Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by itimjim

  1.   I think folks are just arguing over language. It makes the field of vision at the sensor wider, yes. The field of vision at the lens, and the focal length, remain unchanged. An extender (as a wide angle adapter) does it differently, as it works with the light entering the lens, not exiting.
  2.   That's not how it works. It provides more light to the sensor by virtue of taking the larger image circle and compressing it (intensifying) to the smaller sensor size. You can only compress lenses that provide a larger image circle. So FF to APS-C (or smaller), or APS-C to mFT (or smaller).
  3. Late to this one, but I might add that the Canon FD 35/2 that ISN'T chrome nose, doesn't suffer the same yellowing image. The FDn 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8, 135/2.8, 200/2.8 are all quite nicely matched.
  4. GH2, 28*1.83 = 51.24 vertical equiv Sony APSC, 35*1.5 = 52.5   Trust me, the image with the hacked GH2 with a Bolex in front stretched out 1.5x is as detailed as it gets. It's got more detail than any native spherical Canon DSLR at 1080p. Sharpness is false, detail is king. Projected, these little super anamorphots hold up incredibly well.   I think I need to repeat. I see absolutely no degradation in image detail using the Bolex 16/32/1.5x on any of the primes/zooms I've used it on, all the way up to wide open aperture. Obviously apart from the horizontal softness that is introduced by stretching, and the difference in out of focus rendering. It definitely can add extra blooming, so hood/mattebox very useful.   I think you're getting hung up on focal lengths. I know a good range is important, but making comparisons across the range of sensor formats doesn't really say much. In most cases you're talking stepping a foot back or a foot forward, with very little change in image geometry. Only time I need wide for establishing shots, I'm usually quite happy switching back to spherical (Tokina 11-16), which needs a bit of work to match the anamorphic effect.   Nice truck shot by the way, really nice. You can still see the astigmatism at the edges of your image, which no amount of diopters is going to rescue. It's just flawed glass for large sensor. Just the same as my Optex 16:9 and Panasonic LA7200. I also have the Tokina ATX +0.4 Achromat, Heliopan +0.25, Cokin P101.   The quality of the shot distracts you from edge softness, so it still wouldn't be a stopper for me. Plus, filming talking heads, edge softness is rarely a problem. Still, Bolex, ISCO and Kowa are in a different league. I've tried them all.
  5.   Excuse the crappy family day out video. A lot of this was shot at 28mm with a Tokina 28-80 and the Bolex 16/32/1.5x. My Kowa 8Z doesn't perform this well, and I've not even seen ISCO render detail as good as it either. Feel free to download the 1080p MP4.   https://vimeo.com/48683270
  6. I was fortunate enough to catch a Moller 16/32/1.5x around 18 months ago for about £500 before it become more known about the quality of both the 8 and 16. I also have the 8Z 2x, a good copy too, and it's no competition between the two. The Moller is simply perfection at all focal lengths and apertures, where others start to fall to bits.   Only complaint, is that it's a pig to mount due to the stubby design and narrow rear element and thread. I've tried several ways of doing it, using an elaborate series of step up/downs reversed and all sorts. It's usable, but definitely not perfect. Alas, I'm still looking for the perfect solution that allows me to get the rear element close, and clamped.
  7. A lot of your verticals appear to have a lot to right skew. Sure you've got it mounted perfectly aligned on your taking lens? Nice look either way. It's quite easy to fix the skew in post too. I've done it a tonne of times.
  8. [quote name='Axel' timestamp='1347014162' post='17523'] Nokton 17,5 equals a 45 mm and is wide no longer. [/quote] 40mm. Small difference, but very noticeable.
  9. mFT.....it's coming! :-) Passive though, so no electronic Panny lenses....yeah whatever :-). PL mount anyone!
  10. LA7200 will work with the 12-35 and the 35-100, but it'll perform poorly below f4, which kinda defeats the purpose of having nice fast glass.
