Anamorphic videography is a lot easier than it used to be, well up to a certain level anyway.
I like some aspects of it, feel others are a “legacy” look, that are akin to just jumping on a well trod wagon and going for the same ride as others and some parts I really do not like.
Wide screen is a thing.
Roger Deakins and the Cohen brothers are fans of shooting normally and “letterboxing” for the close-wide look. This appeals to me except there is a benefit to a lens with “X” magnification and “Y” width that are actually at odds with each other.
The Sirui 24mm for example is a 48mm equivalent by height and a 32-36mm by width on M43 same format.
This appeals on a lot of levels.
The next thing is that flare, the over the top, sometimes beautiful sometimes annoying streaks that come from point light sources and some other stuff, that can be great or just over bearing.
Not a fan of having no options here. I have blue and gold streak Moment filters coming and I think that will do. About 90% of my video lenses will be able to take them and I can choose the when and the why.
The streaks I find attractive to add something to an otherwise bland night scene, to busy up some stage work or simply for the fake anamorphic look, filters will give me the option and some control, a dedicated lens would not.
The oval Bokeh.
This is a look some videographers drool over. The rest of the world is likely oblivious (I was), so no, not a thing.
From the Vision 50mm. I like round circles. Oval circles do not make sense to me.
The softness.
This is not necessarily a benefit, but it is a thing and is often used because it is there. It can be achieved in a variety of ways. The Sirui lenses ironically avoid this, by being decently sharp. Like most other anamorphic elements it can be mimicked but also controlled with filtering or processing.
Much to ponder…….
…..
…
.
So, can anyone explain to me why I just bought the IRIX 150 T3.0 cine macro (L-Mount)?
What a monster. Biggest full frame lens I will own and possibly the most bizarre.
It is too long, a macro, manual focus with an enormously long throw and it is big, heavy and a filter eater. Also, it is on its own in my kit, no logic, no pattern, no “friends” to speak of.
It was really cheap for a split second thanks to a Black Friday-1 only in stock deal. It went from being the price of a decent camera body, to the price of a Lumix S prime.
The same company that had a blink-and-you-miss-it sale on the 7Artisan lenses, dropped this on me while I was poking around aimlessly.
Should not poke around…..might find something.
Often do.
If I can get this from the cheap 7Artisans 35 (a massive crop mind you), imagine where the IRIX could take me?
This has stretched the friendship, but I will attempt to justify it like this.
Here goes.
Be kind.
In L-Mount there are very few affordable tele or macro lenses. This does both of those with cine touches and as for AF, well, I will leave that to my M43 gear or the excellent 85mm.
Superior sharpness, Bokeh, flare resistance, real macro, some reach* and speed, for about $1100au. Hard to argue with and it may even open up whole areas of video (or stills) shooting I had not considered.
Video a play, from the back of the theatre?
Maybe a set of compressed, uber-Bokeh portraits?
An iris-level closeup to start a scene?
Maybe even some sports videos?
Maybe.
Where will it really lead?
I guess that comes down to how I look at it. The collector/completist/obsessive in me may want another IRIX to match (30 T1.5, my “one lens”), but if I look at it as an expansion to the Lumix S primes for genuine sharpness or the 7Artisans for cine goodness, or even just as a one off specialist lens with only itself for company, it makes sense (sort of).
Still, it was cheap by any measure and for me, more to my liking than a super wide. Compared to spending at least two thirds as much on a stills macro, which I would use in manual focus anyway, it really is a bargain.
The lens does also match my favourite Olympus lens, the 75 f1.8 (almost exactly the same specs), so this may be my “thing”. Like that lens, it is a specialist, an elite option, the best at what it does in my kit.
To be honest, it was just one of those moments I felt I needed to grab with both hands. Even if I want to sell it later I will likely break even, which is rare in this game.
It has also helped me kill off any thought of adding Anamorphic glass. I think now I can call myself a confirmed spherical lens user. Hold me to that!
My cine kit is an odd collection of budget cine-like lenses, now an actual cine grade lens, some legacy glass and state of the art modern lenses spread over three formats, but it still feels right. I feel that maybe, just maybe I have matched roles, to cameras, to lenses.
The run-n-gun G9 Mk2 has a full range of M43 glass, the 12mm Cine for hand held and maximum depth and can be expanded to more regular lengths with loss-less teleconverters.
The more serious S5 has the core cine lenses, a mirrored set of regular AF primes, then this monster portrait/macro option. The cine glass is carefully chosen, the Lumix lenses a “perfect” hybrid lens kit.
The OSMO is a useful gimbal/odd places and angles camera, more useful than a gimbal in many ways.
Taking stock, I am still in the “not completely mad” category of full frame users, keeping the lot within the cost of a Sony A7s3 and G master zoom.
Oh and I got a small rig mini follow focus today and it rocks!
*In APS-C mode, it is even a 225mm with 1 1/2:1 macro. In pixel to pixel mode, the mind boggles. How about high res stills mode? Wow!
ed. I just thought of something cool. Maybe a project using the 300 F4, IRIX, 12mm 7Art and 9mm Leica, all capable macro lenses, all tackling it differently.