PDA

View Full Version : Okay, now I need the MFT version - SLR MAgic anamorphics



Frank Glencairn
09-09-2012, 05:21 AM
SLRmagic will make anamorphic Lenses for Micro Four Thirds.


We expect some news from Sigma, Schneider and others too. ThePhoBlographer (via Personal View) reports that “In a chat with SLR Magic today, the company confirmed to us that they are working on Anamorphic lenses (and not toys). They’re currently deciding on 1.33X, 1.5X, or 2X. They’re currently working on the idea of a 25mm f/3.2 1.35x or 35mm f/3.2 1.35x”.

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/09/08/slr-magic-working-on-anamorphic-lenses-for-micro-four-thirds/

http://www.43rumors.com/slrmagic-will-make-anamorphic-lenses-for-micro-four-thirds/

Washington Irving
09-09-2012, 05:55 AM
Oh my...

Jason M.
09-09-2012, 06:03 AM
Well, that's pretty damn good timing on SLR Magic's part. Personally, I'd prefer 1.5x to 1.33x, but still. This is awesome news.

morgan_moore
09-09-2012, 06:13 AM
Frank Im an anamorphic no knowledge person.

Typcially a set seems no wider than 35mm, but in my S35 setup I see 18mm as a required wide.

So does a 35mm have a 1.5 widness factor making it have the FOV of 35 diveded by 1.5 ??

S

Washington Irving
09-09-2012, 06:17 AM
I hope they don't do 1.33, or 1.5x. With the BMC likely to have a 4:3 mode it would be ideal for 2x. Plus if they make affordable 2x anamorphics they'll sell like crazy. Watch as every camera manufactures adds a 4:3 mode to their camera.

Washington Irving
09-09-2012, 06:19 AM
Frank Im an anamorphic no knowledge person.

Typcially a set seems no wider than 35mm, but in my S35 setup I see 18mm as a required wide.

So does a 35mm have a 1.5 widness factor making it have the FOV of 35 diveded by 1.5 ??

S

Yes that's how it works. However it retains the perspective of a 35mm lens. It means you can get wide, panoramic even, shots without a particularly wide lens and therefore without the distortion and weirdness of ultra-wide.
Best look in the game. In my opinion of course...

stip
09-09-2012, 07:00 AM
SLRmagic opened a discussion over at personal-view.com to elaborate what 'we' want, they made clear that whatever their approach will be, it will definately take a good amount of time until they can announce actual results.
Right now they'd expect something between $1200-1500 for a good quality lens.

follow it at

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/4466/most-wanted-anamorphic-lens

Jason M.
09-09-2012, 07:18 AM
I hope they don't do 1.33, or 1.5x. With the BMC likely to have a 4:3 mode it would be ideal for 2x. Plus if they make affordable 2x anamorphics they'll sell like crazy. Watch as every camera manufactures adds a 4:3 mode to their camera.

I don't think we know how likely it is that the BMC will have a 4:3 mode yet. All we know is that given the sensor, it's not an absolute impossibility. If they do implement a 4:3 mode, though, 2x anamorphics would be great. 4:3 mode on every motion camera would be great, too, though probably less likely.

bitcrusher
09-09-2012, 09:23 AM
Wow! thats some good news. Sounds like it will be awhile before we see anything. Time to start saving.

razz16mm
09-09-2012, 09:45 AM
I don't think we know how likely it is that the BMC will have a 4:3 mode yet. All we know is that given the sensor, it's not an absolute impossibility. If they do implement a 4:3 mode, though, 2x anamorphics would be great. 4:3 mode on every motion camera would be great, too, though probably less likely.

The native full resolution format of the BMCC is 16:9. 1.35x ana gets you to the digital cinema 2.40 widescreen format. Best all around solution for the other M4/3 HD video cameras too.

Brad Ferrell
09-09-2012, 09:56 AM
cool.

