Sirui anamorphic

[leslie]

1 hour ago, Tito Ferradans said:

I thought that was gonna shock everyone, but you're the first one to comment on it! hahahahaha

Ohhh, thank you so much man!

I reached out to SIRUI as soon as the first article about the lens came out. I'm also not a huge fan of the indiegogo campaign (too "flashy") and after watching all the other reviews I knew exactly what I needed to cover on mine: the technical stuff only hardcore anamorphic people would think about. For the new vanilla shooters out there, most of the stuff I'm highlighting is TMI. ?

i feel everyone else has just blogged about It, tito is the only one that bothered to do anything in depth about it. its easy to see the difference in between bloggers and people that actually have a passion for something.

[Rudolf]

Sorry I really don't get the point of that lens except it might be cheap (if you only want to shoot at 50m). The image is so dull and boring to say the least. Don't get me wrong Tito: You are really into what you are doing and very dedicated but as a long time "vanilla" hobbyist I am - I would not waste my money for something like that. I liked your video but honestly subtract slowmo and music and just judging on the image you'd be better of with a more beautiful spherical lenses. If you cannot afford a better looking lens or don't have the patience and dedication to cope with other solutions better don't bother. I mean honestly if you are willing to spent 2,000 for an Iscorama you get the most versatile best looking image you can dream of for that cheap. Still such a bargain compared to this! (Sorry for moaning and coming up with the "iscorama-prayer mill"  )

[Julien416]

37 minutes ago, Rudolf said:

Sorry I really don't get the point of that lens except it might be cheap (if you only want to shoot at 50m). The image is so dull and boring to say the least. Don't get me wrong Tito: You are really into what you are doing and very dedicated but as a long time "vanilla" hobbyist I am - I would not waste my money for something like that. I liked your video but honestly subtract slowmo and music and just judging on the image you'd be better of with a more beautiful spherical lenses. If you cannot afford a better looking lens or don't have the patience and dedication to cope with other solutions better don't bother. I mean honestly if you are willing to spent 2,000 for an Iscorama you get the most versatile best looking image you can dream of for that cheap. Still such a bargain compared to this! (Sorry for moaning and coming up with the "iscorama-prayer mill"  )

I am with you on that one. It looks like all the people suddenly forgot why they were shooting anamorphic in the first place. It's for the look and the imperfections ! Barrel distortion, uneven waterfall bokeh, internal reflections, raimbow artifacts, blooming. That is the anamorphic look everyone has been trying to mimic over the years. 

I mean, if I am looking for a sharp and precise look, i'll shoot with a spherical lens and that will be it. I understand this lens serves a purpose in the grand scheme of things, but no need to overhype it.

[leslie]

1 hour ago, Rudolf said:

Sorry I really don't get the point of that lens except it might be cheap (if you only want to shoot at 50m). The image is so dull and boring to say the least. Don't get me wrong Tito: You are really into what you are doing and very dedicated but as a long time "vanilla" hobbyist I am - I would not waste my money for something like that. I liked your video but honestly subtract slowmo and music and just judging on the image you'd be better of with a more beautiful spherical lenses. If you cannot afford a better looking lens or don't have the patience and dedication to cope with other solutions better don't bother. I mean honestly if you are willing to spent 2,000 for an Iscorama you get the most versatile best looking image you can dream of for that cheap. Still such a bargain compared to this! (Sorry for moaning and coming up with the "iscorama-prayer mill"  )

watching ebay i'd have to say a $2000 iscorama is rarer than a unicorn ? maybe a year or two years ago possibly ?

38 minutes ago, Julien416 said:

I am with you on that one. It looks like all the people suddenly forgot why they were shooting anamorphic in the first place. It's for the look and the imperfections ! Barrel distortion, uneven waterfall bokeh, internal reflections, raimbow artifacts, blooming. That is the anamorphic look everyone has been trying to mimic over the years. 

I mean, if I am looking for a sharp and precise look, i'll shoot with a spherical lens and that will be it. I understand this lens serves a purpose in the grand scheme of things, but no need to overhype it.

