for me, this lens is like a dream come true for my kind of cinematic portraits I do. wish it were introduced a bit earlier before I moved away from Japan to be able to grab one. thanks for the really well put together review, subscribed, and looking forward to your next videos.
Thank you for the comment and kind words! I really appreciate it. I have seen them for sale on eBay and other marketplaces so you might be able to pick one up there or wait for a possible worldwide release. It's a super interesting lens that surprisingly has gone under the radar.
I ended up picking this up from Amazon Japan (think there's a few more left). Your review is pretty much spot on to my (brief) experience with the lens so far. I'm a still photographer (yes, we like anamorphic lenses too) so things like the very noticeable focus breathing don't affect me. I had rented the Sirui 50mm about two years ago. So not quite an apples to apples comparison as the focal lengths are quite different. The sharpness of the lens is noticeably less than the Sirui but that's to be expected (you want needle sharp, you pay for the privilege). Where I did see a really strong difference is in the depth of field, the TTArtisan seems to have a much shallower depth of field than the Sirui. The Sirui was also a bit easier to focus than the TTArtisan using focus peaking and zoom. So more shots thrown away with the TTArtisan. I think I need to take it out with a tripod to really get a better idea of how it performs. Still, given the price point, its performing to expectations.
Thank you for the comment and your expereince with this lens! I'm still surprised at how little distribution/attention this lens is getting to the point where it has to be imported. Hopefully there will be some clarity about this in the future. I don't have a Sirui with me to compare it to but that is good to know and something I'd like to dive into deeper in the future if possible. Also I ocasionally do some anamorphic analog photography and it is a topic I'd like to explore more on the channel!
I really wish these companies would start making at least 1.5x lenses. At least that would get me from 3:2 to cinemascope. 1.3x lenses come with all the difficulties of working with anamorphic footage, yet have minimal anamorphic character. To me they feel more like a fashion accessory than anything (I'm so artsy! I'm shooting anamorphic!).
Thank you for the comment. I agree that it would have been nice to see this lens with a 1.5x squeeze ratio but that might also drive up the price making it less accessible to beginners. I don't think lenses are fashion accessories, they are tools and with tools there are always compromises. At every price point you have trade offs and benefits, so of course the low end won't satisfy everyone but I wanted to make this video to show how far we have come in the budget anamorphic space. These lenses still render unique images that people can take advantage of, and so I tailored the video to beginners and those who are curious but have never used anamorphics. Even if you don't agree, I think there is still value in lenses like this. Someone might pick one up today because its what they can afford and in 10 years work their way up to a set of cine primes on the back of their experience with budget lenses like these.
@@TheWholePicture I get what you're saying, but if you're so beginner that you can't afford a $900 anamorphic lens, then anamorphic shooting should probably be the least of your worries. It's not like anamorphic teaches you something special about videography, you're doing it for the effect/result. You're going to get way better results from a cheap spherical cine lens, and honestly the anamorphic effects you can add after in post will probably be more pleasing than the results from this lens.
Anamorphic lenses have a huge barrier to entry between the price and their unique qualities. As I eluded to in the video, one lens doesn't really amount to much for a professional so in that sense you are correct. If you don't have a couple of 1000s of dollars it's difficult to put together a set of lenses for proper work. There are alternatives like anamorfake lenses that can give you similar practical experience and results that some might find more pleasing that this lens, but again it is all subjective. I invite you to make videos on your viewpoint and from your experience with wide screen film making, as the topic can be complicated for beginners who don't often know where to get started. It is a valid point to bring up alternatives for beginners, where they can use equipment they already own to achieve a similar look and I think it would be a great video topic!
@@TheWholePicture fair, people are free to do and like what they please... But I've just always found '"it's subjective" to be a cheap cop-out for reviewers. "The Samsung Note 7 blows up and maims you? Not a fault, just a characteristic. Maybe some people like to get maimed. It's subjective!" A facetious and extreme example, I know, but you get the idea. I think there's room to both acknowledge subjectivity, but still be reasonable.
I don't know if I agree with you though, and while my video might not be perfect I don't think it was a cop-out. Maybe another example still rooted in optics can help explain my mindset. Just because we have parfocal zooms, doesn't make non-parfocal zooms obsolete. One could make arguments to why a parfocal zoom is technically more impressive or more convenient but that doesn't flat out make them superior to non-parfocal zooms. It is situational and based on the users needs and the project. Many people use zooms as variable primes, in which case the image they render is probably more valuable than their parfocal nature. A documentary film maker might on the other hand care more about a parfocal zoom that the perfect image for the project. I think the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle, I know my view is not the most popular and I appreciate the feedback that has made me think about these topics. It is difficult to make an all encompassing video, if anything it is probably more benificial to hype something and disregard the downsides. That was not my intention with this video but I do think I could do a better job pointing out aspects of equipment that could be detrimental and offering alternatives.
