@Mihuel It is the materials used and labor precision required. Think of why a f/2 lens usually cost more than a f/5.6 lens. I guess you can use that as a comparison if it makes it easier to understand.

The ISCO system also has a patent on it. The Century and the Panasonic .. all the focus through adapters that I am aware of rely on the somple principle of having the adapter focused at it's hyperfocal distance .. infinite to as close the elements can produce.

The ISCO is a patented mechanism which works differently, you can search for the patent information. I don't think I can paraphrase it and be understandable .. while it doesn't have a physical focus screen like a DOF adapter, it's functionality is similar in that the taking lens is focused at infinite (virtual focus screen), and then the adapter is focused .. .. bad explanation perhaps .. the light from the rear of the adapter section are somehow made to be a long long way in the distance, almost parallel.

I am prepared to be ripped to shreds for this poor explanation, it may induce thinking about the issue in different ways. To my knowledge the only people who have paid to use the patent are Hawk.

Of other interest, Panavision bought the patent on the Delft curved prism systems in the 60's simple to preserve their monopoly at the time.

And here is an interesting link for the experimenters: http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l9113d.html

Mine have arrived, I haven't mounted them yet, I have the internal workings of a variable squeeze adapter.

Focus through is hard. But locked off focus is BAD, or at least for me and serves no use. BUT! Could one come up with a system to focus both lenses? My first idea was to essentially just have the barrel of the anamorphic connected to the barrel of the lens, but this will create issues when you have lenses with different throws, but if one could do some way (without making a lens specific anamorphic) so that one could "sync" the focus on both lenses, then you would have a great looking anamorphic that also works wonders!

In the early days I was very eager on buyin a Iscorama 36, a 1.5x anamorphic solution w/o the need of double focus. 1.3x was never and wont be anything that I will be looking into since it is the anamorphic behaviours that I search for.

Now, that I actually got some good equipment... A Red One, with anamorphic support I am no longer looking into 1.3x or 1.5x solutions but rather 2x. You would think there are alot of good 2x solutions out there, Yes there are. BUT! Theres something missing that I would really love to have. Its a small compact 2x anamorphic adapter in the size of an Iscorama 36-42. Why? Well because I find the ability to use diopters very important. Lomos have a very big front thread which makes it impossible to find affordable diopters. This is a spot I hope someone will fill, may it be SLRMagic or someone else!

Until then, I guess I be look after a good 35mm Lomo...

On a side note - It would have been amazing if you made the 50mm T0.95 available in another mount than the M one. I would have bhought one if it suited the R1!

Hey SLR-Magic, how is your project going? any progress? :)

We bought two La7200s at $1,200/piece. Would sure be nice to have something that offers the sort of capabilities the LA does in that price range with a few improvements and easy to find. I think it'd sell like hotcakes.

I'd happily pay up to 5K for a single anamorphic prime that was of comparable quality to the 12mm SLR Magic.

I'd happily pay 25k for a set of 5 anamorphic primes.

I'd want the choice of 1.3x OR 2x.

I'd want them to be at least T2.8.

I'd want them to be the same stop across the board.

I'd want options for lens mounts that included PL and m4/3, but it doesn't have to be interchangeable

Adaptors are of no interest at all to me.

jb

I've only recently stumbled on this anamorphic obsession when researching my most recent my most recent purchase of a couple of Samyang Cine Primes, which just arrived yesterday. I think an anamorphic adaptor might almost certainly be my next target though!

I think I'd be after a 1.33x or 1.35x for the traditional aspect ratio. Although, I've seen it mentioned that the effect of the oval bokeh is reduced - just wondering if that could be rectified by the use of a filter similar to the one that Vid-Atlantic do, but shaped to compensate for what the 1.33x lacks, obviously. Maybe that could be incorporated into the back element of the adaptor (or the iris, if you are creating a lens from scratch) ?

I shoot on a 7D, with a combination of Samyang Cine & Canon L Series Primes. I'd love an adaptor that I could use with my 24mm, which has a 77mm filter diameter; If the adaptor could mount on to a 15mm rod system, then a lens change would just involve sliding the anamorphic forward, replacing the lens, then sliding the anamorphic back into place, and maybe a locking ring or a clamp just to prevent any independent movement between lens and adaptor. For me, that would be absolute gold!!

