Tito Ferradans

Before watching this, I was quite sceptical about the lens. A lot of fuss, IndieGoGo, many popular YouTubers involved, etc. I don't really appreciate campaigns like this.
But @Tito Ferradans managed to convert me. ( :
Great job!
 
 

I'd hold off buying adapters until February when Sirui starts shipping. I think adapters' prices will start dropping.

If you have any specific questions about the Sirui you'd like to see answers for - and that haven't been covered in the recent myriad of reviews - let me know here. I'm starting my review today, with a first part to go up on Sunday. ?

If you have any specific questions about the Sirui you'd like to see answers for - and that haven't been covered in the recent myriad of reviews - let me know here. I'm starting my review today, with a first part to go up on Sunday. ?

How important is (wide) coverage for you? 55mm on fullframe with this lens is hard to imagine, aps-c or smaller would make more sense. In general, chubby and short with big elements provide widest coverage. That's why the 8z variants (16H, B&H, Sankor Anamoprime) are so popular (mind the crazy edge distortion though). He is talking about a smaller lens (probably 16S or 16A).
The new Sirui might actually be an interesting point of entry too... cheap, sharp, good flares imo, compact, no rigging issues and single focus. It's just that the squeeze is low (1.33x) but perhaps an oval aperture mod might improve the bokeh. I am waiting for @Tito Ferradans's review. He will surely address it's strength and weaknesses.

This is exactly what I was after, thanks so much. I actually found a good deal on the 50 1.4 and it has a lovely clean look from f2.4 and above, below the sharpness really takes a hit.

I'm actually working to make this a lot more accessible and easy to navigate! ?
 

I'm actually working to make this a lot more accessible and easy to navigate! ?
 

I have lots of experience with both J9 and C/Y 85/1.4.
The Jupiter is a big hit and miss, like most Soviet M42 lenses. If you get a good copy, you'll have tons of character, easy flares, lots of bloom and sharp results wide open. Not a contrasty lens unless stopped down. Getting a good copy is a tough process though. You can go through a dozen of them before finding one you like. I certainly have.
Contax: the 1.4's are all fring-y, chromatic aberration-y wide open. The 35 is the best performing wide open of the trio. The 50 is notoriously bad wide open (think blooming and intense CA). The 85 has no blooming and CA is mostly controlled, at least in my copy. But good luck getting a close up in focus if everything is not bolted down. hahahaah
Here's some more info on my set and the decisions through building it - https://***URL not allowed***/zeiss-contax-cine-tune-up-guide/

I have lots of experience with both J9 and C/Y 85/1.4.
The Jupiter is a big hit and miss, like most Soviet M42 lenses. If you get a good copy, you'll have tons of character, easy flares, lots of bloom and sharp results wide open. Not a contrasty lens unless stopped down. Getting a good copy is a tough process though. You can go through a dozen of them before finding one you like. I certainly have.
Contax: the 1.4's are all fring-y, chromatic aberration-y wide open. The 35 is the best performing wide open of the trio. The 50 is notoriously bad wide open (think blooming and intense CA). The 85 has no blooming and CA is mostly controlled, at least in my copy. But good luck getting a close up in focus if everything is not bolted down. hahahaah
Here's some more info on my set and the decisions through building it - https://***URL not allowed***/zeiss-contax-cine-tune-up-guide/

There's a huge resource that @Tito Ferradans has put together about faking the anamorphic look...
http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?page_id=15535
There's a quiz to test if you can tell the difference between fake and real anamorphic images.  I'm rubbish at it but could spot some of them but not others.
His guide is USD$30 but you can get a taste of it via this link: http://www.tferradans.com/anamorfake/TFerradans-AnamorfakeDemo.pdf
I don't lust after the anamorphic look so it's not that enticing to me, but for those interested going fake seems to offer a much simpler approach, so it's worth a look.

