Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wide Boys  (Read 4918 times)
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« on: August 28, 2011, 04:27:29 AM »
ReplyReply

This is from my blog..

Most importantly are there some wide options I am missing ??

(not to chat about but to buy !)

-------


FOCUSING ON WIDE S35 LENSES

Once one is not shooting motion with a canon DSLR, but with an F3 or FS100 the lens options change, specifically at the technically challenging wide end

 

Basically Canon lenses go away (subject to developments) and PL lenses that would bash the mirror and Nikkor G lenses come into the picture

 

It seems to me that there has been little development, by stills companies, of high performance wide lenses to cover the APS/S35 format

 

The format is relatively new in stills world and development has been concentrated on reducing cost rather than increasing performance

 

(see the slew of crap 18-XX zoom lenses that cost virtually nothing)

 

This lack of development fundamentally reduces the options as does the total lack of manual only ‘legacy’ stills glass designed for S35/APC format

 

What is a wide lens?

I guess I would want in the 16-17-18 zone - wider than that could be described as a special purpose or comedy lens

 

And like all lenses ideally one would like in the region of F2.0

 

There is no reason a 17/F2 could not be made - it is just that stills lens people have thus far not applied development funds in that direction

 

Cine people have however put money into the S35 format

 

Witness the Cooke S4 18 T1.4 – Ideal !

 

But a lens of that class is not generally affordable

 

So that leaves stills offerings

 

On the prime front there are some fine lenses leica, zeiss etc in the 18 F3.5 zone generally costing around 1000 pounds

 

A little overwide (IMO) is the nikkor 14 2.8 that gains a little light compared to the 18mm offerings and can be had quite cheap as it is not 'fashionable' due competition from the 14-24 G mentioned below

 

The nikkor 14 2.8 has a 'proper aperture' but can be a challenge to ND with its massive front element

 

But of course focuses 'the wrong way' if you are not a Nikon shooter

 

All of these are expensive lenses that cover FF35 - so you are not really using all you are paying for – and some are heavy too

 

Examining the Nikon 'DX' offerings we see a hole in the offer 10.5fish - 35 1.4 nothing in between

 

There are no prime wides from stills companies optimised for the S35 format

 

While we are on FF covering lenses it is worth mentioning the nikkor 14-24G zoom

 

This is a wonderful quality optic that focuses internally and will not create matte box issues when zooming - and FS100 users must consider ND !

 

So the last option to consider is APC/S35 coverage wide zooms

 

Again the APS format came to the stills world a long time after manual focus left it - so there are no smooth MFs to be had in the bargain bin

 

The prime contenders are the Canon 17-55, the nikkor 17-55 and the tokinas 11-16 and 16-50

 

Currently the canon is ruled out for control issues

 

Leaving the nikkor 17-55 and the two Tokinas 11-16 and 16-50 (probably similar 16-XX Tamron and Stigmas too)

 

I think at this point one needs to evaluate the amount of lens changes you want to make and how wide you want to go

 

Personally I consider 11 to be a bit of a joke lens so I am much more up for a 16-XX lens

 

I’m going for the nikkor 17-55 because I’m a nikon shooter, others may find the Tokina 16-50 more appropriate to their lens set, those looking for a super wide are indeed served well by the 11-16

 

Of course the  FS100 18F3.5 kit lens has great width to value but is a little bendy to be considered as a high performance wide

 

---

 

Other wide lenses worth considering ..

nikkor 17-35 zoom - proper aperture often rough focus

nikkor 20-35 same but cheaper and worse

nikkor G 16-35 (too expensive for the reach)

Stigma 18-70 2.8-4 zoom (great reach)

Red lenses 18-80 and 17-50 (too heavy)

Red 18mm prime (too expensive)

Cosina 19-35 (its junk but cheap I bought and rejected it – see the last post)

Sony Lenses? Im not convinced yet that there is sutable feel with focus or control of aperture - but they have some stuff that is good on papaper

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2011, 06:30:56 AM »
ReplyReply

The Tokina 11 - 16 is highly respected among many filmmakers.  So much, actually, that Duclos Lenses does a complete rehousing of this lens and cannot keep them in stock.  http://www.ducloslenses.com/Duclos_Lenses/PL116.html

I love Red's 17 - 50 but sold mine when I bought the Cooke Panchros as I prefer Primes in general.  I'm thinking about picking up the Tokina just to have something super-wide.

