Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Okay, I'm thinking of buying the Tokina 11-16mm zoom, but I'm confused. . .

Stephen Pruitt

Stephen Pruitt

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
40
Points
48
Website
www.thetreemotionpicture.com
This seems insane, but I'm confused. And to think that I used to think I was a smart guy!

Okay, here's the deal. All of my current Nikon lenses are normal 35mm lenses. You know. The kind they make for 35mm Nikon cameras.

I'm thinking of buying the new Nikon adapter so that I can use the Tokina 11-16mm lens.

My current widest lens is the Nikon 16mm AIS. According to the tables, I think that lens really has the same look on my RED as about a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera.

The question is this: Will that Tokina (which. . . wait for it. . . "goes to 11") really give me the look of an 11mm lens on a 35mm camera? That is, will it look REALLY wide (you'd think almost fisheye at that focal length)? Or will it really have about the same look as my current 16mm Nikon AIS?

This is just confusing as heck.

Stephen
 
16mm on the Tokina will have the same field of view on your Red as your Nikon 16mm on your Red (16mm = 16mm). The 11 end of the Tokina will be considerably wider. (I don't own the Tokina yet, but this is basic lensology). Both, of course, would have a much wider FOW on 35mm still camera, but the Tokina would not cover.
 
No, even though the lens was designed for non-full-frame cameras, the 11-16mm will still be cropped slightly. (Equivalent to 17-24mm, I guess.)
 
I'm guessing you will have a vignetting issue with the Red on the wide end of the zoom.
 
kinoeye said:
I'm guessing you will have a vignetting issue with the Red on the wide end of the zoom.
Click to expand...

No, it's designed for APS-C sized sensors which are roughly the same size as the Mysterium. Lens focal lengths don't change from format to format. A 16mm is a 16mm whether it is on a 1/3" video camera or an 8x10 view camera. What changes is the sensor/film format size, which is what dictates the FOV. It's the difference in FOV that camera and lens makers are referring to when they talk about "crop factor" on a lens. And it's nearly always using 35mm stills as the base.

The easiest way for me to think about it is to take, say, a 4x6 photo that you have. Call that whatever focal length you want. 16mm in this case. Assume that the photo is the image circle that this lens projects, and it can cover the largest format that you are using for your comparison. Let say 35mm stills( 24x36mm) in this case. Now cut boxes out of a sheet of paper that represent each different format size that you want to compare , to scale as they relate to one another, and put them over the photograph. As you do this, the photo, just like the given focal length doesn't ever change. The boxes just get smaller as the formats get smaller so that you are just seeing a smaller portion of the image circle from that focal length of lens.

This is easy to see on the Red, because all you have to do to see it in practice is switch from 4K to 2K resolution. The 2K is just a crop out of the center of the image. So instantly you can see the difference in FOV from 35mm cine to 16mm for a particular focal length.

Maybe that's more confusing. But that visual works for my brain. The lens doesn't change. It's the format that crops.
 
The only important thing to remember about focal length of lenses is (at least that made me understand it):

* If the numbers printed on a lens (e.g. 50mm) always mean the same, regardless if it is a Cine-Lens, a Nikon full-frame lens, a Nikon DX lens.
* And the image will look the same if you put them on the same camera

It just depends on the camera and it's sensor size how much you see from that image. A 50mm lens on a Nikon 25mm Full Frame DSLR will give you a nice "normal" picture. The same lens on the Red One will give you only a small center-region of that image and "looks like" it would be a 85mm tele, but it's not! It's just a center crop of the 50mm lens picture.

Originally I though they would "make up" for that on the DX lenses. So if they print 17-55 on a DX lens, I thought it would "look" the same as a "normal" DSLR full-frame lens. But they do not!

That means, the Tokina 11-16mm will "look" like a 18-27mm, which is not *that* wide at all. So it makes perfect sense on the Red One. I have one on order myself, they are still hard to get. The only problem I see is that I might have to remove my MatteBox because I might see its borders in the frame while shooting.

Btw. I am using the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX on my Red One with the Nikon DX mount (see here http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17820 ) and it works quite well.

So no problems when using Nikon DX lenses at all.
 
Think of it this way:
Focal lenght=property of the lens
Circle of confusion = property of lens (designet for 35mm still, 35mm film or aps-c etc)
Field of view = property of the camera

The tokina 11-16mm has this range of focal lenghts but a Circle of confusion which limits its use to aps-c and 35mm film (35mm horisontally)and will not cover 35mm still (35mm (vertical ) without vignetting.

There is no reason what so ever to translate focal lenghts "according" to field of view, when you can simply compare the field of view of different cameras in mm^2 ratios.
I believe the reason this keeps popping up is because nikon couldn´t build a 35mm digital still camera and mislead its customers into thinking that sensor size didn´t matter and that all you needed was a wider lens. Well size does matter! And a 16mm has a completely different feel than 24 mm. Anyone who has ever taken a portrait nows that 16mm gives a "ballhead" effect, whereas 24mm does not.
 
Thanks for all of your help.

I guess I'm buying that new Nikon mount AND the Tokina. And selling my Nikon 16mm AIS lens.

Stephen
 
Just to confuse things even more.... You are talking about the Nikon 16mm FISHEYE, yes? The Tokina will not "look" the same at 16mm as the FISHEYE lens.

