Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
SLR Magic 2x ANAMORPHIC lens
  • 804 Replies sorted by
  • @mlysbakken What are a few of the various reasons? Small form factor? Avaliability?

  • And the adapters that can go wide, like the LA7200, are often the ones that require you to stop down the most. Many people, myself included, prefer to shoot more open than that.

  • @slrmagic I mentioned one reason in the above comment. Other reasons are that adapters often have another "feel" to them than the projection lenses, and that they produce another kind of flare (less oval). The projection lenses may by some be perceived as more cinematic in that regard. And as you mention, it may be easier to get hold of a projection lens than an adapter these days.

  • I would also like more options in the 1.5x anamorphic. I like the 2.66 aspect ratio it gives. 2x is too wide unless you are shooting in 4:3 to begin with. I pretty much stand with @RRRR across the board: something to work with my Nokton 17mm would be awesome, but I'd really like to see a set of 3 or 4 integrated primes (for s35 or m43) would be amazing if the price was reasonable for purchasing. I desperately want to own a matched set of anamorphics that not only look, but act the same across the line up. The hodge podge of a focus through 1.33 adapter, a dual focus, an integrated 2x, etc etc is just not really workable on any kind of narrative project.

  • @slrmagic I would be very interested in a proper anamorphic prime lens. I have mainly used the B&H Kowa 2x lens for anamorphic use. Produces great results, but is SUCH a pain to use. I would much prefer the reliability and ease of use from a dedicated anamorphic lens.

    My preference would absolutely be for a proper 2x squeeze. That's what they use in the movies, and I think most people using anamorphic lenses are trying to emulate that look. So why not use the same stretch as the real deal? To be honest, if it were anything less than 2x I personally would not buy it. I know Zeiss is planning to come out with a set of anamorphic lenses (2x squeeze); unfortunately they will likely be beyond the budget for many of us. But, with Zeiss's new 2x anamorphic lenses there will most likely be a push toward accommodating those lenses in DSLRS.

    I am aware that there are some workflow issue with 2x due to the fact that most cameras shoot 16:9 now lending to a much too wide output. However, it's my personal belief that MFT will become the anamorphic format of the future. Hopefully the GH3 will have some better anamorphic friendly shooting modes.

    A 25-35mm range would be great. And maybe eventually something a bit longer too.

    That's my 2 cents anyways. Thanks for your consideration.

  • @slrmagic

    I can't afford $4k lens. The only option for me would be a rental.

    About ebay selling, sure I'd want a good resale price. For example, see how Nokton 25mm 0.95 retain good value. But I'm not selling the Nokton. I like it a lot.

  • I tried to read everyone's comments, but it got to be a bit much, so I'll just chime on my 2c here and assume that @slrmagic will sift through everything.

    If you want my opinion, you'll do best in the anamorphic world by filling the gaps in the current "prosumer" anamorphic range (i.e. anything Lomo/Isco/Kowa/LA7200/Sankor et. al.) There are two major gaps that you should be well aware of moving forward, and several others to consider besides.

    1. "Wide" angle. Most (if not all) of the good anamorphic lenses currently available cannot be used with wide lenses. On GH2, my Kowa can eek by at 30mm, and has (minor) vignette by 28mm. People get excited because anamorphic lenses "widen" the angle of view. But most don't initially consider that anamorphics only widen in the horizontal dimension. If you're trying to frame up a person from mid chest with just a smidge of headroom, an anamorphic doesn't help you do this from any closer than you otherwise could without the anamorphic.

    Therefore, there's still a need for "wide" anamorphics, at least wider than 35mm. (the LA7200 can go to 14mm, but we'll get to that in point

    1. Squeeze: why at least 1.5X? Well, to be honest, 1.33x lens footage doesn't exactly scream "anamorphic" to most people. 1.33x lenses have a very mild anamorphic effect. The primary manifestation of the use of an anamorphic lens is in the out of focus areas, which become smeared vertically. By 1.5x, I'd say this effect is easily visible, and at 2x, it is downright obvious. Most anamorphic shooters are after this effect FIRST, then they're after the saved/increased resolution. Those blue lines are just by-products. Anyone can get flares by renting a flare filter, but getting the smeared out of focus areas is only really doable with an anamorphic of at least 1.5x squeeze.

