ken

IMO, >35mm can be used on m43, why choose zoom lens?  You might only use the longest end.  Usually prime lens has less vignette with the same focal length.   So 35mm prime lens is the first choice.  If you have to choose zoom lens, starting at 35mm, like 35-70, 35-105 etc.  Newer lens front thread usually is not rotating. 

countdown is on....few hours left.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/201454074115
 

Night scene sample.

Usually, heating up would help to remove some kinds of glue, like epoxy...

Looks like the 1A filter ring is also screw in.  If cannot loose the screw, just saw cut the ring, can take it out.

I think so, due to 3x crop, like BMPCC.  Its image field is already smaller than Nikon-1's 2.7x.

Let market to decide the price.  Must be sold, no reserved.

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/201454074115

I use both, they are looked as twin.  But IMO, 100mm has some advantages over 85mm, if not care the wider angle.

1, Metal thread front mount.

2, Better IQ, especially less CA, sharper edge image.

3, Less distortion.

Imo, just need to remember that 16h/8z/b&h can go to the widest prime lens is 70mm as 35mm equivalent focal length.  Smaller sensor and small front diameter benefit a little bit.  

To me, always use auto focus, but not shoot videos.

Also more closer the 2x ratio if two lenses close enough.  I often hear people said 2x lenses are less.  To me never happen if not focus too close, my two lens glasses are almost touch each other.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/181900411891

Moondog lens + pana mode = super wide angle's widescreen photo

100% pixel crop, then can see 2 people in middle

I have Elmoscope II, better version, and only metric one, PM. 

IMO, EF85 1.8 works fine and the widest basically, but EF100 f2 is better a little bit in all, except wide angle.

No way.  70mm has a little vignetting already.  

Here is a ISCO HD attachment's sample image, original size is available there.  I think in terms of sharpness only, Schneider ES lens would beat Kowa too.  All these are excellent optics, but size matters.

I don't think so.  IMO, the best sharpness is ISCO high definition attachment.

And kowa bh/16h/8z is the widest lens, on FF only reach to 75mm at max.  But looks SLR 2X lens might be wider, not sure.

I found f-1734 is a good deal, 77mm.  some one said is 0.6 (means from 1734mm).  but the glass is almost flat (heavy, thick ring), compared to my vivitar 1/2, 62mm, very curved.

I am pretty sure, closer focus distance would make less ratio in my experience until I got a D.O. 16F ana lens.

D.O. lens actually is a shortened lens from Sankor/Singer/Eiki 16F.  Make the the 2x lens become about 1.6x when focus in minimum distance.  So the D.O. lens can focus to closer less than 1m.   But it is lack of infinity ability.  I just add a negative lens in front to let it is able to focus to infinity. And the advantage is that it can take wider lens, basically as wide as 16H.

But I never made Sonnar Zeiss 135mm 2.8 lens(mmj) working well with any anamorphic lens.  Don't know why?  The combination is always producing poor image quality. 

It is much better than any other 1.33x lens I have used in many aspects.   No CA can be seen, wide as 22mm equiv FL, and no need diopter  at all.  

The sample was taken with iphone 5s by RAW app.  Original file is .tiff.

I know is a good lens.  But just talked the the value whether worth.

here is a real ISCORAMA coming, see how much at final.  

www.ebay.com/itm/391288580598

Are you sure it is a single focus lens? Any way, you cannot call this lens as ISCORAMA.  

I would like to buy a better cost performance one instead of rarer one. 

I did not see this lens marked as ISCORAMA, which is 1.5X and single focus lens to my knowledge.  The 1.33x lens has less value at least  IMO.

Test this ana lens with Nikon AI-S 50mm f1.2 lens with +1 diopter, hand hold.

f1.2

f2.0

f2.8