Seeking Info About the Bausch & Lomb Projection Lens

[Bold]

While I'm waiting for my new helicoid to arrive for my Bell & Howell Projection Lens, I picked up a Bausch & Lomb Cinemascope Projection Attachment I.  I don't have much interest in dual-focus, but the lens was cheap & in good condition, so I thought I'd give it a whirl.  I haven't found a whole lot of info on the lens yet, though this mod looks interesting.

Like my B&H thread, I'm hoping B&L owners will weigh in with any details, data, or experience using this lens.  I won't sink my teeth into this project until I've finished with my B&H, but I figure I'd get the ball rolling.  And maybe down the road, helpful info can be added to the Anamorphic Lens-yclopedia.

I'll bust out the caliper when my lens arrives to get some measurements, but the rear thread is reported to be 70.6mm. And I found a few details about disassembling the lens here, here, here, and here.  From what I've read, the lens is not big on flare due to the coating though I've seen a few clips on Vimeo that show some decent flares.

So anybody have B&L information to contribute to build up the knowledge base around this lens?

[Gabriel Copoeru]

Do not buy these useless beasts. They are too stubborn and clumsy. My Rectimascop 64/2X is sitting on the shelf looking all stupid at me.

[Bold]

I have read that the B&L Cinemascopes are large, heavy, cumbersome, low on flare, and require gymnastics to override the minimum focus distance. So I don't have grand expectations for it, but for 75 bucks I can afford to experiment.

I'm sorry the Rectimascop didn't work out, that's a bummer.  But I'm really looking for usable details, data, and experiences from Bausch & Lomb owners.

[ken]

IMO, B&L lens has no more value than Russia lens on EBAY every day.  Its uneven glasses are able to be seen by naked eye.  

 

[Bold]

As much as hard data like weight, dimensions, modifications etc would add value to this thread, specific caveats like optical imperfections are also useful. Could you link to some clips that illustrate the uneven glass? Do you mean anamorphic "mumps"?

[ken]

As much as hard data like weight, dimensions, modifications etc would add value to this thread, specific caveats like optical imperfections are also useful. Could you link to some clips that illustrate the uneven glass? Do you mean anamorphic "mumps"?

I mean we can see the glass surface is rough, or not smooth. 
 

[Bold]

Do you know if that is a result of poor manufacturing or the age & wear on the glass?  How does the unevenness affect the image?  I would be interested in seeing examples if you have them!

[ken]

The B&L lens I owned before is not focusable.  The focus ring is fake.

I would say for the same price lens to me with similar size/weigh, ISCO HD attachment has 10 times better.  There  was a sample picture I posted before: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8047-need-help-on-anamorphic-lens/

[Bold]

The B&L lens I owned before is not focusable.  The focus ring is fake.

I wonder if there was variation in the manufacture, where some lenses did not allow focus, while others did.  I've read at least one instance where a B&L owner could do nothing with the focus ring, and it turned out that because of the age of these things, the rings can become solidly stuck in place due to sediment, grime, etc. And as a result, it required an automotive tool and an inordinate amount of torque to un-stick!

I would say for the same price lens to me with similar size/weigh, ISCO HD attachment has 10 times better.  There  was a sample picture I posted before: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8047-need-help-on-anamorphic-lens/

Thanks - though as I said in my first post, I already bought a B&L - so I'm really looking for hard data on those, rather than what better options are available.  Mostly I bought it as something I can tinker with...maybe I can learn from, and if I break it, it hasn't broken my wallet!  If I can collect info from B&L owners and add some of my own in the process, maybe it will be of practical use to other folks here - particularly novices like myself!

Cheers,

|. . | .|

[enny]

This  was my first lens and it was dam good lens when it comes to quality its right up there with ISCO i head sankor  many other small anamorphic lenses but they cant match sharpness and quality of this lens its not video sharp like never projection lenses but has that film softens its unique. What i love with this lens i can use 35mm lenses and up. you can even cut it in half and use 24mm and up. And best thing is that i only focused with one lens. I have kowa for B&H but its pain in the ass to focus. Its noit havey just some pople are lazy to do the work if you do the work you will get some beautiful images out of it

MY beast

[Bold]

enny, I appreciate the info and the picture of your setup!

I watched a clip of Roberto Lopez' chopped B&L which used a 24mm Nikon. In a later clip there's a shot at 0:45 where the curvature in the pillars is very pronounced. I don't know if that's a characteristic of the B&L, a result of being too close to the pillars, a byproduct of the lens hack, or some combination.  But it's definitely something I want to avoid (or at least minimize).

Are there any other tips, details, or footage you could share?  Can you explain how you do single-focus with your setup?  Do you focus with the B&L, or the taking lens?

Thanks again!
|. . | .|

[enny]

enny, I appreciate the info and the picture of your setup!

I watched a clip of Roberto Lopez' chopped B&L which used a 24mm Nikon. In a later clip there's a shot at 0:45 where the curvature in the pillars is very pronounced. I don't know if that's a characteristic of the B&L, a result of being too close to the pillars, a byproduct of the lens hack, or some combination.  But it's definitely something I want to avoid (or at least minimize).

Are there any other tips, details, or footage you could share?  Can you explain how you do single-focus with your setup?  Do you focus with the B&L, or the taking lens?