I'm glad I could clarify that for you. ( :
That's right!
If you want to have a wider FOV, then you'd have to buy proper anamorphic lenses like Atlas, etc.
No adapter can go that wide.
It's one of the reasons @Tito Ferradans came up with his 'Anamorfake It'. If your shot calls for a wide angle, then you could get away with a modded spherical lens.
Like I said, you could take a look at Aivascope.
https://www.facebook.com/aivascope/
It's a modern 1.5x lens.
Quite pricey, but people who bought it seem to be really satisfied.
Kowa C35 1.5x is just another unicorn that's hard to find. You'll be more likely to get an used Bollex Moller 16/32/1.5x (the one that @keessie65 owns).
Here is a sample video recorded with 5D3 + ML RAW + Helios 44 + Bollex 16/32/1.5x + Rectilux HCDNA.
Notice the crazy distortion on the sides and in the corners - it's a sign that going even a tiny bit wider could introduce severe vignetting.
 
It mostly varies on a copy versus copy, but Red Ultra Stars tend to be newer, therefore they feature even better coatings which results in reduced flaring.
I've got a 1st gen Gold Ultra Star and it's already really sharp and contrasty, even though it has some mild separation inside.
What Julien said.
It's quite difficult to answer, honestly.
I'm happy with my middle class setup, since I'm just a hobbyist - that's why I don't need top tier gear.
Every single post from Terrence Wilkins (a DP from UK) only confirms this belief. He uses setups based on Schneider Cinelux and FVD-16A.
 
The law of diminishing results in anamorphics is even more cruel than in photography.

Please don't sand it, it's a hack, not a fix.
The tolerances on the housing are very tight, If your iscorama is warped, the plastic body is not ideally concentric around the lens helical (which is brass to brass, so no warping there for sure). What you need to do is to adjust the smaller metal ring and the way it sits around the plastic body using three small grub screws, until it's perfectly concentric. Try tightening them quarter turn at a time. It's a game of balance, and time spent doing this depends on how bad the warping of the plastic is. Just play with those screws, spend 10, 15, 30 minutes if needed, quarter turn at a time. Loosen one screw and tighten two others to move the small metal ring in the opposite direction of where the traction happens.

Alternatively you can take a caliper, measure the body in the pace where traction occurs, and compare that diameter measurement to the perpendicular diameter of the oval of the body. If the difference is drastic, like 0.5mm or more, you can try to squeeze the plastic in the direction of bigger diameter, to alter the shape a bit. If iscorama was stored on the side it could be warped that way.

It sounds a bit barbaric to squeeze the plastic, but it's the issue some of my customers had and it help them. Just be gentle. One person measured the tolerance of their rama and the difference in diameters was 1.2mm which is crazy – that polymer really does not age well, plus if the lens was laying in a box on it's side for 50 years it shows too. Also Germans chose a material that simply cannot have good tolerances even in theory – I have several iscoramas, some have nameplates that are exactly 72mm, but some have it at 72.8, and some at 71.2  – this is crazy, and some of them don't even screw into standard metal filters, simply because they're too big.

Maxiscope was my attempt to fix this issue for good, as it's a full metal body that replaces plastic, so you don't have to rely on tolerances and issues of the plastic body anymore. 
Hope this helps.

Hey guys!
I wanted to share my latest project and there's no better place than here, where I started! The price of scopes on ebay only goes up. To counter that I spent the last two years researching and testing out ways to achieve the anamorphic look WITHOUT actually using scopes - which I call "anamorfaking". Then I turned all of the research into a 170pg guide and put it up on my blog.
http://www.anamorfakeit.com
I get a lot of suspicious (not to say dismissive) looks when I say I'd rather shoot anamorfake than use most adapters out there. Many folks think that REAL anamorphic will always be superior and better. I'm here to challenge that perspective. If you go on the link above there's a quiz featuring ten images that mix anamorphic, anamorfake or both techniques. See how well you can tell them apart! If you get all correct, there's a discount for the new guide.
You can also check the first few pages for free here: http://www.tferradans.com/anamorfake/TFerradans-AnamorfakeDemo.pdf
Have you ever used any tricks to craft the anamorphic look?
Lens mods, oval cutout filters, fishing line, letterboxing, etc

i did the quiz.... 5/10,  which isnt that surprising as i think i overthought a couple of those photos. At least i can say i'm halfway knowledgeable ?
not sure why but it takes ages to load the shop page, several minutes for me anyway, but i found out this morning it does eventually get there. I'll end up buying the guide in a couple of weeks, i look forward to learning some more.
 

