Real Anamorphic Lens for under $1K

I got a new music video I wanted to premiere and also show you what equipment I used to get that anamorphic film look.

I shot the whole video on just the Panasonic GH4 camera with the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 zoom lens and the new SLR Magic Anamorphot 1.33X – 50 Anamorphic Lens Attachment.

Here is the finished music video I did for DeStorm

Below is the review of the SLR Magic Anamorphot 1.33X – 50 Anamorphic Lens Attachment

I did a post before about other cheaper alternatives of faking the anamorphic lens look. You can check out that post here. But there is nothing like the real thing to get that look.

Unfortunately anamorphic lenses are too expensive to rent or buy for most indie filmmakers. So finally SLR Magic produced this great Anamorphic Lens Attachment that will convert most still photography lenses into a proper anamorphic lens.

There are some limitations as this will not work with all lenses. SLR magic recommends using the adapter on lenses with a front element that is physically smaller than 50mm in diameter. You can use the adapter on lenses that feature a front filter thread up to 62mm or larger than 62mm by using optional step-up rings, however optimum results are not guaranteed.

The SLR Magic Anamorphot Lens Attachment creates proper wider 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio on 16:9 Camera Sensor. It also adds those cool looking horizontal, blue lens flares and that oval bokeh in the out of focus parts of your video.

Another added bonus is that by using the adapter you are effectively getting a shallower DOF (Depth Of Field) that creates more of that film look.

Here is a quick test on Panasonic GH4 and Canon 7D with different lenses so you guys can see what lenses work with this adapter and which don’t:

Here is the video about DOF and how you can control that in your videos/photos.

7 thoughts on “Real Anamorphic Lens for under $1K”

  1. I am very interested in this lens, I use Canon cameras with old nikkor manual prime lenses and the Canon 17mm-85 mm crop sensor zoom lens. I really wonder how wide a lens you can use with this? It would be helpful to know that with my crop sensor camera if it can be used with a nikkor 35mm or 50mm where the cut off point is? Then the fact is that it can be used with many lenses instead of having to buy the anamorphot at different focal lengths a huge cost saving. I would also be interested to find out the range of manual prime lense focal length for micro 4/3 as well. This way, we can find out what lenses we can use with the anamorphot that we have or may want to buy.

  2. Hi there, I would like to know if the anamorphot 1.33x will work with the panny 12-35 @ 12mm using 4:3 instead of 16:9 without vignetting.

    1. I don’t think it would work on such a wide focal length even in 4:3 aspect… but I can’t test it out right now to confirm it since I no longer have the anamorphot.

  3. Dear Tom,

    thank you for the video and the test. I understand the issue with the lens flare and the differently shaped bokeh, which you will only get if you shoot with this kind of adapter or the filters or a real anamorphic lens.

    I would like to know your take on the image quality only and let aside practical aspects, like if I would be able to shoot farther apart from the subject (indoor shooting limits for example).

    A modern digital camera shoots at 3840 or 4096 pixels wide and 2160 pixel high. If I use an anamorphic lens, more information coming from the wider angle of view will be squeezed into the same number of pixels. Once you take that into your editing software and change the aspec ratio, make your film and then export it, you can do that

    a) with 5076 pixels wide by 2160 (true 2.35:1 full resolution)
    b) with 4096 x 1742 (fits in a 4K DCI resolution monitor/beamer)

    case a) If I wanted to achive this resolution, I think I could have stepped farther away. Then I would have the same objects in the horizontal space and more in the vertical space. If I then apply the same amount of magnification to the square pixels I shot with to get from 4096 to the 5076 pixels, I get 2676 vertical pixels and can crop away on top/bottom the objects to get back to the 2160 vertical pixels.

    My assumption is, that compared to the shot with the anamorphic lens, I have the same picture quality horizontally, but lose vertical resolution because I have expanded the pixels vertically befor cropping.

    case b) If I know I am going to export it to 4096 across, I could again step away to have all horizontal objects in view and just crop top/bottom. I would not lose resolution at all.

    So my questions while thinking about it:

    1) Are really people exporting it in a 5076 pixel format, knowing, that most of the world is not able to watch it in full resolution?
    2) Is it only for the real movie industry, where they have anamorphic film projectors, which would expand the image (if so, which input resolution would those have?)
    3) Would the loss of vertical resolution in case a) be noticeable?
    4) For case b) I would think that a filter adding the “effects” (flare/bokeh) would be more practical, don’t you think?

    Again, this is not a criticism, I like your channel and the information it provides, I am subscribed since quite some time now. I just wondered, if you could shed some more light on this matter.

    Thank you,

    Michael.

Leave a Reply to Jim Cancel reply