Thanks for the honest review, i completely understand what you mean regarding how youtubers/brands work these days, and i’m so glad you voiced out about it. 🙏
Good review. I shot a feature with the A set on the Venice 1. They hold up pretty well. The director kept geeking out when he saw the dailies. I agree that they flare easy but all you need are hard mattes for the matte box which is an easy fix 😂. Me personally I don’t want a lens to be too sharp especially anamorphic I want the natural/ exaggerated shallow dof like how some panavisions and kowas are. As for focus I believe they were tuned this way for a reason just like the Tribe lenses were tuned a specific way. The roll off of these allow you to fine tune what you want the eye to focus on, which I love ❤. The color rendition on these are nice to, especially for the price. They are not for every project but when you need a specific look they are a good go to. Loved the honesty, great review. Once I get the 33mm in Amber my A set will be complete 🎉.
A lot of the cons you mention are just things that are inherit traits of anamorphic glass to begin with, regardless of the price.. If you have expectations of these performing like spherical glass, then you're smoking crack(not saying you specifically but people in general). Just like the new catos, these really aren't meant to be shot wide open unless you're doing locked off tripod shots and doing something artsy and most of the time applying sharpness in post. These are tools for specific jobs, and not something people should expect to throw on their cameras to go an handle all their paid work. Also,saying these flares are worse than any other option out there is W I L D considering how bad the sirui flares look..
my main point with the (weird) flares is no amount of stopping down will fix them. in fact they get worse as you stop down. i’ve used plenty of other anamorphic glass that behaves a whole lot better at all the things i mentioned in the video. they are great lenses but they just don’t compete with more expensive anamorphics
I am very excited to see the new Stratera 1.5x lenses from Old Fast Glass. They are some of the best looking 1.5x lenses I've seen and would definitely rent those or the Mercury lens sets for a bigger shoot.
Feeling in-between “I like the look” and “i can add look with filters if I want to” A cleaner lens is most of the time a better option for most things as they are more universally usable. From what I see, is you need intend to use these lenses. They feel very much like the helios 44-2. Great lens for specific scenarios bad for others. The price point is great though. They will sell a lot of them and will incentivise other companies to innovate too in this space. Lots of great lenses out there rn to choose from and it’s only getting better. Thanks for your input.
with anamorphic the look is tricky to fake in post and definitely has cemented its place in commercials and film but of course different lenses work better for different jobs!
@@WhiteJadeProductions you can sort of fake anamorphic with davinci nowadays but am not talking about the anamorphic look alone but also the "dirtiness" of the lens. We buy super crisp lenses and add halation filters like pro mist on top of them and vignette, film grain and what not in post to give 'character'. I think most want clean lenses because you can always add imperfections but never remove them making imperfect lenses less versatile. From a business perspective am unsure it makes sense over dzo primes for example.
@@MrCoffis I definitely understand the idea behind the thought and have done it that way before (I actually have a few video on it) however there's something special when a lens crafts the look and not one's and zero's. capturing it in camera is a different experience and once you try it it's hard to go back to just faking it
GREAT vid! THANK you, sincerely! I've been tryna figure out how to move re my first cinema glass, and there's just so much nice budget stuff coming out all the time that it's taking me a while! and i won't mention his name but i do not like the guy who shills these lenses, and started all that drama...i wanna hear what ppl DON'T like about a lens! I've got eyes lol, i can see nice, clean footage. these are budget lenses, i know they've gotta have limitations, so tell us! and you did. but anyway, a cpl TINY things i'd appreciate if someone told me: somewhere in the first minute or 2 you say "glance over" when you mean "gloss over," and at around 2:30 you mean "in conjunction," not "in conjuncture." on rare occasion when i try to tell ppl about these things, they act like i'm calling them stupid, and i'm not. ftr i believe you're likely considerably more intelligent than I am lol i just used to do copywriting and some editing so tiny things like that jump out at me. anyway, again, thank you so so much for being so honest.. subbed! dunno if I'll end up buying these, will prob get some spherical first, think I've narrowed it to the Athena's vs the Arles's.. but we'll see!
You build up your position and then at 2:50 you straight up say "they're unusable at T2". Come on bro. Showing your flaws or you got a faulty lens. I shoot all day with the 45 and 65 wide open. They're beautiful. They're sharp. I'm a paying customer and care not for followers.
i should probably be more clear. they are unusable in a professional situation with paying clients at T2. I’d get fired for sure If i shot a whole commercial at T2 with any anamorphic lens. i’m definitely not doing anything for followers. i probably will actually get some hate over this video lol.
Thank you for sharing! I used these lenses a long time ago. I think they have too many flaws... sorry I meant to say I think they have too much "character."
Loving my 35mm. But... I definitely need to shim either it or my PL mount. I have the simmod adapter for E mount. I agree at this point before shimming that its pretty soft, especially from a far distance pushing closer to infinity. I'm tempted to think its my PL mount adapter, because we just shot a short film on a RED raptor VV and the Atlas Orion lenses, and they looked so nice and sharp on the RED but they were borderline unusable on my sony with the PL mount. So I will probably be shimming my PL mount very soon.
