The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

25/F0.95 party...

V

valtof

Guest
Stiff focusing ring on any old Angenieux is major pain to get corrected. It calls for professional (experienced/specialized in Angenieux) repair (personal experience).
Thanks Vivek,

Sorry to bother and insist but could you help me a bit more.
I think you have one exemplar ot this Angy f:0.95 type M1.
Is your focus ring smooth enough to make it pleasant and fast to use ?
Given that the one I want to buy is supposed to get a little service to make it as smooth as it should be, do you think 500€ is a good price ?
The cine lens linked is most likely to be similar (if not the same) as the other Cinors mentioned.
Well it looks like very different in size and design than the black one you have, no?
Apart from covering the all sensor, which is a big advantage, do you find the f:0.95 Berthiot to be a better performer than the Angy ? (I know it's a difficult and subjective matter...)

Cheers
 
M

milapse

Guest
If the Angie ring is smooth to rotate it works ok. The ring is not that close to the body. The lens is not 'easy' to repair but your in France so I'm sure you can find someone! I'd say your sample would go for $500 usd??

The berthoit (as I understand?) has the same image circle(?) as the other design. You can see the difference between the two in Vivek's posted examples! I'm wondering if the ebay example would require some modification just like Vivek's sample.

The bokeh is different and unique for starters.
 
V

valtof

Guest
Thanks Milapse,

Of course, living in Paris, I know some serious guy to do this kind of job and anyway the seller is supposed to do it. Glad that you confirm it can work well if everything is in good state.

The bokeh is different and unique for starters.
What do you mean ?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Thanks Vivek,


I think you have one exemplar ot this Angy f:0.95 type M1.
The one I prefer in the Type M2. It is a different design altogether. The weight, size, handling and the performance is very different than the type M1 lens.

The Cinor 25/0.95 (my sample. similar to what milapse shows) doe not have the slightly recessed front element of the cine lens. So, I can not confirm about the image circle. The one you link is the cine lens. The ones discussed are made for CCTV lens use. The apertures and the focus of this lens are not calibrated.

My sample of the Cinor 25/0.95 does cover the whole frame at infinity, even wide open.
 
V

Vivek

Guest


Angenieux 25/0.95 Type M2 @f/2 (cropped) at 0.5m. The reds are brilliantly rendered.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
I'm a bit confused about the Berthiot Cinor f:0.95 / 25mm currently on sale on eBay, I already mentioned :
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=190307925639
According to the seller, the lens is supposed to be 2 1/2'' long by 1 1/2'' diameter.
On the photo bellow, if I am not mistaken, it would make the screw mount approximately 16mm, which is far bellow 25mm.
Is this a c-mount lens or... ??
Did I miss something ?
I wondered about that, too -- in fact, I had a bid in on it, but have been priced out of the market, and now I'm not going to try to up my bid because I'm not sure what's being advertised!

My suspicion, based on the tiny size of the rear cap pictured, is that this lens is a D-mount (5/8 inch diameter.) Since it's labeled "for Bolex," this means its natural habitat would have been on the H-8 or B-8 camera models, where it would have been a mild tele lens; "normal" focal length for 8mm cameras was around 13mm.

It's possible that Berthiot just took the same optics used in its C-mount 25/0.95 and re-mounted them with the smaller D mount, in which case it might be possible to use the lens by removing the rear mount flange (which would otherwise cause severe vignetting, I suspect) and finding some other way to attach it. Then again, maybe not!

With so many unknowns, I've decided to stay away and leave it for the Bolex collectors... but maybe someone else here is more adventurous!

UPDATE: Oops, wrote this before I read Vivek's post above; I'll defer to his knowledge of Berthiotology and give up my idea that this lens might have been manufactured in a D mount. Then again... doesn't the finish of the rear tube look a bit different from the rest of the lens? Could some third party have removed the C mount and substituted a D mount after the fact...? (The H-8 was a very high-end camera... basically a double-8 version of the H-16... so I can imagine someone caring enough to have this done so it could be used on his/her H-8.)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I looked at all the other stuff that seller was offering and it does appear to lean towards a D-mount (8mm).