  11. Thought I'd share, as everyone in here is obviously keen on amateur anamorphic shooting. [url="https://vimeo.com/48683270"]https://vimeo.com/48683270[/url] Bit of a test of a new camera setting profile and lens combination, documenting a day trip out to Chatsworth House. Forgot my monopod, so it's shaky city I'm afraid. Combo would work well with a stabiliser, if not a bit heavy. No grading at all. This is directly out of camera, edited in PP CS6, 1.5x interpretation, export to h264 HD 1080p/24 profile. Camera: Panansonic GH2 Settings: Cluster v7 'Apocalypse Now' - 6 GOP Nebula with cbrandin/driftwood '444 Sharp2' matrix Film Profile: Smooth -2,-2,-2,-2 Lens: Tokina AT-X 280 AF PRO 28-80/2.8 Filter: Hoya Pro 1 Digital CPL Anamorphic: Moller Bolex 16/32/1.5x Aim was to try and stress the new Driftwood settings out and see how the Tokina 28-80 and Bolex 16/32/1.5x behaved. Settings: Looks very good to me. Tonnes of detail in difficult conditions. Was a very bright day with big bright blue skies. Gradation in the blues is nice. Motion rendering looks superb in my eye, especially with my non-stabilised shaky cam. Lens Combo: Using the CPL introduced vignetting at 28mm on the Tokina, so I was stuck with about 35mm onwards. Needs a mattebox at the wider end, or a filter clamp and bigger CPL. I can't speak highly enough of the performance of the Bolex 16/32/1.5x. Can bloom when overexposed, but some of the internal reflections on my crappy mFT to Nikon G adapter. I need the Novoflex to be sure.
  12. Andrew. Based on the LA7200's performance at both wide apertures and the edges, I'd possibly might be careful about recommending it until there are some results out there.
  13. My maths says 1356x1080. 2x anamorphic should give 2.51, which is pretty nice.
  14. The two best 1.5x anamorphics are the little Moller Bolex Anamorphots. They come mainly in two varieties, the 9/18/1.5x and the 16/32/1.5x. Both have increased in value a lot over the past couple of years. A) They are quite rare, B) They are incredible quality (better than ISCO in my opinion), C) They can be used wide open with almost any lens with hardly any degradation. Expect to pay between $800-$1300. I have the LA7200 1.33x, Century 1.33x, Kowa 8z 2x, Proskar 16B Keiham 2x, Proskar 16 Ischico 2x and the Bolex 16/32/1.5x. What can I say about the 16/32/1.5x? I absolutely love it, so no chance of selling. Only drawbacks are the obvious twin focus, and it's a pain in the arse to mount due to its rear element design. With a good combination of step down and step ups it's not too difficult. Just difficult to figure out. I can use it down to about 28mm on Canon FDs (bit of vignette at infinity and stopped down), 28mm on my Tokina 28-80/2.8, and down to 24mm on my Tokina 20-35/2.8. Here's a test I did ages ago. The video should be downloadable (I think, might need to be Pro). https://vimeo.com/37925377 Notice the amount of detail and sharpness in my wife's blouse in the corners, as well as the pillow my daughter was playing with. Incredible sharpness and detail across the frame.
  15. When you say "not breaking the bank", what's your price range. I have a few anamorphics that I might consider letting go, but let me know what you're looking to pay. I'm based in the UK, which might be a pain in the arse for you. I'm willing to take some test shots of whatever I let go of though, so you can feel confident you won't get a lemon. Tim
  16. Stop down. Here's a table from a recent test I did with the LA7200 on a Tokina 28-80/2.8 on a GH2. Tokina 28-80 0.6m 1.2m 1.8m 3m 28 f11 (+1D) f4 (+0.4D) f4 f2.8 35 f11 (+1D)* f4 (+0.4D)* f5.6 f2.8* 50 f16 (+1D) f5.6 (+0.4D) f5.6 (+0.4D) f4 80 f22 (+1D)* f8 (+0.4D)* f8 (+0.4D) f5.6 Basically I rated at what stop it was usable at different focal lengths and subject distances. I used a diopter if it improved the image (Tokina 0.4 Achromat, Cokin P101 +1). If it's marked with a *, then it means it was borderline and stopping down further should be considered depending on the subject. I also did the same with the kit lens 14-42/3.5-5.6. Panasonic 14-42 0.6m 1.2m 1.8m 3m 14 f5.0 f3.5 f3.5 f3.5 18 f8.0 f4.1 f4.1 f4.1 25 f11 f5.6 f4.6 f4.6 35 f8 (+1D) f5.3 (+0.4D) f5.3 f5.3 42 f8 (+1D) f5.3 (+0.4D) f5.3 f5.3 The LA7200 is a much better match for the kit lens. I also managed to fit a Heliopan +0.25 before the LA7200 which helps the edges quite a bit. More so on the 14/2.5. In a nutshell, the LA7200 is really limited in use. It suits slow kit lenses quite well as they shoot in the focal and aperture range that it best works with. I would steer clear of using it with fast primes though. In fact it does have a softening effect, so it can be too much for vintage primes/zooms, but great with tack sharp modern coating kit lenses.