Great video and review, thank you for this! It's good to see a UA-camr being honest about the price point and some of the drawbacks of the Blazar Remus lenses. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws and especially being transparent about the usable aperture range. I have been involved with photography since the early 90's and videography and cinematography off and on since the mid 2000's. I can honestly say that it is a great time for both of these fields in regards to the gear and lens choices that are available these days. However the old saying that "You get what you pay for" is still very applicable in the lens world. Without ever having looked through the Blazar glass and just listening to about a dozen reviews on them, the conclusion I have come to is that they are an very solid set of anamorphics to cut your teeth on at an amazing price point. Taking the jump up to something like the Atlas Mercury's would be a 10x price increase and most young filmmakers don't have that kind of budget. Kasey Stern from Camera Conspiracies does multiple skits on his channel by playing two characters himself. One is his alter ego the "Schilltuber", a guy that is always schilling for camera companies so he can acquire new gear. The other is his normal self who calls the "schilltuber" out in a dark comedic way. Check it out if you haven't yet.
@@WhiteJadeProductions Ah darn, I was hoping the blue streaks in a blue lens would be just the blue light being reflected rather than the full spectrum somehow.
Interesting take and honestly sounds like maybe you need to shim or you have a bad set. I have the A set and can shoot wide open with a Glimmerglass filter on and still have a sharp image on both the 45 and 65. Granted I often shoot between 2.8-4 but I’m not having the issues you’re saying and I always have a Glimmerglass filter on. My CA is pretty minimal unless I’m under the most extreme conditions. I’m also not getting that extreme flaring that you’re getting from those tiny lights. I could list my own cons from the lens that most others would also agree with but they are not really the ones you’re struggling with. Secondary green flares, slight swimming effect under certain conditions, not enough overall character in the center of the image, etc… would be my cons.
when using pro mist filters CA tends to be a whole lot less noticeable. I've actually started shooting at T2.4 with a 1/4 of black mist and it looks great!
The B set is much more sharper wide open. You know, the selective spot sharpness with nice focus roll off to end up in “cream” bokeh, with good blacks and at the same time transparent ghosting flares character in a panavision C series is because of many many lens elements made with incredible materials, some polished different than others, some with coatings; all very selective so that almost nothing is left to chance. That’s why is called state of art. Panavision goal was to make more separation between the optical characteristics. Zeiss was to create compositive clean image to mold or to represent reality (that’s why is used by Lubesky). Cooke was to create more blending between optical characteristics. Kowa to recreate German Zeiss but with a Japanese romantic Impressionism. The same with Russian lenses but with that Eastern Europe industrial trademark. And all of them were created so that the widest aperture could exaggerate the expressions of the designs, so that when stopped down they would start to blend with a neutral image. This way cinematography will always have a good palette selection to tell different stories. (Hence all lens test are made at the widest aperture). But hey, look at this beautiful concept hidden to everyone in the internet. With the option of buying the book “The cinelens Manual “, like the only way of real knowledge for anyone that doesn’t have the means to educate about real history of lens cinematography, and else. And is a physical book, forget about that information on any web page, forget about “AI” that is machine learning in reality. We start the digital cinema journey with the wrong foot, because of the digital photo lenses. They are meant to be sharp across the board so a photo could represent the best interest of an artist. With cinema is not the same, and IMHO we have to start learning cinema the right way before we start jumping into naive conclusions. Anamorphic is a complete different animal to spherical, and they were specifically designed for narrative cinema.
i partially agree. having done this for about a decade i’ve learned almost every lens/camera can be the right tool for the job given certain circumstances. character in a lens doesn’t necessarily mean cinematic. i think that’s a very lost idea these days. clean sharp lenses can often produce much better images in the hands of a DP who knows what the story needs
@@WhiteJadeProductions That's why Lubeski (chivo) uses Master Primes almost always (exactly like I said)( because of the Malick Lubeski dogma). Zeiss Master Primes are designed like that. Other example is the John Wick series with Master Anamorphics, but Laustsen wanted more flares so Arri created the front and rear flare attachments. And Character is not errors in the optics schematics, is just the final optical trademarks of every lens design that can cover certain needs, hence the name character (like personality). Other thing is the optical errors that result in cost effective designs. I love a phrase from Dan Sazaki (Nolan's favorite lens technician now head of lens design at Panavision ): "I Frankenstein everything". Well is good to know that this subject we are speaking is going to need more than 10 years of experience, cause when real science and art are mixed in this way, we better grab some beers and provisions, cause this is going to last our life time.
@@andyz_w3584 You wellcome man! but i'm not that great (if you are imagining). I just love all the hidden secrets in art and factual science of the subject, and all the history behind it.
Місяць тому
the shot in the beginning does not have the green secondray flare, how did you do that ?
part of that just has to do with the angle of the shot relative to the sun and the side of the flare.
Місяць тому
@@WhiteJadeProductions hmmm interesting ! thanks! I only managed it to do a few times, but i could not get that consistent, and since i am not a fan of the green secondary flare it was always a fight
is still get the lenses i personally love them in the right use case! and maybe on the catos. i don’t really need 2x anamorphic glass at the moment and if i did i would likely rent the atlas orions.
thanks for showing all the flare problems. reminds me of a long time ago, when video was SD, JVC made the KY-17 1/2" 3CCD camera. low end "pro" ENG style camera that had massive veritcal smear anytime ANY light got into a shot, just like this lens does horizontally, but way worse.