Hey guys!
I wanted to share my latest project and there's no better place than here, where I started! The price of scopes on ebay only goes up. To counter that I spent the last two years researching and testing out ways to achieve the anamorphic look WITHOUT actually using scopes - which I call "anamorfaking". Then I turned all of the research into a 170pg guide and put it up on my blog.
http://www.anamorfakeit.com
I get a lot of suspicious (not to say dismissive) looks when I say I'd rather shoot anamorfake than use most adapters out there. Many folks think that REAL anamorphic will always be superior and better. I'm here to challenge that perspective. If you go on the link above there's a quiz featuring ten images that mix anamorphic, anamorfake or both techniques. See how well you can tell them apart! If you get all correct, there's a discount for the new guide.
You can also check the first few pages for free here: http://www.tferradans.com/anamorfake/TFerradans-AnamorfakeDemo.pdf
Have you ever used any tricks to craft the anamorphic look?
Lens mods, oval cutout filters, fishing line, letterboxing, etc

nice to see you got it finished,  been waiting awhile to see what you were up to.
the link to the guide is active ?. It just hangs in space for me doesn't go anywhere at 6.30 pm on  a saterday if thats any help
 

I got 7/10. Good exercise in attending to detail.

Oh, yeah! Finally!
Congrats on delivering it, must've been quite wearisome to wrap it up.
I'll definitely take a look at the guide.
 
7/10, not that bad.
(( :

Hey guys!
I wanted to share my latest project and there's no better place than here, where I started! The price of scopes on ebay only goes up. To counter that I spent the last two years researching and testing out ways to achieve the anamorphic look WITHOUT actually using scopes - which I call "anamorfaking". Then I turned all of the research into a 170pg guide and put it up on my blog.
http://www.anamorfakeit.com
I get a lot of suspicious (not to say dismissive) looks when I say I'd rather shoot anamorfake than use most adapters out there. Many folks think that REAL anamorphic will always be superior and better. I'm here to challenge that perspective. If you go on the link above there's a quiz featuring ten images that mix anamorphic, anamorfake or both techniques. See how well you can tell them apart! If you get all correct, there's a discount for the new guide.
You can also check the first few pages for free here: http://www.tferradans.com/anamorfake/TFerradans-AnamorfakeDemo.pdf
Have you ever used any tricks to craft the anamorphic look?
Lens mods, oval cutout filters, fishing line, letterboxing, etc

no one ever said this was for sale. o.O

Great great write up! Yeah I’ve been looking how to attach series 9 and nothing yet. If you come across do post.

Amazing!  Thanks so much for taking the time to help me out!  Much appreciated!

I heard "diopters" and was summoned here.
I personally haven't published much on how diopters work besides what's in my original guide - www.tferradans.com/anamorphic
But I have a ton of research and drafts expanding on the subject.
Most vari-str diopters (single focus solutions) act as a wide-angle adapter when close focused (Rectilux is 0.9x for example, I have notes on the others too, but not by memory), and regular diopters alter focal length a tiny little bit (you should disregard it).
Here's a great article by Jay Holben on diopters - https://ascmag.com/blog/shot-craft/deep-focus-diopters
and an instagram post by the author of the article, expanding on depth of field and the things it sounds like you're looking for:
 

tito probably could do the math  in his sleep, maybe he'll poke his head in otherwise google tito and  anamorphic i'm sure there might be something on his website
'