Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wide angle reality check

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by grimepoch View Post
    I'm confused, how does a 14mm lens become equivalent to a 7mm lens on the same camera?
    It doesn't. I'm looking at any lens that delivers a 114-degree angle of view. There are no primes that offer that for APS-C so I had to go to the FF equivalents.

    Given what I use 11mm for, I am really not worried. I think it will be fine. And for extreme outdoor wides, I'd just rent the 7mm-14mm for now. I mean, it is easy to get an idea, I just crop the image then blow it up. It gives me a decent idea of what to expect and I think if a lot of people did that, coming from the APS-C sensor sizes, they'll see it's not a big deal. The 7mm-14mm at F4 is just too slow for me to pick up as I know I wouldn't use it enough to validate it's cost FOR ME. I'd rather put that money towards other glass, like the 25mm F0.95 that sounds VERY interesting to me.
    Indeed, everyone's usages will dictate their lens choices. I love the hyper-wide-angle, and I don't care that it's not f/2.8, because I don't want to pay an additional $1,000 for that. I'd rather just bump up the gain 6dB and pocket the thousand bucks difference.

    But yeah, that 25mm f/0.95 is crazy fast. I was thinking about that -- the 20mm f/1.7 is pretty fast, being about 2.5 stops faster than the 14-140. But that 25mm f/0.95 is 1.67 stops faster than that! It's four stops faster than the 14-140. That's extremely interesting!
    ..
    The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

    Comment


      Originally posted by Barry_Green View Post
      It doesn't. I'm looking at any lens that delivers a 114-degree angle of view. There are no primes that offer that for APS-C so I had to go to the FF equivalents.


      Indeed, everyone's usages will dictate their lens choices. I love the hyper-wide-angle, and I don't care that it's not f/2.8, because I don't want to pay an additional $1,000 for that. I'd rather just bump up the gain 6dB and pocket the thousand bucks difference.

      But yeah, that 25mm f/0.95 is crazy fast. I was thinking about that -- the 20mm f/1.7 is pretty fast, being about 2.5 stops faster than the 14-140. But that 25mm f/0.95 is 1.67 stops faster than that! It's four stops faster than the 14-140. That's extremely interesting!
      Ahh, okay, now I get where you were going with that! Having now worked with 30mm, 50mm and 85mm F1.4 I can say that the relationship between the F-stop and the focal length, at least to me, is VERY VERY different in these three sizes. Bringing about a 25mm F0.95, I don't even know what to expect. (Though I look forward to it). I might be able to get noise free footage in a black hole!

      :P
      formerly know as grimepoch.

      Comment


        Originally posted by TimurCivan View Post
        Because every millimeter down you go, things get more complicated.

        lets go back to the car analogy. 0-100mph, you can get with a $15,000 car. 0-125mph you can get with a $20,000 car. 0-155mph, suddenly you need a $60,000 car. 0-175 youre talking 200,000$. over 200mph, and you need a 400,000$ car, 225mph+ youre talking F1/Bugatti $800,000 - 2million dollars.

        Its the inverse square law of perfomance/cost. This is why im impressed with the 7-14mm. for the price its amazing.....

        I realize that but things get easier when your image circle is smaller. Plus we're talking primes not a zoom.
        I still think $900 for a m43 image circle f2.8 prime at 7-8mm is realistic.
        especially when tokina make a fixed aperture zoom at 11-16 f2.8 for $600 and
        sigma make a reclitlnear 8-16mm zoom f4.5 for $700 and both these are
        zooms, more complex with more elements and larger image circles.
        J.Davis
        jdMAX.com

        Comment


          Originally posted by J Davis View Post
          I realize that but things get easier when your image circle is smaller. Plus we're talking primes not a zoom.
          I still think $900 for a m43 image circle f2.8 prime at 7-8mm is realistic.
          especially when tokina make a fixed aperture zoom at 11-16 f2.8 for $600 and
          sigma make a reclitlnear 8-16mm zoom f4.5 for $700 and both these are
          zooms, more complex with more elements and larger image circles.

