Julian

I posted in another thread, I've got an adapter coming along with a few Kinor 16 lenses (6mm fisheye, 10mm, 25mm, 12-120mm zoom, and one more, I think?).  I'll most likely post up results once I get a chance to play with them.

very nice looking rig much better investment than the clown in the states selling 2kg projection optics as iscorama.
properly serviced these can be better than kowa bell howell less distortion as well.
very under rated optic these mollers not sure why they are just great.
nice job  :)

It is made for Shane Hurlbut. That's all.

Simple solution No 2, requires some Blue Peter skills :)
 
First study the image below,
 

 
Compare the front of this Zeiss with the front glass in Kowas, Sankors , Mollers blah blah.
 
Figured it out yet?
 
Now the good folks at Carl's place in Jena knew a thing or two about optics....
 
What you need to do is cut out a hole in a piece of black cardboard using a compass and sharpie to make an aperture mask. Tape off the sides with some gaffer tape until you find the best point where the reflections disappear.
 
 
I really ought to get paid for telling y'all this....    :P
 
and if someone decides to start making these - remember you owe me.

For some crazy reason, I'm not holding my breath...
 
Oh, Canon.

I think you have to decide for yourself what is most important.
 
Image Quality: BMPCC probably wins big time with the dynamic range and the raw editing options - But the GH3 is still very good
Ease of use: GH3 - Flip-screen, oled viewfinder, lots of buttons, touch screen. Reasonable file sizes
Lens flexibility: Both pretty flexible, GH3 wins because finding good wide angles or bright standard lenses for the BMPCC is going to be more difficult (and expensive) with the 3x cropfactor.
 
The GH3 is a much more complete camera than the BMPCC. The Pocket is just the cheapest way to get raw footage.

Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing.
 
I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images.
 
How?

Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC.
 


In Photoshop:
Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm!

To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it.

List terms explained:

Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
No = doesn't cover the sensor
Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications
Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example)

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list

Primes
 
Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
 
Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof]
 
Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof]
Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]

Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof]
Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof]
 
Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof]
 
Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes =  37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof]
Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof]
Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)]
Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof]
 
SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD)
 
Tokina TV Lens  8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof]
 
Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof]
Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof]
Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]

$ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof]

Zooms
 
Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
 
Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]

Hello Julian,
great idea, very informative!
 
For all those who would like to try some old lenses on the BMPCC, here are my lenses between 10 and 16 mm. None of these is younger than 30 years, most are cine-lenses taken from 8mm or 16mm cameras. Some can still be found cheap on eBay, others have multiplied in price since I bought them. All show vignetting with the MFT sensor, so I had virtually given up on them (except in crop mode).
This first batch of images is with the apertures open.
I will upload some shots from outdoors with apertures stopped down later.
 
Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8
This is actually not a C but an M-mount lens, made for Leica’s flagship super 8 camera, the Leicina Special in the 1970s. Very attractive because it has a macro mode.
It shows very slight vignetting, but may be usable still.
 
 
Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9
A very popular lens for 8 and 16mm (1960s~). Also shows vignetting, but doesn't look too bad.
 
 
 
Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5
A very old lens from an ancient 16mm Bell & Howell Filmo 70 DA, manufactured in the1930s. This is a f/1.5 lens but is a little soft wide open, so I stopped it down to f/2.7.
Shows no vignetting.
 
   
Cine-Nikkor 13mm f/1.8
This one comes from a very rare Japan Victor Corporation 16mm camera made in 1957. Nikon used to make very good cine lenses. This one is wide open now, but gets  sharper when stopped down.
(It looks like a wider lens here compared to the others, but that's only because I had to move back a little with my tripod to get it to focus.)
No vignetting.
 
 
 
Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2
From a Beaulieu RC16, 1960s. 
Unfortunately, there's something wrong with the aperture ring of this one: it won't move.
But still, a very fine lens without vignetting.
(Well, looking at the thumbnail, you can see that the lower left corner is considerably darker. But in the full picture, it is not that apparent)
 
I have two more lenses in this category, one is a Canon TV Zoom 11-110mm, which I didn't put on because it only focuses to 1.2m, and the other is an Angenieux 10mm Retrofocus lens, which is totally out of focus when wide open.
I have also found an Avenir CCTV lens 6.5mm, very wide, which looks promising, but it is a fixed focus lens too.
I will put them on along with the others when I shoot outside.

Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing.
 
I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images.
 
How?

Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC.
 


In Photoshop:
Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm!

To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it.

List terms explained:

Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
No = doesn't cover the sensor
Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications
Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example)

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list

Primes
 
Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
 
Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof]
 
Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof]
Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]

Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof]
Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof]
 
Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof]
 
Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes =  37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof]
Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof]
Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)]
Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof]
 
SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD)
 
Tokina TV Lens  8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof]
 
Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof]
Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof]
Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]

$ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof]

Zooms
 
Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
 
Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]

Polaroid 195 + fujifilm fp-3000b + Elmoscope II x2 anamorphic =
 
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/shujimoriwaki/8670308147/][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/shujimoriwaki/8670308147/]20130422[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/shujimoriwaki/]Shuji Moriwaki[/url], on Flickr   now i just gotta figure out how to nail focus......   hehe, being silly on a monday morning.   cheers to tony wilson for entertaining my silly ideas.

A 18-35mm zoom (for aps-c-sensors) with a constant aperture of f/1.8? Sounds unlikely, Sigma just did it!
 
http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_18_35_18/features.html

 
This will be sweet on a Nikon D5200/D7200 (or Canon aps-c-camera, if you insist :))
en the MFT Speed Booster arrives, it will be awesome on the GH3 and pretty cool on the BMPCC aswell...
 
With the recent 35mm f/1.4 Art and 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Sigma showed great performance. Hope this 18-35mm f/1.8 lives up to it.
 
Price? No idea. Not cheap... but the excellent Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art is relatively cheap compared to the competition. I think €1000 would be a pretty good price for this zoom. Could be a bit more...

That was fast!
With a retail price close to $249 a new E-mount adapter with similar characteristics to the Metabones SpeedBooster has been announced by the Chinesse manufacter Mitakon, called the "Lens Turbo" is a dumb adapter without any electronic connection.
 
Already working with Canon FD and Pentax lenses we hope for to come. Have a very similar reduction as the Metabones but till now we don't know how good the cristal of the lens will be.
 
Source with samples:
http://forum.xitek.com/thread-1151810-1-1-2.html

not really that amazing i looked at this post then checked my spam folder : )

Hello everyone! I am happy to see you debating the concept here.
 
I just wanted to answer a few of your questions:
 
The reason why I went for Pol-Vari ND was that from the beginning I knew that an electronicly controlable aperture was not my field. So with e.g. a ND 0.3-0.6-1.2 variant that leaves you final adjusting your exposure at daytime with shutterspeed, since your ISO likely is set to the lowest possible. I didn't think that was flexible enough, and that would also mean compromising the shutterspeed which I wanted to be able to leave at 180 degrees. Plus - by always having that thought of "which one of those parameters do I want change know" you mind will be less present on the situation where you're at. And sure - all Vari-ND:s have flaws that can never be fully fixed, but I felt it was the best choice for people working fast.
 
Regarding color shifting (remember - all Pol-Vari inevitably suffers from this) please check out the HolyManta VND color cast test:
https://vimeo.com/64344672
 
I'll try to stick around here to answer more question, otherwise send me a mail.

I've just ordered this lens:
 
http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3943.html
 
I'm hoping that a 1 inch format lens should be fine for BMPC. I figured that at around £35.00 it's worth a punt for a 35mm equivalent.

In the end, we never stop talking about these suckers across multiple threads, so I'm gonna try to compile as much information as I can into this one.
 
As in most cases, diopters are cheaper than anamorphics, I ended up with a lot of them, from multiple brands and multiple performances. The key was never go where everyone else is trying to find. Got the classics too, but that was luck.
 
Anyway, let's go to the undeniable favorite: Tokina +0.4 Achromatic diopter. My only complain about it is: why aren't you bigger?! My first lens was the LA7200 and I took quite a while to find the 105mm.
 
