@stonebat +1 In that case slrmagic should definitely not downprioritize the bokeh and distortion, as some have suggested.

@slrmagic if you make anamorphic optics in the 1200-1500 USD range I will no doubt pay attention but my expectations would also be pretty high.

One thing also about lens+adapter solution, one really important point and seems to have gone by a lot of people in here: Such a solution, if done well, will be a much smoother user experience and you can design this user experience in particular for video (which is the main use for anamorphics anyway). Handling issues are one of the main reasons why people are hesitant about using anamorphics for productions..

I started to experiment with some garbage blocks of glass from the 35mm adapter old times i have here.

I put some grinded glasses in front of a 16:9 old Hi8 camcorder to see what i could get.

After some comparisons and maths I found the maximum squeeze i can do grinding the glass blocks available to buy for cheap is 1.4x so i will end up with the 1.33x

I already have a damaged plastic housing for it with a 43mm thread to fit the HV20 camcorder (from some garbage of 35mm adapter old times) good enough for experimenting.

I do not do grinding glass or molding plastic myself, I used to hire some labs and machine houses work. So i need to see if that people are still on the job to ask them to do the glass grinding and plastic housing for me.

the design for the one optical element 1.33x anamorphic adapter for handycam camcorder is ready to build... i will try to find sometime next week to go to lab to do grinding the glass and see if it will work or if I am completely wrong...

i will try on hv20 camcorder, also i can try on gh2 but i think it will not work for dslr (and i do not know if it will work with the camcorder also, i am just hoping... fingers crossed!

Create a quality niche lens that is not a compromise.

A lens that would not appease everyone but just a very particular demographic.

A 2x adapter that is primarily designed for the:

Voigtländer Nokton F0.95/17.5mm MFT (35mm focal length equivalent). 58mm front filter.

Voigtländer Nokton F0.95/25mm MFT (50mm focal length equivalent). 52mm front filter.

SLR Magic Noktor F0.95/50mm MFT (100mm focal length equivalent). 62mm front filter.

Three super fast high quality lenses: wide, medium and tele.

Then you have a complete solution for use on the upcoming 12 bit 4:4:4 RAW BlackMagic Design MFT Cinema Camera.

It is highly niche, but there are no deficiencies, it's a dream system for a reasonable price.

Once a complete end to end system is there, you will have at least film school programs and independents as buyers.

It's not possible to create a lens that satisfies everyone, especially those who want to shoot anamorphic from 16:9 8bit 4:2:0 AVCHD, and want it to work on 'all their old equipment'.

The DSLR cinema revolution may have been started by the 5D, but Blackmagic type cameras are the future.

I've used both Century Optics and Optex 1.33x adapters, as well as ISCO 54 and 2000 MC 1.5x adapters. On the GH2, the 1.33x adapters are more convenient only when shooting in MJPEG 1920x810 mode, where they produce a square-pixel image without post processing. Unfortunately, there is no way to hack the GH2 to produce anamorphic frame sizes in AVCHD mode.

For that reason, use of any anamorphic adapter in 1080p24 mode on the GH2 will require significant post-processing work to obtain an undistorted aspect ratio. In practice, all of the adapters I've used required cropping as well. The Century and Optex adapters require cropping because their left and right edges are too blurry and aberrated to be acceptable, particularly at wide angles and apertures. The 1.5x adapters have an inherently wider aspect ratio that needs to be cropped for widescreen cinema.

The anamorphic effects of the 1.33x adapters are too mild for my taste, but they do make the image look more "filmic" and less "digital". The 1.5x ISCO's are noticeably sharper, aligned better, and have a snap that make the Century and Optex adapters look dull. One of the crucial demands of using an anamorphic is carefully aligning the focus to minimize chromatic aberration in both vertical and horizontal axes. This is where the optical quality of the ISCO's make them well worth their premium prices.

IMO, the ubiquity of Panasonic's anamorphic adapter has established a price cap on the 1.33x market at $1000. The LA7200's image quality is acceptable and its plastic construction makes it light weight and affordable. The major drawback with the 1.5x ISCO's is that they are increasingly rare and overpriced. That, however, makes the market for a $1200 high quality, focusable 1.5x adapter look very attractive to me.

