posted February 05, 2008 04:58 PM
I see them for sale and I am wondering if they would be an improvement over my regular Sankor?
While I am well aware of the quality of glass involved, am I overlooking anything obvious in terms of optical design or incompatibility with the 16mm format that would negate any advantages? I am aware that minimum focus on some of these is about 20 feet and that's fine for my purposes (25ft throw.)
Apart from the fact that these beasts are the size of small coffee cans, would one of them be a good improvement in front of my Eiki?
Thanks for any and all advice,
Claus.
-------------------- "Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)
posted February 05, 2008 06:26 PM
Claus, focus isn't the only problem you have to worry about. Using these lenses with a short throw prime might project a "tunnel" effect ie- sides of the image will appear round because the length of the scope lens barel is acting as a mask. No problem with a longthrow prime lens, though. At 25ft, you should go with a 35 or 40 mm prime for a 10 to 12ft wide scope image.
If I understand, are you saying that a 35mm prime on up is fine if I want to avoid vignetting (35 is what I use for 'scope) or is that still too wide?
Claus.
-------------------- "Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)
posted February 06, 2008 02:05 AM
You should be, but then again if you want to use one of the Isco monsters (they are nearly one ft long), trouble might occur.
Point taken; I think I'll stay with my regular ones until such a day when I have a throw long enough to be able to consider something like the Iscos without worry.
Thanks again for your excellent advice,
Claus.
-------------------- "Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)