Let’s Talk About Larger 35mm Projection Scopes

[Caleb Genheimer]

So, I’ve gone a bit mad lately and snatched up some rather large chunks of glass and metal off of eBay. The transgressions are as follows thusfar:

One Bosch and Lomb Cinemascope Adapter I.

One Bosch and Lomb Cinemascope Adapter II.

Two 35-NAP-2.

One Meopta Anagon.

One Kowa Prominar.

To varying degrees, I don’t think these big scopes warrant as much negative stigma as they are given. Excepting the substantial size and weight, at least one has nearly as wide a field of view as my much lauded Kowa 16-H, and without the pronounced edge compression that the Kowa exhibits. It was always my assumption that the big 35mm scopes were written off due to extremely long field of view restrictions, but that is simply not universally the case. Even the most restrictive so far is not much worse off than say, a Sankor or equivalent 16-S/16-D. 

I daresay color me intrigued. I’ll definitely be collecting a few more to mess about with. I can’t help but feel that the impact of shooting through such large glass is quite unmistakable, whatever the drawbacks.

While best with long taking lenses, the larger Bausch and Lomb’s rear element is no less than 95mm, and the front is 102mm... a true behemoth. 

I’m not here to sing praises of such scopes through rose colored glasses, but I wouldn’t mind some honest discussion with others regarding our experiences with large scope adapters.

Some that I have yet to try but am intrigued by:

Rectimascop (Rathenower) (80/2 and 64/2)

Hypergonar (Series C and HiFi2)

Kollmorgen KA298

Isco Grottington KA298 (different coating?)

Isco Kiptar 2X

Schneider Kreuznach WA Cinelux

Isco Grottington Cinelux MC 2X

Moller 63/2X

Isco Ultra Anamorphic MC 2X

I would expect anything Isco or Schneider to have a fairly modern look with good anti-reflective coatings, etc, and some of the others to perhaps have more character. One thing I am wary of is that some of these lenses look eerily similar to each other. I wonder if several are the same base optics, with each company putting their spin on the coatings and feature set, perhaps with a QC differentiation as well.

Do you have any large 35mm projection scopes? What is your experience? I’m definitely interested in some field of view assessments, as well as your overall impression of a lens, from flares to sharpness and distortion. I’m going to try and share some of my findings soon too, but I am first working on a support/mount rig system for larger lenses so I can test them beyond hand holding them in front of a camera.

Is there a big scope that you love the image of, but is just too unwieldy? One that seems underrated or overlooked? One maybe I should acquire to compare to those I already have? Let’s discuss.

[webrunner5]

The Anamorphic Store is about the easiest place to buy them if you have the money, and need to get it all going quickly.

https://www.anamorphicstore.com/

[Tito Ferradans]

19 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

The Anamorphic Store is about the easiest place to buy them if you have the money, and need to get it all going quickly.

https://www.anamorphicstore.com/

I don't like being unfriendly, but the anamorphic store is the pinnacle of everything that is wrong in the scope and diy world. I'd stay away from this dude for as long as possible.

As for larger scopes, I've seen lots of good stuff coming from them, the issue is what kind of rig do you work with to support it.

[leslie]

i have a 35 nap-3 pulled apart at the moment. It being the cheapest i could find and i wanted to see how they worked plus i have a project in mind for it

i think there are four types of nap 35.

1 being the rarest

2 being smaller and more popular than the 3

3 is quite big

no 4  i cant remember much about

i also have an isco gottingen which takes both hands to turn the front ring, one day i'll get around to looking at it

 i looked at buying from the anamorphic store however the prices weren't affordable for me.

[Caleb Genheimer]

3 hours ago, Tito Ferradans said:

I don't like being unfriendly, but the anamorphic store is the pinnacle of everything that is wrong in the scope and diy world. I'd stay away from this dude for as long as possible.

As for larger scopes, I've seen lots of good stuff coming from them, the issue is what kind of rig do you work with to support it.

