# SIRUI announce new 75mm f1.8 1.33x anamorphic lens for EF-M and other mount



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 24, 2021)

> *New York, May 24, 2021* – SIRUI today launches its new 75mm f1.8 1.33x anamorphic lens, giving filmmakers the ability to make telephoto images with an anamorphic look – creating images where the subject really stands out in the frame. This new focal length offers the same characteristic stretched oval bokeh and streaked flares that SIRUI’s 1.33x lenses have become famous for. Its anamorphic look combined with the wide f1.8 maximum aperture, 13-blade iris, and 1.2m close focus distance offers beautifully blurred backgrounds and excellent foreground separation. The result – stunning portrait shots.
> 
> The 75mm f1.8 1.33x lens required the SIRUI optical team to overcome key technical problems with a brand new optical design. It took persistent efforts and considerable investment to make this lens possible.
> Made for APS-C sensor cameras, it joins the existing SIRUI lens lineup of 24mm f2.8, 35m f1.8, and 50mm f1.8 1.33x lenses. All four lenses have common aesthetics and handling...



Continue reading...


----------



## DBounce (May 24, 2021)

EF-M mount? Nice move. I couldn’t be less interested.


----------



## jvillain (May 24, 2021)

What I don't get is why put an anamorphic in a photo lens housing? If your not giving me auto focus then give me a geared focus ring or atleast include a custom fitted silicon one grabbing and twisting the lens while shooting is a recipe for shaky footage. 

Then again I'm not really sold on the 1:33 squeeze.


----------



## rontele7 (May 24, 2021)

There are probably less than 7 people shooting video on an EF-M camera, and only 2 of those even know what anamorphic is.

Talk about bad business strategy.


----------



## slclick (May 25, 2021)

After reading 15,000+ "It's not for me, so why would anyone need this" type of comments on CR, I have to wonder if some of you on here can function well with others IRL. The sun is the center of our solar system, not some guy with an R5 and an ego.


----------



## HMC11 (May 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But don't forget you can get cheap adapters from EOS-M to EF and RF and the APS-C sized M sensor is bigger than the S35 video standard. There are a lot of C100/C200/C300I/II/III and C70 users who know what an anamorphic lens is and would use one.


Do you mean EF to EF-M adapters? The other way round is not possible from a physics perspective. Similarly, there isn't any EF-M to RF adapter that I can find, and it would have to be only 2mm thick.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> Do you mean EF to EF-M adapters? The other way round is not possible from a physics perspective. Similarly, there isn't any EF-M to RF adapter that I can find, and it would have to be only 2mm thick.


Sorry yes, brain fart! Too much coffee and post processing... Keep Calm!


----------



## Steve BXL (May 25, 2021)

MFT Services proposes Sirui lens conversion for $200 per lens (shipping and lens excluded of course)


----------



## kten (May 25, 2021)

Steve BXL said:


> MFT Services proposes Sirui lens conversion for $200 per lens (shipping and lens excluded of course)


Worth mentioning MTF services don't convert users lenses fwiw, they just sell converted stock of their own with reasonable markup (not a straight mount swap, needs housing shaving down). If someone needs for L or RF mount swap I'd wait until they (MTF) have in stock because if you get on indiegogo offer you wont be able to get it converted. They mentioned in past they may start accepting lenses for conversion too in future but unless I'm mistaken that hasn't happened yet but happy to be corrected if that is the case.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 25, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> There are probably less than 7 people shooting video on an EF-M camera


----------



## Ozarker (May 25, 2021)

That's a nice looking lens. I wonder whether the company will come out with FF versions for RF?


----------



## kten (May 25, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> There are probably less than 7 people shooting video on an EF-M camera, and only 2 of those even know what anamorphic is.
> 
> Talk about bad business strategy.


It makes good business sense if you understand the product properly which too many people bashing it seem not to. It is natively mft and comes with addon options to fit sony, ef-m, etc not JUST ef-m. On top of that it is converted but not officially so they are free from selling a lens with caveats regarding frame coverage like if offered rf mount natively which isn't a simple mount swap/adapter and requires minor housing mod. Tito made a video about why he suspected they never did L and RF and I agree it seems smart as much as I'd like RF option without a premium.

