Jump to content

SIRUI Anamorphic!


DanielVranic
 Share

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
17 hours ago, Lorian said:

Looks awesome but 1.33x it's useless for a real anamorphic look. I'm also disappointed by the mount selection, why not EF mount?


Because that is a much tougher (read: EXPENSIVE!) mount to design exotic lenses for. 

 

15 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Sirui, the brand known mostly for its tripods of course... now one time I read about them working on lenses...


Ditto! Although I usually think of their monopods, as that is what I have, and so does a friend. Their monopods. 

So strange to see a lens from them!
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DBounce said:

Those are garbage

Are the MFT SLR anamorphic really that bad? I’m often tempted even tho’ the x2 looks slightly absurd on P4k but have never got round to it.

I don’t want the hassle of adapters etc etc so they have obvious attractions but if the image is as terrible as implied then maybe I should stay away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Snowfun said:

Are the MFT SLR anamorphic really that bad? I’m often tempted even tho’ the x2 looks slightly absurd on P4k but have never got round to it.

I don’t want the hassle of adapters etc etc so they have obvious attractions but if the image is as terrible as implied then maybe I should stay away. 

I wouldn't have them if they paid me. Useless with a matte box, focus gear moves as focus shifts, so no follow focus works. And last but not least horrendous image quality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I managed to hit the IBC floor today and saw them. Certainly looked alright. Guy indeed mentioned €700,- and january. Also, that they're looking into other focal lengths indeed with the first next being a 25mm. They borrowed out their GH5 with one attached and they aren't under NDA or anything, so we should be seeing some tests hitting YouTube soon?

Image looked alright on the monitor. Couldn't resist a flare test. Wasn't very pronounced, you really gotta try hard to get something going there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2019 at 1:29 PM, Snowfun said:

Are the MFT SLR anamorphic really that bad? I’m often tempted even tho’ the x2 looks slightly absurd on P4k but have never got round to it.

I don’t want the hassle of adapters etc etc so they have obvious attractions but if the image is as terrible as implied then maybe I should stay away. 

Tom Antos has used them quite a bit, so they can't be that bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2019 at 12:29 AM, Snowfun said:

Are the MFT SLR anamorphic really that bad? I’m often tempted even tho’ the x2 looks slightly absurd on P4k but have never got round to it.

I don’t want the hassle of adapters etc etc so they have obvious attractions but if the image is as terrible as implied then maybe I should stay away. 

I have the compact 40 1.33x 

It's not horrible, it really isnt. I've really enjoyed mine, but will probably sell it cause I don't use it enough for my actual jobs. I've used some messy b-roll for some paid gigs but nothing solely using them. 

If you want to play around with anamorphic it's fantastic. If you aren't obsessed with sharpness they're fun. If you don't need quick focus theyre easy. All in all a really fun piece to mess around with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2019 at 12:43 PM, BrooklynDan said:

It looks like an SLR Magic 1.33x adaptor welded to the front. Needless to say, it will probably suck. No one will ever make a decent anamorphic prime lens for under a few thousand dollars, let alone one that competes with professional PL mount glass. The laws of physics are immutable.

I think perhaps you are confusing the laws of finance with the laws of physics? And clearly you have never used the SLR Magic adapter. That system is dual focus, whereas this lens is single focus. 

The truth is there is nothing magic about anamorphic lens construction,  and now the cat is out of the bag. Expect more and more affordable options to become available.

9 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Tom Antos has used them quite a bit, so they can't be that bad. 

Because Tom Antos is god? I don't need Tom Antos when I have eyeballs and can see the horrible blurry images these lenses produce. The full frame set use to cost $18k, now they are reduced to $8k, yet still they gather dust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I had a go of this at IBC and found the concept admirable but I think they have work to do on the charm of the images it produces and character.

Perfect size, build quality and price though.

Would have liked to shoot more with it but they wouldn't let it out of the show and I much prefer the Iscorama for what I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I had a go of this at IBC and found the concept admirable but I think they have work to do on the charm of the images it produces and character.

Perfect size, build quality and price though.

Would have liked to shoot more with it but they wouldn't let it out of the show and I much prefer the Iscorama for what I do.

Did you see the Vazen anamorphics there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DBounce said:

Because Tom Antos is god? I don't need Tom Antos when I have eyeballs and can see the horrible blurry images these lenses produce. The full frame set use to cost $18k, now they are reduced to $8k, yet still they gather dust. 

He's an accomplished cinematographer. If they're good enough for him then they can't be that bad, not because he's God but because he certainly has more experience / credits than either of us have. I've found his work with them to look pretty decent personally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

He's an accomplished cinematographer. If they're good enough for him then they can't be that bad, not because he's God but because he certainly has more experience / credits than either of us have. I've found his work with them to look pretty decent personally. 

Which imo is why he's a terrible person to look towards when judging a lens or camera. I prefer to see how these tools performs in the hands of a complete buffoon... that way, if it still seems good, then it must be brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Which imo is why he's a terrible person to look towards when judging a lens or camera. I prefer to see how these tools performs in the hands of a complete buffoon... that way, if it still seems good, then it must be brilliant.

That's the weirdest logic I've ever read. You've set your standards too high if that's how you judge the quality of a lens or camera. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • EOSHD Pro Color 5 for All Sony cameras
    EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
    EOSHD Dynamic Range Enhancer for H.264/H.265
×
×
  • Create New...