Thank you for this! Worth noting that your ‘barrel distortion’ tests at 1m are showcasing the ‘edge compression’ or ‘swimming’ at the edges. A lens can have either of those independently so it’s important we correctly label them I think, or misinformation spreads and people will start going off barrel distortion, which is part of the classic anamorphic look, when actually they just don’t like the swimming.
No worries! We’ll try keep that in mind going forward just like we’ve been testing shims on anamorphic lenses going forward as well. Ultimately the visuals do show the effect so people can still make their own conclusions. I don’t think seeing heavy distortion will make people turn against barrel distortion completely based on what we label it alone, they’ll just not like heavy distortion which is fair. Hopefully the information here is still useful. It’s less noticeable shooting s35 where the lens is designed to operate and is fairly well correctable in post with lens correction, thought it’s obviously understandable that not everyone will be keen for such a strong look depending on their shooting conditions.
This one has been a real gem in our testing so far and I hope the 33mm does the same for full frame shooters! Let us know what you think and if you have any questions - Taylor or myself will be here looking to help!
Now that is a REVIEW. I have watched som many reviews on these types of lens and honestly as good as they were, I found your review to be the tops. I will wait for the full-frame 33mm lens and your review, so hopefully you guys will get that lens. NICE JOB!!
I was going to get the Sirui 35mm apsc because it was one of the only barrel distortion budget anamorphic lenses despite hating their lightsaber-like blue flares, but the minute this lens was announced then I knew this was the one I would be getting next. I also love and agree and that this lens definitely reminds me of the Hawk X or Kowa looks. I fell in love with that funky look while watching things like The Creator, The Batman and Shōgun. I liked that look before I saw those, but they solidified my interest for sure.
I agree, this has that cool textured cinematic look. However, as a former Sirui 35mm 1.3x lens owner it has a pronounced pincushion distortion. 3 things I didn’t like about it was (too sharp (using a glimmer glass filter helped), pincushion distortion and the as you mentioned the crazy harsh blue flares . But it was great start to this budget anamorphic world we are in now.
Ooh. A new lens. A nice looking anamorphic one at that. With EF friendly mount! I am intrigued. But even if it's budget compared with most that are 10x more expensive. It's still, just out of my own reach. Could be a fun rental option, I guess. :)
It also has inconsistent squeeze factor: more squeeze than spec at the edges of frame. That’s a distortion separate from barrel distortion, which also requires a fair bit more compute power to properly correct, and even partially correcting it will drastically change framing versus what was monitored on set. The Kowas are a good comparison as they have the same artifacts though.
Yes, but the squeeze is consistant when focusing which is what we normally look at and talk about when we discuss squeeze consistancy in anamorhic lenses, and it is what I was speaking about at that part of the video: "from minimum to infinity" - Sorry if there was any confusion. Many anamorphcs have inconsistant squeeze from edge to edge, including the Kowas like you mention.
@@ShaneVanLitz both get talked about fairly regularly. It looks like at the edges the factor is at least an extra 0.5X squeeze, which makes it pretty useless for framing up faces significantly off-center. Again, yes the Kowas do this somewhat too, but it can be a major factor in anamorphic lens choice. Synchro focus squeeze change is as you’ve said a different thing, but both can make a director frustrated pretty quickly, so it’s important to understand. A lot of the reviews are glossing over this attribute or misleadingly referring to it as barrel distortion, when it’s an entirely separate attribute. It can also make center framed images really pop, but it comes with (literal) downsides as well.
@@ForestCinema I've used many lenses with the same issue and it's just IMO not discussed or tested as much as what we did test here, so I'm sorry but I do disagree! But that's not really important if we're both honest! What is important is that it is still a thing and you aren't wrong - It's not something that will suite everyone / every project and we do mention that. As mentioned on another comment we will also try to keep this clarification between distortions in mind where relevant going forward.
Would you know how lens distortion works on a micro 4/3 camera, like the Panasonic GH7, and the metabones speedboster? Is the distortion more evident or less?
Hey, do you think it makes any sense to use the 35 in FF mode? Meaning does the crop required to lose hard vignette equate the FOV to that of 45mm or is there still some extra width there? I know that Blazar just dropped the 33, but I'm using Red Komodo with a PL Speedbooster so that huge rear element is definitely not gonna fit. Also judging from the tests posted by Blazar today, new 33 seems to lack some of imperfections that I like about other Remus lenses.
