Scarlet X Ultra Wide Still Lens Test

[Phil Holland]

I'm still waiting on my Scarlet X AL Canon Mount Package, but I need to prep for a shoot where we'll be shooting several setups in a cramped location in about a week. Hence this ultra wide test. I also recently picked up the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and have been testing that today. There's been a lot of talk about wide angle options for Scarlet X and I thought I'd share these results.

These tests were performed with a Canon 5D Mark II and cropped to Scarlet X 4k 1.9:1. Everything was shot at f/11. I'm starting at the edge of wide @ 24mm and going all the way through 11mm rectilinear ultra wide. I also shot two ultra fisheyes to see what's possible there.


Canon Olympus and Sigma Prime Lenses 24mm, 20mm, 18mm and 14mm

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

Sigma 15mm and 8mm Fisheye Lenses

Some of my thoughts:

The Canon 24mm f/1.4L is very nice and previously we've seen glowing reviews from Epic shooters about this lens. Not crazy wide, but I'll be using this lens a lot.

I have a very good copy of the Canon 20mm f/2.8 and I'm fond of that focal length. There are many other decent 20mm lenses out there from Nikon and Zeiss. Sigma has a 20mm at f/1.8 that might be fun for low light. I had a copy I wasn't in love with a while ago, but I'll check that out again. There's also real nice glass near this focal length. Leica R at 19mm f/2.8 and the rather excellent Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. There's a rare yet not optically stellar Olympus OM 21mm f/2 that's interesting too, but most settle on the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 for that kind of money.

The Olympus OM 18mm f/3.5 is one of the more interesting antique lenses out there. It's a diamond in the rough for sure. Extremely compact. Not the fastest aperture, but has less barrel distortion than modern Zeiss 18mm still primes. Not bad for a lens from the late 1970s. Somebody should release a modern 18mm at f/2.8 or f/1.8. For some reason recently 18mm primes have become out of favor in FF35 lens sales. It's one of my favorite lengths on S35.

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 has a nice build quality and is pretty good optically. Designed for APS-C, but usable at 5k as well. It can also be used wide open. For the price, you really can't beat it. I'm really hoping for a 8mm or 10mm prime to be released next year. There's an old rectilinear Nikon 15mm that's alright, but the Tokina is a better option.

I have that old discontinued Sigma 14mm f/2.8 and I think I'll be choosing the Tokina when I need to shoot 14mm for the most part. I'm a bit fascinated by the difference in compression between the Tokina and the Sigma though. I need to test this more. I think the Tokina is more useful than the Canon 14mm f/2.8L and cheaper too (this is coming from a "prime guy").

The Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 has some nice reviews, but with a variable aperture starting at f/4.5 I don't know. I'll test it, but for my style of shooting, likely not for me. I am very curious though about the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5. If it holds up wide open, it could be nice.

I think the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye might be real fun for certain applications. The distortion is certainly there, but it's not too painful.

The Sigma 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye clearly vignettes at 4k. Could be used for stylized work and certainly viable at 3k and 2k. I wouldn't recommend shooting with this lens wide open at all. I've built specialized rigs that use these and have seen 40 or so cross my path. I think the Nikon 10mm f/2.8 Fisheye is a better option at 4k and has more pleasing out of focus/bokeh effect.

I'll be doing some close focus, infinity, and outdoors tests soon. But this simple test tells me a lot and could help others.

 

[Anthony Vu]

Thanks for the great test Phil! Keep it up!

 

[Dane Henry]

Thanks Phil! Great to see FOV of what our Scarlets will have. I purchased the Tokina 11-16 and a Rokinon 8mm 3.5 (guessing it is the same lens rehoused). I was figuring on the 8mm being used as my widest FOV for 3k/2k.

-Dane
shootcutcolor.com
deeprootsmedia.com

Scarlet X #????...waiting for that email!

 

[brian hanson]

good work Phil. I am in the same boat, should have my scarlet soon and can't wait to fire it up with my canon 8-15L

 

[Bob Gundu]

For those willing to go the Nikon route, the 14-24 is a stellar lens.

 

[J Davis]

11mm on one lens is not the same as 11mm on another due to perspective distortion

this is especially noticeable on circular shapes, like a ball or persons face.

Here is a test I did a while ago when I owned the 10-22 and the 11-16

you guys might find it helpful or interesting

http://jdmax.com/canon-10-22-vs-tokina-11-16-perspective-distortion-tests/

 

[Phil Holland]

Thanks guys.

For those willing to go the Nikon route, the 14-24 is a stellar lens.

I totally agree. Also the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L is great.


Here's a couple more samples from the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 cropped to Red Scarlet X at 4k:

Bokeh/Out of Focus, both captured at closest focus distance:

Something with a little more geometry. Shot handheld at f/5 from the same spot.