    I'll try now to summarize the implications of these two gaps. I'd say your best bet is something with a focal length of either 25 or 20mm. 35mm and up is covered by currently available anamorphic. Also, as a side note . . . the LA7200 has got "slow and wide" covered for sure. It does well stopped down. So I'd say go for wider than 35mm with a fairly fast f-stop. 2.8 minimum, but if you came out with say, a 1.5x 25mm f1.8, every anamorphic enthusiast would either buy one or put it at the top of their christmas list.

    If you do choose to focus on a specific lens and just make an anamorphic adapter, people will expect a "single focus"/"focus through" adapter. I agree with others that the obvious zoom candidate is the new 12-35mm X lens.

    Alternatively, the notorious Voigtlander 25mm 0.95 would be amazing with a good quality, dedicated anamorphic. Anamorphic users are used to fiddly lenses and bulky setups, so most of them don't bother with the little panasonic pancake lenses for anamorphic use, or at least that's my impression (unless they go wide and stop down with the LA7200).

  • @slrmagic I was one of your emailers who requested this, so you've already head my opinion once, but just in case it is of some benefit to say it all again. Fair warning: I am biased. I own a 7D and know lots of other people who use 7Ds and other DSLRs, but as of yet I have not met anyone who uses an mFT camera. Additionally, I use 5Ds, 7Ds, and a RED One MX fairly regularly at work. However, I'm a college student and couldn't afford to spend more than a few hundred dollars on any lens of any kind at any point in the foreseeable future.

    What I really want is an anamorphic lens which covers (at the very least) S35/APS-C. I know a lot of filmmakers who use 7Ds and similar, and APS-C/S35 seems to be the new standard for high-quality video. Even people who have RED cameras cannot necessarily afford a good anamorphic lenses. Regardless, an S35 lens can always be used on mFT, but the reverse is not true. Full frame coverage would be wonderful, but is not as critical as S35.

    Ideally, the lens should yield an image approximately 2.4:1 when shot on a 16:9 camera. 2.6:1 or even 2.75:1 (Ultra Panavision format!) would be acceptable, but anything more is simply too wide. Most midrange cameras shoot 16:9 nowadays - all of the canons, and all other APS-C cameras, and even the RED One (although that camera is adjustable). Eventually it would be nice to have a 2x anamorphic as well for mFT users and people who want to shoot their REDs in full aperture mode (and of course if other manufacturers decide to add 4:3 modes, it would change everything), previous commenters who stress their desire for the real cinema stretch have a point, but I feel like it's important to design for 16:9 initially.

    Of course, designing for 16:9 has the added advantage that the lens would be approximately correct for those shooting Super16. People shooting film have just the same budgetary concerns as digital filmmakers - or more so - and I'm sure there are plenty around who would like to shoot anamorphic.

    The actual implementation is less important - whichever design you feel yields the best quality and flexibility over all. An adapter would be good, and so would a dedicated lens. The only things I would ask are these: Make sure it can be attached to both EF and PL mount, but especially EF. Lots of cinematographers use EF. Make sure it is no slower that f/2.8. If you can make it faster that would be even better. If it is an adapter, make sure that it does not require the base lens to be focused simultaneously. Isco got it right - if you have to focus both lenses, it's too impractical to be useful in any situation where you don't have a lot of prep time and equipment and money. It would be better to have a standalone/monoblock lens than an adapter that requires the base lens to be focused simultaneously.

    Also, please do not intentionally add flares. I love anamorphic flares - they are beautiful. I think it's unfortunate that Zeiss thinks of them as "optical imperfections" and intends to remove them completely from its upcoming anamorphic range. However, they should be natural. Please do not intentionally compromise the optics in order to satisfy those who already add loads of fake flares in post.

    As for price, <$1500 would be optimal. Good lenses cost money - it's an unfortunate, but inescapable fact. Most people who need or want an anamorphic would be willing to spend that much and more on a high quality one. Anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea spending $1000 on a quality lens most likely has other, far more pressing needs, whether they know it or not. If I were pressed, I would say $500 - $700 is the sweet spot. Within reach of almost anyone who can afford the kind of camera you'd need in order to get the most out of it, and just at the threshold of where most of the high quality lenses start, pricewise. However it's more important to have a quality product than an extremely cheap one. Remember, the next real contender is used Lomo lenses, which run $5000 easily, and isco lenses, which cost nearly as much but are harder to find.