          I think you're completely right here, J. But keep in mind that the amount of R&D that goes into a lens is a pretty good investment, and the installed user base of Canon and Nikon gear is exponentially larger than for Micro Four-Thirds. So, we'll likely see exactly the kind of lens you're asking for, but only after the M4/3 user base is significantly larger than it is now.
          Stephen Mick
          Owner/Creative Director
          Skylark Creative

          weareskylark.com

          Comment


            Originally posted by Stephen Mick View Post
            ... but only after the M4/3 user base is significantly larger than it is now.
            Thank you Stephan. And user demand is exactly what I said when I first mentioned this. AF100 video shooters are going to need fast wide.
            I think the demand will come and an m43 fast wide prime could be a profitable and do-able lens.
            edit:
            Found another one. A zoom (more complex than a prime) for $480 covering 9mm rectilnear at f4
            http://www.buy.com/prod/olympus-zuik...210399730.html
            If thats do able for less than $500 an m43 prime is do able at f2.8 for a grand.
            J.Davis
            jdMAX.com

            Comment


              Originally posted by Stephen Mick View Post
              I think you're completely right here, J. But keep in mind that the amount of R&D that goes into a lens is a pretty good investment, and the installed user base of Canon and Nikon gear is exponentially larger than for Micro Four-Thirds. So, we'll likely see exactly the kind of lens you're asking for, but only after the M4/3 user base is significantly larger than it is now.
              I agree with this too.
              formerly know as grimepoch.

              Comment


                Originally posted by J Davis View Post
                Found another one. A zoom (more complex than a prime) for $480 covering 9mm rectilnear at f4
                http://www.buy.com/prod/olympus-zuik...210399730.html
                If thats do able for less than $500 an m43 prime is do able at f2.8 for a grand.
                I recently got the native micro four-thirds version of that Olympus 9-18mm f4-5.6 zoom. It's remarkably light and compact and auto-focuses just like Panasonic's Lumix lenses do, even in AFC mode. It's a superb lens for daylight panoramas and the ability to frame your shot anywhere between 9-18mm makes it far more flexible than a prime lens. I use it with a 72mm Tiffen Black Diffusion FX3 filter to soften its edges.
                GH2 100Mbps Flow Motion v2 Patch

                GH1 Reliable In-Camera Playback Patch
                GH1 Blackout-Powell Patch
                GH1 75Mbps GH1 Peak Reliability Patch
                GH1 100Mbps Max Latitude Patch

                Comment


                  Originally posted by lpowell View Post
                  I recently got the native micro four-thirds version of that Olympus 9-18mm f4-5.6 zoom. It's remarkably light and compact and auto-focuses just like Panasonic's Lumix lenses do, even in AFC mode. It's a superb lens for daylight panoramas and the ability to frame your shot anywhere between 9-18mm makes it far more flexible than a prime lens. I use it with a 72mm Tiffen Black Diffusion FX3 filter to soften its edges.
                  see, i'd actually rather it be beefy, plenty of metal, less plastic, so you know it can take a beating. but then again i take care of my lenses, the old plastic fantastic 50/1.8 has been trucking along for years
                  C100 / Aerial Shooter/Editor - NY/NJ

                  My work, My equipment, My other whatnots...
                  www.DarrenLevine.com

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by J Davis View Post
                    I realize that but things get easier when your image circle is smaller. Plus we're talking primes not a zoom.
                    I still think $900 for a m43 image circle f2.8 prime at 7-8mm is realistic.
                    especially when tokina make a fixed aperture zoom at 11-16 f2.8 for $600 and
                    sigma make a reclitlnear 8-16mm zoom f4.5 for $700 and both these are
                    zooms, more complex with more elements and larger image circles.
                    That's all well and good, but the Tokina won't work with the camera to perform barrel distortion correction... or chromatic abberation correction. The Panny lenses work WITH the camera... That's what makes them worth the investment.
                    http://www.vimeo.com/daleanthonysmith
                    http://www.youtube.com/user/multimed...ature=mhee#p/a

                    AF100, GH1(pair), Lumix Lenses: 20mm, 7-14mm, 14-140mm, 100-300mm Nikon Lenses: 55mm macro f3.5, 50mm f1.4
                    CS5 workstation 24gb RAM, ProAim Mattebox w/ 4" filters, CobraCrain Jib w/motor pan/tilt on Quickset Herculese jibpod

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Barry_Green View Post
                      Wow, they sure didn't seem to like either lens a whole lot!

                      Well, a couple of things to consider, when comparing those two:
                      1) the Olympus is nearly twice the price of the Panasonic
                      2) they tested on an Olympus body, and that doesn't let the Panasonic lens do its wizardry. The Panasonic lens and body, together, have electronic communication and the ability to resolve issues such as chromatic aberration and barrel distortion. Those features don't come into play when you mate a Panasonic lens onto an Olympus body.
                      3) They caution about f/22 on these lenses, but I'd say f/22 on any DSLR lens is problematic, due to diffraction. I recommend staying no deeper than f16 anyway.