Thanks for your thoughts! I'm getting the 50mm tomorrow or Thursday (we'll see if UPS is on time haha) and very interested to try it out. But your thoughts align 100% with my observations from all the footage I've seen. Not lenses I'd likely use with 90% of my clients - won't say I never would never use it on a paid gig, but they'd have to be really looking for the specific aesthetic...but they're fun artistic lenses for creative personal projects. I've got a pretty full set of spherical zooms and primes that work great for my wedding and commercial work. These guys seem to be much more the "we want to get a cool look artistically in a more controlled environment (avoiding 50 billion point lights)" style of lens. I think I'll enjoy the 50mm (and if I pick up others down the line as well), but definitely wouldn't want em as my only lens option and I wouldn't dare try to shoot a wedding on em unless a couple REALLY wanted that specific look and understood the weaknesses and limitations of the lens.
yeah ahaha it definitely has its place! on a S35 camera it looks wayyyy cleaner so if widescreen is the goal that’d be a good move. it’s probably a good commercial choice for lenses as i’ve seen a few big ads shot on sirui anamorphics and these are definitely a better choice
Glad The UA-cam algorithm gods recommended your video! I certainly noticed an up boom in these blazer anamorphic reviews all of a sudden And you are spot on and saying that they don't point out a lot of the flaws. However, I do think it's a bit of an overstretch to say that they're not saying anything negative because they're being sponsored because I don't think it's true that the one rule applies to all. I think if I were in the same boat and someone sent me some free anamorphic lenses I would have nothing but good things out of excitement BUT I would also take the courtesy to make a follow-up review with my experiences a few months or years down the road. I'm glad I ran across your review because I almost bought into the anamorphic hype, but I think I'm going to hold out as it's not going to be my day-to-day. Again, great review and keep up the good work!
i definitely agree with everything you’re saying! they point out negatives for sure but i just don’t think it’s as in depth as the positives and that’s my issue
Agreed @OP, dude wastes time, won’t get to the point. Also, The word the tuber was looking for was “conjunction”. Listening now and it’s nothing I haven’t heard from others…
Great video! First of all I 100% agree. „Not sponsored & no money changed hands & I get to say what I want“ = biased review. Wheater we like it or not. I am looking forward to the blazar apex with AF. Maybe you will review them honestly one da too. You earn a sub
@@WhiteJadeProductions As a complete beginner to video, I have done photography for several years. Since cameras can be used for both now I purchased a gimbal for video work and I have been checking out videos like yours for what is trending and why. I am curious, why you do not prefer auto focus lenses? Since I assumed the apex line of lenses would be a better fit for my Nikon Z8 also although the gimbal I just purchased came with a focus pulling attachment..
@@MB-dq2gz I personally don't like AF. it's jittery and simply doesn't always go where I want it to so I manual focus. that being said AF is super useful for anyone who can't manual focus or doesn't use cine lenses
Deffo feel your points. We've done a Remus A-Set review and we recorded it 3 times to try get the positives and negatives to a place we felt was well balanced given the vlaue of the lenses and included talking points about shimming and performance improving stopped down vs wide open. Over on The Film Guy channel we've been trying to include clear pro's and con's in our videos because we've noticed other creators focusing more on entertainment and advertising value first.
The Remus B set is noticeably sharper than the A set by the way. Not sure if it matters enough but still. Are you planning on honest-reviewing the Blazar Cato lenses as well?
i have noticed the differences between the sets but some of the issues unfortunately still remain. i like a soft look which is why i didn’t get any B set lenses just yet. i haven’t had a chance to test any of the cato lenses yet but when i do I’d definitely give my honest opinions on it
Good review. Honest and to the point. Personally, I prefer the 1.33x anamorphic lenses. When you get to 1.5x and above, it feels like I'm watching the movie through a mail slot in a door. Maybe because I'm an old guy who grew up on Cinemascope movies. But, the wider aspect ratios look too forced and unnatural. Thanks for sharing your views.
@@videotuotannot2693 It’s still too wide. As I said, I prefer the CinemaScope aspect ratio. The one you see most often in movie theaters. So far, I’ve only seen 1.5x and 1.6x from UA-camrs. I don’t foresee such aspect ratios being used in theatrical films.
no one actually leaves it at that ratio unless reviewing a lens. 2.39 is traditional cinemascope and no one really delivers anything wider than that other than some very rare exceptions
... if you pretend sharpness at T2 with a 1000 dollar Ana lens ... you don't understand the basics of optics, this happens with every lens the cheaper you go the more pronounced it gets
I have a set and I’m not sure if it’s case by case or what but I shot a shot wide open and… the images were in focus and decently sharp. Not the sharpest like a sigma art or something but I didn’t understand what everyone was talking about. I dunno. It was fun and the footage came out great
The Blazar Nero anamoprhic adapter is a better option for me than the Remus. The flares are more controlled on the Nero vs the Remus and you can retain the unique character from the vintage lens with a 1.5x squeeze factor.
probably a good choice with particular taking lenses. i’m not particularly a fan of the CA you get with adapters and the time it takes on set to change or adjust it but i used adapters for a while and it’s probably a great choice for a lot of people!
@ The idea of anamorphic adapters doesn’t sound sexy, but definitely try the blazar adapter. It’s a great modern option. It’s way cleaner than the Remus, flares are usable in all scenarios unlike the Remus, and CA is controlled past f/2.8. I’ve tested both and the Blazar Nero honestly is a better value than the Remus.
I like mine… but maybe I got a good set…. And I’ll probably use them on all sorts of projects… But yea, Cammakey is a Blazar ad at this point 😂 although he does make them work great so I can’t argue too much…
i wouldn’t call out names. some channels like himself and CVP are pretty forthright with their thoughts. some people are also going to like different aspects of the lenses. some things i don’t like others will and vise versa
@ Lol 😂 true. I love Cammakey’s work and I watch him the most so I guess that is why I noticed him most. Although I have seen several others really pushing it as well. And I do love the lenses, I mean I bought the full set so I’m invested, but it is interesting to watch the marketing.
