Underwater Bubble Blowers User Group Thread NEW

[Frazier Nivens]

Goliath Grouper Still

Goliath Grouper Still

Very nice Frazier!

Reminds me of a similar buddy I used to have at the Eagle wreck in Islamorada, hopefully he's still there...

Hi Rudi, Thanks, this is Bruiser, named appropriately..Your friend on the Eagle is still there, there are several really large Goliath Groupers on the Eagle now, makes this one look tiny. Saw them last week..

Bruiser lives at the City of Washington along with another smaller Goliath named B.J. Bruiser Jr.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Frazier,

Gotta get together with you and get some pointers on filming locations in the Keys. I'm finally back in Miami after almost 6 years of working mostly in Europe and I need to start getting some footage locally. My boat is at Black Point marina in homestead so travel time to Key Largo is 45 minutes but except for the few wrecks like the Eagle I used to shoot on years ago, I need to find some good shallow reefs with clear water to conduct some experiments in 3D. The waters in Miami are just too murky :-(

 

[Frazier Nivens]

Sounds good, Key Largo to Tavernier is my diving area mostly. I've got to go down to Vandenburg over the next couple weeks. Would love to meet you. Try Snapper Ledge on a clear day, fish from the surface to the bottom, 25-30 ft. of water, beautiful place, thousands of fish. Lots of color...will send you a pm.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens

Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens

Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens

I mentioned this before but it is finally available: $699 at B&H

Poor man's 8R

 

[Frazier Nivens]

Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens

I mentioned this before but it is finally available: $699 at B&H

Poor man's 8R

No filter, wonder if a filter gel can be put on the rear lens element.

I'll sell my 15mm FF Fisheye.

Your thoughts on the filter issue.

Frazier

 

[Michael Hastings]

Pretty good reviews

Pretty good reviews

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc?start=1

The Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM may be the new star in this lens segment. It's very sharp across the whole range straight from the max. aperture. Lateral CAs are also very well controlled. That's quite an achievement for such an extreme ultra-wide angle zoom lens! If you're into architecture photography you will notice some barrel distortions when using the 8mm setting but that's actually a general problem in this class and at 12mm it shows less distortions than the competition actually. The biggest issue is the amount of vignetting at the widest setting but that's not really a surprise because the inherent amount of natural vignetting is unavoidable at such extreme focal lengths. However, it's still a good idea to avoid the max. aperture to tame the light fall-off to some degree.


The build quality of the Sigma lens is very good although some may not like the vulnerable "bulb"-like front element which prohibits the use of filters. The AF is both fast and nearly silent. The pricing of the Sigma is very attractive relative to its performance figures as well as the extreme nature of the lens. Therefore ... highly recommended (if you can find a good sample)!

 

[Peter Majtan]

Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens

I mentioned this before but it is finally available: $699 at B&H

Poor man's 8R

The Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM is an ultra-wide zoom that has a 35mm equivalent angle of view of a 12-24mm lens when used on DSLRs with APS-C size image sensors.
Note! Vignetting will occur if the lens is used with digital cameras with image sensors larger than APS-C size or 35mm SLR cameras.
This is a DC series lens designed exclusively for use with Canon EOS DSLRs with APS-C size sensors...

RED is basically an APS-C sized sensor, so as such it really is a 12-24 lens. Still pretty wide. Have You have a chance to compare it against the Canon's 10-22 in terms of optical distortion (rectilinearity) and sharpness? The 10-22 Canon is my favorite wide zoom for RED ONE, and we have the 12mm ARRI prime - which is also really nice. I would love to see some comparison shots if it is not too much to ask Michael...

Cheers

Peter

 

[Michael Hastings]

RED is basically an APS-C sized sensor, so as such it really is a 12-24 lens. Still pretty wide. Have You have a chance to compare it against the Canon's 10-22 in terms of optical distortion (rectilinearity) and sharpness? The 10-22 Canon is my favorite wide zoom for RED ONE, and we have the 12mm ARRI prime - which is also really nice. I would love to see some comparison shots if it is not too much to ask Michael...

Cheers

Peter

Not really sure what you are saying re: focal length - it is an 8mm so same angle of view as an 8R Arri - and 20% wider than the 10-22, 33% wider than your 12mm.