On full frame the 35mm is still wider than the 45mm even after corrections - I personally shoot full frame with it quite frequently TBH and in both s35 and full frame (with corrections) it's my favorite lens in the set, followed by the 65mm... I think I posted an image on the Facebook group a while back that showed it vs the 45mm on full frame with and without corrections before we made this video. I agree it's a really tough choice now that we know the 33mm has that rear element!
@@ShaneVanLitz Thanks! I'll look for that post now! Might actually go with 35 then, as the new B set doesn't really cover anything new for me in terms of FOV. 125mm is not that drastic of an increase since difference between focal lengths in that telephoto range is pretty negligible unlike the wides.
@@DastanZhumagulov Yeah, as much as I'm interested to see how they perform and new lenses are always cool to see... I'm not sure the B-Set is different enough from the A-Set to make anyone feel they really 'need' both. I'd maybe rather the 50mm than the 45mm, or the 85mm over the 100mm but I'm not sure I need a 45mm AND 50mm if you get my meaning. Either of the sets and one of the wide angle options is probably enough for most shooters.
Does the 35mm need a correction, with the addition of a shim (like I did for the 45 and 65)? The 35 and 65mm could be enough to work, right? or would the 45 still have a "useful difference" for me to keep?…
Would you say it makes sense on a FF camera or not? The thing is, when will the 33mm drop? could be months or so.. thinking about a combo of 35 and 85 for FF.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial thanks for the Input! I guess 45 is more usefull in some cases maybe. I wanna start out with two and then wait for the 33. So I guess 45 and 85 is a good starting point. Or would you take the 65 instead of 85? Thanks my man!
@@LukasStumpf Taylor and I would both suggest 33, 65 and 85 / 100 if you're only picking 3. The 45mm is fine but the 65 and 35mm are currently our two favorites and I shoot 90% of what I do on those two lenses when I film with these - we're expecting the 33mm to be good as well.
Really makes life difficult for me. I have the Great Joy 50mm for my BMPCC 6k. It's a bit of a shame that the full frame coverage and the 1.8x squeeze together mean that you lose some of the character around the edges. But I think the Remus 35mm goes too far the other way with too much character for my liking. Maybe the full-frame 33mm will offer just the right middle ground for me.
Do remember though that the BMPCC 6K has a smaller sensor than most S35 cameras, so a lot of the funk will be cropped vs what we have here. But that said, there's nothing wrong with waiting to see how the 33mm fairs and having a lens set that you can take with to full frame cameras when you use them.
This probably the one I'm gonna skip. The nice thing about the og trio on super 35 is they have all the nice characters without going too crazy on the edge. This pushes it a slightly bit too far for most of my works. Great review though!
Yeah, the distortion will be hit or miss for different people. In our origional review of the set we also mention that we like how they perform on s35 because the edges can be a bit dramatic on full frame - maybe the 33mm will be the same!
@@ShaneVanLitz Agree mate! I am hopping that would be the case. It's a shame that we lose out on the filter thread and the same outer diameter. But if the image is similar to the OG trio on super35, I will get it.
Thank you for this! Worth noting that your ‘barrel distortion’ tests at 1m are showcasing the ‘edge compression’ or ‘swimming’ at the edges. A lens can have either of those independently so it’s important we correctly label them I think, or misinformation spreads and people will start going off barrel distortion, which is part of the classic anamorphic look, when actually they just don’t like the swimming.
No worries! We’ll try keep that in mind going forward just like we’ve been testing shims on anamorphic lenses going forward as well. Ultimately the visuals do show the effect so people can still make their own conclusions. I don’t think seeing heavy distortion will make people turn against barrel distortion completely based on what we label it alone, they’ll just not like heavy distortion which is fair. Hopefully the information here is still useful. It’s less noticeable shooting s35 where the lens is designed to operate and is fairly well correctable in post with lens correction, thought it’s obviously understandable that not everyone will be keen for such a strong look depending on their shooting conditions.
This is a good call! Especially on wider lenses it’s an important thing to clarify.
This one has been a real gem in our testing so far and I hope the 33mm does the same for full frame shooters! Let us know what you think and if you have any questions - Taylor or myself will be here looking to help!