The next lenses all had different thread sizes. I could filter the Hypergonar on 77mm or 86mm, the Kowa with 72mm, Sankor 72mm too, Isco 54 at 95mm or 86mm and had a plan of an alternative 86mm front for the Lomo Squarefront, which didn't go through. Anyway, if I started to look for all these sizes of diopters, I'd go broke.
 
My salvation were the Series 9 filters. If someone isn't familiar with these, they come as unthreaded glass, that you put into an adapter that can range between 67mm and 86mm. That pretty much covers all lenses. I got adapters for 72, 77 and 86. The glass itself has around 83mm diameter.
 
Tiffen Series 9 filters are not in production anymore, so you can pick them off cheap ($1-10), even though they're not so common. The adapters are a bit harder to find.
 
After that, I went crazy on other brands as they showed up with decent sizes. Got 77mm Spiratones +0.5 and +0.25 for $6, 86mm +0.6 Fujinon, 72mm +1.25 Fujinon, 95mm +0.25 Pentax (for the 135-600mm Pentax Zoom), 82mm +0.75 Canon (1300H), etc, all very cheap. Some of them are real heavy, and I don't know if they're achromatics or single elements.
 
The advantage of the bigger ones is, less vignetting, even when you go wide, and, the sharpness is increased, since you don't get corner areas.
 
Finally, I found a couple 4.5" ones (around 114mm), that require special adapters, like Series 9. These adapters are impossible to find! I'm making a couple myself, as I trust threads more than tape. :P
 
EDIT Dec 07, 2014
 
Why Look for Low Powered Diopters
 
There's a common question going around, of WHY fraction diopters are better than full numbers, so I'm addressing that here too. Rich has a good explanation too >here.
 
As you can see below in the math section, the numbers correspond to certain maximum and minimum focus distances. When it comes to anamorphic lenses, what is the most common minimum focus distance? Something between 1.5m and 2m (or 5 to 7 feet, imperial scale).
 
Iscoramas have 2m minimum focus. Kowas, Sankors and most dual focus projector lenses are set to 1.5m minimum focus. For most shots, this distance is greater than the distance you want to put between the camera and your subject, which leads to being unable to focus properly - also, it's a pretty messed up distance for working indoors.
 
What a +0.4 or +0.5 diopter does is turn this "near 2m minimum focus distance" into "near 2m MAXIMUM focus distance" (see math below, seriously), allowing you to frame and shoot freely indoors and much closer to your subjects. If you want extreme close ups, then you need to have stronger diopters, but a +0.5 is a key tool for "standard" shots.
 
Achromats are also better, but they have their own explanation below too.
 
Focus and Anamorphic Compression
 
Another thing that relates directly to diopters is the lens compression. Most of our 1.5x or 2x stretch lenses only have that proportion when focused to infinity. Things change when you twist the focus ring. As you get closer to minimum focus, the less compression you have. 2x lenses tend to go towards 1.7x or 1.8x, Iscoramas get very close to 1.3x. 
 
When unsqueezing your footage, this compression disparity can make shots look different from the rest of the footage, as if it was shot with a different lens. In a technical level, it really was a different optical path.
 
Using diopters you get rid of using the shorter distances on your focus ring and keep your compression constant throughout the shots.
 
DISCLAIMER: I don't know how this relates to baby anamorphics, and this CERTAINLY does not affect focus through lenses since you don't change the distance between the anamorphic elements.
 
//EDIT.
 
Strength measuring:
 
Fujinon: The first number is their maximum focus distance, the second number is the thread size. For example, a 16086 reaches 160cm at infinity (+0.6) and has 86mm thread. 190101, 190cm at infinity focus, 101mm thread.
 
Canon: The newest series (250D and 500D) measures in millimeters their maximum distance. 250mm equals +4 and 500mm equals +2. The "D" stands for Double element. The older ones use the same measuring, 1300H = 1300mm, +0.75. There's also a 900H, 105mm, which is a like +1.1.
 
When nothing is marked on it, good luck with testing the thing. It's usually not hard, but most of them have information lying around the web.
 