  • I would really like to see a set of anamorphic primes 35mm,50mm,85mm all 2x squeeze. That will cover s35 senors as well. If the price is right i will get all of them to add to my anamorphic lenses

  • Match or come close to the look of Kowa PL/Cinemas:


    But without having to crop so far in:


    1.5 or 1.6, usable at 2.8 at night.

    If it's got no resolving power wide open then it's less applicable to night shoots, at least to me.

  • The adapter should create a standard modern anamorphic aspect ratio of 2.39:1 from from 16:9.

    If 16:9 x1.35 gives 2.40:1, then a 1.35x adapter would be the best place to start.

    77mm front filter thread

    If camera manufacturers start allowing full sensor 4:3 shooting, then 2.39:1 from 4:3, whatever multiple that may be.


  • I do agree that 1.33x won't give you the right kind of Anamorphic look, though. Maybe it's not really on the lens side but more so either:

    Choose to be creative and break the standard, present how you want to (even if that's ultra ultra wide)

    Make the camera manufacturers enable a 4:3 anamorphic mode, follow in REDs footsteps.

    Crop into the image.

    I did watch the crazy wide version in the second video on a very very large source (gonna take it to the theater next week to check it out) and it honestly wasn't bad, it was just "different". So, whatever works.

  • I'd like a 1.5X squeeze, and corners that don't turn to mush like they do with the Century adapter. MUST be a focus-though, or set the taking lens to infinity and focus the anamorphic. I'd also like to be able to go as wide as a 28mm taking lens on M43.

    Right now, the Iscoramas are too expensive, the Kowas are a pain in the ass with the double focus/clamp mechanism, the Century is too damn soft, and I expect (call me out if I'm wrong) the Panasonic isn't much better while being incredibly overpriced. Some of the 35mm projector lenses are beautiful, but heavy, and double focusing is a lot of work

    In other words, there aren't many practical options. You can go with beautiful image quality, great squeeze factor, and single focus for a small fortune (I'm talking about the Iscoramas), or you can make due with less desirable options. We need a more desirable option.

  • +1 for 1.35x squeeze :)

    If you're looking for an Isco 54 for testing purpose I'm happy to lend it to you for a month or two.

  • @au8ust Thanks for your generosity. The Isco 54 is the best and heaviest option out there. It weighs around 1KG. How well does the camera and lens handle the Isco 54? Do you feel it is rock solid or you need to support it? 1KG is a lot of weight for the screw thread to handle. I am trying to locate a copy but it is quite impossible. Some to not sell to Hong Kong or some are sold at outrages prices.

    Will you be going to Photokina? If you are it would be great to meet up and try out the Isco 54 =) Before we start designing one it is a good idea to have IQ expectation of current market offerings.

    If anyone on the forum has an anamorphic adapter please kindly send us some full resolution still photos to and tell us the lens/adapter combination.

    Right now we only have the LA7200 on hand and have an IQ expectation of that combo.

    Kind rgds., Andrew

  • @flydef

    That was what we originally planned and we agree with you. To have 16:9 to convert to either 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 as it is the more common format for now.


    Everyone is asking for 1.5x or 2x anamorphic. You already have the best Isco 1.5x in the market. Your feedback on why you prefer the 1.35x we suggested would be helpful.

    Thanks, Andrew

  • I request 2.39 from 16x9 .. that is Panavision or Cinemascope ratio

    I would advise you to design the lens for the next planned range of Televisions technology .. I think it's 2.39 .. other who follow planned technology implementation more closely than me will know for sure.

    IMHO if you go the Anamorphic Prime route then bokah is of more concern than flare .. think 12 or 13 blade iris.
    It should be a manual lens with an apperture ring, preferable standard gears for follow focus. Look at the Rokinon Cine Lenses .. I will be purchasing all of them.

    There are thread, scratched filter, and post options for flare introduction and positioning.

