Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wide angle reality check

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

  • John Foundas
    replied
    I miss my Voightlander 25!

    Leave a comment:


  • f44876
    replied
    Clint Eastwood is a big fan of actual wide angle shots. I noticed a few in a Blood Work (2002) while watching the other day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gugulino
    replied
    I remember a shot in Gran Torino from Clint Eastwood, where he and an actress walk in front of a huge ship and you see this ship and other things of the harbor. It was very impressive and I think that this scene was definitely shot with a wide angle lens.
    As said at the beginning of this thread: You remember such shots with wide angle lenses in Hollywood films, because they are very rare.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgundu
    replied
    Hi Matthew. Its a unique lens that has some great qualities. I only used it for 2 months for a feature and then it sat in my bag because at 12mm it's not really something I need all the time. I just sold it 2 weeks ago. Here's another scene with that lens I shot:

    https://vimeo.com/42298188

    Originally posted by Matthew B View Post
    That looks really nice Bob. I'm actually looking at getting that lens atm. I know your post was from a few months ago, but are you still using it? If so what are your thoughts? How do you think it would cut with some FD's?

    Leave a comment:


  • Matthew B
    replied
    Originally posted by bgundu View Post
    I've been using the new Noktor 12mm 1.6. It's actually a very decent lens.
    http://vimeo.com/30872948
    That looks really nice Bob. I'm actually looking at getting that lens atm. I know your post was from a few months ago, but are you still using it? If so what are your thoughts? How do you think it would cut with some FD's?

    Leave a comment:


  • ekoe
    replied
    I have developed a modification for the Fujinon-TV 12.5mm/f1.4 that results in full coverage of the m4/3 sensor.
    Because of the complexity of the modification, I'll be offering two varieties of the modification; a standard version
    with 16:9 coverage for video, and a full sensor 4:3 coverage option.

    This mod is part of a range of mods I offer based around the Fujinon-TV line of lenses.

    You can see high res samples, and a user review and video by Gekopaca on my website: www.ekoecamera.com

    Please get in touch through the email address on my website for more information.

    Leave a comment:


  • Starscream
    replied
    there are some widenagle shots in there, if i remember correctly they are shot with the Nikkor 10.5mm.
    I also have an Peleng 8mm but that one is pretty ghetto.


    Leave a comment:


  • bgundu
    replied
    I've been using the new Noktor 12mm 1.6. It's actually a very decent lens.
    http://vimeo.com/30872948
    Last edited by bgundu; 10-20-2011, 08:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Furtado
    replied
    Originally posted by Shooter View Post
    Heres an option that I am seriously considering to give my self a wider lens ( when and should I need it).

    http://16x9inc.com/shop/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=36

    Its a .45 wide angle adapter that will fit both of my "dream team" Nikkors. 17-35mm & 28-70mm. Both have a front filter thread of 77mm.

    I have used products from 16x9 before (on my DVX and HXXs) and found them more than adequate to the task - quality wise.
    So, this wold make your 17-35mm effectively a 7ish-16ish mm? With the crop factor into it, it would make it approx 14mm on the wide end right?

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey9
    replied
    Does anyone have footage with a fisheye? I'm curious how wide and how goo it would look

    Leave a comment:


  • Shooter
    replied
    Heres an option that I am seriously considering to give my self a wider lens ( when and should I need it).

    http://16x9inc.com/shop/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=36

    Its a .45 wide angle adapter that will fit both of my "dream team" Nikkors. 17-35mm & 28-70mm. Both have a front filter thread of 77mm.

    I have used products from 16x9 before (on my DVX and HXXs) and found them more than adequate to the task - quality wise.

    Leave a comment:


  • trizcs
    replied
    agreed.

    any feature on a camera system that limits you aesthetic options is a legitimate concern. yes, we can move the camera around, but often there are situations where a shot simply will not work without a wide enough lens. fact: unless you are using m4/3 lenses (as yet, not great quality to my finding) or have exceptionally wide lenses, you will have difficulty achieving wide angle shots.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marshallarts
    replied
    I definitely did not read the whole thread and admittedly was "reacting" to the tone I felt in the first page. Professionally my fast wide angle lenses are my most valuable. And I know they can be quite expensive. My Fujinon 13x4.5 was $30,000. Worth every penny.

    I felt the thread started in a way that discredited legitimate concerns over not having wide angle options and those who thought so were novices who don't know any better. Wide angle is very important and owning around $90,000 in lenses I took it personally.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mister Stocks
    replied
    Originally posted by Marshallarts View Post
    I've very late to this thread having just discovered it. But after only reading the first page I can't help but get equally annoyed at the people who are hating on those who want a wide angle. Claiming we have the freedom in movies to "move the frame" is as stupid as asking a bar owner to knock down his wall to "get a shot", and comparing it to a still shooter who can use a wide angle to capture a crowd without moving makes no sense at all. That still shooter has just enough freedom to "move the frame" and probably has more experience and understanding of lenses and framing then you do.
    You might want to rethink that last part. Its rather assumptive.

    If you read the thread you might change your mind about it. The tone of this thread has been that the desire for wider lenses, while fine, has gotten a bit out of hand. How wide do you truly need to go to be happy? And how wide and fast can you reasonably expect an affordable lens to go without ridiculous distortion?

    Well, that was the tone at the beginning, now the tone has shifted more to 'this is what I use, and it is plenty wide'.
    Last edited by Mister Stocks; 05-13-2011, 07:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marshallarts
    replied
    I've very late to this thread having just discovered it. But after only reading the first page I can't help but get equally annoyed at the people who are hating on those who want a wide angle. Claiming we have the freedom in movies to "move the frame" is as stupid as asking a bar owner to knock down his wall to "get a shot", and comparing it to a still shooter who can use a wide angle to capture a crowd without moving makes no sense at all. That still shooter has just enough freedom to "move the frame" and probably has more experience and understanding of lenses and framing then you do.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X