The New Lens

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
 
Last edited:
That 85mm looks nice, certainly on par with the Atlas and Xelmus 2x (and the ancient/beat-to-hell old scope glass) that it's competing with price-wise.

The affordable S35mm options (Atlas and Xelmus) do open to T/2, however they don't offer full-frame coverage, and frankly T/2 on the Atlases isn't usable anyway (I haven't seen the Xelmuses in person).

Very exciting to have more modern (mechanically) scope options available. And at prices that smaller productions can still afford to rent.
 
These sirui anamorphic lenses are such a good deal... I'm definitely getting them when I update my camera and know what mount I'll be using for the next few years.
(the 35mm has switchable mounts but I'm not sure it's a mount replacement instead of a simple adapter, or if the 50mm has this option too)
 
The two that have caught my eye recently are the DZOFilm Pictor 20-55mm T2.8 and 50-125mm T2.8, very aggressively priced. I'm waiting to see more in-depth tests on these. I think they would be a good match for my C200.
 
R_Marvin said:
The two that have caught my eye recently are the DZOFilm Pictor 20-55mm T2.8 and 50-125mm T2.8, very aggressively priced. I'm waiting to see more in-depth tests on these. I think they would be a good match for my C200.
Click to expand...

100% with you there. they do look good, and based on my experiences with their M43 cine zooms, I'd say they are likely to be a bargain.

Only thing about some of new companies, is that no one knows just how well built or not they are. So, could end up being "pay for what you get".

That said, the focal range and price is really exciting. perfect for just about anything, and for less than the price of a Fujinon or Angeniuex EZ, you still get two lenses, for when you want to break out into a two camera setup.

I really like DZO'z M43 cine zoom set, something in the way they render both sharp and smooth. gentle flares. fantastic lens setup.
 
R_Marvin said:
The two that have caught my eye recently are the DZOFilm Pictor 20-55mm T2.8 and 50-125mm T2.8, very aggressively priced. I'm waiting to see more in-depth tests on these. I think they would be a good match for my C200.
Click to expand...

They look good physically but the swirly bokeh to me, is distracting for client work. Do some research and take a look at some of the samples. The price and features look appealing for sure.
I wish Fuji could just make an EF version (even if it was bigger and a bit more expensive) of the MK duo, those are really great little lenses.
 
James0b57 said:
The price on those....

I do wonder, aren't M43 sensors shaped tall enough to do a 2X squeeze for 2.4:1? Or are these just to get a 16:9 frame?
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm not sure...my anamorphic journey/interest has just started.
 
NorBro said:
Personally, I'm not sure...my anamorphic journey/interest has just started.
Click to expand...

Must. not. grill. NorBro about why he wants go down. anamorphic. rabbit hole.

For me, personally, not passing judgement on any DVXer that wants to play with it, anamorphic is playing the ultimate pretentious card.
Unless you have epic vistas, sci fi or just something otherworldly and grandiose visually, anamorphic makes normal content seem like the filmmaker was
justing being pretentious. Especially in comedy. I have yet to see one where anamorphic didn't look ridiculously out of place.

I don't get the appeal of the format, at all for 98% of content. Sure, it's an aesthetic choice but it's just the wrong aesthetic choice for most things its used for. It's like shooting a YouTube cooking video on 70mm.
You could, if you were insane, but why would you? Other than a very affected look, what is putting up with the hassle of shooting anamorphic gaining most filmmakers? I've crewed on a few anamorphic shoots, it's kind of a pain as far as workflow, monitoring, shot composition.
 
I actually disliked everything about anamorphic for many years.

To me, it had as much appeal and enjoyment as 35mm adapters.

But like with anything and the advancement of technology and many of us coming around or adapting or growing and wanting to try/learn about new things, it now weighs less than 1.5 pounds, costs less than $800, and takes 1 click in post to "fix"...so once the 35mm from Sirui is shipping I am going to try it out on the Pocket 4K.

Some of the results online are insane.
 
NorBro said:
I actually disliked everything about anamorphic for many years.

To me, it had as much appeal and enjoyment as 35mm adapters.

But like with anything and the advancement of technology and many of us coming around or adapting or growing and wanting to try/learn about new things, it now weighs less than 1.5 pounds, costs less than $800, and takes 1 click in post to "fix"...so once the 35mm from Sirui is shipping I am going to try it out on the Pocket 4K.

Some of the results online are insane.
Click to expand...

Please share what impressed you. I want to be dazzled!
 
puredrifting said:
Must. not. grill. NorBro about why he wants go down. anamorphic. rabbit hole.

For me, personally, not passing judgement on any DVXer that wants to play with it, anamorphic is playing the ultimate pretentious card.
Unless you have epic vistas, sci fi or just something otherworldly and grandiose visually, anamorphic makes normal content seem like the filmmaker was
justing being pretentious. Especially in comedy. I have yet to see one where anamorphic didn't look ridiculously out of place.