Haven't gotten one yet but it looks from those tests in the review it will have a little more barrel distortion than the 10-22 but probably similar sharpness. I sold my 10-22 a few months ago and will probably replace it with this since it is a more useful range.

 

[Frazier Nivens]

So can we put a filter on the rear of this lens? I'll put my 15mm up on Ebay.

Frazier

 

[Michael Hastings]

So can we put a filter on the rear of this lens? I'll put my 15mm up on Ebay.

Frazier

We can put the filter gel inside the mount like I do with the 10mm zeiss.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Michael, I am not nit-picking, just pointing out that the ARRI 8R is true cine 8mm (S35), while the Sigma is actually 12mm in terms of cine/S35 (RED ONE), which is the same angle as the 12mm ARRI (which is cine lens). Of course I am not trying to compare the two (we already have one Alexa vs RED thread... :rofl: ) - just pointing out that the 8mm Sigma is not the same angle as the ARRI 8R, more like the ARRI 12mm (which we have). Of course the 10-22 suffers from the same crop-factor but the difference is about 3˚ in terms of cine angles, so I was simply wandering (since the 10-22 is a beautiful lens for the price) whether the Sigma has a comparable quality in terms of distortion and image sharpness and uniformity. If so, it would be definitely a great replacement for the 10-22...

So to sum it up, I was (A) pointing out that the 8mm Sigma is actually 12mm if You are comparing it to ARRI-8R, and (B) I was asking if You had the chance to compare the two (Sigma and Canon). Nothing more, nothing less...

Peter

 

[Michael Hastings]

Michael, I am not nit-picking, just pointing out that the ARRI 8R is true cine 8mm (S35), while the Sigma is actually 12mm in terms of cine/S35 (RED ONE), which is the same angle as the 12mm ARRI (which is cine lens). Of course I am not trying to compare the two (we already have one Alexa vs RED thread... :rofl: ) - just pointing out that the 8mm Sigma is not the same angle as the ARRI 8R, more like the ARRI 12mm (which we have). Of course the 10-22 suffers from the same crop-factor but the difference is about 3˚ in terms of cine angles, so I was simply wandering (since the 10-22 is a beautiful lens for the price) whether the Sigma has a comparable quality in terms of distortion and image sharpness and uniformity. If so, it would be definitely a great replacement for the 10-22...

So to sum it up, I was (A) pointing out that the 8mm Sigma is actually 12mm if You are comparing it to ARRI-8R, and (B) I was asking if You had the chance to compare the two (Sigma and Canon). Nothing more, nothing less...

Peter

Peter: this is where you are incorrect - first regardless of sensor/film format 8mm is 8mm (assuming rectilinear not fisheye - both the sigma and arri are rectilinear, that's the R in 8R) Lenses don't "suffer crop factor" sensors do. The only issue for various 8mm (or any other mm) lenses is whether they cover the sensor size (so for instance an 8mm for 16mm camera wouldn't cover APS-C or RED1/S35. The 8mm sigma is the same wide angle as the 8R (that's why it's so cool!) The difference in size and price is the difference between t2.8 and F4.5 (which is probably a stop and a half if sigma did t stops) and of course all of the mechanical stuff. The 8mm sigma will be MUCH wider on RED4K (108 degrees) than your 12mm (85 degrees).

S35 RED1 and APS-C are extremely close in size so for practical purposes are the same. This "crop factor" stuff has been exhaustively covered on other threads.

The Arri 8R and the Sigma 8-16 and the Canon 10-22 (and for example the Sigma 18-50 which is the optical basis for the red 18-50.) are all designed for this size sensor.

To clarify here's an example:

An 35mm lens designed for 16mm would project the exact same image size on S35 film so if you took the two pieces of film and laid them on top of each other it would be identical - the only difference is it would cover the whole 16mm frame while on the 35mm film it would be a circle covering only about half of the the S35 frame and if we shot it on my Pentax 645 it would only cover a sixth or so of the frame. So basically you can't really use the lens made for 16mm camera on S35(APS-C) or 645. However, you can take the 35mm lens from my pentax 645 and put it on all of those cameras and again the images would overlap perfectly, but in this case it would cover the entire frame on all of the formats - hence because on the 16mm camera you are only recording the center of the image on the 16mm film (the image circle extends way beyond) it appears as a moderate telephoto - eighteen degrees. On the S35/APS-C it would appear as a "normal" lens - 35 degrees and on the 645 it is an extreme wide angle - something like 90 degrees.