Barrel distortion, uneven waterfall bokeh, internal reflections, raimbow artifacts, blooming that is the anamorphic look everyone has been trying to mimic over the years. thats just like trippin without the mushrooms  ?

if you want hype, go visit the p4k thread, more than a million views and that was before the camera was even released ? what we have been doing is having a gentlemen's discussion on a new lens, thats the cheapest by far, that will alleviate most of the issues of buying a anamorphic projection lens and rigging it to work single focus style, that is groundbreaking gentlemen. Pretty sure tito's already said its not perfect. Does it have to be perfect ? no it does not. It just has to give us flares and an anamorphic aspect ratio 1.33 will do for starters

[Cinegain]

Yeah... we're talking about newly developed anamorphics at sub 1k,- moniez, that's pretty unheard of (unless you're talking slap-on lenses for phones and drones by Moment for example). Image is crisp and does what it needs to. It doesn't require taking lenses, dual focus setups and/or diopters. You can throw it in front of a GH5 and put it on a compact gimbal. It's a great proof of concept excercize, that hopefully is the first of many. Unfortunately Veydra ditched the anamorphic route and exist no longer. Vazen looking kinda interesting, similar thing but heftier pricetag and the lens itself is also quite massive, 4/3 sensors only. Do get a 1.8x squeeze out of it. Atlas Lens co. Orion... they seem legit, definitely my kinda thing. But pricey as well. Do get a 2x squeeze and more lens options. Of course there are a bunch of options way north of that as well... but let's not go there.

I bought a Kalart Victorscope 2x many moons ago, Vid-Atlantic clamp adapter. Lovely organic image and all, but very soft and well honestly I couldn't be arsed with shooting like that. If you do, hey, power to you, but let a non-purist layman have some fun too. This brings anamorphic to the masses if you will... it puts it right back on the map! That should be applauded, not criticized. There's always bigger and better out there, no question. But people all gotta start out somewhere. And even for enthusiasts like Tito there, this still is something with a new twist he can keep in his arsenal.

Remember, this is just their first anamorphic effort. I get excited to think what's more to come from this. As well as what this means for the likes of Vazen and Atlas Lens co who might have to get more competitive on pricing. And personally... I like the image just fine. Most of us are shooting 4K these days... soon 8K will come. Things are going to get more crisp and clinical. Sometimes you've gotta let go of clinging on to what you know, feels familiar and embrace some of the new. Film has always evolved. Whether black and white... color... HD... 4K. Newer generations will bring new advancements and a new picture style. In similar fashion I grew up with a Super Nintendo... and have fond memories of that and that would be my idea of gaming... sat on the floor next to a buddy or sibling with your wired controllers. So I don't get all the Fortnite & Minecraft online gaming stuff people are involved with these days. But hey that's just the way of the present generation. It's all just subjective. Main thing: keep anamorphic alive!

[Julien416]

1 hour ago, leslie said:

thats just like trippin without the mushrooms  ?

Well what can I say ? That's anamorphic. The sole principle is already an aberration. Ask David Fincher about anamorphic, he will punch you in the face and will start talking about the insanity of putting a bent glass in front of his camera.

People love anamorphic because it looks weird and funky, not because it looks precise and well corrected. The master prime anamorphic are the not very popular amongst most DOP because of their sterile look ie. a spherical look with elongated bokeh. No breathing, no aberration. A perfect - and boring - look. 

46 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

And personally... I like the image just fine. Most of us are shooting 4K these days... soon 8K will come. Things are going to get more crisp and clinical. Sometimes you've gotta let go of clinging on to what you know, feels familiar and embrace some of the new. Film has always evolved. Whether black and white... color... HD... 4K.

You have every right to like it. It's just not my cup of tea. Of course I do not pretend representing anyone else than myself but I believe I also have the right not to like. Can I ?
And in a world where 90% of theatrical releases are still 2K, 8K sounds silly to be honest. The same world where the new it lens of the moment is the Arri signature, in short old rehoused  hasselblad large format lenses. It seems people are clinging on familiar things...  

DOP's and directors are looking for textures and look. Even if I reckon the audacity and novelty of Sirui's lens, I find this lens lacks for these two factors. But I am glad it exists nonetheless !

The Vazen 40mm looked a lot better (or worse optically), and hopefully Sirui presence will help bringing their prices down. Also the Vazen 28mm looks to be much smaller and manageable for most people. Let's hope the price follows.

 

[Tito Ferradans]

Wow, too many things to address. This forum is getting fun again! Thank you so much for all the input and keeping the argument civil (we have all seen how these conversations can go).

