Wide angle reality check

aguia said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Multi-Media said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
grimepoch said:
I'd rather get a lens that looks correct BEFORE the sensor, not after.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tflak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
grimepoch said:
This will ALWAYS be better than a digital solution.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cowpunk52 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, that is true. And a good point. For me, it's a special case as I said I do a lot of VFX work and believe me when I tell you that HD-SDI port can't get here fast enough for me. :) But, not everyone has these limitations. I use the Tokina all the time with VFX work and have not had a problem with it yet related to barrel distortion or CA. For this reason, comparing it to the 7-14 with regards to those issues is a non-point for me, so the extra cost doesn't make any sense for fixing those issues compared to my Tokina lens. I'd also MUCH rather have my Tokina at F2.8 at 11mm which will be more versatile for me. That's why I said renting the 7-14 is the best option for me if I am doing something that could use that, but that I'd not use the lens that often, and definitely not indoors.

Don't get me wrong, it's a neat lens focal length wise, and the outdoor footage I have seen is really neat, but for the cost, for me, not worth it. Plus, just because ONE lens exists at this price point AND these characteristics are not indicative of all that is possible or probably. As said, m4/3 doesn't have a huge history or foothold yet.

I think the problem is not the possibility, but the market size. If lens manufacturers don't see a big enough return on investment on these smaller focal lengths for m4/3, then they won't build anything for them. I mean, how often would you use 7mm with that EXTREME perspective distortion? Even with my 11mm, I tend to use it VERY sparingly.
 
grimepoch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, keep in mind that the 7-14's are massively wider angle than the 11mm of the Tokina. Barrel distortion gets worse the wider you go, and 7mm is as much wider than 11mm, as a 50mm lens is versus an 80mm. Huge difference.

Second, I totally agree -- I'd rather have perfectly-performing optics, than digital correction. Definitely. But with that said, perfect glass costs dough, and sometimes the electronic corrections are good enough and they bring the price way down... the Arri Ultra Prime 8mm is probably the finest 8mm glass on the planet, and performs largely rectilinearly and I would presume it has excellent CA performance and edge sharpness (although that's a guess, I don't know). However, the question becomes -- is that one f-stop, and the optical performance, worth a price difference of $29,000? For some, yes. For most, no.

In theory I'm totally all in favor of perfect optics instead of digital correction. Always. But when the wallet hits the road, the digital route is sometimes "good enough" considering the profound price difference.
 
Last edited:
tokina 11-16 does really well on all accounts
sharpness
distortion
CA

I agree with grimepoch regarding this lens.

you should run it some tests barry. i think its a great wide zoom.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. I think it is worth reiterating again that the m4/3 size is still not hugely prevalent, and hopefully as it becomes more prevalent, we'll get more options. That's the biggest problem. We've had Nikon and Canon glass to compare and contrast on cost and capability.

What would be interesting to compare them both at 11mm.

One thing that can be said is this, if you NEED 7mm, at least there is an option. I think that is important as well. Sure, you have to light it more, but at least the lens exists. I'd rather at least know that option was out there then have nothing at all. Which would be WAY worse.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just a quick note on this. From what I understand Olympus m4/3 cameras perform all the same corrections as Panasonic m4/3 cameras, with the exception of CA correction that only Panasonic bodies do.
 
SteB said:
Just a quick note on this. From what I understand Olympus m4/3 cameras perform all the same corrections as Panasonic m4/3 cameras, with the exception of CA correction that only Panasonic bodies do.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? I thought the dpreview tests showed that the barrel distortion and pincushion distortion correction was only being done by the Panasonics. They test lenses on both models and you can click on the tests to see how they compare on different bodies. I may be wrong, but I thought they showed noticeable barrel distortion on the 14-140 at 14mm on the Olympus, but on the Panasonic it was rectilinear?
 
