So, the anamorphic bug has hit again, thanks mainly to some really cheap offers at the moment.
The Sirui anamorphic lenses for MFT/APS-C are all about $500au or $299 US, which is a good 60% under original retail and 40% under the current street price (about $799au-when I can find them).
What are the perceived benefits?
You get (on the 24mm with MFT), a lens with the same image height as a 48-50mm full frame equivalent (normal), but the width or angle of view of a 32mm, or if I went with the 35mm, a 70mm equivalent in height and about a 45mm width.
The specific lenses in question however have other things I need to consider.
The 24mm focusses closer, had slightly better controlled flare (cleaner, but not less) and is slower at f2.8 (the 35 is 1.8).
Previously, all I wanted was the 24. I had done my research and it ticked all the right boxes.
Anamorphic to me is a broad canvas format, a full scene with all its elements and the 1.33x squeeze (about 2.4:1 or 21:9), gives you that width, that grandeur. The 24 is “normal” enough to be used as a medium-close portrait lens, wide enough to include scenes and can do details.
It’s the whole scene, the story of the place and subjects placed in it.
It has zero focus breathing but some mild edge “character” on MFT (more on APS-C), well controlled flares and the weird “waterfall” Bokeh is there, but not distractingly so.
The 35mm can drop the depth of field out and is of course faster, but a regular lens letter-box cropped can also do that, so I guess I have answered my own question. Focus breathing is slight, distortions less pronounced, flare a little messier.
They are both sharp, but apart from that normal considerations come into play, like what is my ground zero in lenses? I have a lean towards the standard 50mm or slightly wider, about 40-50mm ff equivalent.. A 48/32 or 43/28 on the GH5s is about perfect.
Or is it?
If I get the 24mm I could later add the 35 or 50 later as the accompanying lens, or use it as the wide lens with the 25 and 50 Hope lenses as the long options (with cropping).
The Sirui 24 Nightwalker may also be the perfect foil for it, giving me a super fast lens that when letter-boxed in post would be effectively longer and more compressed (cropped in top to bottom to fit the width needed, so basically more cropped in looking).
Both 24’s have warm colour tone, so matching them should not be an issue (I would shoot the spherical with grid lines to aide framing) and the Nightwalker has the super fast option and they take the same filters. A harmonious pairing.
I am also aware that compressed, shallow depth of field imaging is easily over used. The wider frame forces me to create a stronger scene, a better composition and smarter, tighter interactions, which appeals to me as a fan of the “long take”..
There may be a reason I have never managed to fill the semi wide angle range with my kit or finish the Sirui set. Maybe I do not want a semi-wide, I want a wide that is also a standard?
I feel for videography, a true wide is pointless as the main subject will be pushed away, the anamorphic wide-that-is-close option fits better.
Ok, what are the real benefits.
I have lenses with lots of character (TTArt 35 f1.4, 1960’s Pen half-frame 25 f2.8, 7Art Spectrums), I have flares via more versatile filters (gold and blue), can do wide screen (17:9 C4k or 6k cams cropped) and could care less about the Bokeh. Both the flare and bokeh are double edged swords as far as I am concerned.
The reality is, when I see a movie made with anamorphic lenses, I often only ever know by the flares (which I sometimes find over the top and may have been added in post anyway) and the Bokeh (usually when I look for it to confirm the flares). From the inside, we are obsessed with this at the moment. On the outside, the average viewer may or may not respond to the anamorphic effects. Hard to say and when you pint them out, the experiment is broken.
The actual characteristic I really like, wide screen, is sometimes impractical commercially and often too wide anyway, although the 1.33x squeeze of these lenses (2.35:1 or about 21:9 equivalent) is about right.
So, what do I really want?
I would only apply flares to certain dark or bland subjects, the Bokeh is irrelevant, perspective also (evinced by the fact I cannot decide if I care).
I only really want wide screen at about 2:1 ratio or slightly wider or 18-19:9 and to be honest, an anamorphic would only force this on me, not facilitate it.
2:1 ration (or 18:9). Plenty of “cinematic” feel achieved with a spherical lens and a practical format. I can of course always undo this if needed.
Personally, I feel the choice some top directors make when they adopt anamorphic lenses is more based on the characteristics of the lenses themselves and this is often drawn originally from a desire to have that “movie look” or emulate a favourite film or directors legacy, which, like a lot of things is in turn based on old forced habits, adaptions made to fix problems.
The need for the movie industry to chase wide screen to combat TV, when limited to film stock, evolved into anamorphic lenses with oval diaphragms (that squeeze more on the frame), which in turn led to linear flares, oval Bokeh and perspective changes, only one of which can be seen as an actual benefit and none are mandatory for film making. Ironically, it is only with digital cameras that whole thing is available to average folk and they would have effectively removed the need in the first place.
Like black and white film or the SLR mirror, it was not originally a choice, but a work around that then gained “elite” status and a creative signature, because well, they had no choice. You think of a creative work and you automatically accept the look or sound it has, because the two are directly linked.
Nostalgia and habits.
Like those forced realities, not having the need anymore does give us a choice, so what to choose?
Get one, have some fun and wedge it into an otherwise spherical work flow, or go “Roger Deakins” and shoot clean, then add effects after? Maybe a little of both, using spherical glass and the occasional filter or funky lens.
Probably no, as I have once again managed to talk my way through this.
Third time now, must move on and save my money.