Now that is a REVIEW. I have watched som many reviews on these types of lens and honestly as good as they were, I found your review to be the tops. I will wait for the full-frame 33mm lens and your review, so hopefully you guys will get that lens. NICE JOB!!
@@garfieldmtify thank you, but it’s not a review. It’s a preview! 😆
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial review, my bad! 😞
I was going to get the Sirui 35mm apsc because it was one of the only barrel distortion budget anamorphic lenses despite hating their lightsaber-like blue flares, but the minute this lens was announced then I knew this was the one I would be getting next. I also love and agree and that this lens definitely reminds me of the Hawk X or Kowa looks. I fell in love with that funky look while watching things like The Creator, The Batman and Shōgun. I liked that look before I saw those, but they solidified my interest for sure.
I agree, this has that cool textured cinematic look. However, as a former Sirui 35mm 1.3x lens owner it has a pronounced pincushion distortion. 3 things I didn’t like about it was (too sharp (using a glimmer glass filter helped), pincushion distortion and the as you mentioned the crazy harsh blue flares . But it was great start to this budget anamorphic world we are in now.
@@aram.v Agreed, hence why I'll probably skip the sirui and borrow my friends, and just buy the Remus 35mm later this year instead.
Ooh. A new lens. A nice looking anamorphic one at that. With EF friendly mount! I am intrigued. But even if it's budget compared with most that are 10x more expensive. It's still, just out of my own reach. Could be a fun rental option, I guess. :)
Just ordered this for my komodo I really hope they do a full set for S35
It also has inconsistent squeeze factor: more squeeze than spec at the edges of frame. That’s a distortion separate from barrel distortion, which also requires a fair bit more compute power to properly correct, and even partially correcting it will drastically change framing versus what was monitored on set.
The Kowas are a good comparison as they have the same artifacts though.
Yes, but the squeeze is consistant when focusing which is what we normally look at and talk about when we discuss squeeze consistancy in anamorhic lenses, and it is what I was speaking about at that part of the video: "from minimum to infinity" - Sorry if there was any confusion. Many anamorphcs have inconsistant squeeze from edge to edge, including the Kowas like you mention.
@@ShaneVanLitz both get talked about fairly regularly. It looks like at the edges the factor is at least an extra 0.5X squeeze, which makes it pretty useless for framing up faces significantly off-center. Again, yes the Kowas do this somewhat too, but it can be a major factor in anamorphic lens choice. Synchro focus squeeze change is as you’ve said a different thing, but both can make a director frustrated pretty quickly, so it’s important to understand. A lot of the reviews are glossing over this attribute or misleadingly referring to it as barrel distortion, when it’s an entirely separate attribute. It can also make center framed images really pop, but it comes with (literal) downsides as well.
@@ForestCinema I've used many lenses with the same issue and it's just IMO not discussed or tested as much as what we did test here, so I'm sorry but I do disagree! But that's not really important if we're both honest! What is important is that it is still a thing and you aren't wrong - It's not something that will suite everyone / every project and we do mention that. As mentioned on another comment we will also try to keep this clarification between distortions in mind where relevant going forward.
Would you know how lens distortion works on a micro 4/3 camera, like the Panasonic GH7, and the metabones speedboster? Is the distortion more evident or less?
I wouldn't be sorry, neither of us uses microthird cameras anymore. but my but my guess is less because you would be getting an s35ish field of view
great review, im going to order this one
Love the look but the distortion makes the use of it very limiting.
Thanks for the review.
I don’t personally think so, this and the 65 have been glued to my camera for the last month on professional client work.
After you add some distortion correction we think it’s extremely usable
Hey, do you think it makes any sense to use the 35 in FF mode? Meaning does the crop required to lose hard vignette equate the FOV to that of 45mm or is there still some extra width there?
I know that Blazar just dropped the 33, but I'm using Red Komodo with a PL Speedbooster so that huge rear element is definitely not gonna fit. Also judging from the tests posted by Blazar today, new 33 seems to lack some of imperfections that I like about other Remus lenses.
On full frame the 35mm is still wider than the 45mm even after corrections - I personally shoot full frame with it quite frequently TBH and in both s35 and full frame (with corrections) it's my favorite lens in the set, followed by the 65mm... I think I posted an image on the Facebook group a while back that showed it vs the 45mm on full frame with and without corrections before we made this video. I agree it's a really tough choice now that we know the 33mm has that rear element!
