Old Studio Box Lenses vs Modern Portable Lenses?

[erek]

I am wondering if older studio box lenses could still out perform modern portable lenses such as the Zeiss Otus 55mm?


Difference between studio box lenses and portable lenses - Ask Larry!


I have found this Studio Box Lens for on the cheap, but already own an Otus... just wonder if it's possible that these Box ones are still that awesome?


Canon J18x8B IE Professional Studio Broadcast Video Camera Box Lens

 

[silent-circuit]

I know we have some hardcore photographers here, but for that kind of question I'd recommend seeking a dedicated photography forum.

 

[MN Scout]

That is a cool lens.

If you buy a lens like that, please let us know how the lens performs for you and what you do to get it fully functioning.

 

[cyclone3d]

The Zeiss has vignetting at wider apertures. Something I would not expect such a high priced lens to have.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Otus-55mm-f-1.4-Distagon-Lens.aspx

I am pretty sure a box lens would not.

The only problem with using a box lens on anything besides what it was made for.. or any lens for that matter is the registration distance.

You can generally convert or get converters for pretty much any lenses to use with mirror-less cameras. And even for non mirror-less, you can get converters as long as the registration distance on the camera you are converting to has a shorter registration distance than the camera the lens was made for.

I have manually converted a few lenses to use with my Pentax gear.. which has one of the longest registrations of any brand. This leads to the need to physically shorten the lens itself.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Well, 'out perform' all comes down to what you're looking at in terms of performance metrics.

Optics in general are incredible these days. And although something designed for broadcast might "outperform" something much smaller out of the box, with post a lot of times it's hard to distinguish high end footage from stuff filmed on much less expensive hardware.
I'm sure it's been said a million times now, but, still true: The 5D2 was used as the only camera for the finale of House and also used for tons of B-shots for films like The Avengers. And in those cases they weren't using box lenses or anything crazy or proprietary.

I've had the opportunity to have my hands on RED cinema cameras and also Alexa Mini's with both Cooke Anamorphic lenses, Leica-R Cinema lenses, and of course more basic things. And, yes those specialty tools blow consumer grade equipment out of the water in terms of latitude, color depth, sharpness, and clarity.
However, to drive the point home, a creative DP and editor can do wonders with the look of simple dSLR footage and a $300 stills camera prime. I'm a big believer in creativity and resourcefulness being greater than expensive equipment.


EDIT: I should also note, that you'll never see box lenses on a film set. Even one on a studio stage. The great advantage of box lenses is for broadcast television in which they need specific optics because they only have one shot at filming it and there is little to no time to do anything in post. But in any major motion picture you've basically ever seen (or certainly that I know of), a box lens was never used.

Weight matters for working in film. Film makers are super happy to have tools like the Alexa Mini, because more shots can happen in a smaller time frame when the setups don't take 30-40 minutes between shots (like moving something big and heavy can). Of course that can still happen if dolly track needs to be setup and they need to fly in some 9 or 18k lights or something, but then it's uncharacteristically not the camera departments fault.

Box lenses on rollers that never move probably more than 5-10 feet in any given direction ever (if not completely stationary) to reiterate are really for TV when their advantages can be realized.