The filter thread on my c-mount cinor (similar to the picture shown by milapse), however, compares favorably with that listing.

Confusion.

Yeah, Ranger, we have to keep editing our posts!
 
Last edited:
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Yup, I went back and looked at his other listings. He's selling his dad's old H-8 and its lenses and accessories, so presumably all of them would be in D mounts.

He notes in his item description that Dad was a teacher and used the camera to film high school football games and school plays, so you can see why he would have wanted an f/0.95 lens!

I still wonder how he got the SOM in a D mount. The more I look at the picture, the more it looks like an after-the-fact conversion. Take a close look at the rear barrel -- you can see what look like setscrew marks, which might be where the original C-mount flange attached. Probably a lot of interesting family and technical history behind this lot...
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Yeah, imagine mounting even a small Navitar/Senko 25/0.95 on that mythical Olympus m4/3rds camera!:)
And then imagine holding the dratted thing at arm's length and trying to focus it on the non-eye-level LCD!

Hope Olympus has something clever in mind to get around that -- after all, as reported in a previous exchange, their boss said the sardine-tin camera was a bit "dasai" (untranslatable idiomatic word apparently meaning something along the lines of crude/unpolished/clunky/dorky) so presumably the final "can" will be different from this...
 
M

milapse

Guest
The filter thread on my c-mount cinor (similar to the picture shown by milapse), however, compares favorably with that listing.
It struck me as an odd size from the beginning. My first impression was that it was closer to 50mm in diameter because of that mount... I'm laying my bet on 'remounted'. The proportion of that mount and flange is way out of wack if it is in fact 1 1/2" in diameter (38mm ish). Totally makes sense that someone would want a super fast medium tele on their 8mm bolex for something like fall football under lights...
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
I did not bid and the end price was good (for the buyer).

It occurred to me (late, very late) that the lens could have been sporting a simple D to C-mount adapter.:eek:

Perhaps the buyer could enlighten us if that was the case.
 
S

seb33

Guest


Navitar Version II (Senko, etc) whole frame @f/0.95, ISO400, 1/20s. This lens does not have the simple barrel distortion of the Navitar Version I, slightly less bright and has a slight mustache distortion at longer distances.

I have another that has f/0.85 engraved instead of f/0.95 but looks/behaves identically to the Navitar II. Both I would rate the aperture at f/1.1 than f/0.95 or the very optimistic f/0.85.

The SOM-Berthiot 25/0.95 is very special. According to my count, it has at least one aspherical (benefits of the 1 Euro lens and the process of reconstruction)element if not two.
Could you post a picture of your Navitar ? Thank You.
Do you have to adapt it to fit to the C mount adapter ?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
That was taken with a lens with no name. Presumably that comes badged Senko (the Navitar also came with no name and was boxed similarly).

While the Navitar needs modification of the rear to achieve infinity, the Senko is a straight fit on the RJ c-mount adapter.

To add to the confusion, both have 40.5mm filter threads.

(I will see if I have any snaps of the lenses and post them If I do).
 
S

seb33

Guest
That was taken with a lens with no name. Presumably that comes badged Senko (the Navitar also came with no name and was boxed similarly).

While the Navitar needs modification of the rear to achieve infinity, the Senko is a straight fit on the RJ c-mount adapter.

To add to the confusion, both have 40.5mm filter threads.

(I will see if I have any snaps of the lenses and post them If I do).
Yes please thank you to post a picture of your Senko :)

Is that this one ?
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
That is the one. IIRC, someone posted that image a while ago and I did a +ve ID.
 
S

Shingoshi

Guest
Why am I the only one to think of this?
At least, I didn't read through the entire topic, so I might be wrong. But is there any particular reason why none of you seem to have thought about using a focusing lever, like the ones typically used on medium-format cameras? Someone has to have made some small enough to fit these petite objects. I think that would easily remove any issues most of you have concerning the stiff focusing of these smaller lenses.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
 
Top