Blazar Remus 1.5x vs Atlas Mercury 1.5x Anamorphic Lens Comparison!! 

For the price difference we’d all expect they’d be better! I think the takeaway universally has been pleasant surprise that the Blazars deliver a very good look for a fraction of the money not that the Murcuries aren’t great.

Its mostly about price value and what you shoot. I will say I could match the colour very easily if that's what I wanted to do. (I didn't so you can see straight out of camera look). i find edge distortion pretty simular to be honest maybe a little too much on the wide and but that can be helped in post alot.

Yeah you can’t beat the price of the Blazars but I watched reviews from other channels saying that you can’t tell the difference between the two sets. It’s clear why the Mercurys are much more expensive. I can’t see the Blazars being used in anyway professionally.

@@TheFilmGuyOfficial I'll keep using my Sirui Venus set that is slightly more expensive than the Remus. But better quality image than the Remus.

@@Henchproductions I have those as well, but they did not look anamorphic at all in terms of the image they produce.

I very much agree really it’s a battle of value! I think the blazars are amazing value doesn’t mean they have to be as good

It would be interesting to see the Blazers at F4 to see if they get much closer regarding sharpness

@@TheCoralClimb we did that in an outside test, they are closer! but still not their. plus you loose a lot of the anamorphic look.

@@TheFilmGuyOfficial Thanks for the reply!

i'm pretty sure it has to do with getting a vintage look rather than the price

Stretch*

They are wonderful

Thanks man! Yes we are in the same situation especially after Covid, the price of the mercury is just too high so I’m glad there is an option that is affordable that is similar

Thank you!

we have shimmed the Blazars perfectly with a lens projector. the sharpness is not simular at all.

…it's true that the 100mm is the worst of the lot (almost unusable at full aperture), but such a difference with the Mercury surprises me a little...

@@christopheadeshoux4664 given the price it shouldnt. and the Mercury lenses are tuned individually the blazars are using the same adapter to stretch them all so they cant do that.

If I was a client and got that blurry image from the Blazar I'd be pissed.

@@altercinema4311 yes, unusuble, i wonder why Blazar keeps making lenses.

They get a hair sharper stopped down but the Mercuries are still way sharper wide open than the Blazars ever get even at T5.6 or more. That said, I do think it's fair given the extreme cost and size difference though!

I personally did this as well, but with the Remus and Greatjoys (I like them a bit more than the Sirui's) but I think it's a great idea to have both a stronger and cleaner look for different projects!

They absolutely are in focus it’s just unfortunately that’s a sharp as they get! It’s a very different construction method, which means you have a limited amount of sharpness! The Blazars use one generic 1.5x adapter in all of the lenses that isn’t true specifically for any of them. The atlas use a specific adapter element in each lens that is tuned for that specific lens. This is how they are able to achieve their sharpness, but also makes them much much much more expensive.

We had that conversation before we started we figured if they’re not the same focal length it would be unfair to try to make the match! Because they would have different character

It’s just helps people better understand the difference in character respectfully

@@SDA-Sound yes, but it could also provide a false impression.

Agreed

We did a quick one ourselves and the results are pretty much similar except you lose a lot of character.

@@TheFilmGuyOfficial Thx for replying. Still wish I could see because shooting these lenses (close to) wide open isn't how they'd be used most often. T4 (or T2.8/T4 split) would be really interesting I think :D

No and of course but not dramatically

That’s what we talk about at the end of the comparison! They’re just on two different levels but I will also say the mercury might be the sharpest anamophics I’ve ever used

I can confirm that the GreatJoy is sharper.

@@TheFilmGuyOfficial The blazzars clearly have mump distortion when placing a subject on the edge of the frame. Please re-watch your video

@@natrix I got the term confused with the starch change that happens in other lenses when focusing. You are right!

@@TheFilmGuyOfficial Hah no worries, I had to double check my use of the term as well. Have a good one, and thank you for this informative comparison video between these lenses.

Haha, I am also not a fan of Anamorph Mclary in general. It works sometimes, but most of the time it’s distracting! It would be nice if these lens manufacturers gave us the option to have it or not have it

Personally, I would argue that the Blazars punch above their price!

@TheFilmGuyOfficial you can argue that, you can also argue that there isn't a lens in the past 5 years that looks "bad". When you start looking closer, unbiasedly, you can see why they're 1k lenses. I think they look appropriately priced. A better comparison would have been against similarly priced lenses. Nanomorphs, the greatjoys and sirui to see which really do punch above.