It looks like an SLR Magic Anamorphot 40 integrated, which would be fantastic with a Blazar or Aivascope in front of longer focal lengths. I hope that makes longer focal lengths in general but even more so for these new anamorphic series of lenses.
Thank you so much for the comment! Interesting that you should mention SLR Magic as the branding, text positioning and size is very similar to the compact anamorphot. Unfortunately I didn't have access to one for comparison but the focusing system is different and so are the flares so I don't know how connected they are, but the limited 200 units and similarities did raise some questions. Either way I was super impressed with the quality at this price and I hope we get more in this series!
@@TheWholePicture TTartisan likes to use the same fonts as other lenses they're attempting to copy. I think if they quickly sold out of the original run of 200, they would then move to expand the line and offer other mounts. I was about to drop the dime on one of these, but I was able to get a brand new Sirui 50mm for a song and they offer a full set so that made the difference.
Thank you! It does seem to be avaialble on eBay internationally. You could also use services that will bid and ship you items on Japanese sites, but at that point the premium might make it more expensive than Siruis offerings....
Thanks for the comment! Hopefully TTArtisan will put out more anamorphics but for now sirui would be the closest option for MFT. I also like using custom scope rigs on the bmpcc4k with a speed booster!
Hey man thanks for the comment! Anamorphic bokeh has a kind of waterfall/cascade type of rendering in general but in this case I think the lower squeeze ratio with a square front and wide angle makes the bokeh very unique! It would be interesting to see what kind of bokeh a more telephoto focal length in the series would produce!
"Another unique anamorphic characteristic that's easily identifiable is focus breathing": That's not a characteristic of anamorphic lenses, that's a characteristic of bad lenses. When it's there it's especially evident in anamorphic lenses since the squeeze factor actually changes. You don't see this is professional anamorphic lenses, and even some well made budget lenses like the Laowa Nanomorph. If you look at the focus rack at 8:44, the change in squeeze is brutal.
Thank you for the comments but I have to disagree. Gear is subjective and therefore a characteristic of a lens that one person thinks is "bad" another can find to be "good". Personally I find many modern anamorphics to be too clean and well... modern, and I appreciate the "flaws" like a softer image and heavy focus breathing some anamorphic lenses offer. Anamorphic focus breathing in particular is a "unique characteristic" as it is different from the breathing we see on spherical lenses. In the modern day people use all kinds of unique lenses to aid in their projects visual language and set them apart from the masses, this is where I find value in characteristics like these.
@@TheWholePicture I get what you're saying. There are a lot of "flaws" that people actually desire as it gives the footage more character and a vintage look. With that being said I have never met a single person that wants focus breathing or variable squeeze. There are characteristics from vintage lenses that people want, and then there are characteristics from cheap, bad lenses. It is just bad manufacturing and a characteristic no one wants. It looks truly awful and amateur, and I promise you nobody desires this effect.
I appreciate your view on this topic but also I don't think we should dismiss it as bad manufacturing. If I'm not mistaken, for many years Panavision held a patent for a focus system that reduced anamorphic focus breathing, so other manufactures could not implement the same system. So even lenses used in Hollywood movies of the time will breath heavily and have variable squeeze ratios regardless of their manufacturing capabilities. Now that patent has lapsed so modern manufactures can more easily make lenses with less focus breathing, but I wouldn't say this makes them overall better or worse. It is all based on peoples preferences and what a project demands. If you plan to film a sci-fi movie then maybe these lenses are not favorable but if you have a mystery I think a focus rack that jars the audience could be beneficial.
@@TheWholePicture sure, there may be some niche scenario where you want the aspect ratio to change in the scene, but what about the other 99% of the time you're filming things where you don't want it? If you're arguing that these lenses are good for beginners getting into anamorphic, you can't also argue that their characteristics are for very niche filmmaking uses. Focus breathing is more tolerable since it is a uniform change in focal length across the image and effectively a zoom in/out... But variable squeeze is brutal; your subject is stretching/compressing horizontally. It's also not the same as other vintage characteristics people are looking for. Softness, flares, chromatic aberration, halation, bloom, etc. are all characteristics to do with very complex ways that the light interacts with the lens and is very difficult/near impossible to replicate exactly in post... Where things like a zoom or a squeeze ratio change are things that are easy to replicate in post, so they are considered detrimental to bake into the lens since you have no creative control over them.
