Lomo 35mm T1.6 Anamorphic for sale

[Benedict Spence]

Hi All,

 

Long time reader, first time poster!

 

I'm selling my lovely high speed anamorphic; you can find it on ebay at:

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...em=140405352785

 

and a quick test so you can see the sweet sweet flares can be found here:

 

 

Any questions please email me!

 

Ben Spence

benedictspence@me.com

www.benedictspence.com

[Hunter Hampton]

bad ass piece if glass sir...

[Benedict Spence]

Thanks Hunter,

 

Yup; it's a lovely lens. It'll be a shame to see it go.

 

Price has been dropped a little. But I won't lower it any more than that!

[Peer Landa]

I'm selling my lovely high speed anamorphic; you can find it on ebay at:

http://cgi.ebay.co.u...em=140405352785

 

and a quick test so you can see the sweet sweet flares can be found here:

 

Although I always thought Russian glass looked cool on DSLR's -- but is it just me or does most all Lomo footage appear to end up so soft that it's not even funny..?

 

No offense, but would lash out $7000 for such a lens, methinks..?!

 

-- peer

 

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Peer, you need to use your full first and last names to pot on this forum. please change it under "my controls" and then "display name," before further posting.

As for the Lomos, they're generally just fine, so long as they're taking care of, or looked after upon purchase. As sharp as many other lenses of the same era and perfectly acceptable. I've a full set of Lomo standard speeds in their original mounts to go on my Konvas and they work well (though I wish they had geared rings qnd markings in ft...). One of the reasons an anamorphic is so expensive is they're a hot commodity at the moment, more complex, not made in the same numbers as other lenses. There was a time, not too long ago, when Nikon and Canon lenses were going for insane amounts just due to the sure in DoF adapter purchases. I didn't mind, much, I cashed out some of my Nikkors for about double what I paid for them (used).

[Peer Landa]

Peer, you need to use your full first and last names to pot on this forum. please change it under "my controls" and then "display name," before further posting.

 

Sorry about that. Now fixed.

 

As for the Lomos, they're generally just fine, so long as they're taking care of, or looked after upon purchase. As sharp as many other lenses of the same era and perfectly acceptable.

 

Perhaps "fine" and "perfectly acceptable" but still costing almost 10 times an Isco, four times the weight, and only half as sharp. I don't get it.

 

Just take a look at this 5D Lomo shoot: http://www.vimeo.com/12450109

 

...and compare that to this 5D Isco clip:

 

Be honest -- if the above was a blind A/B test, which one would you had said was shot with the more expensive lens..?

 

-- peer

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Honestly, I've not used an Isco but I do believe it's an attachment? In any case, the main difference (and cost) is in the mechanical design of a cine style lens. Primarily the longer barrel throw as well as the more precise witness marks, with far less breathing during focus (or zoom on a zoom), as well as no loss of light. Also, looking @ examples of one lens doesn't tell you about all lenses, or the people operating them. Not saying the Isco won't work or isn't good, or not a great value, rather that there are reasons for prices, people will (sometimes) pay it, else it'll go down in price till people will pay for it, and cine lenses are far more complicated (and rarer so not benefiting from economies of scale) than anything designed for stills cameras. I mean I have a 50mm F1.4 nikon lens that I got for $75, a great lens, I also have a 50mm T1.3 Super Speed I paid a lot more for! On a still photo, or on a static shot, they'll both work and be imperceptible.. I might even like the Nikon more as it vignettes a bit around the sides.. but god forbid I have to rack ;)

[Peer Landa]

looking @ examples of one lens doesn't tell you about all lenses, or the people operating them.

 

So could you then point me to some sharp Lomo/5D footage, or are the "people operating them" all inept when it comes to pulling focus?

 

-- peer

[Adrian Sierkowski]

That's not really the point I'm trying to make-- though the ops ineptitude is something I can't speak to as a lot of people may want a softer look. The point is different lenses for different applications have different prices-- that's really it. If you don't think the lenses will work for you; then by all means use what suits you best. And if you don't want to drop x thousand dollars on a lens, I don't think anyone is going to make you-- it's just important to recall the results from one lens isn't necessarily indicative of all lenses of that type-- be it good or bad results.

[Peer Landa]

 

If you don't think the lenses will work for you; then by all means use what suits you best.

 

 

That goes without saying.

 

it's just important to recall the results from one lens isn't necessarily indicative of all lenses of that type-- be it good or bad results.

 

Of course. And that's why I wanted you (or anyone) to point me to some sharp Lomo/5D footage because I have certainly not found it -- and I have been looking hard & long (it has always been a dream of mine to use Lomo's -- I'm an old Andrei Tarkovsky fan).

 

-- peer

[Hunter Hampton]

And that's why I wanted you (or anyone) to point me to some sharp Lomo/5D footage because I have certainly not found it -- and I have been looking hard & long (it has always been a dream of mine to use Lomo's -- I'm an old Andrei Tarkovsky fan).