The problem with the anamorphic bubble is that those who aspire to shoot it never factor in the hurdles that appear once you got the lens system. It's not just about the money to buy the lens. It takes twice as long to use the things, the lenses weight too much, you can't be as creative because you need to set up the lens every time you want to go from wide to narrow, an affordable adaptor wont ever meet the demands of the internet community who don't care for using lighting and want to shoot at night using a single street light as their light source. They want anamorphic but also f0.95. They don't understand the reasons for anamorphic and to be honest probably wouldnt even notice if you sold them a 50mm f0.95 hyperprime with a streak filter on the front.

Many want to use with GH2 but the problem with GH2/GH3 is that due to the smaller sensor, the lenses now need to be larger aperture in order to get enough bokeh to notice the ovals and the other funny characteristics. Using a 16:9 sensor means you need a 1.33x squeeze meaning ovals are all but gone. you end up with a slightly stretched image with a bit of flare, but none of the main characteristics. Real 2x anamorphic shot on 4 perf film has lovely pronounced bokeh when shooting with smaller apertures. to get the same on m4/3 you need f2.8 and then the problems start. People want the ovals from 2x, the pronounced bokeh from a large sensor (the size of 4perf ideally), they want one focus ring, they want minimum focus of 1ft, they want sharp to f1.4, they want flares, they want it cheaper than a preowned Iscorama.

As John Brawley suggested, make something fool proof, at a price that the non esoteric type hire companies have in stock alongside the bog standard 'go to' zeiss cp2's and Canon L lenses. Make a set of 4 for $25k, make them 2x squeeze with intention of taking advantage of 4k+ acquisition in the future (where the increased resolution will negate the worry of cropping a 3.55:1 frame into a 2.39:1 frame. make them f2.8 throughout and designed to cover full frame, with intention of utilising a metabones style speed booster when used on smaller sensors.

Catering for your existing SLR Magic market group will not yield a successful product because these people can't warrant spending the money on something they don't really need. These people can on the other hand get together enough money to hire the lens set for 3 days to shoot their short film:)

@srlmagic would still cost a lot cost-effectively copy LOMO lenses?

The super-pronounced, oval bokeh is generally reserved for CUs and ECU. This can be done with 1.33X by stacking CU diopters, which you'll likely need to have in any case if you want to shoot a cinematic narrative project.

In a lot of cases, in the clips I see, folks generally don't use anything close to a proper taking lens for CUs on their Century and Pany taking lenses anyhow, either because they don't know what they should be using or just don't have the proper lens in their kit yet. Proper cinema CUs are often done well above 100mm (Primos tap out at 100mm but the C-Series, the more popular and more widely preferred set of classic anamorphic lenses, goes all the way to 180mm). 75mm is quite common though for a conservative looking CU.

An exception here would be filmmakers like John McTiernan or Wes Anderson who specifically like the distortion you introduce to people's faces when you shoot CUs with a normal or wide-angle lens.

Better looking CUs, on average, with several of the other adapters is at least partially influenced by the simple fact that almost all but the 1.33X adapters by default force the user into operating at the shallow end of telephoto lenses to avoid vignetting. It's not the only factor but it's one that cannot be ignored.

There are definite gotchas with anamorphic but they're never the choice because it's faster or easier than spherical. Also, many of the reported issues with the 1.33X adapters are magnifications of issues present in the taking lens. The better the taking lens the better your anamorphic footage is likely to be. All the horror stories I'd read I never expected to be able to get usable footage below f/2 even with my doublet but on the best lens I have, my 35mm Nikkor, I can shoot it wide open at f/1.4 and the only really noticeable issue is inherent in the Nikkor itself at this stop, shooting on a normal 35mm SLR, and consistent with the review of this lens at Ken Rockwell's exhaustive Nikon site.

Just to offer an alternate, glass is half-full or better perspective. Also, 4-perf anamorphic 35mm uses an aperture of 21mm, very close to the GH2's 19mm width (in 16x9 mode) where S35 is 24.89mm. Hopefully we'll get a 4:3 native mode one of these days.

I couldn't agree more @BurnetRhoades

The flare thing is such a small part of the anamorphic story and usually better avoided. And the oval Bokeh is the same. Only part of the Anamophic "look".

It's a beautiful distortion that can't be predicted and is especially precious in the clean and clinical modern digital cameras that have no personaility.

JB.