ken

1 minute ago, ARVA said:

Sure thing, I'll take some more detailed before and after shots. 

The lens was purchased from eBay by seller "cameralovelove" from Japan.

Do you know the way how to use dual focus?  maybe the lens has no problem.

Looks like in TTC subway. 

1 hour ago, AndreasK said:

I have a Bolex Moller 16/32/1.5x for sale together with a special clamp from rapidotechnology. It's performs great with edge to edge sharpness and I bought it only recently but surprisingly my new 1.5x lens which I made from a Rectimascop 48/2x front part and the rear element of a Schneider Cinelux 2x delivers very similar results (except the very far edges). Anyway, here is the link to the ebay auction: http://www.ebay.de/itm/RARE-Moeller-Moller-16-32-1-5x-Anamorphot-Anamorphic-Cinemascope-/272477606381   I can also add a 72mm filter adapter in order to mount a Rectilux CoreDNA to the front

Another thing is that I plan to offer my anamorphic attachments and taking lenses as rental items but now I'm a little afraid to rent such an expensive lens out. The Bolex also doesn't work well with my longer Lomo OKC 75mm taking lens, while it works nicely with the shorter lomos. The lomo lenses compose a small set (35mm, 40mm, 50mm and 75mm for the moment), are converted to Arri PL and are intended to be my main rental taking lenses as they could be used with an Arri Alexa in LCS mount. The Bolex seems to work really well with the Nikon 85mm f1.8 as longer lens, though: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=16%2F32%2F1.5x%20Bolex

 

Yes, IMO, if you have different 2X anamorphic lens and not plan to sell again.  It is easy to combine them as different ratio anamorphic lenses you like.

Like your Rectimascop 48/2x front lens with ISCO integrated rear lens, you will get a 1.3x or less ratio.  

how about this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/332049422516

To me, smaller filter size and larger aperture should be better choice.  So OM 50/1.2 is the one worthy to try, only with 49mm filter thread.

No anamorphic lens used, right?

http://ebay.com/itm/142179783601

not mine.

Basically, I have figured out some rules.  

Longer lens has less dioptre than shorter lens.  I got help from a friend in optical shop, where has instrument can check the lens.

These are rear lenses of different 2x anamorphic lenses:

    Sphere/Cyliner

A. +6.00/-6.00

B. +5.00/-5.00

C. +4.75/-4.75  

D. +3.50/-3.50

Front lens should be like this:

E. 0/-13.75

F. 0/-10.50

Many front lens are too thick, the instrument was unable to check.  Also some front lenses I did not take apart.  

For example, if B+F is original 2x lens, then A+F would get about 1.7X, C+F would get 2.2X, and D+F would get 2.7x. 

In this way, just have strong breathy effect, not very good for video as focusing unit.  Similar to what I modified as auto focus lens for photography, that is excellent.  But nowadays, most digital lenses are made as internal focus lens, which cannot be used.

21 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

On Canon APS-C I can do w/o vignetting full sensor at 50 @ f/1.8 and close focus-> Which makes 80mm on fullframe If I'm not missing something. Am I ? :s
Which Ultrastar are you talking about, the small one or the big one ? (I have the small one)

But of course, the 16H is a great option if you can find one

Now I can tell you the key difference of these two lens.

The rear elements are basically the same size, very close.  But the front's difference are huge, 16h is much thicker, twice in weight.  

1 hour ago, Justin Bacle said:

On Canon APS-C I can do w/o vignetting full sensor at 50 @ f/1.8 and close focus-> Which makes 80mm on fullframe If I'm not missing something. Am I ? :s
Which Ultrastar are you talking about, the small one or the big one ? (I have the small one)

But of course, the 16H is a great option if you can find one

What I used is for photos.  So use up 3:2 cmos.  Yes for video, 16:9 mode would be less vignettes.  So I believe ok for 85mm.   We are taking the same lens, integrated lens, small one.

2 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

The Isco Ultrastar can do 85mm on FF free from vignetting too  (but you won't get flares)

At infinity with small aperture, still have some darkness, not so perfect as 16h.  It is perfect with 100mm on FF, except flare.

