfectly fine on a camera with a thinner filter stack. It's not a bad lens, it's just a bad lens on m43 specifically. If you read good reviews of it, and saw good sample photos of it, on other brands of cameras, and are confused as to why the one you got looks so terrible on your m43 camera... now you'll know why. You didn't get a bad copy, you're just using it on the wrong camera, and exchanging it for another copy won't improve things.

I hated it and returned it for a refund. You might be okay with the image quality, but if you're not, get the Laowa 10mm f/2 instead, as the optics in that were actually designed for the m43 filter stack, and the edges of the frame are much much much better.

Click to expand...

Todd could have done with your experiences on the 9-18mm thread we had very recently here, I wrote on that thread about picking up this TT10/2.

Which m4/3 camera did you utilise it on. Smeared edges would nark me.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.