I don't get the appeal of the format, at all for 98% of content. Sure, it's an aesthetic choice but it's just the wrong aesthetic choice for most things its used for. It's like shooting a YouTube cooking video on 70mm.
You could, if you were insane, but why would you? Other than a very affected look, what is putting up with the hassle of shooting anamorphic gaining most filmmakers? I've crewed on a few anamorphic shoots, it's kind of a pain as far as workflow, monitoring, shot composition.
Click to expand...

I was going to try and explain, but then figured I might sound pretentious. haha.
 
I like the anamorphic look and its mystique. I like the aspect ratio and how it lends itself to epic landscape compositions or close-ups that must include background.

But I would find it hard to justify owning anamorphics no matter how cheap. Unless my bread and butter were music videos or short films, I'm not sure how often I would need them.

Plus, the original reason for using them is totally gone. They were supposed to get greater vertical resolution by using more area from a fixed-size squarish film frame. And they were supposed to distinguish cinema from squarish TVs.

Now, we have widescreen digital sensors with loads of resolution. TV has gone 16:9 largely. If you just want a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, you can crop
 
puredrifting said:
Must. not. grill. NorBro about why he wants go down. anamorphic. rabbit hole.

For me, personally, not passing judgement on any DVXer that wants to play with it, anamorphic is playing the ultimate pretentious card.
Unless you have epic vistas, sci fi or just something otherworldly and grandiose visually, anamorphic makes normal content seem like the filmmaker was
justing being pretentious. Especially in comedy. I have yet to see one where anamorphic didn't look ridiculously out of place.

I don't get the appeal of the format, at all for 98% of content. Sure, it's an aesthetic choice but it's just the wrong aesthetic choice for most things its used for. It's like shooting a YouTube cooking video on 70mm.
You could, if you were insane, but why would you? Other than a very affected look, what is putting up with the hassle of shooting anamorphic gaining most filmmakers? I've crewed on a few anamorphic shoots, it's kind of a pain as far as workflow, monitoring, shot composition.
Click to expand...
Ever seen Billy Wilder's The Apartment?

Any format can be used for any subject. It's all in how you choose to use it. Personally one thing I find about anamorphic is that it can be great for showing two people in frame for a fairly intimate two-shot. Spielberg did this a lot in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. He wanted to play up the relationship between father & son and liked keeping the two of them in frame together, but at the same time not be stuck with lots of medium-wide shots.
 
James0b57 said:
I was going to try and explain, but then figured I might sound pretentious. haha.
Click to expand...

You get a pass, I don't think you're pretentious explaining why you want to shoot anamorphic. I am open minded, convince me. Maybe there are factors that
I don't know or care about? Maybe I have it all wrong? I just see a format that worked well for Lawrence and the heyday of Cinemascope being used as a
wannabe effect by 98% of modern users.

I think there is a case for it, it can be very cool and effective looking with the right material and story. But when it's used on smartphones and mirrorless
on anything and everything, I find it lame. Very lame.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Ever seen Billy Wilder's The Apartment?

Any format can be used for any subject. It's all in how you choose to use it. Personally one thing I find about anamorphic is that it can be great for showing two people in frame for a fairly intimate two-shot. Spielberg did this a lot in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. He wanted to play up the relationship between father & son and liked keeping the two of them in frame together, but at the same time not be stuck with lots of medium-wide shots.
Click to expand...

Huge Billy Wilder fan. He was a genius writer, director, filmmaker and I loved pretty much everything he did. I guess if you analyze it though, he composed the images for The Apartment to compliment and exploit what makes anamorphic cool and interesting. He had big stars, who he wanted to look epic on the big screen, that film was at the tail end of the CinemaScope craze to get people back into the theater and away from their square box TVs. If you scroll down the images, that office shot from The Apartment is epic! You can see how those filmmakers made good use of the format with wonderful compositions, zone exposure, beautiful B&W, I agree with you about Spielberg, he had a good reason tp use the format and it totally worked well. I don't see as many filmmakers making those sorts of well thought out choices lately. https://justatad.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/anamorphic-black-and-white-and-the-death-of-film/

I see a lot of "filmmakers" currrently who use it in a very ineffective way. It's not that anamorphic shouldn't be used on comedy, I probably explained that poorly, but I have seen two low budget
Netflix type comedies shot anamorphic where it's use was painful to watch. If the director and DP and production designer conceive the film in anamorphic and the compositions, movement, cutting speed,
and the sets all compliment it, anamorphic could be a wonderful tool for comedy. Problem is today's filmmakers, other than the few at the tip top, think of it as an effect, rather than an aesthetic. I wonder if on those
Netflix comedies if many of the departments other than camera even knew they were shooting anamorphic? Judging by the end result, using anamorphic for their projects was a choice that detracted from their film
rather than enhanced it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top