I bet there are more than 7 who bought one converted to RF mount for C70/eos r in crop etc, never mind how many bought one in vanilla form for filming on BPCC 4k or a gh5 or whatever. How's that bad for business, they are not only tapping a huge niche but expanding it by tapping extra sales with adapter options with the kit and for those than can't be there is 3rd party business who mod them to other mounts like L and RF proving the demand is there. Sp they sell a lot of lenses AND avoid the issues with modified mounts and different out of spec in some modes coverage so perhaps they understand business better than us forumites who seem to not know much about a product do but bash these people heavily involved and do well do eh? 

This thing will be very popular since the others in the series went extremely well and do better than most budget offerings like SLRM and Vazen in many regards at lower price, and size is a benefit when aimed at small mirrorless kits like panasonics and blackmagic pockets on smaller gimbals etc, and you can get aftermarket rings or add them yourself. This isn't aimed at people renting Cookes, at least not in work as I know some folks like that who WILL buy these for their home none work setups, any who have a small ef-m mount camera will likely buy that option (it'll swap to mft if they have bpcc's etc as comes with both fittings). Even pros doing weddings or low end video will likely use professionally since owning this kind of gearfor the price of renting Cooke or Arri masters for that kind of work.


----------



## Dragon (May 26, 2021)

Interesting thing about anamorphic lenses. The focal length on the horizontal axis is shorter than on the vertical axis. This means that no current IS strategy (other than a gimbal) will work. It would be theoretically possible to modify an IBIS system to deal with the issue by tweaking H to V gain ratios, but AFAIK no such IBIS system exists today. Bottom line, if you are going to shoot with one of these things, you need to be all in to the cinema style of shooting including the gimbal. Also, it is hard to see what the overall advantage is. When you publish the video, it is going to go on a 2k or 4k screen with the same number of horizontal pixels that the camera would have made without the squeeze and also, since you have to letterbox the display, the same number of vertical pixels that a simply cropped image from the camera would have produced. There are a few ultra wide computer displays that provide an exception, but unless you are prepared to slap an anamorphic lens on a video projector, I can't think of any entertainment displays. Seems like a lot of effort to focus on a miniscule group of eligible viewers.


----------



## Navyo Eller (May 26, 2021)

It's always good to read that EF-m is still considered investing! Sure many people bash the M-series, but same the medium format bashes the actually false "Full frame".
Of course fanatics will always fight, but 90% of the market is people who do never publish on fashion magazines and there likes, neither print huge size (but possible with some work), but basically see their pictures on normal sized prints and monitors.
Why this competition, where there is none (for me), I enjoy the package of high quality pics, even professional with some effort, professional cost for some reason more and even make nice videos... not for Hollywood of course, but good quality for average big screens and monitors...
Will happily see more about this lens.


----------



## kten (May 26, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Interesting thing about anamorphic lenses. The focal length on the horizontal axis is shorter than on the vertical axis. This means that no current IS strategy (other than a gimbal) will work. It would be theoretically possible to modify an IBIS system to deal with the issue by tweaking H to V gain ratios, but AFAIK no such IBIS system exists today. Bottom line, if you are going to shoot with one of these things, you need to be all in to the cinema style of shooting including the gimbal. Also, it is hard to see what the overall advantage is. When you publish the video, it is going to go on a 2k or 4k screen with the same number of horizontal pixels that the camera would have made without the squeeze and also, since you have to letterbox the display, the same number of vertical pixels that a simply cropped image from the camera would have produced. There are a few ultra wide computer displays that provide an exception, but unless you are prepared to slap an anamorphic lens on a video projector, I can't think of any entertainment displays. Seems like a lot of effort to focus on a miniscule group of eligible viewers.


It is less aimed solely at making content for projector/ultrawide home monitors and more some folks just like the look of scope aspect ratio more, and feel it matches their content framing wise better than 16:9. Much the same way some photographers may find square crop matches some kinds of images better than 2:3 and not just for output intended for IG and the likes. As for gimbals they deal with completely different type of shake compared to IS/IBIS and you don't need anything special for lenses in this weight class and size, even my modest RS2 (consumer gimbal not high end by any stretch) is overkill for this and anyone remotely interested in video (anyone buying this lens) will have access to one. Not that they are always needed since sometimes you may want the handheld aesthetic or are locked down on a tripod.

There are more than squeeze factors to the look, a big part is folks may want the horizontal compression benefits sphericals wont give, the streaking flares, bokeh artifacts and so on. There are issues with these lenses but they get close to the look of much more expensive setups for extremely low price. There are issues such as the squeeze is NOT uniform and changes at close focus which can make ana mumps much much worse if you apply a 1.33 desqueeze uniformly (it shifts to 1.25 iirc). Common for the type of lens design (several ways of makign an anamorphic each with different issues) but hard to get around it at small size and price as the designs that don't suffer from that flaw are much bigger and harder to design. Also for those who want the oval bokeh and so on it is very very mild vs a 2 factor lens.