You make a good point and variable squeeze can be something difficult to wrap your head around as a begginer if you want to correct it. It might just come down to a difference of styles and preferences. I really enjoy all these "flaws" with my lomo squarefront and other vintage synchro focus anamorphics, the way the image is warped and altered, compared to spherical lenses, suits me and my work so it is not a 1% use case. I think this lens offers a simplified yet similar expereince, "flaws" and all for people to cut their teeth on for an approachable price point but it is not a necessity to achieve or learn widescreen film making. I tried to offer a general view on this lens so people can make their own decisions but anamorphics are a complex topic which is difficult to cover in one video of one lens, so through this conversation I have started to outline a broader video on widescreen film making options for begginers that hopefully I can get around to doing in the near future.
Thank you very much! I really appreciate it. For the price this thing is pretty impressive but it does bring with it some tradeoffs. An oval iris insert or something like that could help make the image more in line with what many people want from anamorphics, but at the same time the Lomo squarefront anamorphics have a similar situation where in many situations bokeh will not be 100% a clean oval. That is especially true on the wider end and at the edges of the frame, similar to what we see on the TTArtisan. Regardless I'm still trying to find some information on this little lens and it'll be interesting to see if it hits the wider market some time soon.
1.33 is not enough to really squeeze the bokeh into ovals. I couldn't really care less about oval bokeh, to be honest. It's not something that makes or breaks a shot, unless your only requirements are oval bokeh balls.
It’s a fun and run optic, embrace it’s flaws, fly with it at the outer limits of it’s envelope… I really like it with a “Bloom Gold” Formatt Hitech diffusion filter.🎉😂
for me, this lens is like a dream come true for my kind of cinematic portraits I do. wish it were introduced a bit earlier before I moved away from Japan to be able to grab one. thanks for the really well put together review, subscribed, and looking forward to your next videos.
Thank you for the comment and kind words! I really appreciate it. I have seen them for sale on eBay and other marketplaces so you might be able to pick one up there or wait for a possible worldwide release. It's a super interesting lens that surprisingly has gone under the radar.
I ended up picking this up from Amazon Japan (think there's a few more left). Your review is pretty much spot on to my (brief) experience with the lens so far. I'm a still photographer (yes, we like anamorphic lenses too) so things like the very noticeable focus breathing don't affect me.
I had rented the Sirui 50mm about two years ago. So not quite an apples to apples comparison as the focal lengths are quite different. The sharpness of the lens is noticeably less than the Sirui but that's to be expected (you want needle sharp, you pay for the privilege). Where I did see a really strong difference is in the depth of field, the TTArtisan seems to have a much shallower depth of field than the Sirui. The Sirui was also a bit easier to focus than the TTArtisan using focus peaking and zoom. So more shots thrown away with the TTArtisan. I think I need to take it out with a tripod to really get a better idea of how it performs. Still, given the price point, its performing to expectations.
Thank you for the comment and your expereince with this lens! I'm still surprised at how little distribution/attention this lens is getting to the point where it has to be imported. Hopefully there will be some clarity about this in the future. I don't have a Sirui with me to compare it to but that is good to know and something I'd like to dive into deeper in the future if possible. Also I ocasionally do some anamorphic analog photography and it is a topic I'd like to explore more on the channel!
Hello. Its posible to fix this lenses on SONY RX0 II ?
I really wish these companies would start making at least 1.5x lenses. At least that would get me from 3:2 to cinemascope.
1.3x lenses come with all the difficulties of working with anamorphic footage, yet have minimal anamorphic character. To me they feel more like a fashion accessory than anything (I'm so artsy! I'm shooting anamorphic!).
Thank you for the comment. I agree that it would have been nice to see this lens with a 1.5x squeeze ratio but that might also drive up the price making it less accessible to beginners. I don't think lenses are fashion accessories, they are tools and with tools there are always compromises. At every price point you have trade offs and benefits, so of course the low end won't satisfy everyone but I wanted to make this video to show how far we have come in the budget anamorphic space. These lenses still render unique images that people can take advantage of, and so I tailored the video to beginners and those who are curious but have never used anamorphics. Even if you don't agree, I think there is still value in lenses like this. Someone might pick one up today because its what they can afford and in 10 years work their way up to a set of cine primes on the back of their experience with budget lenses like these.