 

-- peer

 

Hey Peer,

 

The Lomo anamorphics are really quite nice, IMO superior to the isco attachments optically and mechanically. The main reason your finding the isco's look "sharper" on the 5D isnt because they are sharper lenses, its because the iscorama is 1.5x anamorphic, so you keep more pixels on the 5d video recording to get scope- on the other hand the Lomo's are standard 2x compression so you have to throw away much more of the resolution to get the proper frame. If you put the two side by side on a projector I have a feeling the lomo may win on overall sharpness, the isco was just kinda a still photography gimmick for shooting either distorted images or widescreen images and projecting wide images on a slide projector- there are many reasons why you wouldnt want to use the isco for motion as it just wasnt designed for that application, where as the lomo's were made specifically for cinematography.

 

Anywho, has anyone bought this lens yet?

[Peer Landa]

If you put the two side by side on a projector I have a feeling the lomo may win on overall sharpness

 

 

I don't dispute this at all, especially since I have no idea how either of those will work as a projector lens. The only thing I know is that I have not, so far, found any footage out from a Lomo (as a shooting lens) that has stacked up to the Isco (35/42/54). Hence, I ask again, can someone please point me to some sharp Lomo footage, so I can change my mind -- I'd gladly lash out dough on some classy & classic Russian glass. Glasnost.

 

-- peer

Edited June 27, 2010 by Peer Landa

[Hunter Hampton]

Thats what Im saying Peer, on a 5d the isco will always looks sharper when shooting 1920x1080 and cropping to 2.39:1, for example; HD x 1.5x anamorphic = 2880 x 1080 (somewhat close to normal scope). When recording HD with a lomo anamorphic, unsqueezed you get 3840 x 1080 (way way too wide of an aspect if you want the normal scope frame) so you end up throwing away much more horizontal resolution then if you had shot with a 1.5x anamorphic. Make sense? The problem isnt the lomo, its the 5d. All the stuff Ive shot with my lomo's on the 5d is some what soft because the 5d (when recording video) is inherently soft- If your looking for sharpness, consider something other than the 5d.

 

Sorry this thread is getting off topic, might be a good idea to start a new thread with your dslr anamorphic questions in the "lenses" section.

[Peer Landa]

Sorry this thread is getting off topic, might be a good idea to start a new thread with your dslr anamorphic questions in the "lenses" section.

 

 

Well, my questions/comments have all been in regard to the topic at hand -- Benedict's lens -- and whether I should purchasing it after he posted the following soft footage taken with it:

 

-- peer

[Hunter Hampton]

Well, my questions/comments have all been in regard to the topic at hand -- Benedict's lens -- and whether I should purchasing it after he posted the following soft footage taken with it:

 

-- peer

 

Think your reading too much into a youtube quality "lens flare" test. Go rent a set of lomo's and try them Peer, then youll know for sure.

[Kip Kubin]

Peer... I've done tests like the above youtube flair test.. it's clear he's operating and has no idea where focus is.

 

 

T4

 

I find it funny that when people try to do a fake "Lomo"look they soften up the image. I can't speak for spherical Lomos or even round fronts but my square fronts are sharp.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Kip Kubin

[Kip Kubin]

Peer... I've done tests like the above youtube flair test.. it's clear he's operating and has no idea where focus is.

 

 

T4

 

I find it funny that when people try to do a fake "Lomo"look they soften up the image. I can't speak for spherical Lomos or even round fronts but my square fronts are sharp.

 

 

 

That's a my 35mm Square Front 3 meters.

[Benedict Spence]

I missed out on all the fun!

 

Yes footage looks soft. That is because it's on youtube and out of focus. Wide open the lens is a little mushy, but so are most other lenses especially fast lenses older than 10 years! You want uber-sharp go buy yourself a hawk. Can you grab me a couple while you're at it?

 

The 'flare test' was just to show you what the flares looked like. The flare-y/stretched bokeh look of these lenses is why most people, including myself, are interested in them. You want the aspect ratio? You can crop!

 

Yes it is expensive compared to some front of the lens adaptors or whatever for a 5D but compared to the going rate on simlar lenses it's a good price.

 

Anyways... Just wanted to say hello!

 

:)

[Mark Dunn]

That goes without saying.

 

 

 

Of course. And that's why I wanted you (or anyone) to point me to some sharp Lomo/5D footage because I have certainly not found it -- and I have been looking hard & long (it has always been a dream of mine to use Lomo's -- I'm an old Andrei Tarkovsky fan).

 

-- peer

I think Hunter is politely suggesting that you don't queer the seller's pitch.

Don't put people off his lens without good reason, unless you are putting yourself forward as some sort of consumer champion, and I suspect the readers of this forum know exactly what they are doing.

The mere existence of cheaper alternatives isn't a good reason

[Peer Landa]

"don't queer" "consumer champion" "cheaper alternatives"

 

 

I'm sure all what you're saying here is very correct and classy, but yet to me just words that make my simpleminded brain even more confused. Hence, I'm still curious if someone could point me to some sharp footage shot with a Lomo on a 5D. Perhaps that's too much to ask..?

 

-- peer