Probably, yeah. I havent given it much thought since I grabbed it in an antique mall for $10. Did some cursory searching but not a lot. I think I'll dive into it tonight to see what I can find. I know the anamrphic attachment craze isnt what it used to be but at $10 seemed like a no-brainer
Yes, it's worth $10, just to own something so well engineered! It's a bit big for normal use, but could have some possible applications for larger cine lenses. Most of the info out there is focused on anamorphic attachments that are small enough to be used easily with normal video rigs, so there might not be much available. I see Germany on the anamorphic attachment, so maybe an ISCO, which is usually going to be a high quality item.
josh-himes wrote:
This is a good place to start. I have all of the Saturn lenses in both E & L mounts and they are really excellent for the price. They are what I use for most of my work, as they are much easier to use and more dependable than the various anamorphic adapter solutions. I would also look at the 35, as it is really small & light with great IQ.
With that said, Anamorphic adapters give you the most flexibility and usually will deliver more interesting results than the Sirui lenses.
Great shots and thank you for your input! If I wanted something that'll give me "interesting" or "classic" (not tack sharp but with lots of character) results on a M10 Monochrom, what would you recommend? The Blazars look interesting and are available in PL mount but they are so darn big on an M body. I have the following lenses available: Summaron 35/2.8, Summicron-ASPH 35/2, Heliar Classic 75/1.8 and Elmarit 90. Would the best approach be to get one of the adapters and maybe use on the 75mm? Sounds like it might be hard to find something that would work well with e.g. the Summaron.
pingflood wrote:
Great shots and thank you for your input! If I wanted something that'll give me "interesting" or "classic" (not tack sharp but with lots of character) results on a M10 Monochrom, what would you recommend? The Blazars look interesting and are available in PL mount but they are so darn big on an M body. I have the following lenses available: Summaron 35/2.8, Summicron-ASPH 35/2, Heliar Classic 75/1.8 and Elmarit 90. Would the best approach be to get one of the adapters and maybe use on the 75mm? Sounds like it might be hard to find something that would work well with e.g. the Summaron.
That is probably your best bet, as far as something you can readily purchase which will work with a wide variety of lenses. I would start by using your existing lenses and if you want to go wider, then look for a used 50mm lens with 52mm front threads. This will match the 52mm rear threads on the Blazar adapter and eliminate a step-up ring between the lens and adapter. You need to get the adapter as close to the front lens element as possible and the step up ring occupies additional space, which can be problematic with a wider lens. You can get away with a step up ring on your 75 & 90 lenses and the Blazar should work well with those - I observed great results with a wide variety of 75 & 90 mm lenses.
On the subject of a 50mm lens for use with the Blazar - I have used the Voigtlander 50mm F/1.2 Nokton with excellent results (it's a great lens period) and I would highly recommend starting there. It's a relatively compact and appropriately sized combo on a Leica body. If you don't want to spend much and don't mind adapting another mount to your Leica, then there are a plethora of 50-58mm SLR lenses available used for cheap. As I mentioned in another post, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 will work well with the Blazar, so that is a good option as well. These older SLR lenses will be a little larger mounted on the M10 since they require an adapter, so that is the only real downside. The lack of RF focus won't matter with the Blazar adapter, as you just keep the lens at infinity and focus with the adapter. It's a good focus system and works well.
On the flip side, if you decide to look for a Cine lens to use instead of a lens/adapter combo, then that is a valid option. The lens will be huge on the M10, but is doable. You can probably go a little wider, if that is desired. I have a Laowa Nanomorph LF 32mm 1.5x lens, which is very wide, especially in the anamorphic world. Look for a lens with an EF mount instead of PL, as the adapters for EF to M mount are much more streamlined. The PL to M mount adapter is huge and just not a good fit for an M body. There are quite a few 1.5x anamorphic options available from Laowa, Blazar, Sirui, etc. Some of these come with both a PL & EF mount and some may require a separate purchase to get the EF mount. Either way, just make sure the lens is designed to cover full frame.