7 hours ago, Rudolf said:

[...] I really don't get the point of that lens except it might be cheap (if you only want to shoot at 50m). The image is so dull and boring to say the least. Don't get me wrong Tito: You are really into what you are doing and very dedicated but as a long time "vanilla" hobbyist I am - I would not waste my money for something like that. I liked your video but honestly subtract slowmo and music and just judging on the image you'd be better of with a more beautiful spherical lenses. If you cannot afford a better looking lens or don't have the patience and dedication to cope with other solutions better don't bother. I mean honestly if you are willing to spent 2,000 for an Iscorama you get the most versatile best looking image you can dream of for that cheap. Still such a bargain compared to this! (Sorry for moaning and coming up with the "iscorama-prayer mill"  )

I can't disagree with you on everything. If you're here on EOSHD and you have an opinion, you're not a vanilla shooter. ?

After too many years of shooting with adapters, what I look for in a lens is not really the end result but a framework that supports improvement. The Sirui has it (so does the Iscorama). Last night I slapped in an oval insert at the aperture and made bokeh 2x. It got a lot better. Then threw in some focus and iris gears just for the fun of it and some filtration.

The image is on the sharp side, so I mounted a vari-nd (since I don't want the ovals to change with the aperture) and a BPM 1/4.

Things got more interesting when I put on a 0.8x wide angle adapter, which works great and degrades sharpness a bit more. The image is looking a lot more organic and that's what I wanna show on my next video.

Now to beat down the Iscorama a little bit more, 1.5x is not that much squeeze either for bokeh, plus minimum focus at 2m and rotating front/extending body make life a lot harder. It's not a perfect lens from the start. The pre-36 also has that weird box-shaped flare. Nonetheless we have solutions for most of these problems. The Maxiscope/Proxiscope addresses minimum focus and focus gears, plus mounting to rails to speed up lens changes, the newest Van Diemen rehousing fixes the rotating front and the long focus throw, another mod fixes the box flares. But still, paying $2k (cheap!) for it only puts you at the bottom of a hill to climb and make it "perfect" (lots of airquotes here). It also only goes as wide as 40mm on FF and no one fixed that one yet. hehe

6 hours ago, Julien416 said:

I am with you on that one. It looks like all the people suddenly forgot why they were shooting anamorphic in the first place. It's for the look and the imperfections ! Barrel distortion, uneven waterfall bokeh, internal reflections, raimbow artifacts, blooming. That is the anamorphic look everyone has been trying to mimic over the years. 

I mean, if I am looking for a sharp and precise look, i'll shoot with a spherical lens and that will be it. I understand this lens serves a purpose in the grand scheme of things, but no need to overhype it.

I agree with this too. I'm drafting a new series of videos for next year, focused more on the anamorphic feel than the gear itself and the cornerstone aspect of it is that by embracing scope we're embracing artifacts and losses in IQ. That's what we want. Fortunately, if a lens is sharp there are plenty of tools to unsharpen it. The other way around is a bit trickier.

You can always blur a focused shot, but you can't recover one that was shot out of focus. ? 

5 hours ago, Cinegain said:

I bought a Kalart Victorscope 2x many moons ago, Vid-Atlantic clamp adapter. Lovely organic image and all, but very soft and well honestly I couldn't be arsed with shooting like that. If you do, hey, power to you, but let a non-purist layman have some fun too. This brings anamorphic to the masses if you will... it puts it right back on the map! That should be applauded, not criticized. There's always bigger and better out there, no question. But people all gotta start out somewhere. And even for enthusiasts like Tito there, this still is something with a new twist he can keep in his arsenal.

Bringing this lens to the indie people is what makes the difference. Anamorphic has always been the snob aspect of cinematography and I strongly disagree with "this is expensive to keep the masses out". That's the core thought that got us in bad shape about... everything in history.

As for preferences, we shouldn't dismiss someone else's style just because it's not what we are trying to do. (Unless that person is the owner of The Anamorphic Store. In that case, dismiss them immediately. Ripoff)

3 hours ago, Julien416 said:

DOP's and directors are looking for textures and look. Even if I reckon the audacity and novelty of Sirui's lens, I find this lens lacks for these two factors. But I am glad it exists nonetheless!

The Vazen 40mm looked a lot better (or worse optically), and hopefully Sirui presence will help bringing their prices down. Also the Vazen 28mm looks to be much smaller and manageable for most people. Let's hope the price follows.

This is EXACTLY my point in this whole thing. Some people might not like it (I still don't like Blackmagic Cameras very much), but it's important to acknowledge their importance in the grand scheme of things. This lens is an evolution of a movement that I'd say SLR Magic started, by manufacturing new, cheap anamorphics. That improved with the GH4's anamorphic mode and it took a sharp turn up when Atlas came into the game. Vazen is also part of it, and Sirui brings this into the hands of people who couldn't afford any of the previous options. Competition is the only way to make anamorphic cheap and I'm super glad to see it happening. I hope we soon see other focal lengths or other brands jumping onto this train.

