Here is a puzzle for us @BurnetRhoades . I purchased an Nex5n this week to always have something for photos with me at all times. Because this blew my GH3 budget for the moment and could use the 1080 60p overcrank sometimes, as well as just for fun, I found a box of step-up rings at the local photo shot and outfitted the thing to take my LA7200.

First weird happening...Sony 16mm 2.8 Pancake on an APS-C sensor, no vingeting of any kind of the LA7200. That isn't supposed to happen, right? Second weird thing...this shot below is maybe 18 inches from the lens, tops? Just a grab and the hand is moving, but the point is, I can get sharp focus at that distance. I do that on the GH2 and I get the weird blurry smear of an attempt at Close focus without a diopter. What the hell is going on?

Only two theories right now...something with the Sony pancake is magical, or, the only box of step up rings in the country is fairly limited and in order to make it work I had to go 49-48, 48-55, 55-62, 62-77 (I have a 72-77 permanently on the back of the LA7200). I'm not optical expert, could this little cone putting about an inch between the lens and adapter mean anything? Has infinity no problem.

Good stuff. If I recall you've got some good posts along these lines in the thread about what we'd like to see from SLRMagic as well. Perhaps we can consolidate this stuff into some kind of anamorphic topic.

I agree on not being scared of wide angles. Wide apertures either, for that matter. Here, the 20mm at 1.7 with a LA7200 on the front, GH2 FlowMotion:

@kellar42 Yeah, in a moving image a little bit of these issues at the edge of frame aren't the end of the world. Sometimes it's not even a bad thing. I just started, finally, un-boxing some of my books and magazines after moving this last summer and came across an article in an old issue of American Cinematographer where one of my favorite DPs says as much. I'll have to go look at who it was again but I think it might have been Jeff Cronenweth, but I'm not sure since he's mostly shot S35 for Fincher.

Every time I get to thinking S35 is boring to look at, I have to remember what he and Savides did with Fincher in the format.

Anyway, I can understand certain types of projects requiring purely clinical lenses that never call attention to their presence at all...rectilinear, super-multi-coated, solid air devices that bend light in a thoroughly business-like manner. And that's fine. For some other guy :D

Assumptions made about what is and isn't doable with a Century Optics are as tied to the quality of the taking lens optic as well as the individual performance of the specific Century Optic being used. Same as any lens. Just look at comparisons of similar focal length within the same manufacturer on sites like Ken Rockwell.

A 28mm is not a 28mm is not a 28mm and the quality at center and edge is not consistent or sometimes good at all. That's before throwing another thick-ass piece of glass on the front pulling gymnastics and understanding these (particularly older) stills 35mm lenses weren't designed to be good at big stops, like most dslr filmmakers, especially the kooky anamorphic guys, like to shoot.

If there's enough variation in color, contrast, sharpness and edge performance in Panavision glass that world class DPs track serial numbers and/or build+purchase sets of optics from Cooke, Zeiss, etc. so that they have lenses that they know they can depend on (they don't just to to the rental house and say, "what'ya got?") then I'm not going to fault the little Century adapter.

Many of Rich's bad experiences with his, coloring his impression of them as a whole, have been countered by my own adapter and other material I've seen online (because I certainly don't think I'm the special little snowflake that has the one-and-only good one out there, however lucky I got with my selection).

edit: check out one of the most recent anamorphic, big screen, future classics that is Django Unchained. I had to chuckle a little to myself, in light of this back-and-forth Rich and I have had here and there on "what is wide?" "what is too wide?" and "what is too wide for the Century Optics?". During the final act, in the really dim interior lighting at Candy Land, you can detect both CA and softness at the edge of frame (that isn't due to the panty they hung on the lens), if you're so inclined to look for it.

;)

The best way to avoid the edge aberrations is to choose a taking lens that doesnt use the edges of the Century.

People seem to think that the limiting factor of the Century and LA7200 is the point where you see vignette. This is not the case. It may be with Sankors, Iscoramas and Kowas, but not the 16:9 converters types. In order to get low CA use a longer focal length. assuming a 28mm vignettes on aps-c then choose a 35mm or 40mm and cut away the edge nastiness all together.

Using a +0.4 achromatic diopter allows infinity focus and cleans up overall sharpness and CA, but no diopter will sort out CA and distortion at the edges caused by use of too wider taking lens.