    If you can make only one lens, then make it a 25mm vertical (no matter what horizontal squeeze you go for). If you could make a set of three, assuming good optics, I would sell all my anamorphic adapters to purchase. I would be chasing the focal lengths that replicate a set of Panavision primes.

    I have Kowa for B&H 2x, Sankor 16C 2x, Ishico Proskar 2x, Delrama-16 1.5x, Delrama-8 1.5x, Century 1609-58 1.33x. If I can be of any assistance message me.

    EDIT: I concur mostly with @jackdoerner you will get more sales by covering a super35 sensor. That is IMHO where the pro market will settle at.

    Also I can not advise you to make it m4/3 mount, make it EF. Mount .. make sure it can be operated fully manual .. we can adapt the mount

  • @slrmagic Hey Andrew, the Isco 54 (non MC) is currently on its way to me now. It should arrive next week or so. Yes, it's the heaviest adapter in its line. I have seen some people who used it without a proper support (just a hand holding the adapter). I will not be at the Photokina but I'll send you the photos or the adapter if you want. Anyway, I believe some people with the Iscos might be at the Photokina.

    I'd prefer 1.35x since for 1.5x I'll have to crop the sizes from 2.67 to 2.40 anyway.

  • How about two high quality focus-through adapters that would allow for a huge variety of taking lenses and cameras...77mm or 82mm rear threads... one with a 1.33x squeeze and one with a 2x squeeze?

    List at around $1000 or less?

    One full stop loss maximum?

  • @kavadni a 1.35x anamorphic lens that does not exist at the moment would convert 16:9 into 2.399 format (You can call that 2.39:1 or 2:40:1)

    Anamorphic prime would cost more than an adapter but we have much better control on IQ and people who buy the lens would not need to go through trial and error for pairing.

    Please send us some stills taken with those anamorphics so we know what the IQ is like. Also give us your opinion on which you think the advantage is of each and why so we can see if we can design a lens to feature the pros of each combination. Please send to

    Thanks, Andrew

  • @bannedindv If we make a lens of such size we will be looking at least double of your expected budget. The Isco 54 is a good example of such lens and it is not cheap. Can @au8ust share the expected cost for such a large lens? Next issue will be the 1Kg weight. With clamps etc a lens with such size would be around 1.25Kg.

    As it seems we are not looking into the $2500-4000 budget it is more feasible for us to work on a micro four thirds solution first. We need to agree on 1.35x or 1.5x or more. Honestly more squeeze factor means more compromise on IQ. Part of the reason for this discussion is because we decided on a 1.35x but the majority of feedback we received was between 1.5x-2x.

    Kind rgds., Andrew

  • The thing that is good to remember is that charactheristics of the anamorphic changes with different squeezes. People are saying that 1.33x is desirable because it would create the standard 2.35.. I´d like to know when such a lens enters the market if they are equally interested when the properties of it is very modest in comparison to the most common 1.5x or 2x anamorphics. I´m sure any adapter will sell regardless as such an adapter is sought after, but people might be back to vintage anamorphics sooner rather than later if the look of it is wrong.

    Oval bokeh is THE property that cannot be replicated in post.

    Another thing is to design with corner / edge sharpness in mind. When framing, the major "benefit" of a wide aspect ratio is that it´s possible to create interesting relationships between the sides of the frame and if the corner / edge sharpness is bad then this cannot be done. That makes for pretty dull usage of the wide frame.

    I retirate; 1.5x seems to be the best tradeoff between possible IQ and anamorphic properties.

  • @slrmagic I bought it for $2800 + shipping. I found one listing on ebay that went for $2500 last week (

    I think 1.35x or 1.5x is fine as long as it's not 2x since that would have to lose a lot of resolution unless you're shooting on a 4:3 format (like one of the arri alexa).

  • 1.35x is only way to go .... i dont see point of 2x if i need to crop image after and get less resolution.... 2x is for 4:3 ... 1.35x is for 16:9... its a standard and there is good reason why ....

  • @slrmagic, I think it's fine to solicit the community for your next product ideas, but maybe before doing that, would you mind clarifying the situation with your 50mm so-called "CINE" M-mount lens, e.g. decoupling, etc.? I just hope it won't be a case, after burning the M mount community, it's now the filmmaker community turn...