Blazar Remus 1.5x vs Atlas Mercury 1.5x Anamorphic Lens Comparison!!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Thanks to www.enclave.space & www.raz.rentals
---------------------------------------
BUSINESS INQUIRIES ONLY - YTtecontent@gmail.com
--------------------------------------
All footage, images & Music were used for educational purposes only.
--------------------------------------
Follow Taylor / The Film Guy
TheFilmGuyYT
LINKS
blazars
blazarlens.com...
Atlas
atlaslensco.co...
--------------------------------------
Please. help us with captioning & translate this video!
Jesus, the moment the video cuts from the Remus 45mm to the Mercury 36mm, it made me realise how cinematic the Mercuries look.
The Mercuries are in a whole different universe. Just a much sharper and more technically sound image. If I were looking for a budget anamorphic, I would take the Great Joys over the Remus and put a 1/8th Black Pro Mist on if I thought it needed the edge taking off a bit. The Remus image just looks too much like it came from a cheap lens to me. Appreciate the thorough comparison.
Sharpness difference is huge, while the Blazar are very affordable, you can see the price difference there with sharpness and the secondary flares.
I very much agree really it’s a battle of value! I think the blazars are amazing value doesn’t mean they have to be as good
It would be interesting to see the Blazers at F4 to see if they get much closer regarding sharpness
@@TheCoralClimb we did that in an outside test, they are closer! but still not their. plus you loose a lot of the anamorphic look.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial Thanks for the reply!
i'm pretty sure it has to do with getting a vintage look rather than the price
I love the Mercurys, but I have to say I think the Blazars punch way above their weight - an epic showing from such compact budget lenses!
Wow! the blazars do a way better job than i thought they would.
Now that's exactly how a comparison should be done! Subbed. Thanks so much. Can't wait for the Cato 2x next, would love to see a Cato 2x up against a Mercury 1.5x. Cheers!
Stretch*
I love the mercury lenses but is simply can not afford them... so the remus are my best option, plus they work on my ronin 4d since they are super light weight and the sharpness stopped down is also okay
The Remus looks good but damn Mercury Atlas looks AMAZING! 🤩
While this is very subjective, and i'm 100% no client will ever know the difference, not sure how a $7,995 lens will justify if you're not renting them. The Blazar worth the money considering they cost way less, and have a very similar look, minus the sharpness. Who is pinching 300% in the edit? And Why? Probably not for the right project.
If I was a client and got that blurry image from the Blazar I'd be pissed.
@@altercinema4311 yes, unusuble, i wonder why Blazar keeps making lenses.
Amazing work guys - super interesting to see the Remus stacked up against the Mercury's and for the most part hold their own in terms of character - but I think the sharpness is still a bit of a sticking point for me in terms of spending money on the Remus. Wish I could justify buying the Mercurys but alas they'll be a rental item.
Thanks man! Yes we are in the same situation especially after Covid, the price of the mercury is just too high so I’m glad there is an option that is affordable that is similar
It’s seems like the Mercurys are in a league of their own. A lot of reviews say that it’s hard to tell the difference between the two but from what I see the image is clearly better in the Mercurys. The sharpness especially but the color and edge distortion too.
For the price difference we’d all expect they’d be better! I think the takeaway universally has been pleasant surprise that the Blazars deliver a very good look for a fraction of the money not that the Murcuries aren’t great.
Its mostly about price value and what you shoot. I will say I could match the colour very easily if that's what I wanted to do. (I didn't so you can see straight out of camera look). i find edge distortion pretty simular to be honest maybe a little too much on the wide and but that can be helped in post alot.
Yeah you can’t beat the price of the Blazars but I watched reviews from other channels saying that you can’t tell the difference between the two sets. It’s clear why the Mercurys are much more expensive. I can’t see the Blazars being used in anyway professionally.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial I'll keep using my Sirui Venus set that is slightly more expensive than the Remus. But better quality image than the Remus.
@@Henchproductions I have those as well, but they did not look anamorphic at all in terms of the image they produce.
Watching this makes me super excited for my Mercuries. Still waiting on that pre-order haha!
They are wonderful
Mercury's sharpness and lack of aberration is worth the extra cost.
A correction with an addition of shim on the Blazar and you will see that the results are very, very close to the Mercury.
we have shimmed the Blazars perfectly with a lens projector. the sharpness is not simular at all.
…it's true that the 100mm is the worst of the lot (almost unusable at full aperture), but such a difference with the Mercury surprises me a little...
@@christopheadeshoux4664 given the price it shouldnt. and the Mercury lenses are tuned individually the blazars are using the same adapter to stretch them all so they cant do that.
Love your channel!
Thank you!