I thought Cam specifically discussed the very things that he’s being criticized for by Ethan, he addresses all of these complaints and puts these lenses on the projector then points out the problems. Cam lays out ALL the due diligence despite the criticism, especially clowns like Nick Salazar and his critical video going after Cam. Despise that disingenuous clown.
For me, the 'deal breaker' is the fishbowl look of almost all their lenses. If you pan the camera you get the bubble feel and I don't enjoy it at all. Also, the secondary flares are a terrible color of green. I'm now looking at just getting a single used Atlas Orion lens, haha.
you could get rid of that distortion in post for sure! as for the flares you’re totally right however if you’re shooting on a camera with an OLPF they won’t be green.
@@WhiteJadeProductions an OLPF doesn’t negate all the color. I’ve used a Blackmagic 6k FF and saw the noticeable color. And when you are using a fix in post, it wont get rid of all the fishbowl look. It’s okay to say these lenses have a lot of issues. I’ve used them. I like to ask myself what can a piece of gear do FOR me.
@@WhiteJadeProductions Yeah they're not made for those tiny LED's everywhere, but overall I think they're brilliant. I don't have any but planning to snatch the B-Set in the future.
there’s this red slider at the bottom of your screen. idk if you know this but you can skip my little ted talk by dragging it to the right. all joke lol. not everyone does understand marketing and a lot of beginners in this industry have no clue at all so it might not have been news to you but to other people it definitely was
Hey Jade, thanks for the video, but I will have to disagree. These lenses are amazing! ❤❤❤. I have the A set and have done a heap of videos on them. I paid for mine and I am not sponsored. The 45mm and 65mm are completely fine. The 65mm you have in you hand, I viewed a short video I did, on a 100inch screen, 1080p @ 25mbps. Looked as good as any TV series or movie. The 100mm, yes, maybe this one has some issues, it has blooming, which does limit this lens and is very soft wide open. The 45mm can also have a vertical blue flare, with certain back lighting. But at this price and weight! 1.3kg on my Lumix S9!!!! 😮 you can't complain. Not sure what people expect for sub 1K USD?????
i definitely agree with you! most of the footage was shot at T4 with some T2.8 - T4 splits sprinkled in so i’m sure it looked great on a TV. for 1k it’s definitely a banger. but budget always means compromises so i figured i’d share my thoughts. i’m also coming from a film, Tv, and commercial background so i tend to be a bit more harsh about gear.
I dont understand the anamorphic hype. This format is only good for film theaters. My i pad has 4.3 ratio, my computer screen has 16.9 and on phones its vertical of course. No one wants super wide super short content on their devices. 99% of all creators will never do real cinema stuff.
i shoot a lot of commercials in which a 2.39 delivery is super common. most people just want the look anamorphic provides. it’s not really made for content creation necessarily. however flipping the lens sideways gives a more square look and sometimes that’s useful
Thanks for the honest review, i completely understand what you mean regarding how youtubers/brands work these days, and i’m so glad you voiced out about it. 🙏
absolutely! it doesn’t apply to all youtubers but there are some it does
Review Starts at 2:13
Good review. I shot a feature with the A set on the Venice 1. They hold up pretty well. The director kept geeking out when he saw the dailies. I agree that they flare easy but all you need are hard mattes for the matte box which is an easy fix 😂. Me personally I don’t want a lens to be too sharp especially anamorphic I want the natural/ exaggerated shallow dof like how some panavisions and kowas are. As for focus I believe they were tuned this way for a reason just like the Tribe lenses were tuned a specific way. The roll off of these allow you to fine tune what you want the eye to focus on, which I love ❤. The color rendition on these are nice to, especially for the price. They are not for every project but when you need a specific look they are a good go to. Loved the honesty, great review. Once I get the 33mm in Amber my A set will be complete 🎉.
the color is my favorite part but I didn't mention it because this is UA-cam and most people here haven't even used enough lenses to get that lol
A lot of the cons you mention are just things that are inherit traits of anamorphic glass to begin with, regardless of the price.. If you have expectations of these performing like spherical glass, then you're smoking crack(not saying you specifically but people in general). Just like the new catos, these really aren't meant to be shot wide open unless you're doing locked off tripod shots and doing something artsy and most of the time applying sharpness in post. These are tools for specific jobs, and not something people should expect to throw on their cameras to go an handle all their paid work. Also,saying these flares are worse than any other option out there is W I L D considering how bad the sirui flares look..
my main point with the (weird) flares is no amount of stopping down will fix them. in fact they get worse as you stop down. i’ve used plenty of other anamorphic glass that behaves a whole lot better at all the things i mentioned in the video. they are great lenses but they just don’t compete with more expensive anamorphics
I am very excited to see the new Stratera 1.5x lenses from Old Fast Glass. They are some of the best looking 1.5x lenses I've seen and would definitely rent those or the Mercury lens sets for a bigger shoot.
Old fast glass and Ancient Optics
i haven’t heard of those yet. i’ll do some research and check em out!!
Feeling in-between “I like the look” and “i can add look with filters if I want to”
A cleaner lens is most of the time a better option for most things as they are more universally usable.
From what I see, is you need intend to use these lenses. They feel very much like the helios 44-2. Great lens for specific scenarios bad for others. The price point is great though. They will sell a lot of them and will incentivise other companies to innovate too in this space.