CB
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2011, 06:48:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Indeed I make mention of the 11-16

but im not that bothered about superwide

(I have a 14 and a 5dmk2)

Im more after an 18/2 or something

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Robert Moore
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2011, 07:00:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Craig and Morgan,

I bought the Tokina 11-16 as I have an order in with Duclos for the modified lens but after their loss of some
35 - 50 lenses in the theft I know it will be months before one is available.

I returned the lens after looking at the results....on a crop sensor M4/3 Panasonic GH2. Distortion was well
controlled bokeh fine but overall contrast and sharpness (not in a corner but everywhere) was inadequate.
May not be seen on a video camera but compare lens to lens on a still it is very evident.

At first I though I must have been out of focus or the shutter speed too low ... repeat careful shooting showed
a fairly sharp lens that took a lot of unsharp mask in post to make critically sharp with the appearance of edge effects
at the point that it appeared good.

Somewhat concerned I thought I would wait a few days and try again....my GH2 images so well and needs very little
unsharp masking normally. Friday I pulled up a few captures from the Pan 7 - 14 Asph and was stunned at how much better the
overall color, micro and macrocontrast appeared...this with little to no post.

Short answer for me is for now the Nikon 14-24 with a Lee 105 filter holder made specifically for the Nikon lens. Will add the
17-55 and 28-300 for run around while my ZF.2s will get the majority of my attention.

This is hybrid shooting not cinematic...light is better for me.

If you buy the Tokina 11-16 make sure it is where you can exchange or return it....after the Cookes it will be less than ideal.

Bob
Logged
Robert Moore
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2011, 07:32:40 AM »
ReplyReply

The following are from the two lenses:

Tokina 11 - 16 :



Panasonic 7 - 14 :




These are not comparison shots but I have imaged these enough to have a good impression of the differences
in scale and color. Different times of day and no attempt to match color.

Here the Tokina looks ok....maybe why most using it on video are relatively happy.

Bob
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2011, 08:17:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Im sure its fine for video

------

An amusing web page.. some options for fast wide .. at a price

http://www.fjsinternational.com/lenses.html
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2011, 10:25:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually those Illuminas are getting some really favorable reviews.  If I hadn't been so stuck on Cookes I might have gone for them.  Interesting notes on the Tokina...  Yeah, I think sharp for motion and sharp for stills are two totally different worlds.

Motion's resolution just isn't as demanding on the glass...

A couple shots I posted in another thread:

Cooke Panchro/i 18mm at T/ 4 on Red One (Graded a little too red)




Schneider 35mm XL on P65+ at F/ 8



There's way more fine detail from the still camera.  Really nice Dynamic Range from the Red, tho!

Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2011, 12:00:37 PM »
ReplyReply

there is other stuff if you scroll down too

Realistically - im gonna get the nikkor 17-55

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2011, 01:03:42 PM »
ReplyReply

For our RED's we generally use the Zeiss F mount dslr lenses.  They go from 18mm to 100mm and most are around F2. to 2.8 with the 18 at 3.5.  There is a new 35 1.4 that's beautiful.

We also have the nikon 17-55 2.8 zoom which we use because it's easy, but I don't find it close to as sharp as the zeiss.

When pulling a still frame from the RED the Zeiss shows a lot more detail where the Nikon looks challanged.

Zeiss also has the same glass in their PL mount and interchangeable mount compact primes (at more cost) though they have gear sets and longer throws for focus.