[Caleb Genheimer]

I STILL feel 99% confident that an oval aperture blade system would be relatively easy to implement. Why 1.33X lens makers haven’t tried this I have no idea. If they hate the concept of loosing light, the final stops of the aperture can just open the sides up to a spherical opening for max T-stop.

On digital? It’s past time to trick out my Kowa 16-H and call it a day. Probably a FVD-35 for maximum width. I’m eyeing up the Z-Cam F6 with a Kipon Baveyes for near IMAX size sensor emulation. 

On film, I’m starting in next year with a (regular) 16mm camera, and I’m hoping that Aivascope does another run of the 1.75X lenses, as that stretches out regular-16mm to be basically bang-on 2.39:1 with no waste. I may even buy 3, pair them with taking lenses and variable diopters to make a 3 lens set, possibly rehoused.

The only way I’d ever touch a 1.33X lens would be if it gave a significant wide angle advantage over the Kowa with similar optical quality... which is not an easy metric to beat. Technically the Letus does, I think? But then it’s double focus. 

1.33X at 50mm is a safe (if not THE safest) place to start with budget all-in-one anamorphic, so I don’t blame them, but I’m also not very enthused. If they pull off a 25mm, I’ll jump on board in a heartbeat (especially if it is easy to open up and modify with an oval insert) Otherwise for personal fun stuff, the projection adapters still give more character and quality... and if I end up in a more critical situation? Well, there’s an excellent set of Cine Kowas around town that I could just rent.

[kye]

On 12/16/2019 at 6:07 PM, Rudolf said:

Sorry I really don't get the point of that lens except it might be cheap (if you only want to shoot at 50m). The image is so dull and boring to say the least. Don't get me wrong Tito: You are really into what you are doing and very dedicated but as a long time "vanilla" hobbyist I am - I would not waste my money for something like that. I liked your video but honestly subtract slowmo and music and just judging on the image you'd be better of with a more beautiful spherical lenses. If you cannot afford a better looking lens or don't have the patience and dedication to cope with other solutions better don't bother. I mean honestly if you are willing to spent 2,000 for an Iscorama you get the most versatile best looking image you can dream of for that cheap. Still such a bargain compared to this! (Sorry for moaning and coming up with the "iscorama-prayer mill"  )

 

23 hours ago, Julien416 said:

I am with you on that one. It looks like all the people suddenly forgot why they were shooting anamorphic in the first place. It's for the look and the imperfections ! Barrel distortion, uneven waterfall bokeh, internal reflections, raimbow artifacts, blooming. That is the anamorphic look everyone has been trying to mimic over the years. 

I mean, if I am looking for a sharp and precise look, i'll shoot with a spherical lens and that will be it. I understand this lens serves a purpose in the grand scheme of things, but no need to overhype it.

 

I disagree.  It might be that the defects are a common reason that people shoot anamorphic, but it's not everyone.

Here's a video that includes the Zeiss / ARRI Master Anamorphic and it renders an image almost as technically perfect wide open at T1.9 as other cine lenses at T4.

I suspect that shooting anamorphic because you want the flaws is a low budget thing (and because at low budget you can't get sharp well-behaved optics so there's no choice).

It's like saying that people only shoot FF to have shallow DoF.  Or MFT because they want a small camera.

You might make the point that Hollywood cinematographers often like vintage glass because of the softness and rendering, which is true, but there's also a large segment of Hollywood that have the attitude of capturing things in the highest quality possible (meaning highest resolution and most neutral rendering) so that they can push the image around in post later on.  It's not a POV you hear a lot, but lots of big movies are shot with this principle.

[Julien416]

2 hours ago, kye said:

I suspect that shooting anamorphic because you want the flaws is a low budget thing (and because at low budget you can't get sharp well-behaved optics so there's no choice).

It's like saying that people only shoot FF to have shallow DoF.  Or MFT because they want a small camera.

You might make the point that Hollywood cinematographers often like vintage glass because of the softness and rendering, which is true, but there's also a large segment of Hollywood that have the attitude of capturing things in the highest quality possible (meaning highest resolution and most neutral rendering) so that they can push the image around in post later on.  It's not a POV you hear a lot, but lots of big movies are shot with this principle.

