I've noticed that the right lens in most situations for me would have equal field of view of 35 - 40 mm lens on full frame. This would be 17.5 - 20 mm on m4/3. So it would be slightly wide angle but not exaggerated. Hence I would be interested in anamorphic lens that covered similar field of view for 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

@christianhubbard We know it is complicated for people getting into anamorphic the first time. There is a used market process, bracket matching process, lens matching process, and close up filter matching process as well. We hope to offer a simple all in one solution so there is no cat and mouse process to find the right combination!

Thanks, Andrew

In Vitaliy we trust, therefore her is my 12bit input. LOL There has been a few discussions about how wide is too wide for a given viewing distance. ( I'm searching through my bookmarks on that ). The bottom line is for a common viewing distance in relation to the physical dimensions of the image, if viewer is using both eyes - images with wider proportions than 2.35:1 require sweeping the image left and right to collect enough visual information to be satisfied. In another word, in common viewing distances in relation with image size up to 2.35:1 proportions could be viewed with eyes in resting and at ease.

For the construction of the adapter + taking lens why even ask around !? There is one hero in town and it's called the mighty ISCO-36. For the cherry on the top a matching high quality X0.4 achromatic doublets will provide close focus shooting.

Sorry for doubting your abilities. Thank you Vitaliy for clarifications

@RRRR To have an anamorphic adapter to work with our 12mm T1.6 lens would mean having a front filter larger than 105mm in diameter to not have vignetting. In other words it does not make sense at all. As we are a small company we can only make one lens at a time. A M42 lens would look fine on a s35 FS-100 or FS-900 body but on the GH2 maybe a bit on the large end.

I do agree on close focusing properties though. If it can't be built in we can think of a solution.

I just got an email and had the suggestion why more than 1.33x. Reason is because by going wider the user can choose the format they want in post production by cropping.

IQ decreases as you go up in squeeze so more is good for versatility but not necessary better in terms of IQ.

@slrmagic

I think stopping down to 5.6 is what is expected with an adapter (at infinity).. Like I said above, if you make an adapter, target a specific lens - it doesn´t hurt if it´s a zoom like the panny 12-35 because it will then fit more options on the market. (btw in the extreme wide range - 12 mm - I would not expect good optical performance) You could also target their pancake primes if you want to create something which is truly small / slimmed anamorphics.

If you can make the adapter focusable it will be possible to tweak performance at different focal lengths / for different uses although it´s not super-easy from a user POV.

I think m43 users, especially those with any ambition towards producing anything more than home videos, are pretty accustomed to compromizing size for desirable optics, though.

I assume your market for anamorphics is with video shooters, not stills photographers.

If you decide to go the route of a complete lens (which is not a bad idea IMO) I strongly suggest to design for s35 frame and think about a mount with a long FFD, perhaps PL or m42 and plan for a lineup of 3 focal lengths initially. I realize this might be a big task, but the potential customer will be film-makers and the video enthusiasts and many will only use it if there is a range of primes with the same look. (20-35-50 mm) Here, my intuition would be to look for optical schemes w. good close focusing properties.

Vitaliy, is the " initiator " of his thread real and verified authority from SLR-Magic ?

Yep, of course.

@010101

Considering all else. Chinese manufacturers of glass and lenses are making progress. Plus they have some access to Japanese guys.

@beeldlab I did notice a lot of feedback wanted it wide. Usually the 1.5x and 2x anamorphic lenses are cheaper as they are more available and the 1.33x lenses are more expensive as they tend to be more unavailable and give the standard 2.35:1 ratio. Is the standard 2.35:1 ratio not that desirable now for some reasons?

@RRRR An anamorphic with good IQ is already very difficult to design. To design one that works with different lenses in mind means compromised IQ for all focal lengths. I recently bought an anamorphic adapter from someone in this forum. It works with many focal length and formats but it means stopping down the lens to f/5.6 or more. Would we prefer to have a versatile anamorphic adapter that needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or more for good results for use outdoors or with good lighting?

We can make one that works for FF lenses but it is a compromise in size for smaller camera bodies.

For now we are only making prime lenses. We will have a few lens announcements at Photokina.

Thanks, Andrew

@slrmagic

1.5x is the most common squeeze ratio. It´s pretty versatile with a multi-aspect sensor.

@MarkV a 1.33x Anamorphic lens or anamorphic adapter will give 2.35:1 aspect ratio. We had either that or 1.35x to give 2.40:1 aspect ratio when shooting in 16:9 in mind but we are getting a lot of requests for 1.5x or more.

Could someone explain why we are getting more requests for 1.5x or more instead of 1.33x or 1.35x?

Thanks, Andrew

I really like the idea of 20 or 25mm anamorphic lens around f2.8-3.2 for m4/3 right now. Personally, I´d like to achieve 2.35:1 aspect ratio when shooting 16:9 (!). Don´t know if that would be possible.. We can crop the sides of 2.66 or 3.11 to get 2.35:1 in post after all.. but it would be really cool to have 2.35:1 right away..

If there would be chance to do more focal lengths in the future I´d love to see 50mm and 35mm.

I think it would be really cool to have m4/3 anamorphic lens - it´s good that there is someone trying to do it! :)