Just adding black bars to spherical lens in 16:9 output gives a very different look if you have foreground and background planes as it changes framing and so on. Only way it can be made the same is in flat scenes with only background, or only foreground subject against blank background. Otherwise the effects fl distortion on close objects, depth compression and so on all alters the look and is impossible to match adding bars in post. Apologies if that is obvious since it applies in stills world too but I overlook things like that too at times. For stills example like someone may think why get close with 50mm vs standing back with an 85mm and frame the subject the same, because it's gonna effect both my background compression and fov and the subject look, as well as DoF at equal f-stop, add into the mix I can get best of both worlds mix from with fov of wider, vs spherical lens at same fl, with some of the qualities of the longer one horizontally and the appeal (of these lenses) makes sense more.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 26, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Interesting thing about anamorphic lenses. The focal length on the horizontal axis is shorter than on the vertical axis. This means that no current IS strategy (other than a gimbal) will work. It would be theoretically possible to modify an IBIS system to deal with the issue by tweaking H to V gain ratios, but AFAIK no such IBIS system exists today


GH5 IBIS works with anamorphic for sure but identifying the lens settings is a manual process.
I bet S1H works the same way.


----------



## scottwild (May 26, 2021)

100%


----------



## MoonMadness (May 26, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> There are probably less than 7 people shooting video on an EF-M camera, and only 2 of those even know what anamorphic is.
> 
> Talk about bad business strategy.


How is it bad business strategy, when for, what is it - something like $10/$20 - one can get a mount from them and use the same lens on different brand cameras, such as Sony? It's just a few exposed screws to remove is all it takes that anyone can do. Or just get the lens with the correct body mount already. Besides, M50 is super popular with Youtubers. I see tons of videos out there even from Youtubers that got the new M50ii - not to review the camera and send it back, but to actually use it for the content material. Maybe a lot of M owners don't know what anamorphic is because normally those lenses cost thousands of dollars more (and where did you get those super low numbers of 2 and 7? out of your- ). But only recently these affordable ones have come to market so I feel a lot more of them will become aware of it now.


----------



## Dragon (May 27, 2021)

kten said:


> It is less aimed solely at making content for projector/ultrawide home monitors and more some folks just like the look of scope aspect ratio more, and feel it matches their content framing wise better than 16:9. Much the same way some photographers may find square crop matches some kinds of images better than 2:3 and not just for output intended for IG and the likes. As for gimbals they deal with completely different type of shake compared to IS/IBIS and you don't need anything special for lenses in this weight class and size, even my modest RS2 (consumer gimbal not high end by any stretch) is overkill for this and anyone remotely interested in video (anyone buying this lens) will have access to one. Not that they are always needed since sometimes you may want the handheld aesthetic or are locked down on a tripod.
> 
> There are more than squeeze factors to the look, a big part is folks may want the horizontal compression benefits sphericals wont give, the streaking flares, bokeh artifacts and so on. There are issues with these lenses but they get close to the look of much more expensive setups for extremely low price. There are issues such as the squeeze is NOT uniform and changes at close focus which can make ana mumps much much worse if you apply a 1.33 desqueeze uniformly (it shifts to 1.25 iirc). Common for the type of lens design (several ways of makign an anamorphic each with different issues) but hard to get around it at small size and price as the designs that don't suffer from that flaw are much bigger and harder to design. Also for those who want the oval bokeh and so on it is very very mild vs a 2 factor lens.
> 
> Just adding black bars to spherical lens in 16:9 output gives a very different look if you have foreground and background planes as it changes framing and so on. Only way it can be made the same is in flat scenes with only background, or only foreground subject against blank background. Otherwise the effects fl distortion on close objects, depth compression and so on all alters the look and is impossible to match adding bars in post. Apologies if that is obvious since it applies in stills world too but I overlook things like that too at times. For stills example like someone may think why get close with 50mm vs standing back with an 85mm and frame the subject the same, because it's gonna effect both my background compression and fov and the subject look, as well as DoF at equal f-stop, add into the mix I can get best of both worlds mix from with fov of wider, vs spherical lens at same fl, with some of the qualities of the longer one horizontally and the appeal (of these lenses) makes sense more.