Jason M.
09-09-2012, 10:37 AM
The native full resolution format of the BMCC is 16:9. 1.35x ana gets you to the digital cinema 2.40 widescreen format. Best all around solution for the other M4/3 HD video cameras too.

I know that, but there was some question as to whether or not the extra area of the sensor (closer to 4:3) could be activated later to allow for shooting in academy ratio. Even if that never happens (very likely, frankly), I still think 1.5x squeeze is better for the camera than 1.35. Not only does it allow for slight crops in post (potentially useful since the corners on anamorphics tend to be soft), but far more importantly, anamorphic shooting is about the particular aesthetic characteristics of anamorphic lenses. From everything I've seen of 1.33x anamorphic lenses, the characteristics, particularly oval bokeh and background compression, just aren't there in a particularly pleasing manner, and it hardly seems to be worth the trouble shooting anamorphic. I prefer 1.5-2x compression for that reason, though for a 16:9 sensor, 2x really IS far too wide.

Jorge De Silva
09-09-2012, 10:43 AM
SLR MAgic team, are thinking about having 1.33 but with Bokeh and Flare characteristics of the 2x anamorphic ;)

Jason M.
09-09-2012, 11:33 AM
SLR MAgic team, are thinking about having 1.33 but with Bokeh and Flare characteristics of the 2x anamorphic ;)

Well, if they can pull that off, my hat is off to them. My wallet is also likely open to them, too.

Kholi
09-09-2012, 11:43 AM
Here's what 2X anamorphics look like on GH2. The set are PL Kowas, 40, 50, 75, 100, T2.4/2.8. They're real anamorphics so you can actually focus with them. Still need to get the fronts converted to 82mm, so some of the shots have an ugly fader on them which makes them even softer.

cropped to 2.40 version:

https://vimeo.com/48428062
https://vimeo.com/48428062

uncropped:

https://vimeo.com/48430639
https://vimeo.com/48430639

I've been following the conversation and I think if they can actually get this look out of an adapter or lens--lens preferred, they'd be in good shape. Also, with the MFT mount now being an option a full sensor/4:3 shooting mode sounds like a much more reasonable firmware update. Having that means no cropping, which would be fantastique.

rick.lang
09-09-2012, 05:03 PM
I hope they don't do 1.33, or 1.5x. With the BMC likely to have a 4:3 mode it would be ideal for 2x. Plus if they make affordable 2x anamorphics they'll sell like crazy. Watch as every camera manufactures adds a 4:3 mode to their camera.

Most any new anamorphic with good optical quality will sell in any of those forms. I'm a bit apprehensive about the assumption that BMCC will include 4:3 video soon. What they have today of course is 16:9 and if you use a 1.5x anamorphic on that you get to the same 1:2.667 aspect ratio as 4:3 video with a 2x anamorphic.

I am not sure why so many are interested in the 1:2.67 aspect ratio using 2x anamorphic on a 4:3 sensor. With the standard wide-screen format for theatre project being about 1:2:39 (no longer 1:2:35 when early anamorphic lenses were made), then it might be interesting if a vendor offered a 1:35x anamorphic rather than the traditional 1:33x anamorphic to give the HD 16:9 sensors about a 1:2.4 aspect ratio. Thoughts on why you want 1:2.67 or if 1:2.4 makes sense?

John Brawley
09-09-2012, 05:08 PM
4:3 sensor on the BMCC is VERY LOW priority. Only a few people will really want this.

I think 1.3x is the best way to go.

jb

rick.lang
09-09-2012, 06:03 PM
cropped to 2.40 version:

https://vimeo.com/48428062
https://vimeo.com/48428062

uncropped:

https://vimeo.com/48430639
https://vimeo.com/48430639

I've been following the conversation and I think if they can actually get this look out of an adapter or lens--lens preferred, they'd be in good shape. Also, with the MFT mount now being an option a full sensor/4:3 shooting mode sounds like a much more reasonable firmware update. Having that means no cropping, which would be fantastique.

Would have been nice to see the 1:2.67 crop to compare to the uncropped 1:3.55 on the same shots. Thanks though for this post as it appears the 1:3.55 may be suitable if one's story is a battle scene from Braveheart but for most stories is just too distracting if you're trying to focus on character rather than sweeping action. Now I feel 1:2.4 makes a character focus easier without feeling cramped. Would a 1:2.67 aspect ratio begin to be distracting like the 1:3.55 or just allow even more relevant images to tell a character story?

rick.lang
09-09-2012, 06:14 PM
4:3 sensor on the BMCC is VERY LOW priority. Only a few people will really want this.

I think 1.3x is the best way to go.

jb

Would you agree though that any new anamorphic lens like that should adopt the 1.35x design rather than the old 1.33x design to fit the current definition of widescreen cinema (~1:2.39 or digitally perhaps 1:2.4)?

randyman
09-09-2012, 06:20 PM
Even though I have a 2X Kowa, I agree that 1.3x would be a hell of a thing. No need to wait for any other kind of sensor access, and good grief - with all the resolution we get in RAW, the image would be fantastic.

rick.lang
09-09-2012, 07:32 PM
Even though I have a 2X Kowa, I agree that 1.3x would be a hell of a thing. No need to wait for any other kind of sensor access, and good grief - with all the resolution we get in RAW, the image would be fantastic.

Thank you for that. To me newly designed fast aperture high image quality 1.35x anamorphic cinema primes providing the widescreen 2.4:1 aspect ratio that is so suitable for character-driven stories is much more important than emulating a previous generation's science-fiction film look with excess flare and bokeh. To be fair to you, I say primes because I'd be just starting to assemble a set of lenses for the BMCC MFT and (sadly) am not encumbered by already having a full complement of cinema lenses.

Zeiss/Arri anamorphic master primes at 30.000,00€ each are not what I had in mind!

Can i add that quality also means not sacrificing resolution. I'm already feeling the pain of not being able to output the 2400x1350 pixels of resolution the BMCC provides. I certainly don't want to lose anymore than I have to horizontally (by cropping a 2x anamorphic) when I know there's a lot of vertical resolution lost to conform to distribution standards e.g. HD or 2K.

Brandon
09-09-2012, 07:55 PM
1.33x has very little oval bokeh artifacting. In fact, my 1.5x Iscorama's oval bokeh is hardly noticeable. In my humble opinion, 2x squeeze is worth the headache for the additional anamorphic artifacting.

Anamorphic is more of a look than an aspect ratio.

syberfilm
09-09-2012, 08:59 PM
I hope they are watching... Maybe we can have a vote for 1.35X..

popcornflix
09-09-2012, 11:25 PM
1.33x has very little oval bokeh artifacting. In fact, my 1.5x Iscorama's oval bokeh is hardly noticeable. In my humble opinion, 2x squeeze is worth the headache for the additional anamorphic artifacting.

Anamorphic is more of a look than an aspect ratio.

+1000.

Anything less than 2x isn't worth the hassle of using an anamorphic adapter. I'll happily crop down 2x to 2.39:1 in order to get the bokeh, flares and lens breathing.

Washington Irving
09-10-2012, 12:16 AM
1.33x has very little oval bokeh artifacting. In fact, my 1.5x Iscorama's oval bokeh is hardly noticeable. In my humble opinion, 2x squeeze is worth the headache for the additional anamorphic artifacting.

Anamorphic is more of a look than an aspect ratio.

+2000

John Brawley
09-10-2012, 12:30 AM
If we're talking about an anamorphic lens then 1.3 makes the most sense.

Using a 2X on a 1.78 sensor is completely missing the point of anamorphic, n matter how much you like the Bokeh.

You can already do that now.

Imagine a NATIVE anamorphic lens on a 1.78 camera like a BMC that didn't WASTE half the filed of view by cropping.

