An underrated point is that a 16:9 image with the 1.25x squeeze, is exactly a 20:9 aspect ratio, which is just about perfect for full screen viewing on iphones (19.5:9 being the iphone and 21:9 being the Samsung Galaxy). In practical use for online creators, I'd say that might be more valuable than the cinematic look.
Tom, I wanted to get back into shooting anamorphic on a budget and I just found this video today. Excellent review and thanks a lot for all the quality test shots in one place.
Great video, Tom. I have been in TV as a pro for about 20 years, and just now learning about Anamorphic lenses for a project I have coming up. So glad I found your channel!
This review didn’t exactly say much or be very fair or true. At least in my opinion, I reviewed on my channel and you may want to see before you spend any money!
My nearby cinema encourages up and coming local film makers to hire their facilities for special screenings, and they have specific screen size ratios that are required, and the files must be presented in a DCP format. There technical requirements reflect the academy sizes. For 4K scope (widescreen), it is 4096 x1716, or in full HD screening, it is 2048 x 858. They also have ratios for the flat screen size, which is more akin to standard non scope, and that is 3996 x 2160 (4K) or 1998 x 1080 for full HD presentation. Also, most places require frame rate to be in 24fps, although I've heard some cinemas may permit other frame rates as well, (25fps or 30fps), depending on location. Just sharing this so that everyone can keep it in mind when selecting how they will film their project. For online streaming, it doesn't really matter so much... you can do whatever you want. I stand to be further informed on this, if anyone has other information...
Great work, Tom! Appreciate it! I was waiting for someone to do this! I will definitely be getting the 1.25x adapter with these lenses. I plan on using them with the Panasonic S5 in the 4:3 Anamorphic mode for full 2 times squeeze with all the anamorphic artifacts these lenses+adapter can muster! The look of the adapter on spherical lenses in regular 16/9 was surprisingly good looking as well. Very similar effect as 1.33 squeeze anamorphic lenses alone. I'm guessing that's around 2.20:1 aspect ratio.
I am happy you like the video. Sorry it took longer to release this video but we got hit by a big hurricane here in Florida and had some damage plus no power, water etc and it was difficult to do any work.
thank you tom, this is the best and most usefull review of this product using primes, also we can see the contrast and tint of the adapter using sphericals, I will go to buy one now, I love it because all my filters are 82mm too.
It seemed in all cases using it with spherical lenses there is always vignetting and quite noticeable. I have been thinking of using this adapter with my Meike 25, 50, and 85mm APS-C lenses on the new Sony FX30. This test gives me pause and I need more information about the adapter before making the purchase. Thanks, Tom.
This test was performed on a full frame camera so shooting on apsc image sensor camera will cut off the corner and eliminate the vignetting. On full frame cameras you definitely need to be careful.
Thanks for the review!! I do have one question, and maybe I missed this in your video. How does the T2.9 Aperture effect the base lens? Let's say I have my Sirui 75mm 1.33x lens as my base lens, and I have the aperture wide open at f1.8. Will the adapter, being a T2.9, cause less light through to the sensor? As compared to just having the 75mm without the adapter. Thanks again!!
Great video. So does adding the adapter change the compression in the background with say a 100mm lens ? If not that’s kinda cool to get the same compression but wider shot
your test seems confirming me what i have discovered by myself testing this adapter with a Tokina 28-80 mm, classic horizontal flares (strikes) are missing at all, a pity because i would use this solution but without that classic effect it become less distinctive despite as expected using anamorphic lenses.
Excellent video man. I've been considering this adapter for spherical lenses. This really helped me see what it would look like. I'm just wondering why you changed the shutter angle to 45 degrees on some shots? Great job!
Not sure whether there is any point in putting an anamorphic adapter on a lens that is already anamorphic. Still, interesting to see the results. Cheers Tom 🙂
Why not? A 1.25x adapter bumps Sirui's 1.6x range up to 2x. It is interesting to see how that affects the resultant focus and bokeh, should one decide it is appropriate for their production.
I was looking for tests with the 1.33x mfts + the adapter. It's good to see it works perfect on the whole set. Thank you very much for this Tom. God Bless.
@@chinitopinoy1726 It is sharpest on the 24 because the 24mm is 2.8. So, if you use it on the 35mm or 50mm and stop down to 2.8 it should sharpen it up. It might even match the 24mm.
Hi Tom or anyone else, I noticed vignetting at 50mm and wider using the Zcam E2 which I presume is a Full Frame sensor? Do you think the vignetting would appear if you were using a 50mm m43 on a GH5 with the Sirui adaptor? Also how about a Canon Full Frame lens with a 0.7 speedbooster on a GH5 with the Sirui adaptor, would this have vignetting issues? The focusing was really bad on some of the takes. Do you think with practice it becomes easier to hit sharper focus with the adapter? Was it difficult to see you were out of focus during your tests? Thank you.