Thanks again!
|. . | .|

no i dont focus with the B&L at all just the back lens. B&L does not focus i been trying to focus or defocus while spinning the front of the lens but no effects is noticed curvature of the pillar is bad its defiantly due to  modification i have never seen anything like this on my image i would get edge to edge sharpens and clarity.

Tips i would not modified the lens at all just to be safe i was thinking but decided not to.

I have some videos but they are someplace in my 3tb HD have to dig but here are some videos i found

https://vimeo.com/72174387   in this one i believe he is using close up filters since lens focuses to 12 ft to infinity

[Bold]

Again great info - thanks! Definitely post those videos if you find them!

[christrad]

The best Bauch & Lomb test in my opinion :

Lol, that blackmagic black spot !!!

[Bold]

The best Bauch & Lomb test in my opinion

Yes, Logan Stewart (Vimeo user Variables of Light) really seems to get the most out of his Bausch & Lomb. And his is a modified B&L using the cooking anamorphic tutorial.  I'm wondering if the quality of his footage is a result of how he did the lens mod, how he handled the modded lens (to get better results than this), or both.

I found this tidbit on a home theater forum:

"I discovered that the astigmatism adjustment on this lens could be set to closer than the minimum of 50 feet by turning it past this setting and pushing the front element housing down to it's maximum depth within the lens body. This in effect provides a projection distance that I estimate to be at about 20 feet or so."

So this technique apparently takes the projection distances from 50 feet to about 20 feet. I wonder if adjusting the B&L in this manner would reduce the minimum filming distance to closer than 12 feet.  I also found this in an ebay listing:

"turning the ring at the front - It makes no difference to the focus of the lens of the camera. Conversely, all the focusing is done by the lens on the camera. This "focus" ring changes the distance between the two cylindrical lenses inside. This does not affect the focus, instead it affects the anamorphic ratio. For most video and still image purposes this is not critical, however it would be critical in a movie theatre."

Which would explain why Ken and enny were unable to adjust focus on the B&L itself.

[Bold]

A little more B&L  info: The locking ring (silver or red) must be tightened/loosened with the distance ring. I've found two kinds of B&Ls, one has a black body and silver locking ring, the other has a silver body and red locking ring:

The black ones were the later models.

[Bold]

I had a chance to unpack my recently-acquired Bausch & Lomb and poke at it.  Here are my caliper measurements of diameters, accurate to within +/- 0.1mm

Here I've unscrewed the focus ring (note the the looooooooong barrel thread):

At the top you can see there's some space between the lip of the front element housing and the main housing (green arrow).  I'm wonder if loosening the screw (other green arrow) allows the front housing to be pushed down.  From the Anamorphic Lens-cyclopedia: The lens can be set to closer than the minimum focus of 50 feet by turning it past this setting and pushing the front element housing down to its maximum depth within the lens body. [source].

With luck this may allow focusing closer than 12ft, which is the lens' reported minimum focus distance.  It's also reported that it the B&L can use lenses as wide as 35mm on a micro 4/3 sensor without vignetting. Once I have all the support pieces assembled, I'm looking forward to testing the minimum focus & vignetting with my MIR 1B 37mm.

The B&L's weight is reported as approximately 8 pounds...by far the heaviest in the Lens-cyclopedia.  So for support I'm going fasten these finderscope rings to a DSLR mounting plate, then affix the B&L, and put it on rails (basically my variation of the Tecnoir support rig, which doesn't appear to be available anymore).

More info to come.

Cheers,
|. . | .|

[Bold]

My Orion clamps arrived today.  I was worried that they might be a little too small.  I removed the red B&L ring and slid one over and it fits snugly between the retaining ring and the focus ring.  So snugly in fact nylon screws may not even be necessary.

I noticed when I slid the red retaining ring back on & tightened it (until it locked with the focus ring), I was able to turn the focus well past the minimum 50ft distance mark. A couple posts above you can see the focus marks on both the black and silver models.  In the picture above I've screwed the focus so far down that it completely covers all the focus markings.  I'm curious to see what the resulting min. focus distance will be.

I wanted to attach the second Orion ring to the 77.35mm section (see measurements picture in previous post) but the nylon screws are about 1.5mm too short to get a solid purchase.  I can probably do a little sanding at the base of each screws to get the rest of the way, or try to find longer screws.  Alternately, I could attach the second ring to the 85.10mm section of the barrel: 

But I want the stabilization points to be farther apart along the body of the lens.  So I ordered a cheap lens collar:

Which should give the perfect fit.  Then I can fasten the Orion ring & the Canon collar to a 15mm baseplate, and it will be good to go.  Once my Xetron XA arrives I'll probably use the 2nd Orion ring (and pick up another Canon collar and 15mm baseplate) for that, so that each lens has its own dedicated support.

If you need a support solution a big honking anamorphic lens, you should consider the Orion clamps.  They'll fit anything from 105mm down to 80mm in diameter.  They are heavy duty and inexpensive.

Cheers,

|. . | .|

[Bold]

Not bad results with just the Orion ring, it's pretty sturdy:

Still need a collar or second anchor point though.  More to follow...

[Bold]

The B&L's weight is reported as approximately 8 pounds

My mistake.  Somewhere I read this lens was 4.4kg which is incorrect — It's not even 4.4lb.  I put it on a digital scale and it weighs in at a dainty or 3.56lb, or 1,627g.

Feels like 8 pounds though