Lots of great lenses out there rn to choose from and it’s only getting better. Thanks for your input.
with anamorphic the look is tricky to fake in post and definitely has cemented its place in commercials and film but of course different lenses work better for different jobs!
@@WhiteJadeProductions you can sort of fake anamorphic with davinci nowadays but am not talking about the anamorphic look alone but also the "dirtiness" of the lens. We buy super crisp lenses and add halation filters like pro mist on top of them and vignette, film grain and what not in post to give 'character'. I think most want clean lenses because you can always add imperfections but never remove them making imperfect lenses less versatile. From a business perspective am unsure it makes sense over dzo primes for example.
@@MrCoffis I definitely understand the idea behind the thought and have done it that way before (I actually have a few video on it) however there's something special when a lens crafts the look and not one's and zero's. capturing it in camera is a different experience and once you try it it's hard to go back to just faking it
without an AC, I do prefer a smaller focus throw. I mostly find myself pulling my own focus
i tend to as well which is why i like it!
GREAT vid! THANK you, sincerely! I've been tryna figure out how to move re my first cinema glass, and there's just so much nice budget stuff coming out all the time that it's taking me a while! and i won't mention his name but i do not like the guy who shills these lenses, and started all that drama...i wanna hear what ppl DON'T like about a lens! I've got eyes lol, i can see nice, clean footage. these are budget lenses, i know they've gotta have limitations, so tell us!
and you did.
but anyway, a cpl TINY things i'd appreciate if someone told me: somewhere in the first minute or 2 you say "glance over" when you mean "gloss over," and at around 2:30 you mean "in conjunction," not "in conjuncture."
on rare occasion when i try to tell ppl about these things, they act like i'm calling them stupid, and i'm not. ftr i believe you're likely considerably more intelligent than I am lol i just used to do copywriting and some editing so tiny things like that jump out at me.
anyway, again, thank you so so much for being so honest.. subbed! dunno if I'll end up buying these, will prob get some spherical first, think I've narrowed it to the Athena's vs the Arles's.. but we'll see!
arles are pretty great! yeah i noticed that when editing but didn’t wanna reshoot ahaha
You build up your position and then at 2:50 you straight up say "they're unusable at T2". Come on bro. Showing your flaws or you got a faulty lens. I shoot all day with the 45 and 65 wide open. They're beautiful. They're sharp. I'm a paying customer and care not for followers.
i should probably be more clear. they are unusable in a professional situation with paying clients at T2. I’d get fired for sure If i shot a whole commercial at T2 with any anamorphic lens. i’m definitely not doing anything for followers. i probably will actually get some hate over this video lol.
4:58 The S5 has 4:3 sensor
you can use 4:3 in crop mode but the full size of the sensor is actually 3:2
Thank you for a finally honest video on this lens. KUDOS!!!!
it low key needed to be done!
Honestly, the reception footage looked great. At least what you showed.
it definitely didn’t look bad for wedding footage but the little flares were def annoying
Thank you for sharing! I used these lenses a long time ago. I think they have too many flaws... sorry I meant to say I think they have too much "character."
ahahaha!! use whatever works for you!
When you guys say budget I'm thinking 300usd. But 1000 usd in South Africa you can get a car 😢
that’s wild!
Loving my 35mm. But... I definitely need to shim either it or my PL mount. I have the simmod adapter for E mount. I agree at this point before shimming that its pretty soft, especially from a far distance pushing closer to infinity. I'm tempted to think its my PL mount adapter, because we just shot a short film on a RED raptor VV and the Atlas Orion lenses, and they looked so nice and sharp on the RED but they were borderline unusable on my sony with the PL mount. So I will probably be shimming my PL mount very soon.
hopefully getting the 33mm soon myself!
Great video and review, thank you for this! It's good to see a UA-camr being honest about the price point and some of the drawbacks of the Blazar Remus lenses. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws and especially being transparent about the usable aperture range. I have been involved with photography since the early 90's and videography and cinematography off and on since the mid 2000's. I can honestly say that it is a great time for both of these fields in regards to the gear and lens choices that are available these days. However the old saying that "You get what you pay for" is still very applicable in the lens world. Without ever having looked through the Blazar glass and just listening to about a dozen reviews on them, the conclusion I have come to is that they are an very solid set of anamorphics to cut your teeth on at an amazing price point. Taking the jump up to something like the Atlas Mercury's would be a 10x price increase and most young filmmakers don't have that kind of budget. Kasey Stern from Camera Conspiracies does multiple skits on his channel by playing two characters himself. One is his alter ego the "Schilltuber", a guy that is always schilling for camera companies so he can acquire new gear. The other is his normal self who calls the "schilltuber" out in a dark comedic way. Check it out if you haven't yet.
that’s sounds pretty funny i’ll definitely check it out!!
You should get a blue or silver to borrow next time you're indoors and see if they flare less with warm lighting.
unfortunately they all flare the same no matter the flare color but with controlled lighting it wouldn’t be an issue
@@WhiteJadeProductions Ah darn, I was hoping the blue streaks in a blue lens would be just the blue light being reflected rather than the full spectrum somehow.
Interesting take and honestly sounds like maybe you need to shim or you have a bad set. I have the A set and can shoot wide open with a Glimmerglass filter on and still have a sharp image on both the 45 and 65. Granted I often shoot between 2.8-4 but I’m not having the issues you’re saying and I always have a Glimmerglass filter on. My CA is pretty minimal unless I’m under the most extreme conditions. I’m also not getting that extreme flaring that you’re getting from those tiny lights.
