Anamorphic square front lenses or round front ones ?

[Etienne Caron]

There is opinion that square front lenses is worse than round front ones. Anybody know the difference in quality ? I'm asking specifically for the Lomo anamorphic lenses.

Thanks

[hunterrichards]

In reference to the lomos, The square fronts can make some nice images (and I like the flare), but there are issues that are very frustrating; First, The poor mechanics (REALLY BAD), heavy breathing, Poor mechanics (I know- I just said that but I am saying it again!)

They were just a poor design from the start- and when the newer roundfronts were made the design was borrowed from the Hawks (with the anamorphic elements being in the "middle" of the lens). So on the other hand the lomo roundfronts have great mechanics (comparably speaking)- and minimal breathing. They still have the anamorphic fare, its just more controlled. They are also decades newer than most squarefronts and feel like more modern lenses.

I bought a set of squarefronts and the 35mm's focal length got locked up in shipping, the 50mm was insanely stiff, and the 80mm was OK. I sent them back and bought a set of round fronts and I am MUCH happier with them.

I would say, if you just want some lenses to play with but not to shoot much on, the squarefronts will do- but if you want some lenses you can use often- get the roundfronts.

[Nick Gardner]

Hi Hunter,

I think you are making some generalizations that are mostly right, but let me add a couple of things.

You can get good square fronts (mechanically) and bad roundfronts (mechanically), it depends on the condition and the batch. Also the square and round fronts were manufactured at the same time, which is odd. I have a 35mm square front from 1987, and have seen round fronts from the 70's. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Lomo round front's pre-date the Hawks. There are people that are of the opinion that the 35mm square front has less distortion than the round front, and it is considerably lighter.

I don't claim to be an expert on anamorphics, but I do have a lot of experience with Lomo and Ekran lenses. The soviets really embraced widescreeen cinema (so called SovScope) and made a wide variety of weird anamorphic glass. The sheer numbers of sets of square front anamorphics is kind of telling. The biggest issue with old soviet glass is usually the 20+ year old grease that has solidified and stiffened up. After being rebuilt by Duclos all my soviet lenses are very smooth and accurate.

For the prices they can be had at, they certainly are a bargain.

Cheers,

Nick

[Matthew Duclos]

You can get good square fronts (mechanically) and bad roundfronts (mechanically), it depends on the condition and the batch.

Nope.... They're all bad.
...Kidding. But really..

[Nick Gardner]

;-)

Hey Matthew, as long as you are chiming in, when did the Hawks first come out?

Nick

[Matthew Duclos]

Not sure Nick. Probably before I was born.
I can't say I'm very familiar with the Hawk lenses.
We don't see them too often at the shop.

[hunterrichards]

Not sure if this is true but the story I heard was that the Lomos do predate the Hawks, the fellow who designed the Russian Lomos was hired by Vantage Germany to make the Hawk Anamorphics. So I guess I meant to say that they were similar in design to the Hawks.

The mechanical design is different but the optical design looks to be just about identical:

(100mm Hawk Anamorphic on the bottom, 100mm Lomo Roundfront anamorphic on top)

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~smort1/lomos/100Xray.jpg

Im not saying the roundfronts are as good as the Hawks in anyway (This is comparing a $300k+ set of lenses to a $20k set!) but you do get some of the benifits of the design.

[Shane Betts]

Nope.... They're all bad.
...Kidding. But really..

...But after you've had at them?