Ben

I've never been able to find the ideal taking lens for this unit, anything that works well with yours please do share

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!

Everything was focused carefully. If you own a sharper copy of this lens than the one that I had, consider yourself fortunate.

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 

Why is it a poor example? I think that it reinforces what you said about the lens being usable at f5.6 and smaller.

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.

1:57: Looks like he's standing in front of a painting, gorgeous. That's the effect that sells anamorphics for me.

Nice review Andrew.
I get te feeling that whenever you mention image quality you're referring to resolution and sharpness. While those are definitely important factors, there's other factors like color that are extremely important, and for instance when you look at all those differen camera frames, Canon's image is by far the most pleasing, regardless of the resolution, all others look colder and more video like in comparison.
Of course a lot can be done in post, so it would be nice to see how well it grades, which profiles look the best, etc.

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. 

yup, is that fungus itself, or the result of fungus? cos it looks like there used to be fungus and the acid has etched the pattern in.

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.

bit of dust inside,.. and a couple of blemishes on the rear lens which wouldnt wipe off below.

 

That looks like fungus to me...

unfortunately the only guy left selling the jacobs nd filters that will fit m42n lenses, does not ship to the US.
I will have to find something else. Variable LCW looks good, but sounds like it affects the image sharpness

and contrast which is not good. For narrative filmmaking it's probably best to get a static set and just swap them

out.

 

Any other affordable, well performing brands aside from the Jacobs?

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.

Can anyone reccomend a reasonable priced ND fixed or variable for use on m42 lenses, the ones

i have looked at seemed super pricey....

L.C.W vari-nd

Dandy stuff, adds a bit of contrast, but all will unless you buy one for a million-billion bucks

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.

DIrector Paul Anderson used this lens to shoot the Hollywwod film THE MASTER - its that good!!

btw - its not a screw mount lens is Pentacon 6 bayonet mount - P6

a medium format pro lens

I thought I read it was a m42 mount, guess not.

Carl Zeiss Biotar 80mm f2.8 is a stunningly sharp lens and if you buy a 1964 version it is single coated and flares like a helios!

Sounds good, but it's a bit more expensive and I have a thing against screw mount lenses, especially with my iscomorphot's stiff focus ring. I'd feel more comfortable with a tested combo too. Thanks for the tip though!

My best results have been with the Nikkor AI-S 85mm f/2.

I bought a nikkor-h 85 f/1.8 (it sucks with the iscomorphot, and in general). I'm returning it, so I might pick one of those up.

The Iscomorphot 8/1.5x doesn't seem to have a really good taking lens.

I thought I'd take a stab at finding one.

I recently picked up a Nikkor-O 35mm f/2 lens that I heard worked wonders with the Baby Bolex on a GH2. I assumed that it would have similar vignetteing characteristics as they have the same screw size on the back. Turns out that serious vignetting kicks in below f/4 on a GH2 (probably won't set in on a GH3 until 5.6) but this combo has the least smearing I have seen with the Iscomorphot. This combo smears a hell of a lot less than when it's on the Helios 44-2.

Here's the comparison I did between the Nikkor-O and Helios with a Voigtlander Nokton 25/0.95

(all Voigtlander shots are the same picture, put next to the others for easier reference).

https://benwabbott.minus.com/lFF8XQjURfUTx

Tomorrow I'll do a better comparison by rolling through the apertures on each in video form. 

Yes, I've just checked, it works on my SLR Magic 35mm f1.4 :)

Does it vignette a lot at lower apertures?

Seb, does this work on micro four thirds at 35mm?

I loved the grading, slow-mo, flares, everything!

Your feature will be epic! 

as long as you don't use apple loops, lol

The GH2 hacks are quite over-rated. They don't really add any dynamic range, or make the picture profile flat. They just increase the bitrate, and pushed the ISO, in video, to 12800 ISO. 

 

Thats all. 

they "just" increase the bitrate

Yes, just tell him which lens you have and he will know which clamp you need. Send him an email or contact him through this site (here, he goes by 'Tony Wilson').

Thanks

@Ben I don't think that you are going find any step rings small enough. Redstan has a clamp, or you can do what I did (see last page).

Where would I get the redstan clamp? It's not on his ebay or website. Would I have to order it custom?