@@TheWholePicture I get what you're saying, but if you're so beginner that you can't afford a $900 anamorphic lens, then anamorphic shooting should probably be the least of your worries. It's not like anamorphic teaches you something special about videography, you're doing it for the effect/result. You're going to get way better results from a cheap spherical cine lens, and honestly the anamorphic effects you can add after in post will probably be more pleasing than the results from this lens.
Anamorphic lenses have a huge barrier to entry between the price and their unique qualities. As I eluded to in the video, one lens doesn't really amount to much for a professional so in that sense you are correct. If you don't have a couple of 1000s of dollars it's difficult to put together a set of lenses for proper work. There are alternatives like anamorfake lenses that can give you similar practical experience and results that some might find more pleasing that this lens, but again it is all subjective. I invite you to make videos on your viewpoint and from your experience with wide screen film making, as the topic can be complicated for beginners who don't often know where to get started. It is a valid point to bring up alternatives for beginners, where they can use equipment they already own to achieve a similar look and I think it would be a great video topic!
@@TheWholePicture fair, people are free to do and like what they please... But I've just always found '"it's subjective" to be a cheap cop-out for reviewers. "The Samsung Note 7 blows up and maims you? Not a fault, just a characteristic. Maybe some people like to get maimed. It's subjective!"
A facetious and extreme example, I know, but you get the idea. I think there's room to both acknowledge subjectivity, but still be reasonable.
I don't know if I agree with you though, and while my video might not be perfect I don't think it was a cop-out. Maybe another example still rooted in optics can help explain my mindset. Just because we have parfocal zooms, doesn't make non-parfocal zooms obsolete. One could make arguments to why a parfocal zoom is technically more impressive or more convenient but that doesn't flat out make them superior to non-parfocal zooms. It is situational and based on the users needs and the project. Many people use zooms as variable primes, in which case the image they render is probably more valuable than their parfocal nature. A documentary film maker might on the other hand care more about a parfocal zoom that the perfect image for the project. I think the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle, I know my view is not the most popular and I appreciate the feedback that has made me think about these topics. It is difficult to make an all encompassing video, if anything it is probably more benificial to hype something and disregard the downsides. That was not my intention with this video but I do think I could do a better job pointing out aspects of equipment that could be detrimental and offering alternatives.
200 unit only such a shame
Very informative. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you very much! I'm glad you liked it!
It looks like an SLR Magic Anamorphot 40 integrated, which would be fantastic with a Blazar or Aivascope in front of longer focal lengths. I hope that makes longer focal lengths in general but even more so for these new anamorphic series of lenses.
Thank you so much for the comment! Interesting that you should mention SLR Magic as the branding, text positioning and size is very similar to the compact anamorphot. Unfortunately I didn't have access to one for comparison but the focusing system is different and so are the flares so I don't know how connected they are, but the limited 200 units and similarities did raise some questions. Either way I was super impressed with the quality at this price and I hope we get more in this series!
@@TheWholePicture TTartisan likes to use the same fonts as other lenses they're attempting to copy. I think if they quickly sold out of the original run of 200, they would then move to expand the line and offer other mounts. I was about to drop the dime on one of these, but I was able to get a brand new Sirui 50mm for a song and they offer a full set so that made the difference.
Very informative video, but where I can buy this lenses? Thanks!! :)
Thank you! It does seem to be avaialble on eBay internationally. You could also use services that will bid and ship you items on Japanese sites, but at that point the premium might make it more expensive than Siruis offerings....
I'd love to grab one of these, but I'm a bmpcc4k user :/
Thanks for the comment! Hopefully TTArtisan will put out more anamorphics but for now sirui would be the closest option for MFT. I also like using custom scope rigs on the bmpcc4k with a speed booster!
the bokeh has a strange cascade teardroppy shape, don’t you think?
Hey man thanks for the comment! Anamorphic bokeh has a kind of waterfall/cascade type of rendering in general but in this case I think the lower squeeze ratio with a square front and wide angle makes the bokeh very unique! It would be interesting to see what kind of bokeh a more telephoto focal length in the series would produce!
"Another unique anamorphic characteristic that's easily identifiable is focus breathing":
That's not a characteristic of anamorphic lenses, that's a characteristic of bad lenses. When it's there it's especially evident in anamorphic lenses since the squeeze factor actually changes. You don't see this is professional anamorphic lenses, and even some well made budget lenses like the Laowa Nanomorph.