I went through your fantastic photos again. The visual identity they transmit is very powerful. It is a real pleasure to go through your work and to try to learn I am just an enthusiast
I am fascinated by the fantastic usage of IR in your photos and of the different filters. May I ask what camera did you get modded for IR? Can you give some advice in the selection of the different filters for the subjects, I mean how do you decided to use an specific filter for what photo? IR and pano is a completely new thing for me
I also have a question regarding the anamorphic lenses. In the photos you shared, the panoramic format is a very important element. I have been informing myself after I have seen this thread, and from what I understood, anamorphic is not only panoramic, but also a certain aesthetic or rendering (flames, bokeh, etc...). Just because I never have had an anamorphic lens in my hand and they represent a significant investment. For landscapes, is anamorphic an important factor, or the significant thing is to create panoramic view?
I am very tempted to get a slr-magic adapter and give it a try. But I tend to prefer form your images those you got with wider format.
Thank you very much for your previous answers!
josh-himes wrote:
This is a good place to start. I have all of the Saturn lenses in both E & L mounts and they are really excellent for the price. They are what I use for most of my work, as they are much easier to use and more dependable than the various anamorphic adapter solutions. I would also look at the 35, as it is really small & light with great IQ.
With that said, Anamorphic adapters give you the most flexibility and usually will deliver more interesting results than the Sirui lenses.
hanay78 wrote:
I went through your fantastic photos again. The visual identity they transmit is very powerful. It is a real pleasure to go through your work and to try to learn I am just an enthusiast
I am fascinated by the fantastic usage of IR in your photos and of the different filters. May I ask what camera did you get modded for IR? Can you give some advice in the selection of the different filters for the subjects, I mean how do you decided to use an specific filter for what photo? IR and pano is a completely new thing for me
I also have a question regarding the anamorphic lenses. In the photos you shared, the panoramic format is a very important element. I have been informing myself after I have seen this thread, and from what I understood, anamorphic is not only panoramic, but also a certain aesthetic or rendering (flames, bokeh, etc...). Just because I never have had an anamorphic lens in my hand and they represent a significant investment. For landscapes, is anamorphic an important factor, or the significant thing is to create panoramic view?
I am very tempted to get a slr-magic adapter and give it a try. But I tend to prefer form your images those you got with wider format.
Thank you for the kind words. Infrared photography can be a complex undertaking, so I won't try to explain it in a few paragraphs. In my experience, it all comes down to the quality and character of the light and that drives my selection of which wavelength to photograph in. Sometimes, I'll shoot with a few different filters and compare the results in post, then process one of the images after I see how things look after swapping color channels. For the most part you can't immediately see the results in camera because the colors will change after the color channels are swapped. As you gain more experience, you get a better feel for full spectrum imaging and how certain types of light will look after the post processing work is complete.
I have quite a few camera bodies that have been converted over the years and they all work well. The newest bodies are Sony and Lumix, both of which work great. The Lumix bodies have better color performance across the infrared spectrum and that makes a big difference in full spectrum photography, but for B&W infrared above 720 NM, most any camera with a decent EVF will do just fine.
I view the camera as just a tool to record the image or video...I believe the lenses are the most important element in the infrared imaging pipeline because the process places high demands on optical performance. Most lenses are not designed with the infrared spectrum in mind and will have a different set of imaging characteristics across the various wavelengths.
Anamorphic lenses and adapters can further complicate the infrared imaging process, as they are generally not well corrected. Using them for infrared landscape imaging can really be working outside the design envelope, so it requires quite a bit of experimentation to find a suitable lens or adapter combo. If you are interested in learning more, I recommend looking for a used full spectrum converted body and trying it out for yourself - it's easy to get started with spherical lenses which you already own, then with anamorphics as funds allow.
On the subject of panoramic landscape photography - anamorphic imaging is definitely my preferred way to get to the panoramic format, as the images seem to have more soul. Generally, what you see is what you get, as you are using the entire sensor to form the image, as opposed to a multi-image or multi-row panoramic process where multiple images combine to create the final product. Some of that soul is probably the product of shooting against the light, which is where anamorphic imaging really hits its stride...so I tend to shoot that way more often. But everyone has different approaches to imaging, so what works for me may not necessarily work for you. Best of luck in your search!
I was just wondering, did you used the converters to achieve 1x1 format? I mean, one can mount them in "vertical" and from the math one get almost a 1x1 format with a 1.33 or 1.5 converter.