Let's agree to disagree. On my shootings, I can get any optic I want and will always go with those with aberrations. I am not bragging, I am not directing crazy stuff with dozens of millions, but it's big enough so that optic prices are not a consideration. I am not talking about crazy Lomo style aberrations obviously. But I want lenses to bring textures and imperfections. Of course I only represent myself but I consider myself part of a larger trend. I talk to Dop's, to directors, all the time. I am not so different from them.

Open any american cinematographer issue, the vast majority of Dop's going for the anamorphic look will talk about imperfections and texture with wine tasting terms. Arri master prime anamorphics are the most boring lens you can imagine. It basically looks like a clinical spherical lens with an oval aperture. Some may like it. But the fact that Arri eventually created a "flare set" to try to dirty its look (badly) will tell you enough about how successfull it was... If I want a clean look, i'll go with spherical, end of story. If I want texture, I'll go with anamorphic. Why do you think it even still exists ? There is NO point with today's camera to keep squeezing twice the width of an image. None. 

A quick look on this chart that was posted in your topic should tell you enough. 

Basically the number one is a clean as fuck spherical lens, and the number 2 is a 55 years old anamorphic series featuring about every single aberrations anamorphic can bring. Tells a lot about the dichotomy of the market.

[kye]

@Julien416 I agree.  Let's agree to disagree ???

It's probably a fine point, but your original post said "all the people" and "everyone".  I was just trying to bring some balance into the equation.

You might be right that the vast majority of people shooting anamorphic want a less clinical look, but from my cine lens thread I also quoted some people talking about the Master Anamorphics:

On 10/27/2019 at 6:36 PM, kye said:

Master Anamorphics:

• However, once we were on set I could only use the Master Anamorphics because they were so pin-sharp, perfectly straight and square – all the way to the corners – that it was impossible to match them with the other brand.
• I'm a huge fan of the Master Anamorphics because they don't really look like anamorphics but they have that anamorphic aspect ratio.  And they also are one of the fastest anamorphics, you can actually shoot them wide open and still be reasonably sharp.
• I’m leaving out the Master Anamorphics because those are so clean and crisp it almost defeats the point of shooting anamorphic imo

It might just be a pet annoyance of mine, but so often people talk in absolutes now, and I think it just divides people, creates friction, encourages polarised thinking, and discourages critical thinking.  

I find politics to be very prevalent with this issue - if "everyone" (or even "all" the smart people) share your opinion then there's no reason to talk about issues, exchange views, and heaven forbid(!) actually learn something new.

Anyway, rant over.

PS, if you want to shoot anamorphic on a budget then maybe buy the lens and dirty it up in post!  Or buy a vintage spherical and crop it.  Or whatever.  This lens doesn't somehow make all the other lenses disappear.  in fact, it makes them cheaper  

[leslie]

17 minutes ago, kye said:

@Julien416 I agree.  Let's agree to disagree ???

It's probably a fine point, but your original post said "all the people" and "everyone".  I was just trying to bring some balance into the equation.

You might be right that the vast majority of people shooting anamorphic want a less clinical look, but from my cine lens thread I also quoted some people talking about the Master Anamorphics:

It might just be a pet annoyance of mine, but so often people talk in absolutes now, and I think it just divides people, creates friction, encourages polarised thinking, and discourages critical thinking.  

I find politics to be very prevalent with this issue - if "everyone" (or even "all" the smart people) share your opinion then there's no reason to talk about issues, exchange views, and heaven forbid(!) actually learn something new.

Anyway, rant over.

PS, if you want to shoot anamorphic on a budget then maybe buy the lens and dirty it up in post!  Or buy a vintage spherical and crop it.  Or whatever.  This lens doesn't somehow make all the other lenses disappear.  in fact, it makes them cheaper  

there's a movie in this, an anamorphic movie, with alternate endings for both types of glass, gentlemen choose your weapons and ten paces please, any closer and we'd need diopters  ?