@thepalalias Don't forget that there are tons of people in the world who happily pay much more than $1700 for high quality SLR glass. I don't mean Canon L (which isn't bad glass by any means, but certainly not the best) - I mean older Zeiss/Contax glass and Leica R glass (and a few others, occasionally). The Zeiss Distagon 21 rarely goes for less than $2K, and if you want fast, wide, or telephoto Leica R glass, $1500 is about where the prices start, and you could spend $5000/lens easily.

That said, the "tons of people" I'm talking about represent a minority - and a small one at that - but in the last couple of years a very large number of them have been cinematographers. They love the Zeiss/Contax and Leica R glass specifically, and with good reason - I have used Leica and Zeiss and Canon L, and I can say from experience that I prefer the former two. Cinematographers are also the group that this anamorphic lens is aimed at, primarily.

I'm not saying that the lens should be priced above $1500 - indeed, that's about the upper limit of what I am personally capable of paying for a lens, and even that would mean not eating for a few months. I also agree that a higher price would limit the market significantly. However, I think holding up the Canon L lenses as the upper limit of lens-spending isn't quite fair. After all, when was the last time you saw a good-condition isco go for less than $2K? I haven't ever.

It's also worth remembering that the 50mm T0.95 is designed to compete with exactly one lens - the Leica 50mm f/0.95, which costs over $10K. Considering it costs less than half of what its rival does, I think they did an excellent job. If anything is a waste, it's using such a lens on a camera with a tiny sensor.

@slrmagic ...nonetheless, please try to keep the prices reasonable. I really want to be able to afford one of these when they make it to market.

@LPowell You already have the currently top ranked Isco 54 with the largest size of all. What are the limitations of it? Would be great if you can share what camera and lenses you have tried with it so far.

@B3Guy I like the idea of an integrated filter wheel - Leica was doing a similar thing with their ultrawides in the 80s and 90s for a similar reason - putting a filter on the front of the lenses was impractical. It's worth remembering that almost anyone shooting with this lens will want to shoot it almost exclusively wide open (for the bokeh), even in bright sun. ND Filters will be more-or-less mandatory, so having them built in is a great idea.

@slrmagic

What do you think about set of cheap T4 primes - 8mm, 12mm, 15mm, 20mm, 25mm, 45mm, 100mm.

Plastic only housing and mounts. No electronics. Simple focus ring.

I think it can be amazing market apportunity, especially if you use many cameras and want matching sets for cheap.

Almost forgot - you change aperture inserting another plastic thing inside (can be smaller, or star, etc).

I had the ISCO 54 for about six months last year. It produced gorgeous images that exceeded the 1080p resolution of the GH2. The ISCO's smooth focus throw allowed precise alignment with the GH2's magnified focus assist. It worked beautifully with a matte box and the Tokina ATX Pro II 28-70mm f2.8 zoom, which has a non-extending front barrel. I also used it succesfully with the Rokinon 35mm and 85mm f1.4 and Sigma 28mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 primes, down to f2.0.

The combination of the Tokina and ISCO 54 was massive and required a custom 15mm rails mount for the ISCO, which worked ok but looked funky. In the end it was just too heavy to take out in the field, and the ISCO Widescreen 2000 proved to be more flexible in practice (but required a set of diopters). I reluctantly sold the ISCO 54 and can't really afford an ISCO 36 at this point.

Why is this love for the ISCO54?

well if you get one or a few that have had a good life then your laughing. they seem to have been good enough quality for nasa. but what do nasa really know they ain't been to the moon or even into space : )

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

"What do you think about set of cheap T4 primes - 8mm, 12mm, 15mm, 20mm, 25mm, 45mm, 100mm."

We were told people like pancake lens and anamorphic oval aperture shape before. The Bokehmorphic is out now with anamorphic oval shape but feedback is f/2.8 is not fast enough. But for a Pancake anything faster than f/3.5 is quite fast! So T4 does not quite work out for us.

However, something in those FL is possibly something we will consider.

"Plastic only housing and mounts. No electronics. Simple focus ring."

We like to stick to robust materials for housing. Simple focus ring usually have issues with poor response when changing focus directions. As for electronics we have no plans on making anything electrical.