Ah Tito, professional as always. I’ll be unfriendly. I’ve had a good (and open) back and forth with Anamorphic store about exactly what their stuff entails, because at one point I was at least curious. It’s certifiably cheap junk (excepting the scopes I guess). Half of it is 3D printed or plastic, and I feel like their single focus is such bad optical quality that I can see it in the pictures of the lens. But slapping that on is no excuse to upcharge the scope. Every single one I have obtained so far has been under $200 US on eBay and in good condition.

I’m probably biased because I’ve been at this a long time, but IMO Redstan is still unrivaled when it comes to clamps. Rapido does some very good stuff as well, and obviously Rectilux is king of diopters.

As for mounting, I’ve kinda been looking for an excuse to mess about with a 19mm rod setup anyway. And as big as these are, they’re still a far cry smaller than the prism anamorphic Ultra Panavision 70 lenses ?

I feel like big heavy cameras actually move differently, and that it is something noticeable. If I need to run around with a gimbal like the millennial that I am, I’ll always have my 16-H.

I am thinking just snagging one Isco might complete a sufficient collection for now. I’d really like a Möller 63/2X, but the only one out there right now IMO is way overpriced, even for what it is. Naturally, getting into anything non -2X (various inflights etc) even if they are bigger gets monetarily impractical. 

I too purchased the NAP to rip apart and experiment with. Has anyone tried a negative diopter between front and rear anamorphic elements to bring them closer together? I understand that the closer they are, the lesser the squeeze ratio, but I would think it might also reduce vignetting and increase angle of view.

[leslie]

14 hours ago, Caleb Genheimer said:

I too purchased the NAP to rip apart and experiment with. Has anyone tried a negative diopter between front and rear anamorphic elements to bring them closer together? I understand that the closer they are, the lesser the squeeze ratio, but I would think it might also reduce vignetting and increase angle of view.

oh.... i can see this getting competitive?

 

[Caleb Genheimer]

Any good findings messing about, @leslie?

[Jim Chang]

I have most of larger 35mm scopes, probably 20 of them. I like HIF-2, Bausch Lomb Attachment I, and Moller 63/2x, which are vintage look, the ISCO & Schneider are modern & cleaner looks. I am trying to shoot some tests of these scopes pairing with FVD-35A, stay tuned. 

https://www.rapidotechnology.com/products/front-variable-diopter/fvd-35a

 

[Rikoshet]

On 7/13/2019 at 3:37 PM, Tito Ferradans said:

As for larger scopes, I've seen lots of good stuff coming from them, the issue is what kind of rig do you work with to support it.

Hey Tito! Great blog you have, watching always your videos to understand better if a certain adapter is for my taste. Anyway, you have no/few large adapters reviewed on your blog! As Caleb I'm too interested in such lenses because they are affordable.

I found 3 lenses:

Officine Galileo Anamorfico 2x for 100eur (that one I already have but I have to use it with f like 7.3-8 and minimum focusing distance is like 4-5m, but great double blue flares btw!)

Sankor Anamorphic Adapter-W for 100eur

Schneider Kreuznach WA Cinelux Anamorphic adapter for 130eur.

I like the idea of large lenses so I can maybe go wider, on my pocket 4k I can use sigma art 35mm but I can't find any review of last two. Of last two I'd like to know the mionimum focus distance, type of flare and its color.

 

Any idea/opinion/link would be appreciated!

Thank you!

[Tito Ferradans]

Hey @Rikoshet

The reason I don't love big anamorphics is because although they cost you less at first, in the long run you'll be wrecked by hauling them around. Plus support gear and stress on your taking lens and camera mount.

They usually have far minimum focus (past 4m), and not necessarily go wider than their smaller counterparts. Flares are a different universe and I lack info on that from lack of experimentation.

Good luck!

[ZEEK]

9 hours ago, Tito Ferradans said:

You'll be wrecked by hauling them around. Plus support gear and stress on your taking lens and camera mount.

They usually have far minimum focus (past 4m), and not necessarily go wider than their smaller counterparts.

Agree with this. Run & Gun Anamorphic is the way to go with all these new, light weight, mirrorless cameras these days. Having great luck with the MOSTY SE 16mm 2x [GOLD], very nice anamorphic adapter indeed, rally sharp wide open, faster focus than my taking lens. 