11mm:

16mm:

That's all I got today. Testing out brands of ND/IRND on Epic next week. Did a bit of testing last week and as I've mentioned in another thread I'll likely be purchasing the Schneider Platinum IRNDs when they are available. For the time being I've purchased some Formatts. Looking at the Tiffens next week and testing out the Formatts and Schneiders.

 

[Dane Henry]

For those willing to go the Nikon route, the 14-24 is a stellar lens.

Bob, I really like that Nikon but what are you doing for filtering the 14-24mm? (since you can't use screw ons)

This past August I used it on a month long project on the Sony F3, but it has built in ND, so we were able to us the lens in full sun...we did use a 90 & 45 degree shutter alot on the film though. I havent tested the lens with a matte box, I'd be surprised if it would work.

What is your solution?

Thanks!

 

[J Taylor]

Thanks a lot phil, really appreciate it, very useful

 

[Terje Sorgjerd]

For those willing to go the Nikon route, the 14-24 is a stellar lens.

Beats the 16-35LII hands down in every regard.

 

[Josef Gatti]

Phil following through once more, thanks a million. Wouldn't have thought this much bokeh could have been acquired on the 11 - 16. What is this magic lens?

 

[Patrik Kisucky]

I just got the Tokina 11-16 too, can't wait to try it with the Scarlet. Thanks Phil for all of the tests, great stuff, and great looking kitchen too

 

[Sulekh Suman]

11mm on one lens is not the same as 11mm on another due to perspective distortion

this is especially noticeable on circular shapes, like a ball or persons face.

Here is a test I did a while ago when I owned the 10-22 and the 11-16

you guys might find it helpful or interesting

http://jdmax.com/canon-10-22-vs-tokina-11-16-perspective-distortion-tests/

It's interesting to see the distortion on Sigma 15mm when compared to Tokina 11mm. Tokina does seem to fare much better. Also saw your test with Canon and I personally lean in favor of Tokina.

 

[Zack Birlew]

I have the Sigma 20mm 1.8 and the Tokina 11-16 2.8. Very nice lenses although I do notice some soft corners on the Sigma but the images are spectacular overall, even at f/1.8. I'm actually very curious about the mentioned Sigma 8-16. Looking at some videos online, that rectilinear 8mm focal length looks pretty cool. Although, I'm sure most would simply opt for the Tokina in most situations.

The more future proof options would be full frame lenses like the Nikon 14-24 2.8 and, for the widest option, Sigma 12-24, but it may be better to stick with S35 crop lenses in the meantime for simplicity's sake. Plus, there's always the chance of newer or better lenses coming down the line, especially with Canon making more full frame sensor cameras now.

 

[Jean Pierre]

thank you for the photos and information about those lenses, now i have an idea of how it looks.

 

[Phil Holland]

Wouldn't have thought this much bokeh could have been acquired on the 11 - 16. What is this magic lens?

It's pretty impressive especially at this price. It's also one of the reasons I went with a f/2.8 lens rather than the other zoom options. But this is at it's closest focus where the bokeh would be most pronounced. The good news is that's it's fairly "pleasing" to the eye. There's some barrel distortion, but it's not nearly as bad as other lenses. I'll do some foreground blur and background blur in a realistic situation once I have a moment.

The more future proof options would be full frame lenses like the Nikon 14-24 2.8 and, for the widest option, Sigma 12-24, but it may be better to stick with S35 crop lenses in the meantime for simplicity's sake. Plus, there's always the chance of newer or better lenses coming down the line, especially with Canon making more full frame sensor cameras now.

Agreed. I have a whole bunch of lenses and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is the only APS-C lens I own. I picked it up mainly to solve a shooting style and location problem. Everything else I have covers FF35. Luckily the 11-16mm f/2.8 actually covers Epic and Scarlet pretty nicely at 5k. Not all APS-C lenses do though.

 

[J Davis]

11-16 has its downsides too, pretty bad CA on high contrast edges (improves when stopping down) has burned me on a few shoots
I've had sigma 8-16, canon 10-22 , best of the bunch though is tokina 11-16

 

[Phil Holland]

I will do some other tests, but here's a grab of the worst color fringing/chromatic aberration I was able to see today while wide open at 11mm with Scarlet X 4k crop.

 

[J Davis]

hey phil, I've noticed the CA varies also depending on the focal distance, the worst CA I experienced on the 11-16 was close to infinity focus
and it came frame halogen lights in the ceiling of a department store (I was hired to shoot in Macy's). CA seems to get worse as you get close to the edge of the frame and of course these lights were top of frame. Certain white balances also amplify it. The one you've got there doesn't seem to bad

 

[Phil Holland]

hey phil, I've noticed the CA varies also depending on the focal distance, the worst CA I experienced on the 11-16 was close to infinity focus

Interesting info. I'll do some tests at infinity. I would expect it to get progressively worse near the edges. This type of CA can be cleaned up in post, but I'd prefer not to. I'm hoping it's not so apparent by f/4. More tests, more tests, more tests.