Canon C100 MK2 anamorphic lens recomendation?

[Todd Terry]

This is my second try, an earlier post had some accidently-jumbled paragraphs and sentences (that’s why it was deleted).

Anamorphics are cool. BUT… my question would be, WHY do you want to shoot anamorphic? I’m guessing that your stuff appears on the boob tube or on computer screens… and unless it actually appears in a real movie theatre on the big screen I’ve never been able to think of even one reason to justify shooting anamorphic over spherical lenses.

If it is simply because you want the 2.35:1 screen ratio of the anamorphic look, rather than the 16:9 ratio of HD (which is roughly the film equivalent of 1.66:1 widescreen)… then by far the easiest/fastest/cheapest way to do that is simply letterbox the images in post. I think the C100 should allow you to set 2.35:1 crop marks in the viewfinder, which will help you when shooting (I said I think it will, because the C300 will and so I think the C100 should, too).

Anamorphics are clunky, somewhat difficult to use, and tend to be very expensive. As I said, they are great for widescreen when shooting an actual film negative or for projects destined for a real movie theatre screen, but if what you are doing is winding up on a 16:9 screen then there’s not much point in doing it.

I know a number of people who shoot anamorphics, and frankly if you pressed most of them as to the “Why?” question, most of them would have to admit that they do it simply because they think it’s cool to do so (I know one guy who shoots them simply because he likes the oval-shaped bokeh highlights because he thinks that looks “expensive”…ha) . There are very few practical reasons to do so for non big-widescreen presentations. Spherical lenses are much easier, faster, and cheaper, and with letterboxing you can get the same result.

Since you are shooting the C100 you are stuck with the EF mount… I can’t say they don’t exist, but I’ve never heard of an anamorphic cine lens with an EF mount. They are predominately going to be PL mount. There are front-of-lens anamorphic adapters that will accomplish the squeezing, but that’s not quite the same as a true anamorphic lens. That’s the only way I can think of to do it with an EF lens.

If you really want to shoot real anamorphics (and don’t want to drop six figures on lenses), then the go-to lenses are the vintage Russian LOMO anamorphics. The cold-war LOMO factory churned out REALLY great lenses back in the day (I’ve used many LOMO primes and zooms, and they are awesome). They used to be plentiful and relatively inexpensive, but in the last 10 years when people started putting real cine lenses on electronic cameras, it has really sapped the market. You can still find them, but they are more pricey and it takes a bit of digging to find great ones.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Danny Young]

I really appreciate your opinion and advise!

The reason for wanting to use anamorphic is not for the 2.35:1 as I would be cropping back to 16×9…

…I know there are many techniques to replicate lens flare and the bokeh etc.

I do use primarily for youtube etc.

There seems to be a similarity between the subjectivity of music production and cinematography when it comes to these kinds of techniques.

There seems to be a variety of distortions that I like the look of with the examples I have seen but that’s where the similarities can be seen…

…I have had millions views of my songs on facebook/youtube and get emails every day asking for advise on guitar tone.

So many people think to get a great tone you have to buy vintage valve amplifiers and lots of high end outboard gear, and its hard trying to explain that its not always needed, although many of the best compositions I have written have used great equipment, some of the best tones I have generated have been as a result of using very cheap equipment that most people would swear is not possible…

…so I can see that there appears to be a hype over anamorphic lenses but, I can understand that some cinematographers prefer the look and feel not just of the overall result, but also the way in which the kit handles.

Its something I know I want to try so will give it a shot!

You may be right as your experience and attitude sounds similar to mine over several audio topics…suppose I should experience it for myself to confirm!

Thanks again for the advise and I will definitely be looking up the LOMO anamorphics over a some russian vodka this evening!

[Danny Young]

In addition to my reply!

What’s your thoughts on this lens?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Russian-LOMO-PROJECTOR-ANAMORPHIC-lens-35NAP2-4-f-80-120mm-60-2-/161908014161?hash=item25b2783c51:g:tBIAAOSwnipWYaHg

What kind of clamp would I need?

And would the weight of this and my L series lens need support?

[Todd Terry]

Just a couple of general quick observations…

If you want to try anamorphics, go for it… I’m always for trying new things and for experimentation. BUT… if your chief goal is to make your video look more cinematic, please go into it with reasonable expectations, I don’t want you to be disappointed. There’s a whole bunch of things that help video look more cinematic, and oval bokeh highlights and lens flares are pretty far down on the list (in fact, I don’t think either of them are even on my personal list of cinematic-looking things). I don’t think just plain “video with oval highlights” is the goal, but that’s what could happen.

Another thing to think about… real cine anamorphic zoom lenses are, as my dad would say, “scarce as hen’s teeth.” They are just very hard to find (if you can find them at all), and when you do they are big, heavy, and slooooooow as molasses. So, you are probably looking at primes rather than a zoom (which is the traditional way to shoot anamorphic, anyway). Ergo… you are probably looking at trying to find multiple lenses, or preferably a matched set (individual randomly-found primes are not likely to match very well as far as color/contrast/sharpness goes).

You still have the lens-mount issue, but that might be easily solvable. Probably virtually all of the cine anamorphics you’ll find will be PL mount. There are PL-to-EF lens mount adapters, which would allow the lens to be mounted to your camera. BUT… just because a lens will mount doesn’t mean it will work… because of different flange depths of various PL lenses some will work and some won’t (with some the rear end of the lens will extend way too far into the camera body, and will not focus when married with an adapter… especially at the near-infinity mark). It just depends on the lens. With most lenses, the longer the focal length the longer the rear barrel physically extends… but that’s not always the case… it just depends on the design for that particular lens.

And lastly, as for that eBay auction… that’s a projector lens, not a camera lens. You might could rig up something with it for some funky experimental shots, but not for “real” usage (and you’d need to concoct some way to control exposure since it has no iris… maybe a polarizer-based variable neutral-density filter).

If you want to go down this road the best option with the existing gear you have is probably not to use real cine anamorphics, but to get a front-of-lens anamorphic adapter. You can use that with the EF camera body and lens that you have. And you can get one for a couple of thousand bucks or less… as opposed to multiples of ten times that much for real cine anamorphics.

I still stand by my original advice… I personally would never ever choose anamorphic lenses over spherical lenses unless there was a really really compelling reason to do so… and even then only if I was shooting real 35mm film (which I haven’t done in a long time now).

Good luck!

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Danny Young]

Great advise! Mainly regarding the mouniting issues etc.

I don’t suppose you could post some reference material of you shooting in anamorphic and non anamorphic so I can see the difference?

I only chose the projector lens because many videos said using old projector lenses is a cheaper alternative to buying a real anamorphic lense.

Regarding the ND filters, would the built in ND filters on the camera not work to reduce exposure? Sorry for sounding ignorant but what kind of polarizer-based variable neutral-density filter would you recommend?

Can I also just confirm wether or not the projector lens would or wouldn’t work with my current lens using an appropriate clamp and ND filter?

[Todd Terry]

Sorry Danny… I really don’t have any further useful advice. As I said, I personally avoid anamporphics at almost any cost, and haven’t had need to touch any in a very very long time.

For me personally anamorphic lenses just have a huge long list of negatives, and absolutely zero positives, so I don’t have any current useful advice. Others of course feel differently, which is fine.

Sounds like you have good sources though of people who are using them with success, they are probably your best route for good advice.

Good luck!

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com