I could list my own cons from the lens that most others would also agree with but they are not really the ones you’re struggling with. Secondary green flares, slight swimming effect under certain conditions, not enough overall character in the center of the image, etc… would be my cons.
when using pro mist filters CA tends to be a whole lot less noticeable. I've actually started shooting at T2.4 with a 1/4 of black mist and it looks great!
Focus roll off is probably very pleasing, looks like a 1:33 suriu I’d rather use the 1.5 adapter
it definitely looks and performs better than any adapter.
I have been on the fence about cheap anamorphics for the very reasons you reveal. Just sphericals for me (when budget is a concern).
totally fair! you use what you like!
Thank you, it’s hard to be critical of a company that want to maintain a relationship with. Thanks for keeping it real bro
appreciate it! there’s a lot of youtubers out there who are straight up and honest!
what camerae did you pair them with? looks like arri alexa
ahaha i appreciate that! it’s on the lumix S5
The B set is much more sharper wide open. You know, the selective spot sharpness with nice focus roll off to end up in “cream” bokeh, with good blacks and at the same time transparent ghosting flares character in a panavision C series is because of many many lens elements made with incredible materials, some polished different than others, some with coatings; all very selective so that almost nothing is left to chance. That’s why is called state of art. Panavision goal was to make more separation between the optical characteristics. Zeiss was to create compositive clean image to mold or to represent reality (that’s why is used by Lubesky). Cooke was to create more blending between optical characteristics. Kowa to recreate German Zeiss but with a Japanese romantic Impressionism. The same with Russian lenses but with that Eastern Europe industrial trademark. And all of them were created so that the widest aperture could exaggerate the expressions of the designs, so that when stopped down they would start to blend with a neutral image. This way cinematography will always have a good palette selection to tell different stories. (Hence all lens test are made at the widest aperture). But hey, look at this beautiful concept hidden to everyone in the internet. With the option of buying the book “The cinelens Manual “, like the only way of real knowledge for anyone that doesn’t have the means to educate about real history of lens cinematography, and else. And is a physical book, forget about that information on any web page, forget about “AI” that is machine learning in reality. We start the digital cinema journey with the wrong foot, because of the digital photo lenses. They are meant to be sharp across the board so a photo could represent the best interest of an artist. With cinema is not the same, and IMHO we have to start learning cinema the right way before we start jumping into naive conclusions. Anamorphic is a complete different animal to spherical, and they were specifically designed for narrative cinema.
i partially agree. having done this for about a decade i’ve learned almost every lens/camera can be the right tool for the job given certain circumstances. character in a lens doesn’t necessarily mean cinematic. i think that’s a very lost idea these days. clean sharp lenses can often produce much better images in the hands of a DP who knows what the story needs
@@WhiteJadeProductions That's why Lubeski (chivo) uses Master Primes almost always (exactly like I said)( because of the Malick Lubeski dogma). Zeiss Master Primes are designed like that. Other example is the John Wick series with Master Anamorphics, but Laustsen wanted more flares so Arri created the front and rear flare attachments. And Character is not errors in the optics schematics, is just the final optical trademarks of every lens design that can cover certain needs, hence the name character (like personality). Other thing is the optical errors that result in cost effective designs. I love a phrase from Dan Sazaki (Nolan's favorite lens technician now head of lens design at Panavision ): "I Frankenstein everything". Well is good to know that this subject we are speaking is going to need more than 10 years of experience, cause when real science and art are mixed in this way, we better grab some beers and provisions, cause this is going to last our life time.
This is A real cinematographer‘s real knowledgeable advice. Appreciate ❤.
@@agustinsaavedra2752 appreciate again! Do you recommend set A or set B for narrative documentary?
@@andyz_w3584 You wellcome man! but i'm not that great (if you are imagining). I just love all the hidden secrets in art and factual science of the subject, and all the history behind it.
the shot in the beginning does not have the green secondray flare, how did you do that ?
part of that just has to do with the angle of the shot relative to the sun and the side of the flare.
@@WhiteJadeProductions hmmm interesting ! thanks! I only managed it to do a few times, but i could not get that consistent, and since i am not a fan of the green secondary flare it was always a fight
yeah not much you can do about it
You made me question my first anamorphic lens purchase. Will you get a Cato?
is still get the lenses i personally love them in the right use case! and maybe on the catos. i don’t really need 2x anamorphic glass at the moment and if i did i would likely rent the atlas orions.
thanks for showing all the flare problems. reminds me of a long time ago, when video was SD, JVC made the KY-17 1/2" 3CCD camera. low end "pro" ENG style camera that had massive veritcal smear anytime ANY light got into a shot, just like this lens does horizontally, but way worse.
ahah i’ve used that camera!
Thanks for your thoughts! I'm getting the 50mm tomorrow or Thursday (we'll see if UPS is on time haha) and very interested to try it out. But your thoughts align 100% with my observations from all the footage I've seen. Not lenses I'd likely use with 90% of my clients - won't say I never would never use it on a paid gig, but they'd have to be really looking for the specific aesthetic...but they're fun artistic lenses for creative personal projects. I've got a pretty full set of spherical zooms and primes that work great for my wedding and commercial work. These guys seem to be much more the "we want to get a cool look artistically in a more controlled environment (avoiding 50 billion point lights)" style of lens. I think I'll enjoy the 50mm (and if I pick up others down the line as well), but definitely wouldn't want em as my only lens option and I wouldn't dare try to shoot a wedding on em unless a couple REALLY wanted that specific look and understood the weaknesses and limitations of the lens.
yeah ahaha it definitely has its place! on a S35 camera it looks wayyyy cleaner so if widescreen is the goal that’d be a good move. it’s probably a good commercial choice for lenses as i’ve seen a few big ads shot on sirui anamorphics and these are definitely a better choice
@@WhiteJadeProductions Thanks for review. Have you tried 35mm on s35? Thinking to get one.
