Good wide angle...

RyanT

RyanT

Veteran
Has anybody ever looked into finding a good wide angle lens for that "Wes Anderson look"? A friend of mine is shooting a film and wants to try and emulate that style, but finding a lens with the right distortion is sorta tough.

We're probably shooting on the letus with nikon primes, but all the fisheyes I've looked at seem to be a bit too much. Has anyone tried to go down this path before?
 
A friend of mine just used a really nice lens rented from a camera house which was a 2/3rds inch, 5mm lens. (Not sure how that exactly translates to 35mm) but it had little distortion and a huge angle of view. Very wes anderson like.

I can get exact info from him, if you would like.
 
Hmm. I'm looking for more something 35mm wise, be it a cinema or still lens, but thanks anyways.
 
RyanT said:
Has anybody ever looked into finding a good wide angle lens for that "Wes Anderson look"? A friend of mine is shooting a film and wants to try and emulate that style, but finding a lens with the right distortion is sorta tough.

We're probably shooting on the letus with nikon primes, but all the fisheyes I've looked at seem to be a bit too much. Has anyone tried to go down this path before?
Click to expand...

The problem here is that the 'angle of view' is dependent on the size of the sensor. So, in the case of a 'real' 35mm negative, a longer focal length lense can be used to get the a specific angle of view, than for the CCD sensor size found in digital video cameras.

In addition film lenses which do have a wide angle of view, are more expensive, because they are minimizing the distortions, maximizing the amount of light it can transmit, and so require more elements, and more sophisticaed grinding.

If you know what the 'Wes Anderson' look is in terms of angle of view, then one can calculate the equivalent for the camera that you have available. (approx...), and that will set what you are looking for...

But, you may not be able to get what you want... or, get what you want for the price you are willing to pay.
 
lairhair said:
nikon 17-35 f2.8
Click to expand...

Not all similar focal lengths have similar distortion. Remember that some lenses can have much less distortion then others. There are some high quality optics which will have a very wide field of view and little distortion. Visit a camera rental house and ask to see some of the best wide angle lenses they have for cinema cameras. You'll be amazed at the image compared to common wide angle nikon lenses.

Look into higher quality glass. You'll see that you can get much wider FoV's with smaller distortion.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
The problem here is that the 'angle of view' is dependent on the size of the sensor. So, in the case of a 'real' 35mm negative, a longer focal length lense can be used to get the a specific angle of view, than for the CCD sensor size found in digital video cameras.

In addition film lenses which do have a wide angle of view, are more expensive, because they are minimizing the distortions, maximizing the amount of light it can transmit, and so require more elements, and more sophisticaed grinding.

If you know what the 'Wes Anderson' look is in terms of angle of view, then one can calculate the equivalent for the camera that you have available. (approx...), and that will set what you are looking for...

But, you may not be able to get what you want... or, get what you want for the price you are willing to pay.
Click to expand...

I feel like this isn't so much a focal length question as a specific lens question. I only say this because I'm more so looking for that distortion rather than the FOV.

Basically, it's not so much a general what focal length will do it, but more of a what lens will do it question.

Lairhair, do you have any footage with that lens?
 
You want distortion? Wes films have very little when compared to the insane FOV they are using. You are probably looking at a top shelf VERY wide lens.

EDIT: There is distortion in Wes Anderson style shots, but it's mild compared to what a nikon equivalent would be.


He shot using Panavision 35mm anamorphic lenses. The widest lens available is a 20mm. My best guess was that he used a 40mm or 35mm anamorphic 35mm lens.

Remember that the horizontal FoV is twice as wide when using anamorphic lenses. The 40mm lens would have the equivalent of a 20mm FoV in width.

I keep changing this post because of my poor math! :(
 
Last edited:
RyanT said:
I feel like this isn't so much a focal length question as a specific lens question. I only say this because I'm more so looking for that distortion rather than the FOV.

Basically, it's not so much a general what focal length will do it, but more of a what lens will do it question.

Lairhair, do you have any footage with that lens?
Click to expand...

Since I don't have the image(s) in my mind that you may have, I looked for an example of a Wes Anderson shot...

On the wiki page for "Rushmore"(1998), here's a shot which is definately wide, anamorphic... but little characteristic wide angle 'distortion', in fact the central 'straight line' of the gutter suggests the cylindrical nature of anamorphic lenses.

You can see a little distortion in the houses and windows at the top of the frame.

Not that I know every single still Nikon lens... but the wide angles that I have used, all showed some amount of distortion due to their 'spherical' shape.


Maxfisherracer.png
 
Don't get me wrong, I don't want too much distortion! Thats why I said I've checked out the 8mm peleng and the 16mm nikon fisheye, but the distortion is way too much. I'd like a wide angle with a touch of distortion. After taking a look at some of these images, perhaps I'm taking this a little too far. It seems like maybe a 20 or 24mm might give me enough of what I'm looking for.

This is a good example of some of those kind of shots...

383486194_c4594ce356_o.jpg


383434374_41a98e37c8_o.jpg


I wish I could find a good example of his two shots, but I guess this'll have to do.
 
2e0k31j.png


thats a grab from a shot with my nikon 17-35 f2.8. I beleveive its on 17mm in that shot. A bit of vignetting on the left but the upper right corner is just the way the light was being shaped. The HVX's zoom got bumped a little bit to wide but I have had much better results with it in the past
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top