Bold

This is great information, BIG thanks! I just purchased the same lens of Ebay and was searching all over the web for info and this has to be the best posting so far, I am gonna follow your findings and repeat some of what you are doing, can't wait to see more of your results 

added both SLR Magic Anamorphots. It has been a while! haha.
Bold, these charts are awesome, man, so easy to fill in the data and images. Great work indeed!

I am looking for exactly 2x lens for this project.
 
I think of access to cheap soviet lens as of granted, as if the universe is making up for every other aspect of crappy life in post USSR republics. Soviet glass here in Ukraine is cheeeeeeeeeeap.
Rectimascope does have decent flares indeed. I am also looking at Meopta Anagon at the moment, seems decent.

A well-calibrated Bolex Moeller 16/32 1.5x is probably the sharpest and easiest to use dual focus anamorphic.  It's lightweight and has excellent close focus.  When you use it with a sensor capturing in HD aspect ratio (1.78:1) it becomes a 2.65:1 -- essentially an original cinemascope recording format which with a 10% crop becomes standard 2.39:1 anamorphic projection.
I ran some extensive tests on the 16/32 including maximum barrel distortion (important because excessive distortion leads to anamorphic "mumps") and determining minimum taking lens focal length.  The setup was a GH4 in UHD mode with an MD to micro 4/3 speed booster so effectively it was close to a S35 sensor size.  The minimum focal length without vignetting was an MC Rokkor 35mm f1.8.  It looked great.  The wider you go the more you tend to reveal distortion at the edges of the Bolex, but I compared the barrel distortion to the same distortion on super high-end Hawk and Panavision 35mm and it was nearly equivalent.  
I used the MC Rokkors because (1) the 58mm f1.2 is legendary and I've use it to great effect, (2) the MCs have a good single coating so it doesn't kill anamorphic flare and (3) there's a speed booster for it.  You can also easily adapt M42 mount lenses to MD using an inexpensive Fotodiox adapter. That opens the MD booster up to some great anamorphic M42 taking lenses like the Jupiter 85, the Helios 44-2 and the Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f2.4. (I used to avoid M42 taking lenses because they're screw mount and you don't want them unscrewing when you adjust focus etc.)
Of course the speed booster drops all lenses down a stop so the 58mm becomes a f0.8.  Other good choices are the Canon FD taking lenses, but (a) there is no speed booster for FD and you can't use the EF speed booster without an additional optical adapter.   BTW: I did test the Rokkor MC.W 28mm as a taking lens and while it works it starts to vignette on the horizontal, but that might disappear during a crop to 2.39:1.  In any case 28mm anamorphic starts looking unnatural to my eye, but might be useful for special shots.
A few negatives on the Bolex: (a) They're relatively rare and damn good so they're kind of expensive: cheaper than the high-end Iscos, more expensive than the Bell and Howell's and Kowas I think. I expect that because of the new Rangefinder, the Bolex will stay high in price as the Iscos drop.  Expect to pay in the $1500 - $2000 range.  (b) Adapting them usually requires an adapter from RedStan if you want to do it professionally.  There are some hacks floating around that will still make it work if you can't find a RedStan.
One final recommendation: Whichever adapter you go with make sure to send it to Bernie O'Shaunessy for cleaning and calibration.  Most of these lenses are 40 - 50 years old.  You don't want to drop a grand or so on an adapter only to deal with something out of calibration.  His labor rates are pretty reasonable. Good luck.  Here's a sample frame from a Bolex 16/32 by Mauri Galliano, a great Spanish DP who has used Bolexes to excellent effect.  (The model is his sister).
 
 

I asked the same thing a while back and got a couple suggestions in this thread.  There is also this thread, though the list doesn't specify whether or not the front elements rotate.
They're not native, but you might consider an old French zoom like Angenieux or Berthiot.  Not the sharpest, but sharp enough, and they're fast, parfocal, and the fronts don't rotate.  They can also be expensive — but if you're diligent you can find one in good shape at a good price.  I picked up an Angenieux 12-120mm f2.2 in immaculate condition for $150, if you can believe it.
If you find a lens that fits your needs, please post back here.  I'd be interested in what you find!

Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6/2.8 (Angenieux design version - google it to be sure of getting the right version).
Its parfocal & the front doesn't rotate - stunning lens, its the only zoom lens that i use or will ever use.

Hello,
I'm trying to find a non rotating front element wide angle zoom, to use with my GH4 and my B&H Kowa 2x anamorphic lens.
From my "collection", I only seem to have the Minolta 35-70 macro and Zeiss CY 35-70 macro.
Both of the front elements rotate, sigh...
Anyone familiar with the native m43 lenses, Oly 12-40, and PL 12-35, do they rotate?
What about the Sigma Art 18-35/1.8 ?

Added an ** to the min focus distance, with corresponding notation to the description for Kowa B&H.

Added an ** to the min focus distance, with corresponding notation to the description for Kowa B&H.

Hello all,
Tito has kindly allowed me to do some streamlining of the Lens-yclopedia database:
I have templatized all the entries so key information is in the same location when you cycle through the pages. The template improves overall readability of the information. I've broken up Mounting Solutions into To Filter, To Taking Lens, and Lens Support I’ve changed the Index to a spreadsheet that provides key stats for easy ‘comparison shopping’ I’ve removed a couple lens entries that had no (or next to no) information. I've added a few bits of info on various lenses as I went through, particularly links to example footage. I’ve made significant updates to the B&H and B&L entries based on the info I gathered from EOSHD, as well as other locations. I'll keep adding to them as I embark on modding/using my lenses. Check out the updated Lens-yclopedia here. A great big huge thanks to Tito for allowing me to build on his great work.  And to all the folks who have responded to my info-seeking posts.  The information people have provided here has been invaluable for a newcomer like me.
I was surprised at how much info I was able to find on the B&L, I cited sources in the Lens-yclopedia entry where I could - I would love to see all entries given source/reference links. I know people’s time is limited, but even just a morsel of info here & there would really help re-invigorate the database and make it more robust.  A little crowd-sourcing can go a long way!
I am considering periodically starting ‘Seeking Info About X Lens” threads to build up the other lens entries in the Lens-cyclopedia.  If this is something you would like to see (or help me with), please chime in.  
If you want to send info my way (corrections, answers to red question marks, Lens-yclopedia functionality, etc), I will find time to update the database appropriately.
Cheers,
|. . | .|

We're now fancy at www.lens-yclopedia.com . Still the same thing until a good soul shows up with some web skills to adapt the information into an even prettier shape of a website.

Jumping in here Boldy...
I don't see why not, providing it doesn't vignette. The other thing is that when you are focusing that close the depth of field is so tiny that the image will start to break down if you push it much closer than 20 inches or so.
I'm going to have to an hour or so after work tonight to play with this, so let me know if I measure something etc to help you out.

Well, technically, yes. The further the front diopter travels, the closer focusing you get. You might get some vignetting, is all. 

My Antares finderscope clamp arrived today and it fits great:





Here I reversed the bracket, which puts the base at the end that joins the taking lens.  However, this makes the unit nose-heavy:


I think it's best to have it clamped the other way around as in the previous pictures - adding stability to the end that gets the most vibration/movement (from focusing).  The top screws can be used to help visually align the anamorphic, too.  As mentioned, I'll have have to do do some modding to flatten the rail base, but I am very encouraged by the results!  All in all, $37 well-spent, I think!
Cheers,
|. . | .|

I put a MIR 1B 37mm on my GH4 and the B&L showed some artifacts in the corners towards one end of the focus throw,  I think that's a little barrel reflection and not vignetting, probably caused by the non-black part of the inside barrel (see picture above). I'll try it with a longer lens when I get a chance to see if the artifacts persist.
My second B&L arrived today, other than a little dust the glass seems in great shape.  Cumbersome lenses, but a quality 2x for under 100 bucks it's not a bad in my book.
Jim, what approach are you taking for rehousing?  Are you re-purposing old lens parts?  Custom-machining a new solution?  What materials are you planning to work with?  Sorry to pester you, I'm just really psyched to see what you come up with and - if I can - follow your lead.
 