  17. Caleb, the 0.4 won't help you past its usable focus range though. It's very good though.
  18. At 50mm, you shouldn't need 105mm coverage from the close up, but I agree, it's nice how it fits into the hood. I've chopped the hood off my LA7200 as I use a 14/2.5 and the 14-42 mFT kit lens on it, and it vignettes with it on. I can't remember the exact focal length, but my 72mm tokina 0.4 and cokin +1 work at around 25-30mm. Oh, and I like your video that you posted, great use of the LA7200.
  19. I have the 72mm Tokina ATX-PRO +0.4 Achromat and can vouch for it's power. You do lose infinity though, so they're only ideal in a certain range and can't be used to improve the image after its range.
  20. If I remember rightly, the 14-140 won't work on the B&H/Kowa as the optics uses a lot of the front element, so it vignettes throughout the range. The 14-140 is a great lens either way, even if it is a bit slow. The LA7200 works well with the 14-140, but only up to about 100mm and then it starts to get a bit ugly unless well stopped down.
  21. I've tried this, and can concur, it looks very nice indeed. I downloaded a png, imported into AE on a 30 second workspace at 4k. Added a 24fps wiggle (both H and Z), enable draft mode (to stop half value blending). I then overlay it in soft light blend mode on the top layer and it's beautiful. If you're using 1080p, use a crop and not a downscale of the 4k overlay.
  22. I'd be surprised if it's significantly smaller than the Bolex 8/19/1.5x, which in my opinion is one of the finest anamorphics money can buy, except it's larger brother the 16/32/1.5x. Except from being a dual focus system, it out performs the ISCO easily as far as I'm concerned, and can be used down to 22-28mm (depending on the lens) and up to f1.4 (or more) without even flinching. 1.5x is much more 'generally' useful than 2x too, unless someone comes up with a nice proper 4:3 patch for us.
  23. You are going to struggle shooting landscapes (assuming wide) with any anamorphic setup. The B&H/Kowa 8Z/16H are 'just' useable down to 28mm on a Micro Four Thirds sensor, and about 50mm on FF. You'll likely get a bit of vignette, especially on the FF, so expect to crop horizontally a little. The more you stop down, and usually the closer you are focussed to infinity the worse the vignette gets - so you might really struggle, as their perfect conditions for landscape. I'd really recommend shooting anamorphics with the GH2 as it stands up the best to the softening effect of the anamorphic glass and stretch. Plus it's got the most useful sensor size and flange distance for adapting a plethora of glass. If you're happy with 2.35 anamorphic, then the LA7200 isn't a bad choice, but it gets a bit untidy out at the edge unless you stop down, and then it's still not perfect. I can use my 14-42 (@14) and 14/2.5 without vignette, although I have chopped off the fixed front hood completely. Shooting landscape with the LA7200 on the GH2 @14mm gives a horizontal 35mm equivalent focal length of about 19mm, which is pretty wide, but not spectacularly wide. The edges look a bit crappy on the 14/25 until about f8, and even then they're not perfect, but well usable. The 14-42 kit lens fairs better at the edges, with f4 being acceptable. One trick I have found, is that I've managed to stick an in-line diopter (Heliopan +0.25) on the setup, which gives both the 14/2.5 and 14-42 kit a slight better performance, especially at the edges. I'm not a big fan of anamorphic adapters and landscapes, they're probably the least well suited. Wide anamorphics are best used in action scenarios where the edges are rolling/moving. Your mileage may vary though.
  • Create New...