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 :)

Tokina 11-16mm

Sorry I have taken so long to share anything from my experience with this lens, have not had the time. Before I left NYC I took I ran upstairs with a girlfriend and grabbed a few shots of her on the rooftop. I originally shot this in Black and white as I am testing it out for a B/W short I am shooting. Wish I knew how to post stills on RED that show just how good some of these images turned out.

Lens: TOkina 11-16
fstop...who knows, pretty open...2.8?
conditions: Cloudy cold and grey day (typical ny winter)

so I popped up the saturation a tiny bit in redalert, the b/w image is exactly how it came from the camera, the way I shot it. Again the build quality is no where close to my ZFs but I really like the image, great lens to have in the bag imo for you still lens users. cheers.
 
"a" girlfriend? Like, you have more than one, or?

Nice shots, and she's cuter than a bug's ear.
 
Thanks for posting more Red/Tokina11-16 pics... I really like to see this stuff.

Now if you have 1080p grabs and want them up, if you want you can e-mail them to me and I'll host them for you.
 
Wide angle of Tokina's 11-16mm is just about 17-25-ish @ FF35 measurement according to FF35 Lens Angle Chart.

11mm: ultra-wide on DX
(equiv. to 17mm on FX)

Ken Rockwell>>>

Tokina's 11-16mm that measured @ FF35 is actually about ~16.5-24mm on s35mm (with crop factor 1.5)

also has diagonal direction angle of view 104° - 82° that's correspondent to ~18-24mm @FF35 according to above angle view chart.

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 FF35m zoom is sharper...
 
Yea, but isn't that common practice? I mean focal lengths are always expressed in the same scale which is a FF35 scale... right? And it is up to the user to know what their sensor crop factor will be, correct?
 
Using DoF measures to "impress" naïve ones and then delivering them just shorter FoV.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Hope you've got it but don't be angry now.

Using DoF measures to "impress" naïve ones and then delivering them just shorter FoV.
Click to expand...

RED's 11mm is not much different than any other typical 35mm movie camera so what's your point?

I've got that Tokina and it's w-i-d-e enough on RED for just about any situation I'll run into.
 
USlatin said:
Thanks for posting more Red/Tokina11-16 pics... I really like to see this stuff.

Now if you have 1080p grabs and want them up, if you want you can e-mail them to me and I'll host them for you.
Click to expand...

Sure I will try and email you in a bit. thanks.

Its wide, the widest still lens I have put on my RED. The images I posted above of the girl, I am standing directly in front of my subject and zooming in...not bad. You will loose some field of view of course but this is pretty common knowledge at this point. Hope that helps.
 
I remember people mentioning the Canon as a spectacular lens image wise. Hey thanks for posting the footy... that canon is sharp! I wonder what an equal aperture comparison would reveal on a match up between the Tokina and Canon both at f3.5 11mm?

I think it costs about $200 more.

It is slower, and variable speed f3.5-4.5.

But if you need the widest FOV possible and don't mind f3.5 I guess the Canon still is best.

Tough f2.8 with ~10% less FOV is most likely the way most would go unless you absolutely positively needed the FOV.
 
probably a silly question...

probably a silly question...

Taking some information from early Red-thread days, which had the multiplication factor of ~ 1.47541 at 4k 2:1 for describing a still lens on a Red as an equivalent length, seems to equate the Tokina 11-16mm to be ~ 17-24mm fov. as Sanjin suggests.
My question, where does that put it against Red's 18-50mm PL mount lens.
Would you get expect to get roughly the same FOV from both lenses at widest zoom position, or should the same multiplication factor be applied to the Red lens? (ie, is the Red lens a true 18-50mm for the Mysterium sensor?)

Edit: meant Red's 18-50mm PL
So thinking here that the Tokina 11-16mm should be wider than the Red 18-50mm regardless of any multiplication factors, and therefore be a reasonably complementary lens that will have minimal (if any) equivalent FOV with the Red lens.
 
Chris Swinbanks said:
Taking some information from early Red-thread days, which had the multiplication factor of ~ 1.47541 at 4k 2:1 for describing a still lens on a Red as an equivalent length, seems to equate the Tokina 11-16mm to be ~ 17-24mm fov. as Sanjin suggests.
My question, where does that put it against Red's 17-40mm
Click to expand...

Every 17mm lens has the same FOV on RED.
 
Yeah, the Tokina at 11mm is much much wider than the Red at 18mm.

All relative. Say what you will about the specs but it looks mighty wide to me!
 
If the PL lens you are talking about is advertised as a 17-40mm then you would have to apply the same math to it to figure out how it would compare the way you are doing it.

Focal lengths are supposed to be based on full frame still photography 35mm. The Tokina is an 11-16mm the PL lens you are talking about should be a 17-40mm respectively. So at it's longest the Tokina should still be wider than the 17-40mm at its widest.
 
Thanks guys, what I expected, but reading through the thread threw me for a few moments about the measurement of PL mount lenses, and whether they would have the same thought process applied (marked for equivalent view for 8-perf 35mm film, ie stills or Vista) or be more correctly marked for full-width 4-perf 35mm motion picture film. ( a bit like F stops / T-stops)
So the assumption is they are all marked in relation to 8-perf frame size (correct me if I'm wrong)
I mistakenly wrote "17-40mm" rather than Red's standard 18-50mm PL mount lens, because someone knocked over our 1Ds MkII last night and busted the end off a 17-40mm L series... its sitting on my desk in a couple of parts and I'm wondering what to replace it with.... another 17-40mm or something else.
We have 2 others, but they are a good standard zoom to send out with several 20D's and the 1Ds we have.
We have a 10-22mm f3.5-4.5, but the Tokina's 2.8 aperture is appealing for use on Red... at the price.
 
Guys,

just to give you an idea about angles of view with different focal lengths,

the pictures taken from Tamron's lens calatog.

AnglesOfView.jpg
 
USlatin said:
Focal lengths are supposed to be based on full frame still photography 35mm. The Tokina is an 11-16mm the PL lens you are talking about should be a 17-40mm respectively. So at it's longest the Tokina should still be wider than the 17-40mm at its widest.
Click to expand...

Focal lenghts are focal lengths. They are not based upon any kind of "format". Changing the sensors size will affect FOV and eventually introduce vignetting/portholing.

Hans
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
Focal lenghts are focal lengths.

Hans
Click to expand...

That's right.

But FoV (Field of Viev) and AoV (Angle of View) are different

and that's what you can see at the picture above.

Here FoV and AoV are to make impact on your choosing and decision which lens you would like to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top