@MrRayAx i haven’t because there’s only the one S35 lens but reviews of it seem good!
Glad The UA-cam algorithm gods recommended your video! I certainly noticed an up boom in these blazer anamorphic reviews all of a sudden And you are spot on and saying that they don't point out a lot of the flaws. However, I do think it's a bit of an overstretch to say that they're not saying anything negative because they're being sponsored because I don't think it's true that the one rule applies to all. I think if I were in the same boat and someone sent me some free anamorphic lenses I would have nothing but good things out of excitement BUT I would also take the courtesy to make a follow-up review with my experiences a few months or years down the road. I'm glad I ran across your review because I almost bought into the anamorphic hype, but I think I'm going to hold out as it's not going to be my day-to-day. Again, great review and keep up the good work!
i definitely agree with everything you’re saying! they point out negatives for sure but i just don’t think it’s as in depth as the positives and that’s my issue
get to the point
watch the video 👁️👃👁️
@@WhiteJadeProductions i had to start skipping forward stg
@@jalensimmons2608And yet here you are
Agreed @OP, dude wastes time, won’t get to the point.
Also, The word the tuber was looking for was “conjunction”.
Listening now and it’s nothing I haven’t heard from others…
On god he thought he saying something and said nothing!!!
Great video!
First of all I 100% agree. „Not sponsored & no money changed hands & I get to say what I want“ = biased review. Wheater we like it or not.
I am looking forward to the blazar apex with AF. Maybe you will review them honestly one da too. You earn a sub
i appreciate it! i probably won’t get the apex lenses. i’m not a big AF guy
@@WhiteJadeProductions As a complete beginner to video, I have done photography for several years. Since cameras can be used for both now I purchased a gimbal for video work and I have been checking out videos like yours for what is trending and why. I am curious, why you do not prefer auto focus lenses? Since I assumed the apex line of lenses would be a better fit for my Nikon Z8 also although the gimbal I just purchased came with a focus pulling attachment..
@@MB-dq2gz I personally don't like AF. it's jittery and simply doesn't always go where I want it to so I manual focus. that being said AF is super useful for anyone who can't manual focus or doesn't use cine lenses
@@WhiteJadeProductions Thanks for responding I will consider the results of both with the focus pulling adapter that came with my DJI RS 4. 🤔
@@MB-dq2gz test it out I personally love the follow focus on their gimbals
Deffo feel your points. We've done a Remus A-Set review and we recorded it 3 times to try get the positives and negatives to a place we felt was well balanced given the vlaue of the lenses and included talking points about shimming and performance improving stopped down vs wide open. Over on The Film Guy channel we've been trying to include clear pro's and con's in our videos because we've noticed other creators focusing more on entertainment and advertising value first.
it’s definitely tricky to get a solid review on any lens especially anamorphic lenses!
The Remus B set is noticeably sharper than the A set by the way. Not sure if it matters enough but still. Are you planning on honest-reviewing the Blazar Cato lenses as well?
i have noticed the differences between the sets but some of the issues unfortunately still remain. i like a soft look which is why i didn’t get any B set lenses just yet. i haven’t had a chance to test any of the cato lenses yet but when i do I’d definitely give my honest opinions on it
Good review. Honest and to the point. Personally, I prefer the 1.33x anamorphic lenses. When you get to 1.5x and above, it feels like I'm watching the movie through a mail slot in a door. Maybe because I'm an old guy who grew up on Cinemascope movies. But, the wider aspect ratios look too forced and unnatural. Thanks for sharing your views.
i totally get that! i usually crop to 2.40 or 16x9 for a final delivery tho!
what are you shooting on? 1.5x and above is for open gate (3:2 aspect ratio)
@@videotuotannot2693 It’s still too wide. As I said, I prefer the CinemaScope aspect ratio. The one you see most often in movie theaters. So far, I’ve only seen 1.5x and 1.6x from UA-camrs. I don’t foresee such aspect ratios being used in theatrical films.
mainly the lumix S5. with the 17x9 sensor capture i get a wider ratio so i can cut off the sides to make it a little clearer(just my personal taste)
no one actually leaves it at that ratio unless reviewing a lens. 2.39 is traditional cinemascope and no one really delivers anything wider than that other than some very rare exceptions
... if you pretend sharpness at T2 with a 1000 dollar Ana lens ... you don't understand the basics of optics, this happens with every lens the cheaper you go the more pronounced it gets
true true
Good balanced review. Thank you. You saved me some cash!
glad it helped!
I bought the 45mm, and only tend to use it around t4-t8.
They are just OK in my opinion, a budget lens, with a performance to match.
for a professional shoot i’d probably agree but for lower budget/personal use they are super solid
I have a set and I’m not sure if it’s case by case or what but I shot a shot wide open and… the images were in focus and decently sharp. Not the sharpest like a sigma art or something but I didn’t understand what everyone was talking about. I dunno. It was fun and the footage came out great
it can definitely seem sharp with the right lighting but i’ve noticed in certain situations it looks pretty bad wide open.