These are all native HAWK 1.3X anamorphic lenses on an Alexa 1.78 sensor.

You can still see the oval BOKEH and I think they look pretty sweet.

jb

944945946

Kholi
09-10-2012, 01:25 AM
Everyone's after dramatic Anamorphic look. I don't blame them, it's hyper nostalgic. But I think the 1.35 looks pretty straight, as well.

I don't even know how you would project a DCP 3.55:1 for real but I did watch some of it on a 30 foot screen and it looks really interesting. Foreign, but interesting.

Jorge De Silva
09-10-2012, 01:43 AM
Can someone create a Poll? I vote for 1.33 /1.35 to be more precise, or 1.5x. I prefer to record 16.9 without a lot of trouble in Post.

Frank Glencairn
09-10-2012, 02:12 AM
If we're talking about an anamorphic lens then 1.3 makes the most sense.


jb


I second that. 1.3ish would be just great.

Actually I don't care about oval bokeh or even lens flare streaks (I can add them in post and have much more control over it), I just like the look of the wide scope.

rick.lang
09-10-2012, 08:08 AM
If we're talking about an anamorphic lens then 1.3 makes the most sense.

Imagine a NATIVE anamorphic lens on a 1.78 camera like a BMC that didn't WASTE half the filed of view by cropping.

These are all native HAWK 1.3X anamorphic lenses on an Alexa 1.78 sensor.

You can still see the oval BOKEH and I think they look pretty sweet.

jb

Thanks for the stills. That first shot illustrates two things in my mind that will typically be paramount in most instances:
1) the bokeh enhances the image because the bokeh is not the story (it supports the story without being a distraction) and
2) the actor is the story.

robmneilson
09-10-2012, 08:21 AM
I would kill to not have to crop. No literally, whoever can make a 4:3 mode happen, or produce affordable 1.5 anamorphic lenses....I will murder anyone you desire to DEATH. No questions, no problems, extra points for politicians.

rick.lang
09-10-2012, 08:57 AM
I would kill to not have to crop. No literally, whoever can make a 4:3 mode happen, or produce affordable 1.5 anamorphic lenses....I will murder anyone you desire to DEATH. No questions, no problems, extra points for politicians.

I'm sure you mean 4:3 on the BMCC using the entire sensor size and not the current active area. No one would object to having even more resolution to work with. But that may be a few years away for anyone waiting for it to happen within the $2,995 price point. That's why the 1.35x anamorphic seems the better choice for today and the foreseeable future on the BMCC for many people: because we have the 16:9 aspect ratio to use now while making the most of the resolution we have now.

Other cameras already support 4:3 with high quality video and would benefit from 2x anamorphics, but they are not as affordable and will mean horizontally cropping the 2.67:1 frame when distributing as widescreen.

!.5x on a 4:3 aspect ratio will certainly be cropped horizontally from the 2:1 frame to 1.85:1 which doesn't seem worth killing for to a Canadian! Mind you, that might depend upon who someone wants to kill. 8^)

robmneilson
09-10-2012, 09:13 AM
Oh yes, 4:3 mode with the whole sensor please. I may be a hired killer, but I have standards.

Barry Green
09-10-2012, 02:18 PM
1.33x is the only reasonable choice. If they make it 1.33, then the lenses could be used on the GH2, GH2, AF100, a vast array of cameras. And if they make different mounts, they could be used on the FS100, FS700, all the NEX's.

A 16:9 camera needs a 1.33x. It's the right choice.

Now, in addition to that, if BlackMagic were to enable a full-sensor 4x3 mode, then 2x anamorphics would be most desirable for that. But that's an if and a maybe. As a businessman, if I was looking to produce a set of anamorphics with a ghost's chance in hell of making a profit off them, there's absolutely no question which way I'd go: 1.33x. (or 1.35, I'm not pedantic about a pixel here or there).

