Wide angle reality check

[dop16mm]

I think it is rather humorous that over the last while everyone has been clamoring for telephoto shallow focus solutions for video cameras, and as soon as someone builds one, everyone starts complaining about lack of wide angle. Compared to what? Yes there are super wide lenses for full frame stills for shooting big group interiors, but guess what we are movie shooters and can move the frame to take in the shot.

Our frame of reference if you want to talk crop factor should be the 1/3" cameras we've worked with for years. The widest standard zooms for these cameras is 4-4.5mm or 16 - 18mm in 4/3 format. You can't adapt much wider than that without introducing barrel and fish-eye distortion.

If you've been working with consumer cameras like the canon hv20 type the wide end is 6mm or 24mm in 4/3, again you can't go much wider without distortion.

All of the standard zooms in m4/3 start at 14mm which is already wider than any video camera you've ever used. Add the 7-14mm and it will blow your socks off. Yes at f4 it is a bit slow, but consider the pains we have gone through to shoot hv20 with no gain, f2 at maybe 100asa, that would be f4 at 400, if the cam is clean at 800 - 1600 it is a non issue, if so turn a light on.

On my 16mm kit the widest lens I have is 10mm and I've never had trouble getting a shot, that should have a FOV similar to the 20mm pancake, which at f1.7 should be more that fast enough to cover the dance at a wedding reception.

If You've ever read American Cinematographer Magazine, you'll see that most every shot in every movie you see is 25mm or longer. 18mm is typically the widest standard lens. The prime kits do go down to 12mm but lenses that wide are a speciality item. 10mm on a movie really stands out, there are only a handful of shots in Hollywood history that have used it, and if you saw it, you knew it.

[Michael Olsen]

Totally agree. The only way people would be missing something on the wide end with this camera is if they have been accustomed to shooting on the 5D which, frankly, is unlike shooting on virtually any film camera. I mean, how many films were actually shot primarily in Vistavision? I think about 30. And I don't know of any since about 1990.

If I really needed that look as part of my aesthetic, I'm afraid shooting on ultra-wide primes on S35 or on a 5D would have to tide me over until Canon decides to release a FF35 video camera (which they haven't even hinted at) or until the Scarlet FF35 ships (which is anyone's guess).

[Rolf Silber]

Really waited until somebody would finally mention what you wrote. A 14 mm is really good enough for most wide-angle shots. Thank you.

But: Would a 7-500 Zoom with constant f 1.4 make people stop complaining? Naaaah.... because it would not be a macro, probably..... ;-)

[gustavo_viral]

Nice discussion.

So, the 20mm 1.7 would be consider a nice wide angle option, acording to film standards, in a m4/3 chip?

thanks.

[AdrianF]

I read the reaction to Phil Blooms review this morning and thought, oh god here we go again, Groundhog Day
If somebody really needs to shoot a film with a 180 degree circular fisheye @ f0.01, then, yes they will need to look elsewhere, but otherwise there are plenty of good options available for the format.

[Michael Olsen]

I think a 20 would be fine as a kind of "medium-wide". As dop16mm said, though, for a true "wide" I would consider something around 15mm.

[AdrianF]

This link should be made a sticky

http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

[Michael Olsen]

Indeed it should.

[Dan Clark]

Very nice find! +1 on the sticky.

[danielc]

yes, very good insight here. i have been searching around and buying some nikon glass this past week and havent been able to find something too wide, yet when the question is put into perspective, how wide do us filmmakers really go (unless to achieve a certain shot). i read that the nikon 15mm is similar to the tokina 17mm and the tokina is rated better so i am out for one of those. i think 17mm will suffice for the widest in the kit. thanks for the interesting take on this.