ken
-
Posts
573 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by ken
-
-
Do you have side view of the lens?
-
10 hours ago, altopuig said:
First of all thanks for the reply! I appreciate that! The seller said it was 1.33x but I imagine he didn't know what he was selling. The flares are reaaally awesome, my kowa 16h doesnt flare like this at all. I will try to to experiment with tape or something and see if it is a focus through lens, im crossing the fingers... hope it is. I tried a soviet 58mm and no vignette at all even though the rear diameter is small...like 22 - 23 mm or something like this. If anybody know anything about it or any way to mount it properly with a rapido clamp or something let me know! Cheers!
You said tried soviet 58mm. What camera you are using?
For the ratio, you can test through circle target to figure out.
Focus through lens is not good thing, IMO.
-
I think it is more likely a 1.5x lens from the shape. 1.33x lens all are for video cam. Can be used in wide angle. This lens looks not for it.
The thread there seems to be missing a ring? Can it be turning? If no, the screw might be for adjust fixed distance, like other 1.5x lens for 8mm or 16mm projectors.
-
-
-
3 hours ago, Vladimir said:
something like that (also u can make some covering to avoid reflections and atached it to front glass)
If you are lucky. That makes as single focus system.
-
No, just screwing very very tight.
-
-
48 minutes ago, Justin Bacle said:
(Oh, and the middle brass part of the isco is a pain to unscrew, did not manage to yet :s)
Which part you mean? The left one?
-
2 hours ago, funkyou86 said:
I spotted this lens on the ebay page of my favourite anamorphic retailer, but the desc. said it works from MFT 50mm, interesting anyway.
What I said is for FF camera. It is easy to confuse while talk about other small format.
-
On 6/29/2016 at 2:10 AM, funkyou86 said:
I'm tempted to get a 2x moller as well, would you please be so kind and post some test footages?
Will you use it with a rangefinder?
Sorry, I don't have a suitable taken lens to test. I think this 46/2x needs 135mm or above to be able to eliminate vignetting.
-
9 hours ago, zerocool22 said:
Well I shoot a lot at open apurtures at F1.4 at night , So I would need something that is sharp at 1.4 (or 1.8, max fstop 2.0)
I think if a lens is sharp, don't need to stop down. It is always sharp. I have OM 55 1.2 and 50 1.2. Both are sharper than Nikon Ais 50 1.2 at 1.2.
-
1 hour ago, Caleb Genheimer said:
I've always been surprised at people that swear by 1.33X or 1.5X anamorphics, because it seems that they don't understand this stuff. It is a HUGE part of the look! If you're going to go less than 2X (or if you're going to use a rear anamorph), you almost may as well just use a streak filter and crop with a barrel-distorted spherical prime.
One of my better ideas would be for someone to do a range of 1.5X lenses where the aperture itself is a 1.5X oval. DSO already technically does this with their TRUMP lenses (as individual disks), but a nice 11-bladed aperture mechanism would not be difficult to redesign to close as an oval rather than as a circle. IMO you still need at minimum 1.5X to get decent flares that aren't thin and wimpy.
IMHO, flare does not related anamorphic ratio. It mainly depends on coating. Many 1.33x lenses (ie. Century's) have much better flare then 2x lenes (golden projection lenses). But for better oval bokeh, 2x lenses are the best. 1.7-1.9x lenses are just rare than 2x lenses. So they are more expensive. 1.5x lens is more close 1.33x lens than 2x lens. It is also quite expensive too.
-
12 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:
Just saw this on ebay, the auction is ending very soon. (Not my listing, just thought i'd share with you as the price seems reasonable)
Sun Anamorphot 16 2x
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sun-Anamorphic-Anamorphot-Adapter-16-2x-/322134100865?Cannot buy it now as I don't have the cash :s
I just bought an ISCO ULTRA STAR (with the projection lenses) for 130€. I don't know what I would have picked if I found the Sun 16 2x first ...
I guess the Sun is same as Proskar lens. If true, to compare with ISCO integrated lens, the difference is rear mount size, and flare . But ISCO might be a little bit sharper, and less flare.
