Douglas Underdahl
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 944
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Don't think of a crop factor. This will just confuse you.
Think in terms of a NORMAL lens for each format:
A "normal lens" on a 35mm still film camera is 50mm. A normal lens on the RED or 35mm movie camera or digital Nikon is 35mm. A normal lens on a 16mm/Super 16mm/ 2/3" video camera is like 14-16mm.
So the 8mm Peleng that I popularized for movie use is, on a RED at 4k, a fisheye crazy wide angle wowzie wow lens. At 3k, it's a very wide but not really fisheye lens because you are cropping the edges of the image and that's where all the craziness happens. At 2k, it's just a solid, wide angle lens because you are cropping it even more.
Now as for there being different 16mm lenses - that's true. There are 16mm lenses that "cover" the 16mm format, and not the 35mm movie format, so on a 35mm camera they vignette - like when Porky Pig says "That's All, Folks" and the black circle closes in on him. But if you use a 16mm lens that covers 35mm movie, then you get a nice, wide angle lens, which has the same look as if you used a 8mm lens on a 16mm camera. Then there are 16mm lenses that cover the 35mm still film format and to do this, they distort at the edges and are therefor referred to as "fisheye" lenses when used with Fuji film in your Nikon FM. I think Leica makes a 16mm lens that covers 35mm full frame still film and doesn't distort at the edges, but to do this it's in M mount which is very close to the film plane and so you can't use it on SLR cameras because the back end would hit the mirror.
I think the 11-16 will be THE BOMB for super duper wide stuff with the RED. You can use it at 4k, 3k, and 2k. At 4k it produces a really wide look but it doesn't distort, I don't think - like straight lines stay straight. If you use it with 2k it becomes a normal/wide lens.
But I'm also thinking that the 12-24mm Nikon could be better because it overlaps with my 17-55. I could in some situations shoot with the 12-24 at 24mm and have a nice widey-normal angle for two shots, but also go wide in cars, small rooms, etc and not have to change lenses. With the 11-16 I can't go any farther than 16mm. The 11-16 is really inexpensive though, and I've read that it's sharper than the 12-24 but someone else said that all these lenses vary in quality and maybe the guy who said the 12-24 wasn't as sharp as the 11-16 got a bad new 12-24 and a good new 11-16 which he then compared. Hmm.
Lenses in DX format for Nikon digital cameras are the perfect match for the RED in this sense: Nikon digital cameras and the RED have almost the same exact sensor size. So DX format lenses can be smaller and lighter than lenses that have to cover the larger still film frame. And also wider as well.
In any case, do not hesitate to buy the 8mm Peleng - it's so cheap and so sharp, and fun!
Think in terms of a NORMAL lens for each format:
A "normal lens" on a 35mm still film camera is 50mm. A normal lens on the RED or 35mm movie camera or digital Nikon is 35mm. A normal lens on a 16mm/Super 16mm/ 2/3" video camera is like 14-16mm.
So the 8mm Peleng that I popularized for movie use is, on a RED at 4k, a fisheye crazy wide angle wowzie wow lens. At 3k, it's a very wide but not really fisheye lens because you are cropping the edges of the image and that's where all the craziness happens. At 2k, it's just a solid, wide angle lens because you are cropping it even more.
Now as for there being different 16mm lenses - that's true. There are 16mm lenses that "cover" the 16mm format, and not the 35mm movie format, so on a 35mm camera they vignette - like when Porky Pig says "That's All, Folks" and the black circle closes in on him. But if you use a 16mm lens that covers 35mm movie, then you get a nice, wide angle lens, which has the same look as if you used a 8mm lens on a 16mm camera. Then there are 16mm lenses that cover the 35mm still film format and to do this, they distort at the edges and are therefor referred to as "fisheye" lenses when used with Fuji film in your Nikon FM. I think Leica makes a 16mm lens that covers 35mm full frame still film and doesn't distort at the edges, but to do this it's in M mount which is very close to the film plane and so you can't use it on SLR cameras because the back end would hit the mirror.
I think the 11-16 will be THE BOMB for super duper wide stuff with the RED. You can use it at 4k, 3k, and 2k. At 4k it produces a really wide look but it doesn't distort, I don't think - like straight lines stay straight. If you use it with 2k it becomes a normal/wide lens.
But I'm also thinking that the 12-24mm Nikon could be better because it overlaps with my 17-55. I could in some situations shoot with the 12-24 at 24mm and have a nice widey-normal angle for two shots, but also go wide in cars, small rooms, etc and not have to change lenses. With the 11-16 I can't go any farther than 16mm. The 11-16 is really inexpensive though, and I've read that it's sharper than the 12-24 but someone else said that all these lenses vary in quality and maybe the guy who said the 12-24 wasn't as sharp as the 11-16 got a bad new 12-24 and a good new 11-16 which he then compared. Hmm.
Lenses in DX format for Nikon digital cameras are the perfect match for the RED in this sense: Nikon digital cameras and the RED have almost the same exact sensor size. So DX format lenses can be smaller and lighter than lenses that have to cover the larger still film frame. And also wider as well.
In any case, do not hesitate to buy the 8mm Peleng - it's so cheap and so sharp, and fun!