[Rikoshet]

16 hours ago, Tito Ferradans said:

Plus support gear and stress on your taking lens and camera mount.

Well, take a look. No stress on taking lens at all. The only thing I need is a single focus unit but again, no info about compatibility... ?

Ok guys, so are you telling me there are 16mm anamorphics that can be used with lets say sigma art 35mm with same crop?

[Tito Ferradans]

On 7/24/2019 at 11:03 AM, Rikoshet said:

Well, take a look. No stress on taking lens at all. The only thing I need is a single focus unit but again, no info about compatibility... ?

Ok guys, so are you telling me there are 16mm anamorphics that can be used with lets say sigma art 35mm with same crop?

This image is the perfect example of why I don't like projection scopes.

As for crop and FOV, you can always use the calculator. ?
www.tferradans.com/anacalc/go

[Caleb Genheimer]

I’ve lately found that I prefer a hefty rig, to be perfectly honest. Handheld shots with a heavy camera turn out fantastic! 

Even on sticks or a slider, it still forces me to approach shooting differently, because I can’t just fling the camera around haphazardly shooting whatever is my fancy. 

Again the 16-H etc. have their place.... I’m never throwing a 35-NAP on the ‘ol gimbal and running around like some sort of Instagram influencer. That’s what the Kowa excelled at.

But getting gimbals to look cinematic is exceedingly difficult. I’m much preferring handheld shots.

[Tito Ferradans]

3 hours ago, Caleb Genheimer said:

But getting gimbals to look cinematic is exceedingly difficult. I’m much preferring handheld shots.

Oh, very much. I've given up on gimbals altogether a few shoots ago. They always fail. And look mechanic.

As for the weight, I'm pretty flimsy, so when I have my Iscorama rig up, (rails, follow focus, v-lock, evf, I'll already feel it at the end of the day. And I only shoot handheld.

[Caleb Genheimer]

Yeah I’m hoping that steadycross makes a beefy version of their stabilizer that doesn’t have any 3D printed parts. That has much more natural movement to my eyes. 

I also wish someone would make a hollow/pass through gimbal like the Sachtler Trinity... but just as a single axis for roll/horizon stabilization. Kinda like a small fig rig, but the whole ring is a motor.

[Rikoshet]

On 7/26/2019 at 5:42 PM, Tito Ferradans said:

This image is the perfect example of why I don't like projection scopes.

As for crop and FOV, you can always use the calculator. ?
www.tferradans.com/anacalc/go

I followed your example.Waiting for some clamps now. 120eur white/golden flares.

[Caleb Genheimer]

Try this on for size. I guess I need 114mm diopters now, because the 95mm ones vignette:

[Rikoshet]

37 minutes ago, Caleb Genheimer said:

Try this on for size. I guess I need 114mm diopters now, because the 95mm ones vignette:

So big, no gimbal I think...

[Caleb Genheimer]

I’m really digging good handheld work lately. I shot weddings nonstop for the last 7 years on gimbals, and they just don’t look cinematic to me, even though I’m a seasoned operator. 

I’m heavily considering a 1-Axis Letus Helix just for keeping good horizon with heavier setups. Full-on 3-Axis gimbals for big rigs are prohibitively expensive and need major ancillary  support equipment, but a single roll axis could keep the rig to a handheld/shoulderable size while providing some stabilization to the critical axis. 

There is also no replacing a good shot on sticks. Gimbals, just like autofocus and other advanced camera technologies, do allow you to get quality results with less effort. But the effort itself is part of the process that forces a certain pace and approach to shooting. Sure, with a gimbal you can quickly achieve any camera angle, any camera movement, instantaneously. But that doesn’t force you to stop and think through the motivation for the movement and angle. You can, but you don’t have to. As soon as the schedule on set is rushed, you stop thinking and just shoot. I prefer tripod these days, sometimes slider for a bit of movement. If I do use the gimbal, it is only when I want a specific shot from a piece of gear that I don’t have on hand (dolly or jib for example), and in that case, I’m trying to precisely mimic only what that piece of gear would do with the gimbal, nothing fancy.