Just remember mm is mm, focal length is focal length whether it is arri or sigma, and regardless of sensor/film size.

Lenses designed for larger formats can be used on smaller formats, but as a practical matter you don't want to go too far because for instance with the 645 an extreme wide angle 35mm that covers 645 is very expensive compared to a 35mm focal length lens for FF35 or APS-C because to get it to cover that wider film at a reasonable max f stop you need more complex lens formulas and bigger glass - and it may be slightly less sharp in terms of line pairs per millimeter.

As another example of how the glass has to get larger for larger formats and/or larger aperture, I have a nice Angenieux F1.8 10mm lens from a Jacques Cousteau Spiro 16 16mm underwater camera that is just 40mm in diameter at the front. The Canon is 10-22 is 72mm filter size to get f3.5 and cover APS-C; and my Zeiss 10mm is almost 150mm diameter to get f2.0 (t2.1) and still cover APS-C/S35.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Quite right Mike, which brings me to a point rarely understood by most people on this forum, yet very important, and that is, the value of of a full frame sensor.

In the debate of resolution versus dynamic range, and what attributes do indeed make a great camera, we keep forgetting how important a full frame sensor would be, especially for us underwater shooters and anybody else that needs to shoot wide angle cinematography. Why go FF when S35 already gives you 5K, they say? Well, 5or 6K resolution will probably be all that we'll need for a long while (don't tell Jim though but that really misses the point. Regardless of pixel count, a full frame sensor allows you to get much, much wider coverage from bigger lenses, e.g. that $37K Arri 8R yields the same field of vision as a 12 mm lens on FF, which even in the Arri lineup is about half the price. Those lenses are also smaller, lighter, open up wider easier, and yes, cost considerably less to manufacture while providing images that are far less devoid of the artifacts and optical nightmares that building something like an 8mm presents. Frame size does not need be about resolution, however related they are, but about the possibility of using a far bigger array of lenses. That is why I'm waiting for Epic FF, or Scarlet FF, and why I won't bother with anything S35 for my underwater work, provided of course, RED can deliver the FF cameras relatively close to the S35 version. The price difference between the S35 and FF versions, at least as it is presumed to be right now, is far, far less than the costs of super wide optics to shoot good underwater cinematography. Particularly for 3D, the wider an image you can get, the more flexibility you have when it comes to merging them together. Wider field of vision underwater also means closer distance to subject, which equals less lighting, smaller systems due to the substantially decreased weight and size, which translates into better mobility underwater, and on and on, the benefits are endless...Jim please, bring on those full frame sensors!!!

 

[Michael Hastings]

Well, Rudi I'm actually looking forward to the 645 9K (imax anyone?) Monstro!!

which is why I got into the 645 stuff - traded one of my consumer housings for a Pentax 645N and a 30mm fisheye - then have been accumulating the other lenses on ebay. Now have the 35mm rectilinear superwide, 55mm, 75mm, 105mm macro, 200mm, and 400mm. They are excellent lenses and pretty inexpensive used these days. Jacek from Optitek said he'd make me a PL mount adapter which is pretty straightforward since the 645 flange distance is 67mm.

Some things to consider with full frame:

Basically none of those Cooke, Angenieux, Arri Ultraprime, Masterprime, standards, superspeeds, Panavision, new Leica, etc cinema lenses will work on full frame - some will even have a problem with the slightly larger than S35/APS-C 5K Mysterium-X sensor. So you won't be able to use that half price 12mm Arri on full frame.

The new Arri compact primes will work because they are based on the old Contax/Yashica full frame SLR lens.

Full frame has even less depth of field than s35/aps-c. And RED1 s35 already has noticeably less than the 2/3", 1/2", 1/3" or smaller sensor that most underwater shooters are familiar with - not a huge problem but it can surprise you a bit, particularly on macro stuff, but even some wide angle footage.