The Tokina 11-16mm is a nice little lens and will work well on your RED but that short zoom range may drive you a little crazy in the long run. You may prefer the 12-24mm Nikon so you have a decent amount of zooming ability.
 
Holy cow, Enzo. . . you really are confusing me now.

Okay, I'll admit I know little about optics, but this is really confusing to me. Are you saying that all 16mm lenses don't look essentially the same? That is, is a "fisheye" lens at 16mm is different than a "non-fisheye" lens at 16mm? What the heck is the difference?

I really like the look of that 16mm fisheye on the RED, and I was hoping for even more of that wide-angle distortion effect using the Tokina. But I'm starting to suspect that that ain't gonna happen.

I'd love some illumination on this one. . . maybe what I'm really looking for is that 8mm Peleng.

What I am looking for is a FULL FRAME covering, very barrel-distorted lens with almost infinite depth-of-field. I thought that that came automatically with decreases in focal length, but now I'm not sure.

Thanks much.

Stephen
 
Yes, you want to buy either the Pelang 8mm or perhaps http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon...48/AF-DX-Fisheye-NIKKOR-10.5mm-f/2.8G-ED.html. As the wide zooms will not "look" like you want.

My 7.5mm Canon FD fisheye "looks" like a 15mm fisheye on the RED -- it becomes a full frame fisheye even though on a film camera it would be a round circle. Again the 1.5x factor for the RED sensor size is why.

I would advise you to try the 10.5mm Nikon lens at a camera store and see what you think.
 
I have the 11-16. It is a true 11mm. It is fantastic. I use it on my Birger. Wow is it great and wide and sharp. First rate. Must have. Don't think. Just buy it. You'll love. Very wide, low distortion. Wow. Wow. I love mine. What more can I say.
 
Okay, okay. I'm buying the Tokina. . . today.

:-)

BUT, using the RED, will the Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye give me an even wider, more distorted field of view than my 16mm Nikon AIS?

I just ordered the new Nikon DX mount from Doug U. Now I'll order the Tokina. Next, I'll order another lens. After that, I'll declare bankruptcy and ask the federal government for a bailout.

:-)

Stephen
 
Fisheye

Fisheye

Stephen Pruitt said:
BUT, using the RED, will the Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye give me an even wider, more distorted field of view than my 16mm Nikon AIS?

Stephen
Click to expand...

It will be about the same view as you get using the 16mm on a full 35mm frame camera, but NOT the same as the 16mm on the RED. The 16mm on the RED is just a funky looking 16mm image with some extra distortion in the foreground but not that wide as it is a 16mm lens.

You want a 8mm or 10.5mm fisheye to look the same as the 16mm image you are used to seeing. The Tokina will not give you the distortion you want. But will still be a nice lens to have.
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
Holy cow, Enzo. . . you really are confusing me now.

Okay, I'll admit I know little about optics, but this is really confusing to me. Are you saying that all 16mm lenses don't look essentially the same? That is, is a "fisheye" lens at 16mm is different than a "non-fisheye" lens at 16mm? What the heck is the difference?

I really like the look of that 16mm fisheye on the RED, and I was hoping for even more of that wide-angle distortion effect using the Tokina. But I'm starting to suspect that that ain't gonna happen.

I'd love some illumination on this one. . . maybe what I'm really looking for is that 8mm Peleng.

What I am looking for is a FULL FRAME covering, very barrel-distorted lens with almost infinite depth-of-field. I thought that that came automatically with decreases in focal length, but now I'm not sure.

Thanks much.

Stephen
Click to expand...

If you want a "very berrel-distored lens" then you will not be happy with the tonkia 11-16mm. This is a very wide and sharp lens, but there is little to no distortion. While most users seem to agree that this is a wonderful lens, it doesn't appear to have the qualities you are looking for, i.e. distortion, fish-eye look. Here is a review with some sample images for you. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

I think you are right that the Peleng 8mm is a better match for the look you are going after.
 
Mark Crabtree said:
I have the 11-16. It is a true 11mm. It is fantastic. I use it on my Birger. Wow is it great and wide and sharp. First rate. Must have. Don't think. Just buy it. You'll love. Very wide, low distortion. Wow. Wow. I love mine. What more can I say.
Click to expand...


that is wonderful news... please elaborate. how is the focussing? as smooth as canon? and what about motor noise, any of that worth mentioning? I am trying to put a lens kit together for my birger, but there seem to be no clear statement with regard to sigma and tokina, this is too bad, since both companies make wonderful lenses, at for the smaller redone sensorsize.
especially the new sigma hsm primes i.e 30mm 1.4 is giving me cravings, but I don´t want to take the plunge before somebody puts on a third-party canon lense, on the third-party PL mount...

please give us a run down mark

all the best eddie
 
I've read that you get quite a bit of CA with this 11mm-16mm tokina. Is this a problem for anyone that has used this lens?
 
mick doyle said:
I've read that you get quite a bit of CA with this 11mm-16mm tokina. Is this a problem for anyone that has used this lens?
Click to expand...

The one lens I tested did not have hardly any CA and was about the same as the Canon 10-22mm. But EVERY lens is different. The new Tokina is a very nice lens with little CA but I could only get my hands on one lens so the next one could have objectionable CA.

Test your lenses before buying if at all possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top