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.
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!
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.