Thread size:
 
As well as regular threads, some are marked with a C after the number (mostly 86C, 95C and 105C), that means the thread on this filter is coarse, 1mm pitch. Our regular (fine) threads have .75mm pitch. There are adapters for these too, like the one below, from 86mm fine to 86C.
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/350325079425
 
Minimum and Maximum focus distance:
 
Just realized that I haven't explained the math relating diopter strength and maximum focus range! Since most anamorphics perform better when focused closer to infinity, a diopter gives great help in "faking" it optically. A close up filter "sets" infinity just a couple meters/feet away, so anything BEYOND that certain point will be IMPOSSIBLE to focus.
 
Of course, this will NOT follow the lens' focus marks. Infinity on the lens now equals the diopter maximum focus distance.
 
Now, the numbers:
 
S = diopter strength (+0.5, +0.6, +1, +2, etc)
MaxFm = maximum focus distânce, measured here in METERS
 
MaxFm = 1 / (S)
 
Ha! I bet you expected something waaaay more complex, right? Some examples are never bad, so let's get to it. I'll use +0.5, +1.25 and +2 as sample strengths.
 
MaxFm = 1/(0.5) = 1/(1/2) = 1 x 2/1 = 2 meters
MaxFm = 1/(1.25) = 1/(5/4) = 1 x 4/5 = 0.8 meters
MaxFm = 1/(2) = 1/2 = 0.5 meters
 
If you live in a country where imperial scale prevails over the metric system, you just gotta do a quick fix to the expression.
 
S = diopter strength (+0.5, +0.6, +1, +2, etc)
MaxFf = maximum focus distânce, measured here in FEET
 
MaxFf = (3.3 / S)
 
Same examples from above, now in feet
 
MaxFf = 3.3/(0.5) = 1/(1/2) = 3.3 x 2/1 = 6.6 feet
MaxFf = 3.3/(1.25) = 1/(5/4) = 3.3 x 4/5 = 2.6 feet
MaxFf = 3.3/(2) = 3.3/2 = 1.6 feet
 
Regarding minimum focus distance, I'd say anything closer than half maximum focus distance is gonna look pretty bad already. With high power close ups (+2 and up), I'd say anything closer than 3/4 of your maximum focus distance is gonna be pretty bad already.
 
Of course, this "minimum focus distance" image quality has A LOT of influence from the anamorphic. Also, achromatic diopters will improve almost everything you could imagine.
 
Since I've just mentioned them, here's a list of achromatic diopters, with their strength, manufacturer, price range, etc.
http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html
 
Price range:
 
Just for checking, here is a list of the most common lenses and their outgoing price.
 
Tokina +0.5 72mm - $150
Kenko +0.5 72mm - $90
Tokina +0.4 72mm Achromatic - $350
Kenko +0.3 105mm - $350
Canon +2 72mm Achromatic - $100
Sigma +1.6 62mm Achromatic - $20
Angenieux +0.25 82mm - $330
Kinoptik +1 82mm Achromatic - $530
Foton-A +1 or +1.25 - $900 (GONE!)
Tiffen +0.5 to +2 138mm - $50 and up
Tiffen +0.5 to +5 Series 9 - $1-50
Tiffen/Kodak Series 9 Adapters - $20-40
Tiffen +0.5 to +2 4.5" - $10-50 (RARE)

I thought I would share some shots of my compact Moeller rig.   The tiny lens is the Pentax Auto 110 2.8/50mm lens, which has a rotating front element, which is not a problem in my setup and is just perfect for a 2.35:1 crop.   A really great feature is that I can set up for precision verticality once and thereafter all my shoots are perfectly aligned. Goodbye slanted video.   Another great feature of the lens support is that it lets me use auto focus rear lenses. I just focus the Moeller and half press the camera shutter to focus the rear lens and I am done. This makes life with a double focus system a breeze.   I decided to name this "Scope on a Rope" :P  

Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing.
 
I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images.
 
How?

Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC.
 


In Photoshop:
Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm!

To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it.

