Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 Cinema ATX 11-20mm T2.9

Hey Dan, I thought the 11-20 caused weird internal reflections with DSMC2/Weapon? Or was that the 14-20 f2.0?


Also I have to ask, does either the 11-20 f2.8 or 14-20 f2.0 cover 6k FF Dragon/8k FF Helium/S35+/APSH, or is this strictly an 5.5kHD/7kHD/S35/APS-C lens?

And do either of them cover full-frame anywhere along the range (the 11-16 covers from ~14-16mm... which is crazy and I love it.)

Personally, I'd prefer the extra stop of the 14-20, but no one I know locally (including shops) has one on hand for me to test.
 
Richard_D said:
Now that this lens is shipping, is there any other opinions?
Click to expand...

I got the 11-20 for Christmas. Wide zooms are extremely sensitive to backfocus adjustments, and I found that my RED Heliums needed some tweaks behind the red T9 screw. After sorting that, I have to say that the 11-20 is pretty amazing.

[...]

Are there any opinions on a wide angle zoom in general vs. wide primes? It seems with a zoom you'd be able to dial in just the exact mm in small increments needed to perfect the frame.[/QUOTE]

I very much agree. I've been trying to articulate to myself why a 11-20mm zoom is such a big deal compared with, say, a 50-100 zoom, especially on an 8K camera. And I think I've now got an answer I can articulate.

Telephoto shots typically bring details front and center. But rarely is there a detail that is only just at the threshold of what can be seen at the 100mm end that cannot also be seen at the 50mm end. It may not have the same screen real estate. It might not look quite as pristine if one much do a 2:1 digital punch-in. But anything that's worth seeing in a 100mm shot can easily be seen in a 50mm shot as well. And due to typically shallow depths of field, telephoto shots tend to blur out details that are not the real subject in question, so while we want a crisp image, there's not necessarily several layers of depth we can examine in the typical telephoto shot.

Wideangle shots, by their nature, trade away details in favor of a large field of view. In an establishing shot it might be more important to see the whole church on the hill than to be able to read the signage in the parking lot reserving the space for the pastor. And yet, if we can preserve and present those details, that can give the audience that much more of a connection to the space we are trying to establish. And wideangle shots tend to have deep fields of focus, so it is not out of the question that the viewer may wish to look at a much larger range of details than one can expect in a telephoto shot. If we are looking at something that's 1000' wide, then we have 8 pixels per foot (at 8K resolution), or 64 pixels per sq ft. That's not exactly much to go on. If we can zoom in to an 800' feet field of view, that gives us 10 pixels per foot, or 100 pixels per sq ft, nearly 2x the visual information. That 25% zoom ratio (say going from 12mm to 15mm or 16mm to 20mm) can change the threshold of what might be just a blur and what might become discernable. Regardless of whether one needs 64 or 100 or 640 or 1000 pixels to really appreciate some detail, the point is that a small amount of zoom ratio in those wide shots really determines the information cutoff point of a wide-angle shot.

Back to the telephoto case: if you are trying to image a lion 1000' away, a 100mm lens is going to suck just a little bit less than a 50mm lens. But it's still going to suck. In the telephoto case, its about how large one can (or should) make the hero in the frame. A 2x difference is not really going to change the whether you can see the eyes or the teeth or the whiskers, but rather how they fill the frame.
 
14-20 Had some weird Gamut Mapping and reflection stuff with early Helium Testing I did... This was with Helium before IPP2 - so at that time I think they had not even gotten close to optimizing the gamut mapping in the camera.

Might be worth another look with IPP2 on helium. I don't have any helium cams anymore, just one Monstro Body and One Gemini. Also sold my 14-20. 11-20 looks great on both of those though.
 
Does the photo version of the atx 11-20 use the same optics of the cinema version?

The photo is 2.8 while the cinema is 2.9 so very close and I wonder if they are the same, just rated differently for marketing.
 
I just ordered the atx cinema 11-20. I was planning on waiting a bit since I just received the Slr magic APO 32mm yesterday.

But I saw an incredible price on the 11-20 EF mount with IRND's I couldn't resist. Should be here in the next week.
 
Richard_D said:
I just ordered the atx cinema 11-20. I was planning on waiting a bit since I just received the Slr magic APO 32mm yesterday.

But I saw an incredible price on the 11-20 EF mount with IRND's I couldn't resist. Should be here in the next week.
Click to expand...

How are you liking the lens?
 
I ended up buying the Photo version of the lens for now. Turns out the site I ordered the Cine version from (Bonanza) has a lot of scammers that put up elaborate stores. Luckily I did get my money refunded then found a good deal on the photo version. Using it on a shoot for the first time on Saturday so I’ll post back but the focus travel is obviously not the same as the Cine version.
 
Here’s a performance I shot with the Tokina 11-20 photo version (handheld camera) and SLR Magic 85mm on the static camera. I used a pair of EVA1’s in Hevc 4K.

https://vimeo.com/336004325

4K stream is available in settings

Skin tone detail softened in Resolve and slight vignette added (darkened and blurred)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top