This is pretty typical since you are doubling your horizontal FOV to 25mm equivalent. Which is quite wide for anamorphic. I use a 35mm with a 1.5x adapter for a 26mm equivalent field of view and i get vignetting. I struggle to get anything wider than 28mm without vignetting.
The focusing definitely becomes easier the more you do it but a big help is to close down the taking lens by an f-stop or more. The focusing is more an issue with the lenses being set to perfect infinity focus.
Great review, great sample clips, and now I will not consider this converter as a professional solution , to much clarity is sacrificed or lost , Im looking specifically at her eyes.
Yeah, I noticed that too. Either focus was missed quite a bit in these tests, or the adapter heavily degrades the image quality. All-in-all, the spherical lenses + adapter test shots in this video don’t look very good, and would never pass in a professional environment.
If you zoom in to the frame you will notice that part of the face is Indeed in focus so it is the user missing focus and not the lens. Peaking may help.
im a Fan. always enjoy your video... >> Check your Video Title... Anamorphic is "Spelled Wrong" What Spherical Lens Brand you used. i heard Certain Brand Lens has problems with Focus... Also.. I did not see any "Flares" with the Spherical Lens Tests...??
Beautiful work Tom. I noticed in the test with the 75mm 1.33x that there is a big loss of sharpness especially at f/1.8 and the ovals bokeh are truncated at the bottom. Is this the conseguence due to astigmatism af the adapter and his aperture (T2.9)?
Thanks you so much, I've been looking for a test of this kind. Just to know It, of you have a bmpcc It's also possible you have a sigma 18-35, some impressions for this one? Minimum to non have vignetting? In case of not, again many thanks for the video
Its hard to set perfect infinity focus on some of the taking lenses and that makes the adapter impossible to focus. As long as your taking lens is easy to nail infinity focus it works flawless. Another trick I found is to close down the aperture of the taking lens a bit which will correct any slight infinity focus misalignment
@@TomAntos should you not have said that in your video? We’re these lenses sent to you and we’re you paid to do this? My review wasn’t paid and I wasn’t as kind as you were. People may buy after watching you and they will be disappointed.
… I like the anamorphic look of the Sirui lenses, but I don’t like the look of the adapter. in my eyes not what I want to see from a anamorphic lens. 🤷🏼♂️ Thx for sharing your option in this video - saves me from buying the adapter. 😉
I'm kind of curious using a Z Cam E2 (mft) with a Metabones Ultra 0.71x Cine T Speedbooster with the Sigma Art zoom series lenses (18-35 and 50-100). I'm going to test it out!
@@TomAntos yes I’ve had to send my first one 2nd does the same. My latest video shows these test results, I would very much appreciate your thoughts on my results. 😇
Tito from anamorphic on a budget said that this adapter wouldn’t vignette much on full frame 35mm… yours has significant vignetting! Do you think this could be something to do with taking lenses???
I was hoping to see you resolve the new adapter on the Sirui 1.33 lenses in 4:3 but you only did 16:9. I will have to wait until my 1.25 adapter arrives to conduct this test on my GH4 and GH6.
You may find them soft with add CA, at least in my tests I did which you are welcomed to see on my channel. I’m finding these RU-vidrs are really telling the whole story.
Please explain why every single time a camera or lens is showcased with a person. They MUST turn their head side to side, as if its some kind of rule, and anyone watching gets any useful info out of that? Or did some dude back in time do it, and now everyone is parroting it thinking it provides some kind of usefulness. Can we just stop doing it. Thanks.
Its done to see how the lens distorts the face. Every lens has distortion. Its easier to see it in straight lines even when they're static. But a human face doesn't have any straight lines and therefore seeing how the person's face changes as it rotates will help tell you more about how that particular lens distorts people. Hope this answer helps!
I challenge you to show me ONE single example where what you just said is demonstrated. A lens characteristic expressed in a head turn, which can visibly distinguish it from another lens by using that exercise. If the head is placed dead center in the frame, you practically remove ANY chance of distortion being visible in that part of the frame. So unless you somehow screwed up your desqueeze or misaligned the horisontal plane, your wifes 100 head turns show nothing useful what so ever. Even if in theory it could. No person alive can see that especially in such a quick movement. Thats why you basically made it into a meme at this point. Congrats. What could have been useful however would be if you had an perfectly circular disc in the frame showing the focus squeeze in effect.
@@SilentD1 yes sure... and always especially in movies, actors are every time in the very dead center of the lenses , especially in action shoots, like the very beginning of the Star Trek reboot ie ....
@@Mastroprimo No im saying that in his stupid test the model is dead center, where least if any distortion is present. useless. Stop defending it. There is no case to be made here. No matter how hard you try. It was cringy as hell to watch her turn her head 10000 times for no F...ing reason.
