Kowa 16-S

[ken]

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.

 

 

[tweak]

7 hours ago, 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).

Sorry to say you're wrong. Rear elements between Kowa 8z/16H, ElmoII and B&H are infact all exactly the same size. I've said it twice in this thread already. I've had numerous copies of all 3 lenses and they are exactly the same. Only rear thread size of B&H is bigger than the others, not the actual lens.

Also the info about B&H supposedly having better quality control I'm yet to see reflected in lens performance. I assume this gets perpetuated mostly by people with B&Hs to sell  . As far as I've witnessed B&H appears to be no better quality than any of the other Kowas. The best sample of any lens I've had personally has been an ElmoII.

5 hours ago, ken said:

 

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

 

 

Some are plastic, some are metal, I've had both on the Elmo II's.

[Bioskop.Inc]

13 hours ago, tweak said:

Sorry to say you're wrong. Rear elements between Kowa 8z/16H, ElmoII and B&H are infact all exactly the same size. I've said it twice in this thread already. I've had numerous copies of all 3 lenses and they are exactly the same. Only rear thread size of B&H is bigger than the others, not the actual lens.

Also the info about B&H supposedly having better quality control I'm yet to see reflected in lens performance. I assume this gets perpetuated mostly by people with B&Hs to sell  . As far as I've witnessed B&H appears to be no better quality than any of the other Kowas. The best sample of any lens I've had personally has been an ElmoII.

Calling bullshit on this one. Bought mine years ago for £200 - cheap, same price as the other versions. Yes prices have risen, but they have for all of them.

As I said, these are old lenses & some will be in good condition, some won't be.

Doesn't really matter, in the end, which version you get - just don't buy one of those brightly coloured pieces of shit because they come from Isco (they are fucking awful & have pretty much Zero anamorphic aesthetic - sterile & nasty).

Any of these Kowas (8Z, 16H, Elmo II, B&H) are great x2 Anamorphics - dual focus, but that is of very little concern.

I really prefer the Sankor/Singer 16D, but hey its all a matter of personal taste.

[ken]

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.

 

[tweak]

7 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Calling bullshit on this one.

Bullshit on what? I agree with everything else you said.

[Bioskop.Inc]

16 hours ago, tweak said:

Bullshit on what? I agree with everything else you said.

Just on the over inflated prices thing because people are falsely claiming B&H are better (they've said this when they were cheap) - probably minute differences to be honest & not worth getting worked up about.

18 hours ago, ken said:

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.

 

I don't use step rings to attach to my taking lens - Redstan Clamp gets it up close & personal.

Personally, I don't abide by the getting the rear & front optics as close as possible - I love the light bouncing around inside, it gives you extra internal lens flaring.

Also, don't forget about the coatings on the taking lenses - Gold is what you're ideally after.

[Hans Punk]

1 hour ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Personally, I don't abide by the getting the rear & front optics as close as possible - I love the light bouncing around inside, it gives you extra internal lens flaring.

Also, don't forget about the coatings on the taking lenses - Gold is what you're ideally after.

Amen to this!

On a side-note, rail mounting allows the option of extra light to be bounced around by rear-mounting UV filters that intensifies streak flare and overall internal flare wonder. (as well as allow rear mounted VND with rubber lens hood 'donut' if out in bright daylight). There is no apparent light transmission loss, extra vignette or distortion by properly positioning scope rear to taking front. Since the setup is properly aligned on rails, the non-mechanical coupling can be positioned just as close as any conventional clamp setup....and without the fear of having to trust a crappy cheap step ring or old taking lens thread to hold the weight of your beloved scope lens.

[tweak]

3 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Just on the over inflated prices thing because people are falsely claiming B&H are better (they've said this when they were cheap) - probably minute differences to be honest & not worth getting worked up about.

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.

[ken]

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.

[tweak]

Depends on the 16H/ 8Z, a lot have blue coatings but some are also the same gold as B&H/ Elmo. I don't see a difference in sharpness however just colour.

[ken]

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.

 

[Adebowale]

Has any one ever heard of the kalart victorscope???? I cant find any info on it at all??  Also what about the elmoscope (not the part II)

[tweak]

On 23 June 2016 at 10:35 PM, Bioskop.Inc said:

 

Sorry, can't delete haha.

[Didina]

Hello, dear friends!

I have bought Kowa Prominar 16-A and inspired by anamorphic of pictures, low contrast and highlights
( I am using Prominar 16-A with lenses Olympus Zuiko 50/ 1.4 ,Zuiko 50/ 1.2 first versions without multiflexion )
I am going to buy a Bolex Möller 16/32/1.5x  but it's much more expensive than Prominar ,
Do someone has both of these attachments and can compare them? Why Bolex Möller 16/32/1.5x  is better than Prominar 16-A ?

[keessie65]

On 2017-6-3 at 8:18 AM, Didina said:

Hello, dear friends!

I have bought Kowa Prominar 16-A and inspired by anamorphic of pictures, low contrast and highlights
( I am using Prominar 16-A with lenses Olympus Zuiko 50/ 1.4 ,Zuiko 50/ 1.2 first versions without multiflexion )
I am going to buy a Bolex Möller 16/32/1.5x  but it's much more expensive than Prominar ,
Do someone has both of these attachments and can compare them? Why Bolex Möller 16/32/1.5x  is better than Prominar 16-A ?

The Bolex is a high end lens and I can recommend that to you. I didn't own a Prominar 16-A but I do have now a Kowa anamorphiC 35. Also highest quality, with the same stretch as the Bolex (1,5x), but less expensive. Both has their ow character, see the forum for more information.