Kholi
09-10-2012, 02:22 PM
1.33x is the only reasonable choice. If they make it 1.33, then the lenses could be used on the GH2, GH2, AF100, a vast array of cameras. And if they make different mounts, they could be used on the FS100, FS700, all the NEX's.

A 16:9 camera needs a 1.33x. It's the right choice.

Now, in addition to that, if BlackMagic were to enable a full-sensor 4x3 mode, then 2x anamorphics would be most desirable for that. But that's an if and a maybe. As a businessman, if I was looking to produce a set of anamorphics with a ghost's chance in hell of making a profit off them, there's absolutely no question which way I'd go: 1.33x. (or 1.35, I'm not pedantic about a pixel here or there).

I think they can do a lens 1.33 with 1.5 to 2x look, question is really just how much people are willing to pay and how long people are willing to wait.

I'm in, though.

stip
09-10-2012, 03:16 PM
I think they can do a lens 1.33 with 1.5 to 2x look, question is really just how much people are willing to pay and how long people are willing to wait.

I'm in, though.

hm, if they only had one lens I wouldn't buy it. BUT If there was a set of, say, 3 lenses, I'd get them all.

Kholi
09-10-2012, 03:26 PM
hm, if they only had one lens I wouldn't buy it. BUT If there was a set of, say, 3 lenses, I'd get them all.

What focal lengths? My thought's a 30/2.8, 75/.28, 135/2.8

Any votes?

stip
09-10-2012, 03:32 PM
My thought's a 30/2.8, 75/.28, 135/2.8


Sounds good ! Right now I still have trouble saying what focal lenghts exactely for BMCC though.

Kholi
09-10-2012, 03:35 PM
Sounds good ! Right now I still have trouble saying what focal lenghts exactely for BMCC though.

30~35/2.8 would be an acceptable wide/fast Anamorphic. 1.33x Squeeze.

75 would get you a decent medium

135 decent telephoto.

If I only had two of those, it'd be a harder choice. Maybe a 40 and a 100.

J Davis
09-10-2012, 03:42 PM
anyone uses lenses from this company before? does the quality check out?
the crop works ... I measured it to be .9 on the m43 image circle (15.8 / 17.3)

Kholi
09-10-2012, 03:56 PM
anyone uses lenses from this company before? does the quality check out?
the crop works ... I measured it to be .9 on the m43 image circle (15.8 / 17.3)

I've seen a lot of reports from people using SLR glass, it seems like they're all (or mostly) positive. If all pans out I think I'll be able to report back on the 12/1.6 really soon, as I think it'll be a pretty strong choice or the budgeted owner/operator. As much as I love the Tokina 11-16/2.8 (and will be using it plenty), a 1.6 would do wonders on this camera.

I've also seen some pretty nice footage on Vimeo with the GH2.

Imagine that it would sharpen in post pretty nicely wide open, as well.

Really cannot wait to see this lens, and a lot of the other really fast non EF mount lenses on the camera. 12/1.6, 17/0.95, 25/0.95, 35/1.4, 50/0.95(1.1 or 1.2)

Sounds sick.

Andrew
09-10-2012, 04:00 PM
What focal lengths? My thought's a 30/2.8, 75/.28, 135/2.8

Any votes?

I know little about anamorphic lenses. How wide can you reasonably go?

Kholi
09-10-2012, 04:03 PM
I know little about anamorphic lenses. How wide could can you reasonably go?

Widest I know of is 25mm but I'm not that familiar with Anamorphic. Typically, the widest I see in use is about 35.

That would actually be pretty decently wide after the unsqueeze. For me, the problem is getting LONGER Anamorphics. Those things rent for a lot of money, man. Especially a good one. Strange enough, this is where the crop factor has an advantage. A 100 would actually be pretty okay in this scenario, 135 would be perfect I imagine, 1.33 squeeze.

John would probably know a lot more though!