If you look at the focus rack at 8:44, the change in squeeze is brutal.
Thank you for the comments but I have to disagree. Gear is subjective and therefore a characteristic of a lens that one person thinks is "bad" another can find to be "good". Personally I find many modern anamorphics to be too clean and well... modern, and I appreciate the "flaws" like a softer image and heavy focus breathing some anamorphic lenses offer. Anamorphic focus breathing in particular is a "unique characteristic" as it is different from the breathing we see on spherical lenses. In the modern day people use all kinds of unique lenses to aid in their projects visual language and set them apart from the masses, this is where I find value in characteristics like these.
@@TheWholePicture I get what you're saying. There are a lot of "flaws" that people actually desire as it gives the footage more character and a vintage look. With that being said I have never met a single person that wants focus breathing or variable squeeze. There are characteristics from vintage lenses that people want, and then there are characteristics from cheap, bad lenses. It is just bad manufacturing and a characteristic no one wants. It looks truly awful and amateur, and I promise you nobody desires this effect.
I appreciate your view on this topic but also I don't think we should dismiss it as bad manufacturing. If I'm not mistaken, for many years Panavision held a patent for a focus system that reduced anamorphic focus breathing, so other manufactures could not implement the same system. So even lenses used in Hollywood movies of the time will breath heavily and have variable squeeze ratios regardless of their manufacturing capabilities. Now that patent has lapsed so modern manufactures can more easily make lenses with less focus breathing, but I wouldn't say this makes them overall better or worse. It is all based on peoples preferences and what a project demands.
If you plan to film a sci-fi movie then maybe these lenses are not favorable but if you have a mystery I think a focus rack that jars the audience could be beneficial.
@@TheWholePicture sure, there may be some niche scenario where you want the aspect ratio to change in the scene, but what about the other 99% of the time you're filming things where you don't want it? If you're arguing that these lenses are good for beginners getting into anamorphic, you can't also argue that their characteristics are for very niche filmmaking uses.
Focus breathing is more tolerable since it is a uniform change in focal length across the image and effectively a zoom in/out... But variable squeeze is brutal; your subject is stretching/compressing horizontally.
It's also not the same as other vintage characteristics people are looking for. Softness, flares, chromatic aberration, halation, bloom, etc. are all characteristics to do with very complex ways that the light interacts with the lens and is very difficult/near impossible to replicate exactly in post... Where things like a zoom or a squeeze ratio change are things that are easy to replicate in post, so they are considered detrimental to bake into the lens since you have no creative control over them.
You make a good point and variable squeeze can be something difficult to wrap your head around as a begginer if you want to correct it. It might just come down to a difference of styles and preferences. I really enjoy all these "flaws" with my lomo squarefront and other vintage synchro focus anamorphics, the way the image is warped and altered, compared to spherical lenses, suits me and my work so it is not a 1% use case. I think this lens offers a simplified yet similar expereince, "flaws" and all for people to cut their teeth on for an approachable price point but it is not a necessity to achieve or learn widescreen film making. I tried to offer a general view on this lens so people can make their own decisions but anamorphics are a complex topic which is difficult to cover in one video of one lens, so through this conversation I have started to outline a broader video on widescreen film making options for begginers that hopefully I can get around to doing in the near future.
ua-cam.com/video/_Yo1MnHJMPE/v-deo.html
great job with this lens on fx30
Great review. I was sold until you mentioned that the bokeh does not produce any oval shape. 🤦♂
Thank you very much! I really appreciate it. For the price this thing is pretty impressive but it does bring with it some tradeoffs. An oval iris insert or something like that could help make the image more in line with what many people want from anamorphics, but at the same time the Lomo squarefront anamorphics have a similar situation where in many situations bokeh will not be 100% a clean oval. That is especially true on the wider end and at the edges of the frame, similar to what we see on the TTArtisan. Regardless I'm still trying to find some information on this little lens and it'll be interesting to see if it hits the wider market some time soon.
1.33 is not enough to really squeeze the bokeh into ovals. I couldn't really care less about oval bokeh, to be honest. It's not something that makes or breaks a shot, unless your only requirements are oval bokeh balls.
It’s a fun and run optic, embrace it’s flaws, fly with it at the outer limits of it’s envelope… I really like it with a “Bloom Gold” Formatt Hitech diffusion filter.🎉😂