Does this works?
josh-himes wrote:
Thank you for the kind words. Infrared photography can be a complex undertaking, so I won't try to explain it in a few paragraphs. In my experience, it all comes down to the quality and character of the light and that drives my selection of which wavelength to photograph in. Sometimes, I'll shoot with a few different filters and compare the results in post, then process one of the images after I see how things look after swapping color channels. For the most part you can't immediately see the results in camera because the colors will change after the color channels are swapped. As you gain more experience, you get a better feel for full spectrum imaging and how certain types of light will look after the post processing work is complete.
I have quite a few camera bodies that have been converted over the years and they all work well. The newest bodies are Sony and Lumix, both of which work great. The Lumix bodies have better color performance across the infrared spectrum and that makes a big difference in full spectrum photography, but for B&W infrared above 720 NM, most any camera with a decent EVF will do just fine.
I view the camera as just a tool to record the image or video...I believe the lenses are the most important element in the infrared imaging pipeline because the process places high demands on optical performance. Most lenses are not designed with the infrared spectrum in mind and will have a different set of imaging characteristics across the various wavelengths.
Anamorphic lenses and adapters can further complicate the infrared imaging process, as they are generally not well corrected. Using them for infrared landscape imaging can really be working outside the design envelope, so it requires quite a bit of experimentation to find a suitable lens or adapter combo. If you are interested in learning more, I recommend looking for a used full spectrum converted body and trying it out for yourself - it's easy to get started with spherical lenses which you already own, then with anamorphics as funds allow.
On the subject of panoramic landscape photography - anamorphic imaging is definitely my preferred way to get to the panoramic format, as the images seem to have more soul. Generally, what you see is what you get, as you are using the entire sensor to form the image, as opposed to a multi-image or multi-row panoramic process where multiple images combine to create the final product. Some of that soul is probably the product of shooting against the light, which is where anamorphic imaging really hits its stride...so I tend to shoot that way more often. But everyone has different approaches to imaging, so what works for me may not necessarily work for you. Best of luck in your search!...Show more →
Yes, it’s pretty common these days, especially for social media oriented video.
You need either a PL mount lens, which can then be oriented 90 degrees off, or a separate anamorphic adapter that you can clock accordingly. The camera is held vertically, but the anamorphic is still horizontal. On a 3:2 sensor, this results in a 1:1 aspect ratio.
Edit - the above calculations are based on 1.5x squeeze. Also, I believe that Blazar makes a 1.33x lens series which is rotating and has 90 degree stops.
I started Googling because of this thread and discovered that Cooke has an anamorphic set that covers full frame that is only a paltry $39k per lens, what a steal.
After what you wrote I was trying to understand the potential of this.
If one has the Nero in the bag, one can have: the native 3x2; the converter on for a 2.25x1; the converter vertical to get 1x1.
This 2.25 is still not the 2.7 of a XPan, but is a lot already. The 1x1 is the classical Hasselblad format. So it is kind of mini Hassy
I do not know if it is sharp enough. Are you happy with the Nero regarding sharpness? I read that the other small converter is so-so regarding sharpness. Never had any in my hand
@carstenw I just make photos, bus feel attracted by the flexibility pf having the formats optically, and feel fascinated by this now
josh-himes wrote:
Yes, it’s pretty common these days, especially for social media oriented video.
You need either a PL mount lens, which can then be oriented 90 degrees off, or a separate anamorphic adapter that you can clock accordingly. The camera is held vertically, but the anamorphic is still horizontal. On a 3:2 sensor, this results in a 1:1 aspect ratio.
Edit - the above calculations are based on 1.5x squeeze. Also, I believe that Blazar makes a 1.33x lens series which is rotating and has 90 degree stops.
hanay78 wrote:
After what you wrote I was trying to understand the potential of this.
If one has the Nero in the bag, one can have: the native 3x2; the converter on for a 2.25x1; the converter vertical to get 1x1.
This 2.25 is still not the 2.7 of a XPan, but is a lot already. The 1x1 is the classical Hasselblad format. So it is kind of mini Hassy
I do not know if it is sharp enough. Are you happy with the Nero regarding sharpness? I read that the other small converter is so-so regarding sharpness. Never had any in my hand
@carstenw@ I just make photos, bus feel attracted by the flexibility pf having the formats optically, and feel fascinated by this now
The Nero adapter is sharp enough for me. It’s pin sharp in the center, but you will see some sharpness falloff at the frame edges with a wider lens (45/50/58). By about 75mm and up, you are only using the sharpest part of the adapter and it’s great across the frame. I will try to post some samples in the next few days.
