@slrmagic Pretty much all of the 2x adapters that go for $300 on ebay have one of two problems: 1) They have huge problems with close focus and force you to operate at high f-stops 2) They have focusing systems that force you to manually focus both the anamorphic adapter and the taking lens, which completely rules out follow focusing

Thus, to say that there isn't any need for 2x adapters is a very strange statement, in my opinion. To get a really useable one on ebay you almost always have to pay excruciating amounts, and the condition of used lomos, kowas and the like varies a lot. And remember: people don't buy the ebay stuff because that's their preferred solution, but because there's really no other way these days. I don't think you should consider the cheap stuff on ebay as serious competition.

I'm not trying to force you to make a 2x, though. I would love a 1.5x almost equally much! It's just that 1.33x won't cut it for me, and the poll clearly shows that most of us agree on that.

In relation to my previous comment I should probably mention that 1.33x is still much better than no adapter at all! If the adapter can cover the wide end of the focal lengths (25mm or less) it will be a must have anyway! At the moment most of us can't go below 35mm, which can be problematic at times. My point was just that the appeal would be bigger if the stretch was 1.5x or 2x, and that there certainly isn't a smaller market for that than for 1.33x.

Anyone with 1.5X samples?

@RRRR We looked into that. The problem is that the cost to make a lens 2mm wider would cost double or more and the 7-14mm and 9-18mm is a great bargain at the moment.

most of the 16mm projector small 2x anamorphics are in bad shape. i have 5 that are not good. most of these where made in the 1970s some really show age. some are usable in bad condition but shooting at f8/f16 is like going back to the 60s. other newer 2x are bulky projection lens and the weight is stupid 1-3kg some are cheap but 60% bad.require complex support and 120mm diopters min focus 25feet people end up buying many lens sometimes 3 or 4 looking for good performance repair of 1970s optics can cost 100s of dollars. 2x is the most unique look anything else you might as well buy a bad flare filter and crop and pretend you are cool. this is a way to madness. if you let the market decide you will have to make an iscorama or hawk with variable compression 1.3-2x electronic variable coating color change by pushing a button autofocus and will work on an imax and an iphone weigh 200grams and 2kg and cost 300 usd. if hawk vantage can make a lens for 30 thousand dollars why can't you make one for 300 dollars : ) make something original

@slrmagic OK, I've not got any night time ovals with my 1.5x yet, but here's two samples, using the Bolex 16/32/1.5x

Mark, @plasmasmp has a few with his Bolex 8/19/1.5x

@slrmagic The Panasonic 7-14mm is a bargain, but it does not seem like it would work with the passive mount on the BMCC. A wider lens like that, that worked with the passive mount could be interesting, especially if it had good infinity focus. Until then, many M43 users would not be able to go wider with an M43 mount that with an EF mount on the BMCC and it almost seems like I might as well stick to using the 10-22 EF-S.

@slrmagic F4 is fine for my purposes. Faster is great, but I often shoot f4 to f5.6 (even when I can do f3.5) when I am that wide anyway.

The most important considerations would be image quality ones, not how wide it could go.

• Pleasing distortion at the edges as opposed to unpredictable ones.
• Good detail.
• Not excessive flaring.
• A nice focusing ring.
• Strong infinity focus detail.

Things like that. If someone wants a fast lens, they can give up some of the wideness and go for the 12mm your company already offers.

For me, I want something that would me get closer to the field of view I enjoy with my Canon 10-22 EF-S when used on an APS-C, but designed to get that with a passive M43 mount. And while any image quality improvements are appreciated, the IQ of the 10-22mm EF-S is my current reference for what I would like to see. The distortion is very easy for me to work with.

this is a vid using our bolex 1.5x 8mm and a baby hypergona. the bolex can actually still work with a 28mm taking lens in certain situations with no problems and also can get as close as 1.5 feet. id say with this lens is great because of its very small size and 1.5x seems to unsqueez to what i now think alot of major movies are pushing out. it would be nice to see a lens made around this size that can be used with the 20mm 1.7 or 25mm 0.95 lens for some good headroom for low light anamorphics.

@slrmagic

Like I said before, you can make a more expensive lens than the 12mm. It can be faster than f4 then, I´m sure.

For a lot more money; a copy of Zeiss 9.5 (adjusted upwards?) super-speed for a bigger image area would certainly be the talk of the town. http://www.nacamera.com/lenses.html#16mm

Other than that I can conclude what @thepalalias said, a sharp, pleasingly distorted (doesn´t mean it has to be 0) wide lens would be great, it doesn´t have to be fast. I suspect though, that for BMC cam users a faster aperture than f4 would be necessary to get the "24mm" look. But then again, you could make it more expensive (than 12mm f1.6 lens) and it would sell.

By the way, and this is meant as no swipe to you guys - but voigtländer 25 and 17.5mm are not "cheap". I mean, they cost quite a lot of money although the value for money is outstanding. Build quality, IQ not to mention speed e.t.c. It shows however, that it can be good to aim high.

When Zeiss releases a set of primes for Arri Alexa they show us that just one anamorphic prime is not enough to do a movie. the director needs more lenses, as i said before. their lenses are T1.9 to allow the shallow dof and get the oval bokeh, this tell us we need at least f2.0 anamorphic lenses to use in GH2 or an anamorphic adapter good enough to allow using the lenses wide open (for example the 20mm 1.7 and 45mm 1.8 and vintage nikon and canon fd wide open). They are using 2x in 4:3 sensor, this gives 2.66:1 the same result from 1.5x in 16:9 sensor. If after some tests we confirm 1.5x can give a good average oval bokeh and good horizontal flares this will be the way to go to get the same 2.66:1 as Arri Alexa. And a little crop will allow the 2.4:1

edit: redstan already said it.

@010101 yes, I agree. I do hope that they panasonic in particular begins to implement 4:3 in again in better ways. A 1920x1440 would be nice, or even more dense ;-)