I guess if you are into bokeh and DOF that is different on the vertical axis than the horizontal, you may see something unique in an anamorphic, but seems to me that is about as far as it goes. The rest is more like a description of wine tasting.


----------



## kten (May 27, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I guess if you are into bokeh and DOF that is different on the vertical axis than the horizontal, you may see something unique in an anamorphic, but seems to me that is about as far as it goes. The rest is more like a description of wine tasting.


Not sure I follow the wine tasting thing? Composition and framing is arguably almost as important as lighting, almost. That type of lens gives yet another option in the toolkit of controlling that, it isn't just as simple as none typical dof behaviour. Judging by your profile pic I assume you're a wildlife/birder guy though so perhaps you simply don't care about the myriad things video folks care about, much the same way there will be endless wildlife photo aspects that I don't "get" or care about you could likely list are VERY important to your niche that both photographers and intended viewers care about. Regardless of whether I know about such things they may matter to those with deeper understanding and interest in that niche.

People have different needs and just because it isn't someones bag doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. I guess that is what bugs me about photo forums in general as seems we often fall into the trap of because it isn't our area = wrong. Like the endless canon are wrong because I'm not interested in it sentiments. Some folks really don't see the appeal of discrete cameras vs what a phone is capable of if the extra control and options such cameras bring to the table is irrelevant to them, doesn't mean everyone on here is wrong.


----------



## melgross (May 28, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> Do you mean EF to EF-M adapters? The other way round is not possible from a physics perspective. Similarly, there isn't any EF-M to RF adapter that I can find, and it would have to be only 2mm thick.


It can be done. Adapters like that have come out on occasion for various systems. But they involve optics in the adapter.


----------



## Dragon (May 28, 2021)

kten said:


> Not sure I follow the wine tasting thing? Composition and framing is arguably almost as important as lighting, almost. That type of lens gives yet another option in the toolkit of controlling that, it isn't just as simple as none typical dof behaviour. Judging by your profile pic I assume you're a wildlife/birder guy though so perhaps you simply don't care about the myriad things video folks care about, much the same way there will be endless wildlife photo aspects that I don't "get" or care about you could likely list are VERY important to your niche that both photographers and intended viewers care about. Regardless of whether I know about such things they may matter to those with deeper understanding and interest in that niche.
> 
> People have different needs and just because it isn't someones bag doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. I guess that is what bugs me about photo forums in general as seems we often fall into the trap of because it isn't our area = wrong. Like the endless canon are wrong because I'm not interested in it sentiments. Some folks really don't see the appeal of discrete cameras vs what a phone is capable of if the extra control and options such cameras bring to the table is irrelevant to them, doesn't mean everyone on here is wrong.


Yes, I like to take pictures of birds, but I did spend a 40 year career designing and manufacturing video and audio equipment for the the film and television industries as well as overseeing much of the standardization of HDTV, so I am quite well aware of the "preferences" of cinematographers. I also choose to disagree with some of the more esoteric beliefs in that industry. I once had a customer for digital audio equipment who claimed he could "hear wire" (a reference to low oxygen speaker wire). A nice concept, but bullsh*t none the less. Similarly, many folks in cinematography community were and still are addicted to 24fps because they can "can tell a story while keeping the viewer apart from the action". Ditto the current fetish with turning off the motion compensation on TV sets (so they go back to 3-2 pulldown and the obnoxious intermittent judder that results in). Once again, this is fetish over physics and much like the more esoteric aspects of wine tasting. A good round of double blind testing always shows how much BS there is in that game, and that is not to say that there isn't a dramatic difference between wines, but rather that the tasting process often goes over the top. BTW the real reason cinematographers hang onto 24fps is because at that frame rate, their skill set is needed to manage pan and zoom rates to keep the judder from making the audience ill. At 60 fps, not so much, so in the end, it is really about job security. In my view, the subtle differences between shooting with a wider lens and letterboxing the result vs. shooting with an anamorphic when the final resolution is the same, fall in the esoteric wine tasting basket. Even in Hollywood, VistaVision pretty much won out over Cinemascope to produce essentially the same look without the anamorphics. This list, while neither entirely accurate or complete, gives you an idea of how many ways people tried to avoid using anamorphic lenses in the film era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motion_picture_film_formats .


----------



## HMC11 (May 29, 2021)

melgross said:


> It can be done. Adapters like that have come out on occasion for various systems. But they involve optics in the adapter.


