$1,500 vs $30,000 Anamorphic Lens

One of these lenses is 20x more expensive, how much of a difference does that make?

(Use discount code 05VENUSSIRUI for 5% off)

BUDGET ANAMORPHIC KIT
Sony A7Sii: [look for one second-hand on eBay]

ULTIMATE ANAMORPHIC KIT:

Actor - Rob Laird
Gaffer - Nea Springer
Production Design - Jackie du Bled
Dancer - Pearl Makayi
Host and Creator - Simon Cade

0:00 Does the price of a lens make a big difference?
0:43 Remaking Bladerunner with a $1,500 lens
1:36 The hassle of renting a $30K lens
3:03 Comparing $1.5K vs $30K lens
4:45 Filming a doc with both lenses
5:51 Which lens is better for me?
6:52 Thanks to Track Club
7:12 um...

[kevinacemusic]

I think this video is a really good example that lighting makes way more of a difference than the lens or other equipment imo

[AbroadinJapan]

Great video man! We live in a bloody exciting time where you can practically recreate a $100, 000 Hollywood setup using camera/lenses/lighting for under $10, 000.
Would love to see more recreating movie scenes on a budget style videos!

[fkheSCOVUKE]

The video perfectly confirms my recent thoughts about expensive and cheap lenses, that 99% on YouTube will not see the difference between them. And that 90% of success lies in lighting, color correction, sound and history. And only the remaining 10% are camera body, complex camera movements and lenses. And I'm trying to say that very expensive equipment will not automatically make the picture very professional.

[tielmaster]

Forget the glass, that scene recreation was amazing!

[cruisesztamenits]

As you stated, if you're on a shoot that costs $25K+ a day then totally the Cookes. Some other reasons for renting expensive anamorphic glass like the Cookes for people to consider are the ability to have an entire set of focal lengths; currently there are 10 focal lengths available in the Cooke anamorphic set + a zoom lens available. You also have much longer focus throws which make the 1st AC happy and more durable housings, unique characteristics and distortions, the flaring is a lot different and of course that 2x squeeze factor makes a big difference in how you compose shots, how much you can see left to right of the frame while being able to gain the advantage of a longer focal length depth compression. All that said I think it's great that companies are coming out with affordable options and options that are more single user friendly. We really live in a world now where the technology is overall so good all around that it's really up to the individual artist to take advantage of it all and be good. Lighting is also so overlooked by people. You did a great job recreating the shot and no matter what lens you put on there, it's not gonna enhance a single shot enough to perhaps warrant the cost difference. Only when you're shooting dozens of shots a day for weeks or months on end will you truly notice the difference in more expensive glass and cameras. So for the no-budget filmmakers out there, use what you got and master those tools.

[AnamorphicChannel]

It's always a pleasure to see you talk about anamorphic without a bias towards the expensive stuff! I also really appreciate the honesty the smaller and cheaper lenses are what works for you and your style of filmmaking! Turning that into a generalization would be a problem! :))

[GawxArt]

Love your videos so much. Gotta love Sirui too

[unknowncaller]

You’re like 40 now we really watched you grow up

[onouraford]

The highlight rolloff on the Cooke look so much better in my opinion. That made the image look much better in my opinion, in addition to the out of focus qualities and texture.

[DANAMIONLINE]

I appreciate your approach to rationally compare these lens options based on what’s for your setup.

[christopherjolly]

What I like about cleaner/sharper anamorphic lenses like this Sirui and the 1.8x anamorphics by GreatJoy is you still get the fundamental anamorphic characteristics but you have the choice to layer on the desired extra characteristics with filters and post fx as required for a project.

[JamieMPhoto]

There are several qualities about the Cooke lens I definitely think are amazing, but yes, on a smaller scale it's far from worth it. And the rendering of the Sirui is definitely like a more modern "ultra sharp and flatter" look, which might be more appealing to some. Great comparison, though! And it's a good way for people to realize that they can make really great images without really great bank balances. :)

[_F.]

Loved the work you’ve done here. Really helpful to me as an indie DoP. It really doesn’t make sense unless you’ve got a budget where the extra 1% quality becomes worth the price. I’d love to see you do a zoom vs primes video. Are primes really that much better?

[allenpayne]

It reminds me of those tests when the Canon 5DMark II came out. In a studio setup and with the same lens the Canon 5D mark II was "as good as" an Arri Alexa. But of course those comparisons will fall appart with no studio lighting. Same with those lenses here. I think the people on twittel voted for the "cheap lens" because the actor in that frames has his head turned and it has more depht, mor tecture, more wrinkles in the face. I am also not sure if twitter is the best optiojn for comparison. and you have to see images in motion. Not just a single frame. But it is true. You pay a lot for the last 5% percent. I love blackmagic cameras. I like braw and 13 stops and all. But it will never be an Alexa. But you definitely can get close if you do a side by side video.

[revokdaryl]

I couldn't click the subscribe button fast enough. Thanks for the massive effort you put into this. I'm actually very shocked at the results. I didn't think the Sirui footage would look as good as it did.

[jcobb]

Most of the footage I've seen from Sirui lenses has looked clinically sharp, but I'm starting to think that's somewhat dependent on the camera it's shot with. As someone who also loves the Cooke look, the little difference was really surprising! A most encouraging comparison indeed.

[FeC]

I would say that you miss focus. In First 3:23 "sponsor segment" Cooke focus is on your eyes, Sirui focus start of your hairline. ON Test itself it's almost the opposite Sirui is sharp focus is on chin beard and mouth even the tip of the nose not out of focus. For Cooke focus plane must be so shallow it seems to be focused is ON behind corner of the mouth and eye iris. Cooke overall focus is softer. I don't know if it's the optics Cooke better in dark shades you can see eye iris color is visible.

[DSLRguide]

(please take a look, I wouldn't have been able to make a video like this without their support)
Here are the songs I used:
1. Heel - Joey Cantor
2. Spread Out - Aaron Abernathy
3. Night Blooming Jasmine - Joey Cantor
4. Hiding With Ivy-June - Prairie Ensemble

[fabricekiffel]

6:19 let’s rent a 15.000$ lens and tape the filter in front of it. Who needs a matte box? 😂

[Thevikingcam]

There just is something that makes Cooke pop out at 4:03. cant say what but its there.