Dave Reeve

What are the best smartphone lenses out there and are there any decent optics tests online? I know brands like Moment lead the way (perhaps with their marketing) but are there better options for an iPhone 11? Looking for quality over price although of course when it comes down to it price will be a concern. Thanks.

Yes there is a difference. I had a 16/32 and a moller 32 - one with great front optic one with great rear optic. I took it to a lens repair shop to see if the elements could be swapped to make one great lens and there were subtle differences in the optics. Also worth noting that the repair shop got hold of a couple of another 16/32s and went to undertake a swop from one of those and the element was a little different there as well. So not only are there differences between the 32 and 16/32 but not all 16/32s are alike...

Selling an Iscorama 42. Much cheaper than the other 42s on Ebay but read the blurb. I'll try to take some pics in the coming weeks and may pop into town to get the front threads sorted and useable. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Iscorama-42-anamorphic-lens-/122186897265?hash=item1c72e81771:g:KJUAAOSwA3dYKNP4

Lovely. And great music choice too - one of my favourite 90s bands - every time I saw them was like seeing a completely different band. I have to admit I still don't get what you mean by the bayonet on the lx100 - mine doesn't seem to have this.

It's a step up on my LX100 baby-H film that I shot last year but that was pre-rangefinder. I was half-pleased with the results but this inspires me to try it out with the rangefinder. I'd like to try out the rangefinder against the CoreDNA - have you had a look at the CoreDNA?

I was heading towards getting a Rectilux but ummed and arred over the Rangefinder being a solution for all of my lenses - while I'd need a couple of Rectilux versions. But the tests posted earlier made the Rectilux really shine in comparison to the Rangefinder - so if the DNA can match the Rectilux and be a solution for all of my anamorphics then great. So it's a case of watch that space - am looking forward to seeing some tests. While it's unlikely, it would be good if Andrew would be willing to conduct an objective comparison with the Rangefinder? I know there's a wee bit of tension there but surely all products to the market should be considered equally?

A few days left on ebay. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/121739669206?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 Kind of sad to be letting it go but but it's just not getting the use it deserves.

Hi I'm selling my Iscorama 2001. Just not using it enough and feel it deserves to be used! It's in great condition - not far off perfect. a Little chip in the front barrel just above the 'R' of 'ISCORAMA' as pictured. Focus all smooth. Based in London if you want to take a look. It's nikon mount currently with an EOS adapter. Feel free to ask any questions. Euros 2500 inc delivery.

Hi just a short mood piece I wanted to share shot on the Panasonic LX100 with a Baby Hypergonar attachment. I'm yet to read the camera's manual though and think I'd benefit from doing so...!

That's a really useful video Richard - and kind of new age... I'm sure in the coming months I'll be ordering one of these optics but will have to discuss the options - especially as I'd like it to work with my cinegon and 54 if that's possible. Tommy - I don't have a 2004 but I do have a 2001 and while I love it I just don't have the time to use it that much so might consider selling it on. I'd say it's a bit closer to 1.42 than 1.5 in aspect. Some stills that I've taken with it:

Lots of lovely shots in there! Congrats! Looking forward to seeing more. Seb - you seem to use your babyH more than any other anamorphics and I'm going to give mine a go with my GH4 soon and was wondering if you have any tips you can impart? Also - how did you do that lovely fade down at the end - it looks fairly composed.

Gorgeous - looking forward to seeing more tests!

Sound advice Bioskop! Thanks for your thoughts...

Thanks Rook - I did a circle test and it came in at around 1.41. Here are some pics stretched to 1.41: '> '>

It's been a long time since i've logged in - babies/life etc. ! But I have a job coming up, actually a couple of jobs, in which I want to consider anamorphic lenses. So dipping into my anamorphic draw the first to test is the Iscorama 2001. Having taken some pics with it the aspect seems to be closer to 1.41 rather than 1.5. Any reason for this? The lens doesn't actually say 1.5 on it anywhere so perhaps 1.41 is correct. Any ideas? Anyway - chances are I'm going to sell this one although I'm aware the chances of finding another are extremely limited...

Sorry - sold.

Sean -your point is pointless...

Oh dear... Why are you being so defensive? I have to admit that I haven't worked on any full on hollywood movies, but I started my working life as a PA on films that featured Rutger Hauer, Robin Williams, Sean Connery, Michelle Pfeiffer, RIchard Gere, amongst others (Tactical Assault (they never did come up with a decent title but it's a shit film anyway - but was fun to make!), Jakob the Liar and First Knight). For the most part I was PA to the actors and you really get to know the nuts and bolts doing that. They spent a lot of time waiting; in their trailers (sometimes waiting with the PA girls - no names mentioned!) or on the seats with their names on. A lot of the crew spend a lot of time waiting. Mainly because the film has been budgeted to achieve a certain production level and they can afford to make things look and sound beautiful. That's just how it is. Perhaps the professional productions you work on are different - perhaps TV soaps - they're more about churning material out (but have no use of anamorphic) - which is what you seem to be suggesting..? Anyway, since my early PA experience I've worked on several fiction and doc films - although most of my bread and butter is as an editor. However - I recently shot an edited a feature doc on Thai music that is currently being completed by Technicolor in Thailand (and sadly it seems it's the last film that will pass through their doors...) Anyway I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this thread when you just pathetically lay into people for using the phrase 'each to their own'. It's all horses for courses after all...

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Actors are used to waiting around for ages while shots are set up with stand ins. That's one reason they have trailers and canvas chairs with their names on the back. There's an awful lot of hanging around and waiting on a film set while the various crew members light, practice camera moves and focus pulls etc because it needs to be beautiful. The truth is that most anamorphics wouldn't end up on a professional set. The SLRmagic is one of them as is the bolex. Now as a case of 'each to their own' we're here because we're enthusiasts. We're experimenting With these lenses for the most part as an aside to our bread and butter. That's not to say we won't use them in our work because we probably will in some way. I met someone using the bolex for a doc for example. Its just I'd personally rather spend the time to work with the sumptuous bolex than the SLRMagic which aesthetically leaves me cold. Each to their own.

this is a case of each to their own... I understand where you're coming from but I'd want to end the time in a fiction production to make it look beautiful and from what I've seen of the SLRmagic to date it just doesn't cut the mustard. For some doc work and corporates where they want that wider look it might be great...

That's a shame. The bolex is actually very simple and quick to focus. I've scratched my head with some of the larger dual focus lenses but found the bolex a pleasure...

Or maybe £420. Bubble still thriving...

I agree re. hipster. And if anything you'll see the SLR around shoreditch. The cool of filming 1.33 with a generic aesthetic. Why not just stick on a filter and crop. Sadly I bought anamorphics on the crest of the wave but never mind. Its been a joy getting to know all their personalities.

Wow great resource! Will check it in detail soon.

Thanks. Yes I imagine it's going to be a lengthy search but I'll check out the 36 as well.