Bolex Lens Test | PL Zeiss Superspeed MKII vs Kern Switar, 4K, Arriscan
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- 0:00 Comparaison Zeiss Superspeed MKII vs Kern Switar
1:15 Super 16 Lens coverage Zeiss Superspeed vs Kern Switar
2:32 Aperture Zeiss Superspeed MKII (1,3, 2,8, 4, 5.6) with Bolex PL mount
Camera Bolex Super 16
Mount (Conversion by CIné Bornand)
PL adapter Les Boscher , C-mount,
Lens
Zeiss Superspeed MKII, 9.5, 12, 16, 25, 50
Kern Switar, 10, 16, 25, 26, 50
Scan Arriscan 4K
(WFDiF, Warsaw, Poland)
Share this video: • Bolex Lens Test | PL Z...
Really sharp and professional looking results from a Bolex.
Wow, the steep drop in sharpness from F2.0 to all the way open is INSANE!
Public service. Of the best kind. We thank you. x🙏x
Great test. I’m surprised but also not surprised with how good the Kern’s look.
Very interesting. I expected to like the Superspeeds better than the Switars, but the opposite was true. I'd like to see the same test with Ultra 16 lenses vs Switars.
Is it just me, or do the Kerns actually outperform the Zeiss? I feel like the Kerns resolve the same detail (or better w/ the 26mm and 50mm), and lift some shadows just a touch to render a more pleasing image. The only difference I see is contrast. But you can push that back down in editing easily. Kerns are an amazing value.
Great test, hard to tell the difference in some instances
Can you go into more detail on why the 9.5mm wide open is so soft. You mentioned the prism. Don’t all s16 cameras have a prism?
According to a Bolex study:
The use of standard lenses on an H16 RX camera is perfectly possible, with the following restrictions:
Maximum usable aperture limited to f/2
Exit pupil at least 25mm away from the film plane.
Wow, this was probably the best test footage + scans I've seen out of 16mm shared on youtube. Quite odd because I recall seeing comparisons between Arriscan and other scanners and they didn't resolve as high, perhaps the 4k improved things quite a lot! (i.e. Lasergraphics being better, but don't mind me I'm just a scanning-technology tourist lol.....)
I agree with others, the Kerns have the edge on the Zeiss Superspeeds in almost every case. Apparently the Kerns do have a pretty good maximum aperture too, so it's not like Zeiss shooting for a 1.3 maximum was what affected the other aspects. Did Zeiss prioritize "character" in these lenses? Also, I'm curious how they compare to the more recent Zeiss Ultra 16 series from ~2005. Still, with how great the Kern lenses are, I'm curious what's left to be gained.
How do the Kerns perform wide open? Also, they seem to cover quite well, probably because they're stopped down. Did the s16 conversion re-center the mount and viewfinder?
This also shows how great 50D is! It almost looks like 35mm with how sharp it is! Heck, I've seen 35mm look worse, getting this out of 16mm is incredible!
I become giddy when I see test footage that contains fine texture that is clearly resolved by everything. It's so cool!
And damn, moonlight on 200T??
WAIT, YOU'RE THE GUY MAKING THAT BOLEX DOCUMENTARY! How has that been going? I loved the teaser!
Sorry, I just have a million questions!
My favorite scanner is the scanity with a good operator.
The mount was recentered during the conversion.
The 50d has been in the fridge too long. If it was a fresh film, it would have been cleaner.
Thank you.
thank you so much for sharing, super helpful! Was it the multicoated 10mm Kern Switar?
It is the multicoated version.
A really interesting test. The sharpness of the Switar "prime lenses" is excellent... A question: I was struck by the great stability of the images:
Was the footage digitally stabilized?
No stabilization has been applied. It is stable because the camera was serviced and converted to super 16 by a qualified technician.
@@bolex Thank you , this is truly outstanding. The lab that converted your Bolex to S16 did an excellent job.
Can you tell me which is this lab that converted your Bolex? I also have a Bolex (H16EL) and can't wait to convert it to S16🙂
is this shot with film or digital?
Film.
Hi, are your superspeeds hard mounted pl or using a b-pl adapter?
I’m struggling to focus to infinity on mine and it’s split thoughts on being non a non rx lens or the adapter that’s at fault..
Also is the 9.5 always so soft wide open?
They are native PL mounts. If you are struggling to focus to infinity it is probably the adapter's fault. The Zeiss lenses are softer below 2.8 because of the prism.
Another example of Zeiss Superspeed with Bolex Super 16 here: vimeo.com/730617702
@@bolex thanks for your reply. Assuming you’re stateside, but do you know who converted them to be native PL? Think the consensus has been its the adapter at fault..
Thanks for uploading the footage btw.. these types of tests are invaluable!
Great test. What Switar 50mm was used? The 1.9, the 1.4 or the macro preset version?
The 1.4.
Do you have any experience with Zeiss Jena S16 C-mount lenses?
Unfortunately, not.
If you are using a Bolex, the Kern RX model lenses will performance the best, due to the prism. The Kern 10mm 1.6, Kern 26mm, etc are your best bet. Other lenses can be used but you will see the performance drop after F4. The century wide lenses etc.
What version of the Bolex did you use? Was it a REX?
Bolex SBM converted by Cine Bornand. Film is too grainy because it was old stock.