IT was super difficult for me to find the right anamorphic lenses but i higly recommend getting the remus AND the sirui saturn ... both sets together are still cheaper than more expensive sets and then you can decide according to the project if you need a crisp image (Sirui) or more character (Blazar) ... i still would get the Mercury if i would be ritch but i am not xD so this is my prefered combination right now
I personally did this as well, but with the Remus and Greatjoys (I like them a bit more than the Sirui's) but I think it's a great idea to have both a stronger and cleaner look for different projects!
honestly, im impressed that it is a close as it is. I might have to buy the blazars
Woof that coma on the Blazzars is awful. Not to mention the mumps and fishbowl effect. Yikes...
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial The blazzars clearly have mump distortion when placing a subject on the edge of the frame. Please re-watch your video
@@natrix I got the term confused with the starch change that happens in other lenses when focusing.
You are right!
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial Hah no worries, I had to double check my use of the term as well. Have a good one, and thank you for this informative comparison video between these lenses.
@@natrix I think you're both right. I believe back in the day the term mumps was more often used when refering to the squeeze changing from center to edge of frame making actors look thinner vs bigger and apparently some actors would request not to be framed where they'd look biggest. More recently I think it's been used to talk about squeese changing when focusing.
@@ShaneVanLitz Yeah sort of, "mumps" are basically just an inconsistent squeeze across a frame that unnaturally/unflatteringly distort things like a face. Some lenses have it worse than others but the Remus have it super bad. In theory, I think you can have an overall squeeze change throughout a focus pull that won't necessarily give you "mumps". Because if your monitor is set to the desqueeze that corresponds with that specific focus range the image should look correct. With Remus lenses however, if an actor is in the corner of your frame, no matter your focus position or monitor de-squeeze, that uncontrolled barrel distortion and squeeze is gonna turn a face into a boomerang. Does that make any since?
Wow, Blazar lenses look so much better, in my opinion. You don't need sharpness in cinematography.
Mercury is way way sharper then the blazar.... blazar is very very soft... but it has warmer looks then the mercury
is just me or looks like the remus are not exactly on focus because the sharpness difference is BIG
They absolutely are in focus it’s just unfortunately that’s a sharp as they get!
It’s a very different construction method, which means you have a limited amount of sharpness! The Blazars use one generic 1.5x adapter in all of the lenses that isn’t true specifically for any of them.
The atlas use a specific adapter element in each lens that is tuned for that specific lens. This is how they are able to achieve their sharpness, but also makes them much much much more expensive.
Why are you not pairing the focal lengths more closely? Seems weird to edit it this way. The mercurys are just amazing but I bought the Remus 45 cause the difference in clarity simply isn’t worth the price (considering the clarity level of the atlas vs more expensive alternatives). Do I reaaaaallllyy want one though?? It keeps me up at night 🤣
We had that conversation before we started we figured if they’re not the same focal length it would be unfair to try to make the match!
Because they would have different character
It’s just helps people better understand the difference in character respectfully
@@SDA-Sound yes, but it could also provide a false impression.
I would have loved to see how the blazers performed when stopped down a little! Love the look of the mercuries, but they are more expensive and also heavier I think.
They get a hair sharper stopped down but the Mercuries are still way sharper wide open than the Blazars ever get even at T5.6 or more. That said, I do think it's fair given the extreme cost and size difference though!
I wonder how blazar remus 65mm competes against Great Joy 85mm. I wonder if GreatJoy would be a lot sharper
I can confirm that the GreatJoy is sharper.
Did you find the squeeze factor to be changing with focus distance, compared to what's advertised? Also how did stopping down the Remus increase the sharpness?
No and of course but not dramatically
Neither set has any shame here, the Atlas are amazingly sharp for anamorphic, almost spherical level, while the Remus have an image well worth their price.
Agreed
I'm seeing a lot of softness, almost like focus was missed on some of the Blazar shots, kind of insane how soft they are compared to the mercury's.
That’s what we talk about at the end of the comparison!
They’re just on two different levels but I will also say the mercury might be the sharpest anamophics I’ve ever used
Clearly the Mercury wins image and sharpness wise.
I hate the flares of both of them
Haha, I am also not a fan of Anamorph Mclary in general. It works sometimes, but most of the time it’s distracting! It would be nice if these lens manufacturers gave us the option to have it or not have it
I'd love to see a comparison at T4
We did a quick one ourselves and the results are pretty much similar except you lose a lot of character.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial Thx for replying. Still wish I could see because shooting these lenses (close to) wide open isn't how they'd be used most often. T4 (or T2.8/T4 split) would be really interesting I think :D
That these are even comparable is quite stunning, honestly
they are alot closer than i would have thought! thanks for the video!
You get what you pay for.
Personally, I would argue that the Blazars punch above their price!
@TheFilmGuyOfficial you can argue that, you can also argue that there isn't a lens in the past 5 years that looks "bad". When you start looking closer, unbiasedly, you can see why they're 1k lenses. I think they look appropriately priced. A better comparison would have been against similarly priced lenses. Nanomorphs, the greatjoys and sirui to see which really do punch above.