You are right, of course. With additional glass in the adapter it is possible, although that would mean more weight and length in the overall lens+adapter package. Probably more expensive too as the optics in the adapter need to keep up with, say, L lens quality.


----------



## Ozarker (May 29, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> You are right, of course. With additional glass in the adapter it is possible, although that would mean more weight and length in the overall lens+adapter package. Probably more expensive too as the optics in the adapter need to keep up with, say, L lens quality.


Those adapters (with glass added) have a negative impact on image quality.


----------



## kten (May 29, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Yes, I like to take pictures of birds, but I did spend a 40 year career designing and manufacturing video and audio equipment for the the film and television industries as well as overseeing much of the standardization of HDTV, so I am quite well aware of the "preferences" of cinematographers. I also choose to disagree with some of the more esoteric beliefs in that industry. I once had a customer for digital audio equipment who claimed he could "hear wire" (a reference to low oxygen speaker wire). A nice concept, but bullsh*t none the less. Similarly, many folks in cinematography community were and still are addicted to 24fps because they can "can tell a story while keeping the viewer apart from the action". Ditto the current fetish with turning off the motion compensation on TV sets (so they go back to 3-2 pulldown and the obnoxious intermittent judder that results in). Once again, this is fetish over physics and much like the more esoteric aspects of wine tasting. A good round of double blind testing always shows how much BS there is in that game, and that is not to say that there isn't a dramatic difference between wines, but rather that the tasting process often goes over the top. BTW the real reason cinematographers hang onto 24fps is because at that frame rate, their skill set is needed to manage pan and zoom rates to keep the judder from making the audience ill. At 60 fps, not so much, so in the end, it is really about job security. In my view, the subtle differences between shooting with a wider lens and letterboxing the result vs. shooting with an anamorphic when the final resolution is the same, fall in the esoteric wine tasting basket. Even in Hollywood, VistaVision pretty much won out over Cinemascope to produce essentially the same look without the anamorphics. This list, while neither entirely accurate or complete, gives you an idea of how many ways people tried to avoid using anamorphic lenses in the film era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motion_picture_film_formats .


Oh don't get me wrong I know there is the fetishisation and "look cinematic" bs and like any crowd you always get those people but it isn't as black and white as it is all crap. The problem with ALL these things there is a grain of truth in it, just not always for the reason claimed more often than not. I don't think anamorphic aspects make things inherently better but they do indeed change framing and if that fits your needs better then it will make a difference. Much like square cropping photos to really suit some photos can really be the right call and not just gimmick. Even when it comes to to audio cable differences which has been proven in countless tests to be a myth but there can be something in it for poorly designed controls and people hearing a difference (objectively I mean since all cases hear a difference but in subjective cases it comes from listener not the setup), eg cables of much higher resistance isn't apples to apples, factor all that in and it's clearly impossible to tell apart but without it the slight volume bump has been shown to make some people find it sounds better, just not for the reason marketing sold them on.

I think 24p thing is good example when along with 180 rule etc it does seem to be what people find most pleasing, not too much blur but no sickness or looking janky but some folks act like it is inherent to that framerate when you can dial in shutter speeds to match that look regardless of framerate. Even dropping some mismatched stuff into timelines can still be matched without interpreting as different rate when dial in more echo in post or such things to smear it etc and folks wont tell the difference and claim it looks right. Most the "tests" of people comparing say 60p to 24p I've seen had been loaded by dialing in same settings and light level and then of course the 60p looks less like what most people find most entertainment they consume to look like and less pleasing as result.

I can safely say wine is NOT my thing and I dislike all the bs around it but imho this is somethign that doesn't apply here. I do think the different fov to dof and so on lead to very different images much the same way I reach for 85mm lens for portraits because 50mm framed the same exaggerates faces in a way I generally dislike. I do think it needs to be the lens is picked to suit the composition though and not anamorphic for sake of it regardless of what fits. Fwiw I don't believe in the "it looks cinematic" crowd especially since even in big budget cine world there is so much variance in look from way stuff is lit, the post done and so on to the point I don't think there is a simple 1 value in isolation (ie. lens choice) = overall generic look. My point is proven by the list you posted in that anamorphic is just another tool for particular framing and rendering, it isn't the only one nor always the right one but I don't claim that, quite the opposite. Same way I don't think JUST spherical lens with16:9 output is right. It depends and need factor in what you're after and some content and vision suits anamorphic lenses quirks.

I suspect we're on the same page in most regards reading the last reply just disagree on the value of how anamorphic lenses render scenes.


----------