[Rudolf]

It is rather funny and a good amusement that these discussions are popping up again and again. At least every time when there is a new cheap solution. And in the meantime we had so many "game changers" that I already forgot the name of the game. Thank you Tito, for sharing your experiences. Tinkering with that kinda stuff is also a good amusement for many people: Adding inserts, filters, grease on the glass and even bigger bumper stickers "super-duper-anamorphic". Sorry didn't want to be offensive. This Siriu seems to bit a show off lens compared to what it does. These Suriu, FM lens, SLR, Vazen, Bolex-System Möller, Isco-Göttingen, Century, Optex, Pana LA7200, bla bla bla they are all toys and we like to play. It should be mentioned though that Isco had the longest experience in anamorphics and developed the most versatile best all around system. They put in the biggest effort. They offered everything the photographer (development on special paper) needed as well as for the small gauge shooter. Including solutions for cameras an projectors. Their program included trips and workshops. It was addressed to the wealthy enthusiast. Looking at old price list the prices were always very high. Throughout the range quality was incredible. My Isco-LeitzCinegon combo is the sharpest you can get for super-8. They made special stuff for Beaulieu. Schneider Optivaron with the 54 is a dream. And you know the good diopters Tito.

That all was not enough! You know how the Iscorama-dream ended. As so often the quality was too pricey.

To sum it up: There is no evolution/revolution! It is just getting cheaper because of chinese production and inferior quality. But that is for sure ok! Diversity is good. And if you shoot in 4k, 8k or whatever... who cares. But when Caleb shoots 16mm he needs something proper as he mentioned. 

And keep in mind: Some day you could be in need of other focal lengths. And then the price advantage will decrease as you have to buy more lenses.

So a maybe not so cheap adapter could be the toy of your life. 

But for many it is the search, the hunt and the tinkering what it is all about. 

I like good movies. I think 99% don't care if their favorite movies are shot spherical or whatever. But it is a difference if you project a "real" movie in anamorphic.

I like your work Tito!!! ? 

[Tito Ferradans]

@Rudolf I appreciate your points and the way you laid them out. Indeed Isco has the longest track record and it was never cheap.

My biggest point for Sirui is that they made it in a way that anyone can just pick one up and start shooting. There's not much of a learning curve as there is with adapters, and that's good for us because it pushes everyone forward. We might (hope to) see something that bests Isco some day. The Aivascope 2 did a pretty decent job, for example. ?

[kye]

8 hours ago, leslie said:

there's a movie in this, an anamorphic movie, with alternate endings for both types of glass, gentlemen choose your weapons and ten paces please, any closer and we'd need diopters  ?

Naturally, I choose the cheapest single-focus lens that matches with my 16:9 camera...   oh wait!

[Caleb Genheimer]

2 hours ago, Tito Ferradans said:

@Rudolf I appreciate your points and the way you laid them out. Indeed Isco has the longest track record and it was never cheap.

My biggest point for Sirui is that they made it in a way that anyone can just pick one up and start shooting. There's not much of a learning curve as there is with adapters, and that's good for us because it pushes everyone forward. We might (hope to) see something that bests Isco some day. The Aivascope 2 did a pretty decent job, for example. ?

I’m REALLY crossing fingers hard for a “Pro” version of the Aivascope 1.75X lens some time soon. Heck, I’d buy 3 or 4 and make myself a set of anamorphic primes!

[Emanuel]

I just find a few comments here no less funny instead as well... ; ) Content is king not for anamorphic peepers, I see : D No worries, who professionally shoot taking care of anamorphics, they care much less, I will dare to write or nobody can't focus on the craft at all before to come here and read these boards! :- D

When I was in the film school, a few colleagues of mine were used to spend a couple of rehearsals, literally, to choose the best for their casual look in the front of the mirror... LOL Such vibe reminds me that : X

 

As foot note, nice to see you @Tito Ferradans over here along your insights, be who you are, no one cannot say anything much different than but thanks, it's a pleasure to read your thoughts on so unpretentious topic, you da man! : ) @kye you're the voice of the reason, thanks God you exist! : -)

[Julien416]

@Emanuel it's a gear forum. An anamorphic gear forum. Of course people will get heated and talk about silly and useless details. What honestly did you expect? 

[Emanuel]

6 hours ago, Julien416 said:

@Emanuel it's a gear forum. An anamorphic gear forum. Of course people will get heated and talk about silly and useless details. What honestly did you expect? 

No worries, I am getting used to : ) Just funny, because a craft is invariably much wider than that (to include our subjective scope ; )

I am excited with the half-full (anamorphic) glass, a new definition for game changer I've learnt but here... LOL : -)

[leslie]

visiting the serui website 

Anamorphic Lens

$870 AUD $1,015 (14% off)

50mm F1.8 Anamorphic 1.33X Lens Included Items

Anamorphic Lens

Estimated Shipping

February 2020

578 out of 700 claimed

Ships worldwide.

damn  their starting to go fast, i was hoping to get one soonish, just need to rob a bank er.... no one say anything to grimor please. ?