List terms explained:

Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
No = doesn't cover the sensor
Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications
Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example)

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list

Primes
 
Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
 
Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof]
 
Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof]
Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]

Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof]
Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof]
 
Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof]
 
Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes =  37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof]
Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof]
Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)]
Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof]
 
SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD)
 
Tokina TV Lens  8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof]
 
Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof]
Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof]
Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]

$ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof]

Zooms
 
Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
 
Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]

A 18-35mm zoom (for aps-c-sensors) with a constant aperture of f/1.8? Sounds unlikely, Sigma just did it!
 
http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_18_35_18/features.html

 
This will be sweet on a Nikon D5200/D7200 (or Canon aps-c-camera, if you insist :))
en the MFT Speed Booster arrives, it will be awesome on the GH3 and pretty cool on the BMPCC aswell...
 
With the recent 35mm f/1.4 Art and 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Sigma showed great performance. Hope this 18-35mm f/1.8 lives up to it.
 
Price? No idea. Not cheap... but the excellent Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art is relatively cheap compared to the competition. I think €1000 would be a pretty good price for this zoom. Could be a bit more...

I'll come there soon, we stay in touch !
 
Over 40 hours of material were taken in NYC, Some in anamorphic, the others with the two SLR Magic 25mm f0.95 and 12mm.

The Metabones Speedbooster and this should make a baby...

method:-

buy a spare lens - or find a lens terminal from a nikon 1 lens. remove the terminal and glue in the right location into a nikon 1 to ef adaptor.

remove the ribbon cable off the terminal and solder trailing wires in its place. check with multimeter and then 5miniute epoxy over to seal your solder work in place so solder joints cant break.

solder the other end of the wires to the corresponding terminals on another nikon 1 lens. Then seal over all the soldering on the lens terminals with a cap and tape it down.

now the camera still thinks the kit lens is attached, and as you depress the shutter you can hear the lens trying to autofocus. while doing so, perform focus on your manual focus lens.

in order to take a photo you need to have an area of the image in focus before depressing the shutter button half way in order to present a green box 'focus' point' mark on the screen. Once focus is confirmed you can hold the shutter half depressed and refocus to your hearts content. then fully press to take the shot.

I did this modification for a mate. He supplied the nikon and 2 lenses. works great!

Loving the image out of the D5200. Thanks for the heads up on that sensor, Andrew. Shot this on Sunday. No CC - just Filmconvert. Really like Nikon's colors compared to my GH2.

https://vimeo.com/64274981

Had several questions about these lately, here's a more in depth breakdown:

http://jeremyosbern.com/blog/2013/04/16/zeiss-ultrascope-anamorphic-lens/

I plan on shooting a project in Ultrascope later this year, using both RED and 35mm film, then comparing the two. I'll post it when it's done.

IMHO the exact ratio of BMPCC to Full Frame is 2.88
 
Full Frame Active sensor area for full HD video is 36 x 20.25mm
diagonal = sqr(36)+sqr(20.25)=sqrt(1706.0625) = 41.30
BMPCC active sensor area 12,48 x 7,02 mm
diagonal = sqr(12.48) + sqr(7.02) = sqrt(205.0308) = 14.3189
 
41.30/14.3189 ~ 2.88
 
Which is the same if you simple divide the long sides - 36/12.48 ~ 2.88
 
Most C-Mount lenses cover 2/3'', 1/3'' and 1/2'' inch sensor sizes. Probably only 10 to 15% of all C Mount lenses cover the 1'' sensor size needed for BMPCC. So most will vignette heavily on BMPCC and among those which do cover correctly the 1'' sensor size there may be  still problems. Like:
                1. Will the lens work without modification on a C- Mount to m43 adapter. Some don't. Can't focus on infinity and need some rework.
                2. Is the image quality good enough. Most of those are surveillance camera lenses not optimized for high quality photo/video/film work. From what I've seen image quality on GH2 (tele converter mode) doesn't look good. It doesn't make sense to buy BMPCC which is supposed to give great image quality and stick a poor soft lens in front of it.
 
My hopes are in Metabone Speedbooster for m43.