The Blazar Nero anamoprhic adapter is a better option for me than the Remus. The flares are more controlled on the Nero vs the Remus and you can retain the unique character from the vintage lens with a 1.5x squeeze factor.
probably a good choice with particular taking lenses. i’m not particularly a fan of the CA you get with adapters and the time it takes on set to change or adjust it but i used adapters for a while and it’s probably a great choice for a lot of people!
@ The idea of anamorphic adapters doesn’t sound sexy, but definitely try the blazar adapter. It’s a great modern option. It’s way cleaner than the Remus, flares are usable in all scenarios unlike the Remus, and CA is controlled past f/2.8. I’ve tested both and the Blazar Nero honestly is a better value than the Remus.
@@dukecha If I get my hands on it I'll definitely put em side by side at some point
I like mine… but maybe I got a good set…. And I’ll probably use them on all sorts of projects…
But yea, Cammakey is a Blazar ad at this point 😂 although he does make them work great so I can’t argue too much…
i wouldn’t call out names. some channels like himself and CVP are pretty forthright with their thoughts. some people are also going to like different aspects of the lenses. some things i don’t like others will and vise versa
@ Lol 😂 true. I love Cammakey’s work and I watch him the most so I guess that is why I noticed him most. Although I have seen several others really pushing it as well. And I do love the lenses, I mean I bought the full set so I’m invested, but it is interesting to watch the marketing.
I thought Cam specifically discussed the very things that he’s being criticized for by Ethan, he addresses all of these complaints and puts these lenses on the projector then points out the problems. Cam lays out ALL the due diligence despite the criticism, especially clowns like Nick Salazar and his critical video going after Cam. Despise that disingenuous clown.
@ ok… they’re just lenses… relax 😂 both guys are great.
For me, the 'deal breaker' is the fishbowl look of almost all their lenses. If you pan the camera you get the bubble feel and I don't enjoy it at all. Also, the secondary flares are a terrible color of green. I'm now looking at just getting a single used Atlas Orion lens, haha.
you could get rid of that distortion in post for sure! as for the flares you’re totally right however if you’re shooting on a camera with an OLPF they won’t be green.
@@WhiteJadeProductions an OLPF doesn’t negate all the color. I’ve used a Blackmagic 6k FF and saw the noticeable color. And when you are using a fix in post, it wont get rid of all the fishbowl look. It’s okay to say these lenses have a lot of issues. I’ve used them. I like to ask myself what can a piece of gear do FOR me.
totally fair!!
150 degress focus throw is perfect for hand focusing
for sure!!
I think if someone gonna buy any of them you better buy B-Set lenses or lenses from them + 33mm lens that are sharper and slightly cleaner.
i’d probably agree with you there. i don’t mind a slightly softer look tho! my personal issue is the flaring.
@@WhiteJadeProductions Yeah they're not made for those tiny LED's everywhere, but overall I think they're brilliant. I don't have any but planning to snatch the B-Set in the future.
Excellent review 🔥
thanks!
thanks for the realness
Well, we can get that smudged look with a GH6. 😂😂😂
It’s funny how these UA-camrs try to explain marketing like no knows how it works. Yes, we know, just make your review.
there’s this red slider at the bottom of your screen. idk if you know this but you can skip my little ted talk by dragging it to the right. all joke lol. not everyone does understand marketing and a lot of beginners in this industry have no clue at all so it might not have been news to you but to other people it definitely was
Thank You!
You're welcome!
Hey Jade, thanks for the video, but I will have to disagree. These lenses are amazing! ❤❤❤. I have the A set and have done a heap of videos on them. I paid for mine and I am not sponsored. The 45mm and 65mm are completely fine. The 65mm you have in you hand, I viewed a short video I did, on a 100inch screen, 1080p @ 25mbps. Looked as good as any TV series or movie.
The 100mm, yes, maybe this one has some issues, it has blooming, which does limit this lens and is very soft wide open. The 45mm can also have a vertical blue flare, with certain back lighting. But at this price and weight! 1.3kg on my Lumix S9!!!! 😮 you can't complain. Not sure what people expect for sub 1K USD?????
i definitely agree with you! most of the footage was shot at T4 with some T2.8 - T4 splits sprinkled in so i’m sure it looked great on a TV. for 1k it’s definitely a banger. but budget always means compromises so i figured i’d share my thoughts. i’m also coming from a film, Tv, and commercial background so i tend to be a bit more harsh about gear.
thanks for pointing out
Finally feedback!!
i do try!
no wonder they stopped producing these lens.
They just stopped making amber and blue flare versions. it's just marketing because the silver flare is the most popular
If you wanna get an honest opinion about gear stop going to these big youtube channels. They are paid to give us wrong information.
idk about them getting paid to lie but there a some channels that lean towards their best interest in maybe not telling us everything.
This was painful
I no like-a deeze-a Lenses
🤷♂️🤷♂️
I dont understand the anamorphic hype. This format is only good for film theaters. My i pad has 4.3 ratio, my computer screen has 16.9 and on phones its vertical of course. No one wants super wide super short content on their devices. 99% of all creators will never do real cinema stuff.
It's not for short content/social media. More for narrative work
i shoot a lot of commercials in which a 2.39 delivery is super common. most people just want the look anamorphic provides. it’s not really made for content creation necessarily. however flipping the lens sideways gives a more square look and sometimes that’s useful