Jump to content

Ben

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ben

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Maryland, US
  1. I've never been able to find the ideal taking lens for this unit, anything that works well with yours please do share
  2. The image from this lens can be sexy if you're stopped down enough (usually 5.6 is where it comes good), I've never götten (heh) low light out of it, since you have to be stopped down so far and the glass itself sucks up some light. I was running around with it yesterday and threw this together, very shaky (not as good as Hugo's), but you can get the gist of what it's capable of.
  3. Ben

    redstan

    Redstan is perfection. I ordered a clamp from him but upon receiving it realized it didn't fit my needs. I got it returned and exchanged no problem. Great service and communication. I definitely recommend!
  4. I figured you focused perfectly, that wasn't my problem, I feel the Nikon 50 ais isn't as good a fit as the older ai or a helios 
  5.   Because in your test it's never really sharp at all, 5.6 and 8 still look fluffy, in my opinion, compared to most other footage I've seen with this adapter. I never thought for a moment it was you, though, I think it was the taking lens. 
  6. Honestly, that test is a poor example of this optic's potential  It's very very soft at large apertures, but I personally think it looks great once stopped down to around 5.6   However, the price inflation is out of hand I don't think it's ever worth more than $600, let alone $2k Here's some stuff I shot with it on the Helios 44-2 (I use the Nikkor 50 1.8 AI now, even sharper)   http://www.flickr.com/photos/benwabbott/9777957383/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/benwabbott/9777675601/
  7. These prices are stupid. I suggest alternative routes. I had my heart set on an Iscorama,  until I realized it's really not worth it at these prices. I bought my Little Iscomorphot for >$500. And it's nowhere near $4.5K worse.
  8. 1:57: Looks like he's standing in front of a painting, gorgeous. That's the effect that sells anamorphics for me.
  9. I don't own a canon, but from what I've seen, yes, it does have a more pleasing white balance, on the same token, the files from the gh2, and, I expect, gh3 can be graded from hell to the pearly gates and back again.
  10. I'm not exactly sure. This looks like what I've seen on the internet. I've (thankfully) never had a lens with fungus in it.
  11.   I've had extensive experience with the LCWs (on a gh2, in fact). If you're someone who runs programs to assess the sharpness of a lens and anything less than perfect is a heinous crime in your world of milk and honey (Which you wouldn't because this is an anamorphic forum and anamorphics piss every one of said people off). Then yes, LCWs are bad.   For normal people the tarnishing effects on contrast/sharpness/ect they have are negligible.
  12. L.C.W vari-nd Dandy stuff, adds a bit of contrast, but all will unless you buy one for a million-billion bucks
  13. ND in the middle would make sense for all ya'll's big ass projection lenses mounted on rods. Still, optic to optic coupling should be as tight as possible IMHO. 
  14. Stick it on the front of the anamorphic. The distance between the front glass of your receiving lens and the back of the anamorphic needs to be as short as possible. Sticking an ND in there would mean the anamorphic and taking lens are farther apart.
×
×
  • Create New...