GEAR | LENS SPEC I AL
discuss P+S without mentioning the Technovision 1.5:1 and Evolution 2:1 anamorphics, which are based on historic designs and very much in the spirit of the greats. Aspects that the original designer of a lens would have considered a fault are now a matter of opinion, says Duclos. “The contrast, the veiling flare, focus fall-off, the quality of the bokeh… all those characteristics make a desirable lens. One customer may scoff at the Helios: they want the sharpest lens, the least flare, the least aberration. Thirty seconds later we get another call: ‘I want flares, I want softness.’ There’s no such thing as a bad lens.” It’s something Duclos has been hammering into people for the past five years. “If you like it, you like it. If you don’t, you don’t. Doesn’t matter what brand is engraved on the side of it, if there’s a really low-priced lens and you like the way it looks, then use it, great. There’s nothing wrong with it!”
LEFT TLS rehouses lenses such as Bausch & Lomb Super Baltars, but it is also looking to develop its own anamorphic lens
“A LOT OF THE OLDER LENSES ARE QUITE RADIOACTIVE”
have too much of a protrusion that vignettes when you’re at infinity.” Rehousing – by any company – is inevitably an expensive process, though there are alternatives. Duclos tells us that the term ‘Cine-Mod’ was originated by his company, although it’s now become somewhat genericised. The result of a Cine-Mod is more elementary than a full rehousing – the lens still looks like a stills lens – but adds focus and iris gearing, consistent front diameter, and mount conversion, which is likely more capable than just putting an adapter on the existing lens. It’s a less thoroughbred option, perhaps, but it is much more affordable. The opposite end of the price- performance scale is probably something like P+S Technik’s rehousing of Kowa Anamorphics, a design from the late seventies. P+S also rehoused Leica R, Canon FD and K35s, although the huge current enthusiasm for anamorphic, as well as their surprisingly modest size and light weight, makes the Kowas popular. It wouldn’t be complete to
focus. Sometimes they’re moving in opposite directions, sometimes they’re moving in the same direction, but at different rates.” Beyond the optical qualities, rehousing also helps much-loved classics fulfil modern expectations of ease and convenience. A set of lenses in 2021 might be expected to have the same front diameter and positioning on the focus and iris gearing, as well as smart industrial design. Improvements might also include well-spaced markings that don’t bunch up towards the far end of the focus range. The achievability of this, Duclos says, depends on the focus mech used. “If it’s cam-based, we can put the focus marks wherever we want. If it’s a helix system, we’d figure out where the lens focuses at infinity, and how far we want to move it forward to achieve minimum focus. Sometimes we stick with the original manufacturer’s intention, but sometimes we can stretch it for better close focus, sacrificing some image quality. We don’t want to make the housing too large or
COST CONSIDERATIONS A good rehousing, Matthew Duclos says, is not a low-cost option. “We get requests like: ‘Hey, can you rehouse this Canon 24-70?’ When we ask why, they say: ‘Because it’s cheap, light and small, and I can’t afford the cine version.’ But by the time you’re done, you could have had a Zeiss cine lens with a warranty and factory support. Someone trying to rehouse a lens for budget reasons is a red flag. If you can’t afford a cine lens, then you can’t afford for a lens to be rehoused.”
20 DEF I N I T ION | MAY 202 1
Powered by FlippingBook