J Davis
09-10-2012, 04:20 PM
... plus this will be a new breed AFAIK anamorphics have never been done specifcally for m43 image circle.

Kholi
09-10-2012, 04:27 PM
Absolutely true. They're not doing standards, so I imagine that things will be a lot different. Just hope it doesn't take too long. xD Always impatient.

stip
09-10-2012, 04:48 PM
I wonder what constructing specifically for m43 means for reduction in size and weight, and also for chromatic abberation issues of anamorphics. It's just that I think engineering anamorphics with a good optical quality is not something you can simply 'decide' to do. So yeah, exciting to see what designing them for m43 can do for image quality.

Jason M.
09-10-2012, 05:52 PM
What focal lengths? My thought's a 30/2.8, 75/.28, 135/2.8

Any votes?

Pretty sure this lens set would be SUPER long for MFT/Blackmagic. Remember, if we're talking a 1.35 squeeze, then you no longer divide by 2x to get the horizontal angle of view, you divide by 1.35. So a 30mm lens would more or less be a normal anamorphic lens, with the equivalent horizontal AoV of ~22mm. I think. My math may be off, as may my understanding of how anamorphics work.

An anamorphic wide would be in the 16-20mm range here, if we're talking 1.35x. A decent tele would be in the 50-60mm range.

So, for a set of 3 on the BMC: 18mm, 30mm, 55mm? (rough equivalent to shooting a 40mm, 75mm, 130mm on 2x anamorphic 35mm). A 24mm would also be nice (~50mm 2x anamorphic). Since they're going to be smaller lenses, maybe T/2? Also, if they want to make them for other MFT sensor cameras, you'd probably want slightly longer focal lengths. Still, something along those lines.

Kholi
09-10-2012, 06:03 PM
Pretty sure this lens set would be SUPER long for MFT/Blackmagic. Remember, if we're talking a 1.35 squeeze, then you no longer divide by 2x to get the horizontal angle of view, you divide by 1.35. So a 30mm lens would more or less be a normal anamorphic lens, with the equivalent horizontal AoV of ~22mm. I think. My math may be off, as may my understanding of how anamorphics work.

An anamorphic wide would be in the 16-20mm range here, if we're talking 1.35x. A decent tele would be in the 50-60mm range.

So, for a set of 3 on the BMC: 18mm, 30mm, 55mm? (rough equivalent to shooting a 40mm, 75mm, 130mm on 2x anamorphic 35mm). A 24mm would also be nice (~50mm 2x anamorphic). Since they're going to be smaller lenses, maybe T/2? Also, if they want to make them for other MFT sensor cameras, you'd probably want slightly longer focal lengths. Still, something along those lines.

I'm likely wrong, but is that accounting for the 1.77:1 to start with instead of 4:3? Was pretty sure that a 30ish would end up at about 18mm because of that... but, good thinking. Someone should be able to chime in.

Primary design's likely around GH2/Other MFT not Magic Cam, but we would benefit a bit. Doesn't make sense to plan around this camera.

Jason M.
09-10-2012, 06:12 PM
I'm likely wrong, but is that accounting for the 1.77:1 to start with instead of 4:3? Was pretty sure that a 30ish would end up at about 18mm because of that... but, good thinking. Someone should be able to chime in.

Primary design's likely around GH2/Other MFT not Magic Cam, but we would benefit a bit. Doesn't make sense to plan around this camera.

Hrmm. You may be right. Don't know how the sensor aspect ratio changes things, if at all. Any lens design experts in the house here?

You're absolutely right about these lenses being designed around other MFT cameras; it just makes sense financially, though we will definitely benefit if it comes out. Just putting out a wishlist for this camera, since we're all here.

Kholi
09-10-2012, 06:16 PM
Hrmm. You may be right. Don't know how the sensor aspect ratio changes things, if at all. Any lens design experts in the house here?