There are lots of choices for full-frame Wides - both Canon and Nikon have 14mm primes which give the wide angle equivalent on a full frame to an 8.75mm on Red/APS-C.

Up until now you couldn't get quite that wide on APS-c without going fisheye. That's really the big deal with this 8-16. It finally gives us a rectilinear with that same superwide angle for Red1/Aps-c cameras - at half to a third of the price of the full frame lenses (and 1/50th of an 8R). And I wouldn't be surprised if someday this pushes tokina or maybe even canon to bring something in this same range but F2.8 since it is easier and cheaper for the smaller sensor than those 14mm f2.8 on full frame.

So bottom line, I think the APS-C/S35 is the sweet spot for now, particularly since as we move more into video on dslrs it will be much easier for canon to make more video oriented zooms like an EF-S 10x or 12x with a servo. As an example of this, the micro-four thirds Panasonic
GH1 has been hacked to give it phenomenal higher bit rate recording (and it doesn't have the moire problems of 5d/7d/t2i) and it was designed with more video capability in mind - more manual control, swivel screen LCD AND electronic EVF, but also a 14-140 10x zoom as its standard lens (all for $1099 for camera/lens). That's all possible because of the smaller 4/3 sensor which is in between 2/3 and S35/APS-C.

I'm currently designing a beamsplitter underwater rig for these GH1s - much more practical because of the size and the high bit rate recording.

And I think Epic X S35 will probably be much easier for 3D as well - if only because of smaller lenses being available.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Mike,

I know all about the FF "problems" since I started out taking stills underwater and still own a couple of Nikon still systems and Aquatica housings. The "lack" of depth of field doesn't scare me as I never cared too much for it, I think blurred backgrounds are abused nowadays ad nauseum, and in the meantime, I have lots of experience focusing and shooting on FF. You're right about the lens selection, but I plan to use these FF systems mostly for underwater and with nice Nikon lenses. I gotta give this Sigma a try though, will place the order today. I will call you when I get back into town, should be there by end of this week.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Remember, it is only for the smaller sized sensor.

I know you are pretty savvy about lenses, but it is also an opportunity to further explain this stuff, particularly since the old thread is dead.

You getting Nikon or Canon? If you get Canon, I have a t2i and am building housings this week so you could try it out on that. I'd love to see it. (If you're not back in town you could ship it to my house and I'll hold it for you. )

I'd buy one myself but have been spending a lot on other stuff and need to hold off for a few weeks.

 

[Steve Gibby]

There are lots of choices for full-frame Wides - both Canon and Nikon have 14mm primes which give the wide angle equivalent on a full frame to an 8.75mm on Red/APS-C.

I have an as-new condition Nikon 14mm f2.8 for sale. Its the widest rectilinear prime Nikon makes. Its very crisp, with excellent contrast. The price is $1,150 USD. New this lens is $1,650 - and mine is in as-new condition. I love the lens but I have to many lenses and I need to streamline my kits.

Those interested can contact me on my regular email at steve (at) cut4 (dot) tv

(Please don't PM - that box is full)

 

[Michael Hastings]

I have an as-new condition Nikon 14mm f2.8 for sale. Its the widest rectilinear prime Nikon makes. Its very crisp, with excellent contrast. The price is $1,150 USD. New this lens is $1,650 - and mine is in as-new condition. I love the lens but I have to many lenses and I need to streamline my kits.

Those interested can contact me on my regular email at steve (at) cut4 (dot) tv

(Please don't PM - that box is full)

There's one for you Rudi:

This is excellent for full frame and still wide enough to be pretty useful even on APS-C.

It also has a manual iris ring so is the least expensive high quality option. I have several customers using this with their AquaVideo housings.

Steve is the man that enabled me to be the first housing for the RED1 when he sent serial number 008 over to me in October or November 2007.

Any tattoo news you can share steve?

 

[Tom Hamilton]

So, judging from the above, I should wait for Scarlet FF then...

 

[Michael Hastings]

So, judging from the above, I should wait for Scarlet FF then...

I think I was arguing (lightly) against that - but sometimes my senility kicks in - so maybe not.....