Cheers,
|. . | .|

Francois, to my untrained eye, the footage looks good!
What resolution are you shooting?  Instead of expanding footage horizontally, have you tried squashing footage vertically to compare results?
Are particular prime lenses more troublesome than others? How do you have your Schneider mounted? This is my approach:
Build a dedicated 15mm rail platform for each anamorphic lens Test (and re-test) alignment & focus for each platform in a controlled environment using a high-detail test pattern Mark the positions on the anamorphic & its platform for future reference, and lock everything down Different positions/markings may be required for each taking lens Keep in mind I am a novice, and others out there almost certainly have better methods (and will hopefully share them in this post).
I must be really annoying folks with all my posts, then 
I've watched a lot of test footage, some using film anamorphics which resulted in mediocre footage, some using projection anamorphics which resulted in fantastic footage. What counts is the final image, it doesn't matter how you achieve it in my opinion.
Hope this helps, and keep on shooting!
Cheers,
|. . | .|

This is the aspect ratio I've decided to do for my next short. Wide is great! Oh and it's mobile platform only release!

Can I get aboard that too?
The key, in terms of narrative, is to justify the bizarre ratio inside your plot or concept, not loosely but in a way that the audience thinks it couldn't have been done any other way.
About the number of views for the music video, Taylor Swift's piece has 6 minutes while Avatar has 162, plus one is available for free online while the other people had to pay in order to watch, so I think these factors make a difference.
It's not that they accept it, it's more like they don't really care if it looks cool. The absolute majority of the audience (I'd risk 99% of it) doesn't have a clue of what the hell is anamorphic. People just want to enjoy it, not dissect it and analyze it. That's what WE do (and love), so when we see something that brings both elements together (entertainment and technical finesse), we flip about it.
Now... I don't even remember why I started to write that.

Yeah, I was interested in the 'lens cooking' tutorial for how to extract the lens elements for re-housing. I definitely don't want to change the aspect ratio!
Earlier in this thread, enny said he doesn't have to focus his B&L, just the taking lens.  Do you find otherwise?
Awesome, looking forward to it - thanks Jim!
 

My support setup is almost ready.  But the cheap Canon lens collar is cheap, so it's a little wiggly. A simple shim should do it.

B&L's have their manufacture date on the inside of the front housing.  In my case, my lens was made on Dec 1 1954:

I think the creative side is a very personal thing.
I don't really get a lot of creative value about reading articles about other people's processes or ideas, which is why I don't ready NoFilmSchool very often for example...
EOSHD as a gear blog will remain focussed on the equipment because it is useful for people trying to decide between cam A and B to know which one suits them before they lay down the money.
Creativity is quite instinctual and life-experienced based, requires a strong personal voice I think.

Hi, All! 
Here are some screen grabs, from my first UHD video test with the new SLR Magic Rangefinder/Kowa 16-H/Konica 40mm/Samsung NX1.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68917223@N05/albums/72157659802564846/with/22182848755
I've done only small, simple corrections to these images, nothing drastic beyond a tiny bit of sharpening and levels tweak. This is more-or-less how this setup renders things straight to the camera. Hopefully some video will come soon, showcasing wonderful, easy focus pulls!
I did one test previous, (right out of the box of course, and it was not properly executed.) With some careful tuning of the "taking" prime lens' focus, I was able to get sharper results in this second test. The Kowa and the Rangefinder are nowhere near their max resolving power, that much is clear. The small Konica Hexanon 40mm pancake is unfortunately the culprit. Even at f4 (which all of these were taken at), it just isn't tack-sharp in the fine details. It's good enough to warrant UHD instead of HD, but it doesn't quite "pop" in the sharpness department (an attribute of good 4K that I've found very appealing.)
The Rangefinder is what is creating the prominent (large) blue "bokeh" flares, and in doing so, it robs the Kowa of some of its flare intensity. Not sure how I feel about that. Other than the change to flare characteristics, the Rangefinder leaves the image pretty much identical to what the Kowa and Konica do without it on front. It does breathe, but only a little bit, and I happen to like a touch of breathing on anamorphic. 

