Anamorphic look from super or ultrawide lens

[DBounce]

This is more of a question and an idea.  I'm sure this ground had been covered by many here. With the chances of scoring a "cheap" true anamorphic now dashed (slr magic true anamorphics are priced over $6k each), I'm now considering a superwide / ultrawide with in camera correction as an alternative to a "real" anamorphic setup. I'm not wowed by the idea of adapters, so true anamorphic will have to wait. So to the question:

Lens flare asside, and talking strictly aspect ratio, that is without amputating heads and feet, can a super or ultrawide essentially get me the wide anamorphic look with the same amount of top and bottom as a real anamorphic lens. I understand that some resolution would be lost,  but I like the idea of flying this setup so weight is important.  I'm currently thinking of experimenting with the new full frame E-mount Voigtländers (10mm, 12mm, 15mm)... I know that the Sony Alpha series can compensate for distortion in camera with the Playmemories Lens Compensation app; although I'm not certain as to what the limits are. I've only tested it on my 24mm... my current widest lens. 

There's also the soon to be released Venus 12mm f/2.8, which are said to be distortion free... whatever that means.  

Just curious as to if these cheaper options might work as a temporary solution. 

[richg101]

the main thing about anamorphic for most is the defocus character rather than the flares.  using an ultra wide lens on full frame and cropping wont give you the falres or the defocus character, but will in some way get you nearly there.

Main considerations is that a true 'wide anamorphic' lens is approximately a 25mm/28mm with a 2x horizontal squeeze, and is used on a 4 perforation 35mm negative.  so effectively they provide the same fov as if you shot on a 12.5mm or 14mm spherical lens on 2perf uncropped or 3perf s35mm cropped to 2.40;1.  even at f1.4 a 14mm lens has very deep dof meaning the anamorphic defocus will only be visible if you were to shoot with the wide lens from under 0.5m.  any further distances and most of the image is adequately 'in focus'.

The point is that in real situations using a wide anamorphic lens doesn;t actually look much different to a wider spherical lens cropped to look the same.  and in resolution terms you'll probably get more res from a cropped spherical lens than you would from a wide anamorphic   

 

so to clarify, if you were to take a 16mm fish eye like the zeiss distagon 2.8 or cheaper a 20mm flektagon and use it on full frame a7s (36mm wide sensor) and crop to 2.40.1 the actual fov would be very similar to what you;d get from an unsqueezed 4perforation 35mm negative and a 25mm 2x anamorphic.

if anything you'll want to increase distortion a little on a 20mm flektagon (since most 25mm 2x anamorphics have around 20% distortion!, and i expaect the flektagon is sub 12% at most).    come to mention it the distagon 16mm fish eye cropped to 2.40:1 will have very similar distortion levels to a real wide angle 25mm 2x anamorphic.!

 

 

Final note...  I;d stack a few UV filters over the front of a spherical lens in order to increase the number of glass faces in the optical pathway.  a 25mm 2x anamrophic will have a huge number of elements so the uv filters will in some way create the look of there being more elements and more interactions between each surface.

 

 

 

 

 

[DBounce]

On 2/27/2016 at 2:36 PM, richg101 said:

the main thing about anamorphic for most is the defocus character rather than the flares.  using an ultra wide lens on full frame and cropping wont give you the falres or the defocus character, but will in some way get you nearly there.

Main considerations is that a true 'wide anamorphic' lens is approximately a 25mm/28mm with a 2x horizontal squeeze, and is used on a 4 perforation 35mm negative.  so effectively they provide the same fov as if you shot on a 12.5mm or 14mm spherical lens on 2perf uncropped or 3perf s35mm cropped to 2.40;1.  even at f1.4 a 14mm lens has very deep dof meaning the anamorphic defocus will only be visible if you were to shoot with the wide lens from under 0.5m.  any further distances and most of the image is adequately 'in focus'.

The point is that in real situations using a wide anamorphic lens doesn;t actually look much different to a wider spherical lens cropped to look the same.  and in resolution terms you'll probably get more res from a cropped spherical lens than you would from a wide anamorphic   

 

so to clarify, if you were to take a 16mm fish eye like the zeiss distagon 2.8 or cheaper a 20mm flektagon and use it on full frame a7s (36mm wide sensor) and crop to 2.40.1 the actual fov would be very similar to what you;d get from an unsqueezed 4perforation 35mm negative and a 25mm 2x anamorphic.

if anything you'll want to increase distortion a little on a 20mm flektagon (since most 25mm 2x anamorphics have around 20% distortion!, and i expaect the flektagon is sub 12% at most).    come to mention it the distagon 16mm fish eye cropped to 2.40:1 will have very similar distortion levels to a real wide angle 25mm 2x anamorphic.!

 

 

Final note...  I;d stack a few UV filters over the front of a spherical lens in order to increase the number of glass faces in the optical pathway.  a 25mm 2x anamrophic will have a huge number of elements so the uv filters will in some way create the look of there being more elements and more interactions between each surface.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, very informative response. I would of course prefer to go with true anamorphics, but I think for the purpose of just having fun with the overall feel of anamorphics this more economical solution might make more sense. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with me.