@@ShaneVanLitz Thanks! I'll look for that post now! Might actually go with 35 then, as the new B set doesn't really cover anything new for me in terms of FOV. 125mm is not that drastic of an increase since difference between focal lengths in that telephoto range is pretty negligible unlike the wides.
@@DastanZhumagulov Yeah, as much as I'm interested to see how they perform and new lenses are always cool to see... I'm not sure the B-Set is different enough from the A-Set to make anyone feel they really 'need' both. I'd maybe rather the 50mm than the 45mm, or the 85mm over the 100mm but I'm not sure I need a 45mm AND 50mm if you get my meaning. Either of the sets and one of the wide angle options is probably enough for most shooters.
Does the 35mm need a correction, with the addition of a shim (like I did for the 45 and 65)?
The 35 and 65mm could be enough to work, right? or would the 45 still have a "useful difference" for me to keep?…
The 35mm needed the least amount of correction out of all of them but still needed alittle! We like it a lot more than the 45!
Would you say it makes sense on a FF camera or not? The thing is, when will the 33mm drop? could be months or so.. thinking about a combo of 35 and 85 for FF.
@@LukasStumpf nobody has seen the quality from the 33mm yet but assuming it’s the same, we would say wait for the 33.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial 33,45,85 is a nice set up then I guess!
@@LukasStumpf personally we don’t like the 45 mm very much we think the 65 is the nicest in the set! Just figured we would let you know
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial thanks for the Input! I guess 45 is more usefull in some cases maybe. I wanna start out with two and then wait for the 33. So I guess 45 and 85 is a good starting point. Or would you take the 65 instead of 85? Thanks my man!
@@LukasStumpf Taylor and I would both suggest 33, 65 and 85 / 100 if you're only picking 3. The 45mm is fine but the 65 and 35mm are currently our two favorites and I shoot 90% of what I do on those two lenses when I film with these - we're expecting the 33mm to be good as well.
Really makes life difficult for me. I have the Great Joy 50mm for my BMPCC 6k. It's a bit of a shame that the full frame coverage and the 1.8x squeeze together mean that you lose some of the character around the edges. But I think the Remus 35mm goes too far the other way with too much character for my liking. Maybe the full-frame 33mm will offer just the right middle ground for me.
Do remember though that the BMPCC 6K has a smaller sensor than most S35 cameras, so a lot of the funk will be cropped vs what we have here. But that said, there's nothing wrong with waiting to see how the 33mm fairs and having a lens set that you can take with to full frame cameras when you use them.
What is the name of the lenses you are talking about at 3:23?
@@johnny-530 kowa anamophic
You can check them out here: www.pstechnik.de/lenses/evolution-2x
will this fit a speedbooster for m43?
The EF version should!
That being said we haven’t tested so we aren’t sure about any vintetting
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial as long as they physically fit il risk the vignette! will pronanly test it, anyone want to buy a greatjoy 50mm (1.8 squeeze)? 🙂
This probably the one I'm gonna skip. The nice thing about the og trio on super 35 is they have all the nice characters without going too crazy on the edge. This pushes it a slightly bit too far for most of my works. Great review though!
Yeah, the distortion will be hit or miss for different people. In our origional review of the set we also mention that we like how they perform on s35 because the edges can be a bit dramatic on full frame - maybe the 33mm will be the same!
Honestly, we think it’s better than the 45mm. But we think lens correction is needed for both. Personally, we wouldn’t skip.
@@ShaneVanLitz Agree mate! I am hopping that would be the case. It's a shame that we lose out on the filter thread and the same outer diameter. But if the image is similar to the OG trio on super35, I will get it.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial if I don't already own the Nero with some really good 35mm I would still consider this. Holding for the upcoming 33mm!
@@harrykise9752 I know - I hope they make all the Catos 95mm O.D. to make it easier for us just use clamp on matteboxes instead.
What would you recommend, this Blazar lens or Nanomorph?
Personally we like this a lot more than the nanomorphs
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial what would be ideal combo for apsc cam? 35mm and 65mm?
@@adinbradic7092 yes and then the 45 eventually
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial thanks for the feedback!