You're absolutely right about these lenses being designed around other MFT cameras; it just makes sense financially, though we will definitely benefit if it comes out. Just putting out a wishlist for this camera, since we're all here.

I am definitely not the expert there. I think John would know more about that haha. Likely that I'm way off and you're right, it's more like a 22mm and not an 18mm. 18mm S35 Equivalent would be wide enough me thinks.

Jason M.
09-10-2012, 06:22 PM
Yeah, things start getting complicated pretty fast when you're dealing with varying anamorphic squeeze, sensor aspect ratios, non-standard sensor sizes, and potentially unprecedented size/speed of lenses. Exciting stuff.

John Brawley
09-10-2012, 06:24 PM
Sadly it seems like from the discussion on PERSONAL-VIEW that they are only going to be doing an adaptor, not a lens lens set.

Which is a shame.

Anamorphics seem to be very difficult to make much wider than 28mm regardless of the shooting format or squeeze factor.

I know Hawk were working on a 21mm and i think there might be a few rare lomos out there. 28mm Seems to be the most practical wide lens you can find.

jb

Kholi
09-10-2012, 06:26 PM
I voted for a lens set as well... I think they'll end up doing that, to be honest. Adapters just won't get there and there'll be too many complaints. 1.5x to 2x into 1.33x would be the most ideal.

stip
09-10-2012, 06:40 PM
hmm, during the beginning of the discussion over at PV, the slr magic guy made clear that they aim for an optically higher quality solution. Anything he said sounded like a lens, not an adapter, but who knows.

John Brawley
09-10-2012, 06:43 PM
Well from a business POV the adaptor will sell by the truckload. Lenses would be harder.

I could care less about an adaptor.

jb

Kholi
09-10-2012, 06:48 PM
Not trying to strap an adapter on still glass, personally.

One thing though... I do think they have the ability to sell at an outrageous price for something that matches the quality of their SLR lenses, and those already go for quite a small amount. Not sure how they would stack up against Hawks or something, but at a low price, I don't expect that kind of build quality.

... Probably gonna be a long time before we see anything from it.

stip
09-10-2012, 06:52 PM
Well from a business POV the adaptor will sell by the truckload.
jb

true. don't tell them! :)

John Brawley
09-10-2012, 06:52 PM
Not trying to strap an adapter on still glass, personally.

One thing though... I do think they have the ability to sell at an outrageous price for something that matches the quality of their SLR lenses, and those already go for quite a small amount. Not sure how they would stack up against Hawks or something, but at a low price, I don't expect that kind of build quality.

... Probably gonna be a long time before we see anything from it.

You mean Primes right ?

That's what i was saying. Price them at or even slightly more than CP2's which for SLR magic would be a premium. I'd pay for it.

jb

Kholi
09-10-2012, 06:56 PM
You mean Primes right ?

That's what i was saying. Price them at or even slightly more than CP2's which for SLR magic would be a premium. I'd pay for it.

jb

Right a pair or trio of primes. I don't even think they'll be anywhere near the cost of CP.2s (still 4K a lens or less now?) just because they'd cut themselves out of their hyper niche, being that they're going to be for MFT specifically.

If they can get into the realm of the Isco adapter buyers, but a fistful of hundreds more, they'd be good to go.

stip
09-10-2012, 07:07 PM
Right a pair or trio of primes. I don't even think they'll be anywhere near the cost of CP.2s (still 4K a lens or less now?) just because they'd cut themselves out of their hyper niche, being that they're going to be for MFT specifically.


yes, interesting that their 50mm 0.95 m43 mount lens is $1.100 while the M-mount version will be $3K.

robmneilson
09-10-2012, 07:56 PM
Sadly it seems like from the discussion on PERSONAL-VIEW that they are only going to be doing an adaptor, not a lens lens set.

Which is a shame.

Anamorphics seem to be very difficult to make much wider than 28mm regardless of the shooting format or squeeze factor.

