ken

I think OM 55 1.2 is also very good, and mine is non radioactive one.  If you don't mine radioactive, lots of choice in 55 1.2's.

There are some differences.

If you mount prime lens with 55mm front thread, 16H/Elmo II can be mount very close.  B&H cannot, it needs at least lens with 58mm front thread or above.

If you mount prime lens with 52mm front thread, 16H/Elmo II can still be mount directly by a 52 to 50 step down adapter.  But for B&H need step up adapter, which will not be able to mount close.

9 hours ago, Whosawwho said:

Ken!

I thought the rear lens diameter of Elmo II is smaller than B&H.

By any chance, is it same?

Sorry, I overlooked.  The difference is only mounting thread.  The glass elements in both lenses are identical, including coating color.

BTW, Elmo II's front cap is made by metal, much much better then B&H's plastics.

1 hour ago, Whosawwho said:

Ken!

I thought the rear lens diameter of Elmo II is smaller than B&H.

By any chance, is it same?

I said already, 50 vs 54, different.  So Elmo II is better. 

45 minutes ago, raf702 said:

 

You used Goo Gone? Doesn't that strip paint or sticky residue.

Just cleaning, make it looks like newer.
 

I fell using Goo Gone have good result, looks like leave to lens is still safe, but not sure whether to any coatings?

Ef 100 f2 is a very good lens, metal thread, better then 85 1.8, if don't mind not so wide.  85L is the king in 85s, but not sure which Ana lens fits it.  16h is too small for it.  Other big lens might not wide enough with it.

7 hours ago, Whosawwho said:

Ken!

Thanks so much for your kindly reply!

OK,I try to look for B&H!

IMO, B&H has non advantage over Elmo II. So I sold it first. 

I think stack 2 front lens would be possible.  It might need to add another +? diopter on rear lens.   So +?diopter + rear ana(2x)  with front lens 2x and 1.33x front lens stack.  If it works, will save space.  Unfortunately, I don't have any 1.33x or 1.5x lens anymore.

10 hours ago, tweak said:

I've had 2 x Elmoscope II, 2 x 8Z and 1 x B&H. 
One 8Z had Gold flares, one Blue flares. The Blue one flared the easiest of any lens I've owned.
Both Elmo Scopes were Gold flares, Both B&H were Gold flares. The Elmo IIs I had seemed to flare a bit easier than the B&H.

The one I kept and use the most now is an Elmo II, but I think it's really dependent on production factors as to which is the sharpest/ best. They all can be good.

 

To me, I like Elmo II the most.  It is only metric system of all these type lenses.  So I can tell distance 10 meter more easily than than 30 ft.

Btw, looks like the gold flare is stronger than blue flare, right?

BTW, which coating you guys like?

I owned 16h, Elmoscope-II and B&H.  Elmoscope-II and B&H have the same coating, like yellowish, and 16h like blue.  In 2 pictures, left is 16H, right is Elmoscope-II.    

3 hours ago, Whosawwho said:

Hello!

I' m looking for Kowa 16-H or Kowa 2x anamorphic lens for Bell & Howell.
Could you tell me the different points of them?
Is Kowa 2x anamorphic lens for Bell & Howell newer model(minor changed model)?
Or is the diameter of rear lens bigger?

I can tell you B&H version's rear mount is 54mm thread, 16-H's is 50mm.  Coating is different too.  

So if mount on 52mm filter thread lens, 16-H is possible to mount closer.

If I were you, I would consider IQ at first.  And would think in another way.  Using 1:1 mode and make a lens with 2.2~2.5x can do the job.

For example, using 2x lens front glass with 1.33x rear glass would produce more than 2x ratio.

Basically, I think 2x lens would have different combination from different manufacturer design.  so I used 2 different 2x lenses rear and front glasses to get 1.5x lens.  Front lens is a negative lens, horizontal count only.  Rear lens is a positive lens, horizontal count only too.  So I think lens A is front -4 and rear +2, and lens B is front -3 and rear +1.5.  So lens A's rear with B lens front consist of a 1.5x (=2/3).  BTW, 1.33x lens might be about front -2 and rear +1.5.

Modify again by adding a negative diopter in side, better accurate focus at infinity, not so wide, measured view angle equals to about 24mm, but distortion improved.  Edge IQ might be not so good.  But still much better than 1.33x lens I used before.  Flares are funny.

I know Lomo 35mm is the widest Ana lens.  But using filter is headache.  Basically, if can use 50mm 1.8 lens, very close to use 40mm 2.8.  The front glass size of taking lens makes benefits of less vignette.