IMO, kowa 16h/8z/B&H's advantage is wider.  Very good for 85mm on FF, no other ana lenses can do without vignettes.

I don't have time too.  So just use 52 or 55mm to 50mm adapter ring.

I don't know anything about coreDNA.  Just knew under $1k Ana lens, 16h/8z/B&H/Elmoscope II...they have the same optics, are the widest lens, but coating might differ.

13 minutes ago, MoonCannon said:

Hey everyone. Just some background on my setup. I've got an URSA Mini 4.6k (so slightly larger than APS-C image circle).

I'd like to get my first anamorphic. Preferably something that can sharply focus as close as 2 feet (or better) after adding a Rectilux CoreDNA to it. And handle a 50mm wide (or wider) taking lens.

Is this a good / possible option? http://www.ebay.com/itm/262666642926

No.  need 16h or rebranded lens.

1 hour ago, tweak said:

That's a super cheap price on the Elmo, it's worth more than those other two imo.

Agree.  IMO, ELMOSCOPE-II has more value than KOWA B&H lens.

8 hours ago, Dr. Verbel' said:

35nap 2-2 smaller than 35nap 2-3m. Weight you see... front lens around 500 g, rear 370 g. 35nap 2-3m lenses in sum near 1 kg

 

Hehe, too heavy to me.  I remembered the front glass of Moller 63/2x is around 0.47kg.  

So I think the 46/2x or 48/2x lens are the best size for me.  The front glass is around 0.3kg range.  But the 32 lens is too small.

BTW, who knows what this number mean?  But I guess it maybe the rear glass size in mm, looks very close.

10 hours ago, Dr. Verbel' said:

Lenses from modifications 35NAP. All my own... yet

 

How much the front lens weight?  If less than 350G, I am interested in it.

15 hours ago, Juank said:

Woaw

amazing job !!!

keep it going !!!

Do you thing it will work with my Moller 63X2 ?

I can tell you this Ana lens's front lens is easy to take apart.  But rear lens is tricky, you need to make a special tool to unscrew it.  Because it is in too deep.

1 hour ago, dahlfors said:

Looks good. Do you have any stills or footage shot wide open at f/2?

Considering the vignetting, is 100mm the widest you can go with full frame?

Last two are at f/2.

Maybe.  But 16:9 for video should be a little bit better.

Two more f/2 here, shown different focus point.

Tested this Zeiss lens with 100mm/f2 taking lens on FF camera.  Is it OK?

7 hours ago, Manikk said:

D'you have any test shots up? Also what setup /clamps would you use on it? Thanks.

Some one ask about these.   So I just took some picture with 16H for comparison.

Rear mount thread is the same as 16h lens----50mm.   Size and weight comparison, see pictures.

Roughly tested, with 85mm taking lens has obvious vignette on FF camera.   I think it needs 100mm or above at least.

2 hours ago, Flynn said:

So which one do you prefer and why? 

Zeiss's coating looks like more purple and Moller more yellow.  No preference to me.  They all have good flare.

2 hours ago, Flynn said:

Are these lenses really rare? I've only come across a brief clip of the Moller and nothing with the Zeiss.

May be not very rare.  Need to use keyword "anamorphot" to find it.   I just bought it.  http://www.ebay.com/itm/401180992655 

This 46/2x lens is my favorite size for FF camera.   Suitable to add 77mm filter thread for the biggest filters I owned.

I think they are identical.  But coating colors are different.  Which brand was original?  Zeiss Ikon?  Möller?

On Monday, September 05, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Justin Bacle said:

Thanks for this usefull tool

I just have a (stupid) question, are the schneider cinelux and isco ultra-star considered long scope or short scope ?

3 hours ago, Tito Ferradans said:

There`s Canon's EF 40mm pancake, which is one of my favorite combinations with almost any anamorphic so far.

Believe or not, schneider cinelux + isco ultra-star + EF 40mm = kind of unique combination