It would be excellent for the vertical anamorphic application, as it’s easily repositioned via an adjustment button. Between the adjustment capability and the excellent focus setup, it’s one of the better engineered adapters available. I wish it were a bit smaller, but if it were, there’s no way it would have the wide coverage that it does. So the size is a good compromise across the board.
josh-himes wrote:
The Nero adapter is sharp enough for me. It’s pin sharp in the center, but you will see some sharpness falloff at the frame edges with a wider lens (45/50/58). By about 75mm and up, you are only using the sharpest part of the adapter and it’s great across the frame. I will try to post some samples in the next few days.
It would be excellent for the vertical anamorphic application, as it’s easily repositioned via an adjustment button. Between the adjustment capability and the excellent focus setup, it’s one of the better engineered adapters available. I wish it were a bit smaller, but if it were, there’s no way it would have the wide coverage that it does. So the size is a good compromise across the board. ...Show more →
I have a Blazar Mantis 35/2 (1.33x) that I'm super happy with and has given me some really special shots over the last year or so. Could recommend it, even if the extra post-processing can be a bit annoying.
I do enjoy the 12640 × 6336 photos it gets me too; really a lot of real-estate at 80MP.
I got a Laowa 1.33x anamorphic adapter, mainly because I'm considering getting one of their Nanormorph lenses for video projects and their adapter is designed to bring the Nanomorphs up to 2x. But I figured I'd try it on its own on a couple of my film cameras.
First I tried it on my Nikon F, with a Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro zoom and Tri-X. Getting everything aligned was tricky but I got a few nice test shots. With only 1.33x they don't look very anamorphic but I like the effect. I also tried swiveling the adapter to produce square images, but since I already have medium-format cameras that take 4x4 or 6x6 I didn't find it all that compelling as an option.
Next, I tried it on my Diana 151, a plastic toy camera from the 1960s. The adapter is 830 grams and the Diana is 140 grams, so really I mounted the camera to the adapter and not the other way around. Alignment is tricky since there's no way to look through the lens, but I seem to have eyeballed it close enough. I used Fomapan 400. Normally the Diana produces square 4x4 images on 120 film, so you can see the stretch here, I like this a lot and will shoot some more rolls with this adapter on my Diana and Holga.
I've shot with them some on the SL system and love it. Will be buying one or two of them in the near future. Obviously not the best IQ, but IQ isn't everything
This is a snap from the first day I used one. Caught it while running across stage at the end of their last song. https://pixies.et/NKpBbfCp
danski0224 wrote:
I haven't tried taking/de-squeezing pictures yet, but is there anything different as far as focusing is concerned?
If I go with the focus aid zebra pattern in the viewfinder, will it come out OK once the image is de-squeezed?
I don't have (or want to get, yet) an external monitor that de-squeezes the image.
In my (admittedly short) experience with an adapter, no different from taking an ordinary photograph. The biggest challenge is alignment: if you're using an adapter (as opposed to a natively anamorphic lens) you need to ensure that the anamorphic "window" is perfectly aligned (in either vertical or horizontal format) otherwise your image will be skewed. Skew is very obvious when desqueezed but you should be able to see it through the viewfinder while taking the photo.
Most of the modern adapters require you to focus your lens to infinity and then you use the focus ring on the adapter to achieve focus. Forget autofocus...anamorphic is mainly used in cinema, where manual focus is the tradition.
Some adapters have a little button that allows you to move and fine-tune the vertical/horizontal alignment. I find this the most challenging part of using an adapter. I sometimes look for a horizontal line (like a window) to align to; another good approach is to shine a cellphone light or other small point light source toward your camera and make sure the anamorphic flare is perfectly horizontal when looking through the viewfinder.
With an adapter it's important to read the manufacturer's notes on focal length compatibility. You'll get strong vignetting on full frame with wider angle lenses; I've found 50mm works with mine but not 35mm except in APS-C mode.
I am just an enthusiast 
I unfortunately can't find the link again.