Either one is sharp and I'll probably continue with the Zeiss for a long time.

IMO

BC
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2011, 04:13:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for that

I assume the main differences show at greater than 1080

Or does the nikon have problems like bendy lines or CA that show at any res?

I guess Ill get the nikon and save for a zeiss or similar in the long run

-----
Bag one.. (doco)

17-55, 70-200, kit lens, 35 1.4 and a nikon D90 fo drop some stills !

Bag two (structured work)

14 18 24 28/2 28PC 35 50 85 135

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2011, 04:17:16 PM »
ReplyReply

which way does the fmount 18mm go with focus throw?

Different from all other nikkors i guess

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Robert Moore
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2011, 04:33:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Sam,

The Zeiss ZF and ZF.2 use Nikon focusing conventions....my 25 and 100 macro turn clockwise for distance ... counterclock for closer focusing.

Many buy the ZE lenses so they match their PL cinema lenses in focusing.

Your ZF.2s will match your Nikon lenses.

I do think that you will find the 21 2.8 far surpasses the 18 for sharpness and correction. I would rather use the 21 and step a bit back as
it is one of the Zeiss gems.

Bob
Logged
Tim Jones
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2011, 10:00:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm kinda excited about the new canon L 8mm-15mm could be cool on the 7D.

Tim
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2011, 01:45:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Im thinking not to go with the 17-55, because Ill still need to change lenses all the time

So might just stick with my 14 (I already own it ists free!)

Or just look for a prime, or try the Stigma 17-70

Another one is I played with a voiglander 21 yesterday

Those lenses are TINY, and could impact seriously the size of a package

It also had great build

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Robert Moore
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2011, 10:09:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I just ordered the Nikon 14-24...need to find a Lee SW150 for filters.


Saw this on the Red site:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?62805-Lots-of-Epics-and-lots-of-Leica-Summilux-C-lenses.....

Way over my head.


Bob
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2011, 06:22:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Those are cine lenses - $50k or whatever

One addition is I saw a voigtlander 21mm the other day, i was pretty baffled by the size and also price..

I have not gone ahead with the nikkor 17-55 because Im not feeling 55 as that handy a focal lenght, really liking 70 or more to punch in with

Seen here on an NEX camera which is bafflingly small too considering the S35 chip..

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2011, 09:39:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I've held those Leicas... they are so.....     so....    *sigh*




but yeah... set of 8 is $178k
Logged
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 06, 2011, 04:14:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I love Red's 17 - 50 but sold mine when I bought the Cooke Panchros as I prefer Primes in general.

Christopher,

I'm on the wait list for the Duclos 11-16mm, & am seriously considering the RED 17-50, but am concerned about the breathing.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,
Bern
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 05:33:23 PM by Bern Caughey » Logged
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2011, 05:05:45 PM »
ReplyReply

The thing I wasn't happy with on the 17-50 was the smoothness of the zoom.  I couldn't pull a nice, clean zoom with it.  I used it more as a variable prime.  It does have just a bit of breathing but far less than, say, my Zeiss ZF's.  I have no problems pulling a smooth zoom on my Leica R 28-70, so I don't think it was me.  Leica R glass, though not real fast, can be great for Cine work.  Mechanics are as silky as the ZF's and the image is damn nice.

I've been on the fence with that Tokina for a long time.  Now I can't decide whether to just get the straight Canon mount or the Duclos Mod.  Another Panchro user tells me it's nowhere near as sharp as our Cookes, but Hell, an 11-16 zoom at that price would be a nice piece of kit to have around.

CB
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2011, 01:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The thing I wasn't happy with on the 17-50 was the smoothness of the zoom.  .

CB

I never zoom. but like zoom to save lense changes

Still on the fence 17-55 nikkor G (wont work on my D3) or classic nikkor 18/4 manual seems to be more appreciated than the 18/2.8 AF version, but AF could be handy on my D3 .. for stills

S

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad