Leica designs the best Motion Picture lenses?

[sheridan]

Dear readers, <p> On recently doing a Photonet search I found

an interesting thread relating Leica with the motion picture

industry. ..<p> The thread is labelled .." What is motion picture

photography like? " <p> One participant, who seems

experienced and involved in the MP industry, noted that the most

valuable of the Panavision lenses, Pana Primo lenses, are

made by " the same company as makes the Leica f1 /50mm "

lense. <p> Does any reader have more information on Leica's

association with lens design or manufacture in the motion

picture industry?

[bishop_vc]

Check out these links:

 

<p>

 

<a href=http://www.elcan.com/index.phtml3>www.elcan.com/index.phtml3</a>

 

<p>

 

<a href=http://www.elcan.com/AboutElcanHISTORY.htm>www.elcan.com/AboutElcanHISTORY.htm</a>

 

<p>

 

<a href=http://www.elcan.com/PandSComPHOTO.htm>www.elcan.com/PandSComPHOTO.htm</a>

 

<p>

 

<a href=http://www.elcan.com/PandSComCINE.htm>www.elcan.com/PandSComCINE.htm</a>

 

<p>

 

Regards,

<p>

Steve

[dan_fromm1]

Not to start a flame war or anything, but in that universe Zeiss and Taylor, Taylor, Hobson also rule. To some extent so do Schneider, who own Century Precision Optics, and Canon and Nikon, whose lenses are remounted by, among others, Century and Optex.

 

Each of the manufacturers who sells to that market can do anything any of the others can. They all share the motto "Send money, and we will make it!" On the whole, Zeiss has done a better job of getting to the extraordinarily expensive specialized optics market than Leitz, but then, Zeiss is a lens maker, Leitz a camera maker.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[al_kaplan1]

That's a whole other world, the movie business. Nobody owns anything, they just rent it for the job at hand. That cuts down on the number of units required by the industry, so on a world-wide basis, thanks to over night express shipping, there are probably a number of optical designs where the entire production run was a few dozen units. They get flown all over tarnation and back, used on this movie and that as required. Whether it's Zeiss or Elcan or Canon, it cost a fortune to develop and set up production for a lens, and that cost has to be absorbed by a very small number of units. Elcan, when it was E. Leitz, Canada, produced a lot of semi-custom cameras for the U.S. (and other) millitary, as well as optics for specialized millitary applications. The M4 loading system (still used in M cameras) originally appeared in an M2 made for the millitary. Now that Raytheon owns Elcan I wouldn't be surprised if collectors find it impossible to get historical information and production figures, especially with war on the horizon.

[feli]

The Cooke S2 series is probably the current king of the hill for 35mm film production. They are fightfully sharp. Zeiss makes a highly regarded set of lenses called Zeiss Superspeed. I also think they also manufacture lenses for Arriflex. A lot of special fx plates are shot with Vista Vision cameras, which have the same size film area as a 35mm still camera. Most shops use standard Nikon lenses. We started to use Leica glass a few years ago and the difference is huge. We had one model shoot that was shot with one of the wider R lenses. The result was almost too sharp to cut back to back with surrounding footage.

Oddly enogh older Cooke or Baush&Lomb lenses are becoming popular with some dp's, because they feel the new glass is too sharp and contrasty.

 

feli

[lutz]

I second that last observation. While Zeiss primes rule for sharpness and contrast (they are THE standard Arriflex lenses), I personnaly preferred the Cookes for their tonal creaminess in my DP days. Lens choices in cinematography very much depend on personal taste and on the optical production flow. If you plan to shoot in Super 16 (which is very often the case in European low budget productions) and blow it up to 35 release prints then you might prefer a sharp and contrasty lens (i.e. a Zeiss). The one and only Leica lens I've come to use on a movie camera was a 50 lux R on a Aaton Super 16. Incredibly sharp wide open. The rental service had crafted a dedicated adapter for it.

[kevin m.]

You'd be surprised how much dirty work still gets done by spring-wind Bolexes with Switar lenses! No sane DP wants his set of superspeed primes splattered with drag racing burnout rubber.

[Rob F.]

ELCAN also makes the fisheye projection lens for the Omnimax projection system.

[cd thacker]

Interesting thread. I was watching a (French) movie (in a cinema) the other day, and I could have sworn I was seeing the (somewhat pronounced) characteristics of Leitz/Leica glass. It was beautiful. I mentioned this to my date . . . or started to, until I saw her eyes glazing over. The lens characteristics were actually far more enjoyable than the film itself.

[al_kaplan1]

Oh m'Gawd Doug! You didn't start waxxing eloquent about Leica bokeh in the midst of a romantic on screen moment, did you?

[cd thacker]

Hmmm. . . Now you put it that way, Al, it probably explains why I haven't heard back from her. Oh, well, just gives me that much more time for photography. (I should probably make a mental note: from here on out, they have to be good looking, charming, smart . . . <I>and</I> photographers.)

[dan_fromm1]

Uh, Doug, make that "and photographers and not equipment freaks."

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[cd thacker]

But Dan, wouldn't that depend on what <I>type</I> of equipment? <P>

 

Anyway, appreciation of bokeh, color rendition, contrast, resolution, etcetera, has, in itself, nothing to do with gear. Rather than equipment, I'm actually more interested in aesthetic pleasures. . . .

[MTC Photography]

IMAX camera lens and projector lens were Leica designs