I know Hawk were working on a 21mm and i think there might be a few rare lomos out there. 28mm Seems to be the most practical wide lens you can find.

jb

About a year or so ago I saw a rare 22mm Lomo squarefront for sale. I really should have thrown down the cash, but was stupid and thought "how rare can it be"? Pretty damn rare I think!

Kholi
09-10-2012, 08:11 PM
I ever tell you about the time I bought an Isco 50/2.8 Nikon for 300.00?
..Then took it back because I didn't know I needed a diopter to focus under six feet?

=] The joys of being a newb.

Washington Irving
09-10-2012, 08:42 PM
I'd like to see a T4 prime set of anamorphics. Most anamorphic don't really sing until 5.6 anyway. T4 would keep the cost down and the quality high.

18mm,24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm

Now what about lens mount? I suggested PL mount but someone cut that down... How about nikon mount? pretty adaptable...

Kholi
09-10-2012, 08:52 PM
They're going to be MFT mount, and not for APS-C/S35, etc.

Brandon
09-10-2012, 08:55 PM
Don't want to be johnny raincloud, but price is going to be more of an issue than they/we think. I've had this discussion with Zeiss, ISCO, and Schneider so far, and there is a reason the new Zeiss and Hawk anamorphics cost a new SUV each. Anamorphics are a nightmare to design and build. Bent glass must be custom tailored for each focal length, and optical mechanics adjusting for a multitude of aberration issues while moving throughout its focus range - hence the reason so many anamorphic lenses have limited close focusing distances. Not saying it can't be done affordably, but like John Brawley said, you get what you pay for. Quality is going to cost you, and its going to cost much more than spherical.

Kholi
09-10-2012, 09:01 PM
True, but you're talking about a crowd that's willing to pay 2000 for an Isocorama lens that cost 500.00 a few years ago. These same people will jump through hurdles to use Projection lenses that can't focus. They aren't gonna be Hawks, not by a long shot, but for the niche that they're targeting (MFT users, GH2 owners, etc) they'll be exactly what's not available right now.

That's the whole point, I believe. I could be wrong, though.

bitcrusher
09-10-2012, 10:09 PM
True, but you're talking about a crowd that's willing to pay 2000 for an Isocorama lens that cost 500.00 a few years ago. These same people will jump through hurdles to use Projection lenses that can't focus. They aren't gonna be Hawks, not by a long shot, but for the niche that they're targeting (MFT users, GH2 owners, etc) they'll be exactly what's not available right now.

That's the whole point, I believe. I could be wrong, though.

Yeah, there is a market for a 1-2K anamorphic lens. If SLR magic can pull it off they will have my money. If we can do as well as Isco IQ wise then I will be happy.

itimjim
09-11-2012, 03:28 AM
I've been happy to lose rack focus as long as the image quality is up to it. Double focus might be painful, but it's not been worth $3000 to me.....yet.

John Brawley
09-11-2012, 05:59 AM
Right a pair or trio of primes. I don't even think they'll be anywhere near the cost of CP.2s (still 4K a lens or less now?) just because they'd cut themselves out of their hyper niche, being that they're going to be for MFT specifically.

If they can get into the realm of the Isco adapter buyers, but a fistful of hundreds more, they'd be good to go.

Yeah but all the other anamorphic lenses are soooo much more that a CP priced lens would still be "hyperprime" territory.

Anamorphic are a couture product and they're also a really teeny market.


jb

barant
09-23-2012, 02:22 PM
I would kill to not have to crop. No literally, whoever can make a 4:3 mode happen, or produce affordable 1.5 anamorphic lenses....I will murder anyone you desire to DEATH. No questions, no problems, extra points for politicians.

I just got a 1.5 AND 2.1 anamorphic WITH killer vintage glass. Lomo Zoom 20-120mm. They sell for 3500-8k but got a deal on mine for $2k. The deals are out there if you know how to look.