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 :)

Fastest 15-18mm lenses?

Christoffer Glans

Christoffer Glans

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
4,993
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Age
42
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
I'm trying to look into the fastest full frame capable wide angle lenses there are out there. Sigma got the 20mm 1.4 and the 18-35mm 18 for APS-C but are there any lenses capable of covering full frame at around 16mm with a F1.4 aperture?

The reason is to get these super wide images that still maintain a short DOF and if you choose F2.8 on that same lens you get a super sharp 2.8 instead of wide open as they usually are. The look is similar to that of IMAX. If you shoot wide angle with IMAX lenses and format you get a very wide looking image with a very short DOF, while going higher gives a sharper wide.

This would give a much less claustrophobic feel to a scene shot on location where you can't control the environment and therefor need a shorter DOF in order to blur out people looking at the crew or unwanted details. Instead of having a longer lens you can get closer to the actors but get the same level of control.
 
~16mm, FF and 1.4... Man, i think you are out of luck here.

Rokinon/Samyan/Walimex has a 16mm with 2.0, but it's not for FF.
 
Stick a 12mm Master Prime on a 1.4x extender and you have a 17mm f/1.8 that should cover 8K FF. Whether you'd really want to use it is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
It seems even a 25mm f1.4 involves a lot of compromises - I think the lens you describe would be hideously expensive - just look at how expensive cine lenses are. A 12 or 14mm master or ultra prime is a few thousand more expensive than a 35mm from the same range, for example. 14mm is really extreme on full frame anyway, do you really need something that wide?
 
Maik Müller said:
~16mm, FF and 1.4... Man, i think you are out of luck here.

Rokinon/Samyan/Walimex has a 16mm with 2.0, but it's not for FF.
Click to expand...

I know I'm stretching this, but there are so much happening in terms of lens development. The Sigma 18-35 1.8 was considered almost impossible for some time, but they managed it. It would of course be expensive, but then again the Sigma 24mm 1.4 ART is half the price of the Canon 24mm 1.4L and performs arguably equal.

The fastest cheap lenses are some 20mm 1.8, but there aren't any L-lenses or similar quality that's around 20mm at that speed. Seems like the fastest you can get with a quality FF is 24mm 1.4. But there's such a large marget of lenses, I mean, aren't there any old lenses that are wide and fast?
 
I think Christoffer you're looking for three things - a lens that is wide, AND fast AND actually any good at that stop. That's the tricky bit.
 
Saying this, I think there might be a lens like this for a mirrorless camera - designing wide angle lenses for that is much, much easier
 
JayEmm said:
Saying this, I think there might be a lens like this for a mirrorless camera - designing wide angle lenses for that is much, much easier
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about :smiley:
Because of all these new types of lenses there might be a cheaper solution. A mirrorless lens might need fool control for focus, but you get something that would otherwise cost way too much.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
This is what I'm talking about :smiley:
Because of all these new types of lenses there might be a cheaper solution. A mirrorless lens might need fool control for focus, but you get something that would otherwise cost way too much.
Click to expand...
So far there isn't anything for mirrorless that matches your criterias. And you can't put those lenses on a RED, because of the Focal flange distance.

I agree with you, the lens market is changing and everyone is pushing into new territory (like with the 18-35/1.8) - there are probably faster UWA-lenses coming, but right now you are out of luck.

Have you thought about playing with anamorphic lenses/adapters? Using a 35mm lens and a 2x adaptor would give you a FOV of roughly 17mm. You're going to use higher f-stops, but with a 35mm you don't need that extreme low aperture to get the background out of focus.

...or master primes. ;)
 
JayEmm said:
Saying this, I think there might be a lens like this for a mirrorless camera - designing wide angle lenses for that is much, much easier
Click to expand...

Pitfalls abound. Consider two systems, a mirrorless design (where the distance from exit pupil to sensor is approx the focal length of the lens) and a telecentric design (that doubles, triples, or quadruples that distance). In the case of the 16mm mirrorless design, the corner of a RED 8K VV lens (46mm image circle, 23mm image radius) is 1.44x the 16mm exit pupil distance, or about 55 degrees off the optical center. The cos^2 loss from center to edge is more than a factor of 3, or about 1.6 stops. There's also a cos loss due to angle of incidence, so all together a factor of 5.3 or about a 2.4 stop loss. Then there's also a possible loss due to optical vignetting:

optical.jpg


For the telecentric design, if the exit pupil is 64mm (52mm for the PL lens mount, plus 12 additional mm), then the optical center is 64mm away and the optical edge is 68mm for an angle of 19.8 degrees. The cos^2 loss for that is less than 12%. The cos loss due to angle of incidence brings the total to less than 20%. There's still the potential for optical vignetting, but this should make it obvious that a "mirrorless design" doesn't make life easier for the wide-angler--quite the opposite!

Of course the math changes a lot when you hold the focal length constant and you make the sensor smaller (as "mirrorless cameras" do). Much reduced sensor sizes mean most cosines are a lot closer to 90 degrees, making even image illumination that much easier. But surely we're not talking about cropping the sensor to make the lens designer's work easier. If we were, there are all manner of 16mm f1.4 lenses for Super-16 and below.
 
Last edited:
Got me thinking, I believe Tom Lowe used a 16 MP on a Canon body for his astro timelapse work but it's not supposed to cover the sensor so he must have cropped down quite a bit in post. I guess the quick answer is you can't get 14-17 1.4s in FF, you'll have to be happy with S35.
 
jussi rovanpera said:
Leica has 21mm 1.4 Summilux-M.
Click to expand...
Right thats damn close to whats needed and a very cool lens... Saw the price. Not so cool. :)
Let's hope it isn't one of those that don't work with the Leica-Mount on RED (there are some limitations).
 
Nikon 20mm 1.8 AF-S is full frame, good contrast, quite sharp and very affordable. Unfortunately still waiting for Red Team to get the software update for their Nikon mount in order to get focus control. Iris control works through Epic/Scarlet or Optitek Nikon mount, however. Yes, it is a "G" lens with no aperture ring on the lens.
 
The Nikon 20mm f1.8 on FF has the field of view and depth of field of a 12mm or 14mm f1.2 on Super35. And it's sharp. Not sure what more you could ask for.
 
S35:
Masterprime 12mm t/1.3
Kinoptik 9.8mm f/1.8
Vantage One 17.5mm t/1.0


Leica 21mm f/1.4 and Nikon 20mm f/1.8 are your best bets on Full Frame
There's an 18mm f/0.95 lens by Perkin Elmer which covers FF but it's very hard to find.

Pacific Optical 25mm f/1.0 also covers FF but it's huge and heavy.


big_5152_PO2_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top