-
Generally, zoom lens has disadvantage, IMO. I used 70-210 with Elmoscope II on FF camera Need at least 100mm to get rid of vignettes. And at 210mm end, the IQ is poorer too. Usually, fixed focal prime lens filter thread size is smaller then zoom lens with the same aperture. Or other words, with the same size filter thread, prime lens has larger aperture to use.
-
3 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:
As a rule of thumb, simple recipe lenses do work best & the least amount of MC the better.
A good copy of the Helios 44-2 58mm f2 is one of the best, if not the best.
The Super-Takumar 55mm f1.8 or 50mm 1.4 are good (not the SMC versions).
The Nikon Ai-s 50mm f1.8 pancake, as are the other ai-s lenses (don't go E version, they're not in the same league).
As for 35mm, I have found the Mir-24M 35mm f2 (M42 mount) is an amazing lens.
But in the end it's all about personal taste, so it's your choice/opinion that counts.
Oh, I don't know there are different version. I thought pancake lens are E version. You are right. E version is AI lens.
But I really mind radioactive lens, especially majority of Super-Takumar. And also yellowish is not good color too.
I said OM 50 1.2 might be the only f1.2 lens with 49mm filter thread.
-
I would think OM lenses, 49mm front thread, even if 50 1.2, very sharp. Nikon 50 E 1.8 pancake lens is another consideration.
-
-
3 hours ago, funkyou86 said:
I'm tempted to get a 2x moller as well, would you please be so kind and post some test footages?
Will you use it with a rangefinder?
Later.
No.
-
I like Moller now, better flare than Japanese lens, so just bought it today
. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/351770424648
-
On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Bioskop.Inc said:
Just to settle any confusion: The Kowa for B&H was made under specific guidelines for B&H & the quality control had to be better. Now whether the one you buy is still in good condition is another thing - age, use etc...
Not to sure about the Elmo II manufacture, but it might fall into the same category as the B&H - however, the smaller rear element suggests it's just a re-branded Kowa.
Flares can be dependant on the coatings, but different light sources can also have an affect on the resulting colours of the flares.
Finally, the bigger the rear element the better - as it can be coupled with a wider range of taking lenses (this is why some people consider the Iscorama 54 to be a better buy than the 36 or 42 - flexibility of taking lenses).
I just remembered similar saying before, so found it from this post.
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, brucker said:i asked our resident expert how it compares to a B&H and he said this:
much smaller run than kowa bell howell better quality control.
it is an 8z that would go through additional tests by elmo.elmo made the best ever cine projector so they made sure all the optics where the best they could be.lovely single coat Magnesium Fluoride should be super sharp.
-
IMO, bokeh should depend on your taking lens, all 2x Ana lens should be same. Another consideration is the view angle has little difference from each other ana lens.
Btw, golden lenses are more currently made, multi-coating, has good sharpness, but lack of flare. So they are cheaper. Black lenses may have good flare.
-
How much is your budget? Is flare the important factor for your consideration?
-
13 minutes ago, tweak said:
Well if you have a look around B&H still sell for more than elmoII/ Kowa8z and almost all of them come with a similar false spiel... so I'd say it isn't bullshit to assume that this is why. You yourself even say the differences are minute, thus proving half my theory correct.
16H/8Z coating might have different. But Elmoscope-II is exactly the same as B&H. As I said previously, if mounting the prime lens with front thread 49mm and smaller, or 58mm and bigger, there is no difference for both.
New to anamorphic: Attachment Lens?
In: Cameras
Posted
ISCO integrated lens is not big, basically same as 16H, and even sharper and less distortion. There is some kind of trade off. You get sharper lens, but loose flare. You get flare, and come with blur too.
I found the good flare lens actually is made of single glass, not doublet. Like some vintage lens, or 1.33x lens. So it is not so sharp in edge, or has strong CA. Nowadays to produce flare is easy. There are many way to approach. I used a CPL lens or poor UV lens can make it.