Hi All - I'm selling a B&H Projection Lens which I've had modded at SK Grimes to allow for smooth rack focusing. £750 including insured delivery in the UK. It is a single focus lens. Here's the pics:
 


 
SK Grimes rehoused the front element diopter so now it can close focus to at least 20 inches and it would be simple to attach a follow focus gear. Focus from near to far is approx 400 degrees, leaving lots of room for subtle focus pulls.
It has a 58mm front thread for filters etc and I'll throw in the pictured Redstan XL clamp and step up rings I've been using to attach it to my Nikons.
 
Quick n dirty rack focus here - password: olaf
(5D II Raw 1344x1120, Nikon 105mm 2.5 @5.6, no grading)
 
The Good
Pretty pretty pretty image. Like, really pretty. It has a lovely look to the defocus areas and is as sharp as the taking lens you throw at it.  In terms of usability, it is the real deal. It is single focus, it just works.  Optics are clean and good on the front and rear anamorphic block. There is a very small cleaning mark on the diopter which I can't see effecting image quality and I certainly can't photograph it. Flares are controllable, but cool and blue if you want to force it. In terms of value, if you are looking to get started straight away with a 2x single focus unit then this is a solid alternative to Iscos or adding a Rangefinder etc to something else. The Bad
The widest taking lens I've been able to use with these is a 105mm on a FF cam, which gives you a horizontal FOV roughly the same as a 50mm on a 5D, A7S etc. You still do get a vignette if you shoot 16x9 but you can either crop off the sides or shoot in a windowed RAW mode (hint: do this) to solve this. Alternatively, you can use a wide-angle adapter to get a wider image. Couple Notes on Usage
The sweet spot on this lens seems to be 85mm or 105mm on APS-C sensors. My 7D (RIP) in raw gave a brilliant portraity / close-up shot through this lens. FF anamorphic is a BIG look but to be honest, the depth of field is so shallow that I'd rather use a smaller sensor cam. On some lenses you get better results in terms of focus from backing the taking lens a little off of infinity. Not exactly sure why this is but I assume it is to do with the distance between the taking lens and anamorphic, which is always slightly different with different lenses. If I had time I'd have looked more closely at this, but as it is no big deal in practice I left it as an enigma. Two Final Things
I am not the guy selling disguised versions of these on eBay, he is in the US and I'm in the UK. His mod results in a push-pull focus, whereas the work I've had done gives you a standard rotate-to-focus system. I totally love Bold's DIY mod that he is doing on his lens, so this is not an attempt to steal his thunder or bogart on his hard work. But at the same time, I can't leave this hanging around on the shelf doing nothing when I'm basically going to be shooting BTS stills and run and gun doc stuff all next year. I love DIY projects but I had neither the time or expertise to do what he is doing, hence I sent it off to have it done professionally and to a far higher standard than I could ever do. If it doesn't sell at this price I'm going to keep it for a rainy day.   
Let me know if you have any questions or if you want me to shoot something specific!
 

Hey Bold, I was thinking about your efforts on modding the B&H and I remembered another way to do it. I stumbled upon this guy selling a so called "single focus anamorphic" which actually is a modded B&H with the branding erased selling for a ridiculous price (it has been discussed on Nick's original thread). Thing is, on the bottom of the listing there is a video illustrating the mechanism of the mod that really attracted my attention. 
At one point I messaged him to ask about it and he responded that what he did was to have the front focus unit dremeled inside to smooth out the inner thread and insert a rubber O ring to have the unit slide instead of turning. Seems kind of tricky but the end result seems to be a less of a hassle than the polyurethane mold method you are trying (kudos to you for giving it a try, though, it would the most elegant solution if it works). What do you think?
Direct link to the video: http://filmhack.ro/portfolio/bh
 

Check out the listing for Sankor 16D in the Lens-cyclopedia for info.  If you search these forums for 'Sankor 16D' you will no doubt find a lot of useful info!
Redstan is an option, excellent quality but pricey,  Jim Chang just posted about his new Rapido Technology products, and I myself have been playing around with finderscope rings.  Normally used for telescopes, less precision, but sturdy and affordable if you dig around for a good deal.