@mlysbakken What are a few of the various reasons? Small form factor? Avaliability?

@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.

@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.

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).

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

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.

*source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)#Previous_and_currently_used_aspect_ratios

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.

@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 support@slrmagic.com 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

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

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?

@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

@slrmagic I bought it for $2800 + shipping. I found one listing on ebay that went for $2500 last week (http://www.ebay.com/itm/200810742974?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649).

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).

@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...