Barry_Green said:
Are you sure about that? I thought the dpreview tests showed that the barrel distortion and pincushion distortion correction was only being done by the Panasonics. They test lenses on both models and you can click on the tests to see how they compare on different bodies. I may be wrong, but I thought they showed noticeable barrel distortion on the 14-140 at 14mm on the Olympus, but on the Panasonic it was rectilinear?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain that Olympus m4/3 correct for everything that Panasonic do, except for CA. As always the difficulty has been finding a quick source to confirm this. However, I did find this interesting thread from Dpreview last year in which this was discussed by several Dpreview staff members.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=32614954

There is an interesting comment by Andy Westlake of Dpreview, where he first says the distortion correction is applied equally by Panasonic and Olympus, but then in another post states.

Yes, your interpretation is correct; Olympus seems not to be correcting distortion fully, for no obvious reason. Maybe they're trying to fool us into thinking they're not doing distortion correction at all...
Click to expand...

So yes it does appear that there may be a slight difference in the degree of correction. There is some other info in this Dpreview article about m4/3 lens software correction.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/distortion/
 
dop16mm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's my question.

My reference for wide angle has been the DVX and HVX. When I shoot with my 35mm adapters I tend to just take them off and shoot "stock" for my wide angles. What is the mm lens equivalent on the HVX? Or what mm lens would I need to get for the AF-100 to match the wide angle FOV that I get with my HVX?
 
JesterJJZ said:
Here's my question.

My reference for wide angle has been the DVX and HVX. When I shoot with my 35mm adapters I tend to just take them off and shoot "stock" for my wide angles. What is the mm lens equivalent on the HVX? Or what mm lens would I need to get for the AF-100 to match the wide angle FOV that I get with my HVX?
Click to expand...


HVX200 has an 35mm equivalent lens of 32mm according to BH

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/696066-REG/Panasonic_AG_HVX200APS_AG_HVX200A_1_3_3CCD_P2.html

and equivalent FOV would be achieved on the AF100 with a 16mm lens. Luckily there are several lenses available both a little wider (Panasonic's new 14mm f/2.5) and a little narrower (the must have 20mm f/1.7.) Both Panasonic and Olympus make several zooms that cover that range. i use an Olympus 9-18 on my Gh1 for wides
 
want to double check.
ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 will be like 24-120mm??
Panasonic 14-140mm F4-5.8 will be like 28-280mm??

Last time I shot a short film with a HPX-170 with Letus 35mm Adapter with the Zeiss Lens set 28,35,50,85,100. It basically covered what I needed. I do not own any camera or lens so it is hard for me to compare physically.
So if I get the Olympus ED 12-60mm.. will cover from wide to close up right? since it will be 24-120mm? (Don't have a budget to get prime lens atm)
I don't use auto focus and love the speed on that lens. It seems like better than the Panny lens.

Thanks
 
Tvdie23, it's not as simple as that.
But if I understand correctly, the 35mm adapters generally have full frame ground glass, meaning that for what you are used to seeing in the viewfinder, your assessments are basically correct.
 
The confusion in the beginning, for me, was the formats that the lenses are made for; example: FF, APC-S, M4/3 & S35 lenses. Buying FF lenses to go with a Micro 4/3rds sensor got me a few times. And oh yeah, don't forget the APC-S Tokina 11-16, on the wide, 11mm is now equal to a 13mm micro 4/3rds lens. Older FD lenses, let's say a 20mm is a 40mm aprox.. Or maybe I'm still confused. I will just labeling my lenses accordingly. The Abel fov page is nice but was still a tad confusing at first. For cinema crop I only care about .8x not 1.3x. Kudos though for them putting it up.

I think the 14-140 is great, but I would've been willing to shell out $500 - $700 more for that lens if they had made it an internal zoom. But........the great thing is I can always rent the PL mount/lenses for a commercial and for me that is a big selling point.

I may say, just screw all the other lenses and go with the Pany's for doc and indie work and use the PL for work where the budget allows.

Fine Print:
This is just my personal preference to keep things simple and in no way am I implying that there is a right way or wrong way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top