                      Because of those factors, I went ahead and got the 7-14, and I kind of love it. Some of my favorite shots I got were at the 7mm focal length. But it does become distracting to do a pan that wide, as the perspective changes from the corners to the center of the frame, so I don't think it's the first lens anyone's going to reach for when doing general-purpose cinematography. But for a fairly-rectilinear ultrawide, I think it's pretty good and I'm happy with it.
                      It seemed to me that the Panasonic was still performing better than the Olympus in this test, but I have been curious whether an AF100 will do the same kind of in-body software correction for aberrations that the GH1/2 will. It is something else to consider, I think that Panasonic is fully into using in-camera processing to sweeten their lens designs. In fact I'm sort of surprised the Panasonic 7-14mm did as well as it did in this test (on an Olympus body).

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by aguia View Post
                        It seemed to me that the Panasonic was still performing better than the Olympus in this test, but I have been curious whether an AF100 will do the same kind of in-body software correction for aberrations that the GH1/2 will. It is something else to consider, I think that Panasonic is fully into using in-camera processing to sweeten their lens designs. In fact I'm sort of surprised the Panasonic 7-14mm did as well as it did in this test (on an Olympus body).
                        It does. I used my 14-140 and 7-14 on the AF100, and it worked all the same magic that my GH1 does.

                        Agreed, the 7-14 on the Olympus was at a bit of a handicap; it would have performed even better had they tested them on a Panasonic body.
                        ..
                        The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Multi-Media View Post
                          That's all well and good, but the Tokina won't work with the camera to perform barrel distortion correction... or chromatic abberation correction. The Panny lenses work WITH the camera... That's what makes them worth the investment.
                          I just don't notice a problem with either of those issues with my Tokina 11-16mm. I've seen others post CA from the Tokina, but when I try the same test, I've not gotten the same results. Likewise, I've analyzed screen grabs in photoshop and I've not seen appreciable barrel distortion either.

                          Take into consideration that the m4/3 sensor is slightly smaller than the APS-C that I used and the lens just gets better since we lose more of the outside. Doesn't make them worth the investment to me. I'd rather get a lens that looks correct BEFORE the sensor, not after.
                          formerly know as grimepoch.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by grimepoch View Post
                            I'd rather get a lens that looks correct BEFORE the sensor, not after.
                            And I'd rather shoot an actress who looks great BEFORE makeup, not after.

                            Seriously, what I care about is how something looks on the final delivery vehicle it's intended for. If it looks good there, I don't really care how much processing it went through to get there. Especially if it's seamless and didn't cause me any extra work.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by tflak View Post
                              And I'd rather shoot an actress who looks great BEFORE makeup, not after.

                              Seriously, what I care about is how something looks on the final delivery vehicle it's intended for. If it looks good there, I don't really care how much processing it went through to get there. Especially if it's seamless and didn't cause me any extra work.
                              Ahh, but you illustrate my point for me. Do you want to fix the actress BEFORE the sensor, or after the sensor? Clearly you'd rather add the makeup before the sensor then having to photoshop the frames after the fact.

                              I'm just reluctant to use any digital fixes on a lens. You are applying distortions to an image which is changing the pixel relationships. For most people this might be fine, but for all the VFX work I do, I need to reduce the number of issues, not add more. Wide angle shots are REALLY hard to work already if the camera moves at all due to perspective distortion, which all ultra wide lenses will have and you cannot remove because that is the nature of the FoV. Same thing with CA fixes. I'd rather get a lens that will be right to begin with, then have the software which already has to interpolate between bayer sites then have to apply fixes to the color. No thanks. Not that I wouldn't use the lens, or try it, but I'd always opt to spend more on a lens that gets it right optically first. This will ALWAYS be better than a digital solution.
                              formerly know as grimepoch.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by grimepoch View Post
                                This will ALWAYS be better than a digital solution.
                                True, but that's not always easy or cost-effective. I find the in-camera correction of the Lumix 7-14mm lens on Panny bodies to be incredibly good, virtually indistinguishable and for the most part outperforming the best optical-only ultra-wides on Panasonic bodies. There's no way on earth most AF100 users will ever be able to afford a lens that performs optically the way the 7-14 does does with digital correction. For the performance at it's price point, it's one of the best wide-angle options available - especially for video work, in any format. You'd have to spend literally tens of thousands more dollars to get a completely optical equivalent performance.
                                Cinematographer | Camera Op | Occasional Director
                                Currently Shooting "Expedition Unknown" on Travel Channel
                                IATSE Local 600

                                Twitter: @BrianCWeed

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X