3 hours ago, artiswar said:

I'd always vouch for 2x over everything. Shooting anamorphic introduces so much aberration, you might as well go for gold.

I shot this on the a7s using a Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f1.4, Kowa B&H, and a modified Focus Module.

50mm full frame 2x anamorphic gives you a horizontal FOV of 25mm. In terms of S35, this lens set up is equivalent to 33mm vertically and 16mm horizontally. It also covers 35mm APS-C.

Looks like 4:3 mode?

Imo, no 1.5x is wider than 1.33x.  Letus anamorphic lens is suitable for you.

1 hour ago, rbbayliss said:

Wow, thanks for the extra photos. What was the lens that you used for the rear element?

I like your approach, even if it sounds like a lot of trial and error would be involved. ; )

I recently recalibrate the rear element on my 16F to get it sharper, the required adjustments are very very small. so I suspect the slight blur on the right side of your photos are due to the alignment (not the rotation, but the z-space alignment) - or do you see this as symmetric in the uncropped output?

Using the Cinelux as the front element makes sense to me. I find mine pretty super sharp - I typically pair it with the Canon 100mm Macro as the macro lenses have longer focus throw - which is also why manual lenses are great as taking lenses...

Btw, Did you have to cut the cinelux? (I haven't taken mine apart so not sure if that's just the front). 

Please refer to this thread, they are the same lenses as this auto focus mods: 

Yes, I need to cut cinelux several times, shorter and shorter to make it better.

The previous manual single focus mainly drawback is no aperture control, so I gave up.  But the ISCO's  mechanism is really good, it is an internal focus type.

15 hours ago, rbbayliss said:

Very cool stuff, so you merged together a Canon EF 40mm STM and a Cinelux ES 2x and now you have a working FF autofocus setup?

How did you manage to align all of the elements so precisely, I'm guessing this is more involved than a it seems. Did you need any specialist gear or was it all done by hand?

Are you going to post instructions or a tear down so that others can try it out too?

Alignment is easy.  First adjust only rear lens, you still can find a horizontal flare, but very short.  Magnifying LCD to see it clear and adjust to the best.  Then after mounting front lens, adjust front lens only. 

The key here is the rear lens is not from the front lens, which you noticed it.  So I need to destroy two anamorphic lenses.

Each manufacturer design the front lens and rear lens has different diopter factor approach.  So we can try different combination to get wider or shorter at focus point.

And also need to find the way to mount the front lens become non movable.  If set up ok, that is real single focus.  And no extra glass, the image quality is identical as dual focus setup.

35 minutes ago, Andy Zou said:

What would you consider reasonable for the Isco?  The same user has two more red Isco's for about 420 each, is that odd?

IMO, the best lens is still KOWA 16H or re-branded lens.  ISCO integrated lens is not bad, except no flare.  But the red lens is also over priced now.  And also is the least flare one.  Usually you cannot tell the difference with golden lens.  The golden lenses at least have two type of coating.  One has more flare.  

I sold my red lens.  Its manual said "20% to 50% more light output"  means better multi coating, less flare.

IMO, more glasses would make image poorer.  Try to reduce glass as less as possible.  Adding +x diopter on rear and -x diopter on front is enough for most use.  It also has wide angle adapter functions.  It make focusing ability on anamorphic lens weaker, or let anamorphic lens focus travel distance shorter to be single focus possible.

Simply to say, +x lens helps to focus closer, where anamorphic lens rear and front element closer has the same function, and also reduce vignette, but less compress rate.   So only shorten the rear and front elements distance would make anamorphic lens wider.  But that likes adding +x lens.  So need to add a -x lens in front to compensate it and make focus correctly.  You got a wider angle anamorphic lens.

IMO, in terms of resolution, size matters (but some vintage lens is exception due to old technique).  Look this HD lens with the taken example in the post: http://www.ebay.com/itm/201589438882

or:

Yes, just a 0.82x wide angle converter lens.  http://www.broadcast-alternative.com/gb/529-fujinon-wcv-82sc-jvc-082x-wide-angle-converter-lens.html

8 hours ago, artiswar said:

But what's happening optically?! This distortion is gorgeous. 

In my comparison test, the lens actual horizontal view angle equals to 21mm.  So basically, even wider then most 1.33x lens.  Some perspective distortion is must, comparing to 1.33x lens with widest setting, not much difference. 

The image quality is basically the same as ISCO or Schneider lens.  Much better then most 1.33x lens.  I post a high resolution sample here at F2.8, wide open shoot.

Filter thread(77mm) added.

samples with CPL filter. 

BTW, the CPL filter (HOYA Silm) also contributes flare.