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 :)

Wider Red Part II - Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6?

I think the rear element may be too close to the sensor to get good telecentricity to the light rays. That means they will hit the sensor at progressively oblique angles as they move to the corners and cause severe vingetting. But you would really need to test it to know for sure.
 
I would avoid Sigma for Red, it's just too damn resolved and the Sigmas have real QC issues. I did give Red a prototype of my iris control workaround, we'll just have to see if they think it's worth thier time to engineer into their Nikon mount. My gut feeling is they will not, just because they have so many other issues to deal with and so many Nikkors do have aperture control.
If there seems to be a demand I may create a third party option.

My current recomendation is the 15mm 3.5 AIS Nikkor. This will give you the 35mm Still equiv. of 24mm. The 12mm is 20mm Equiv. and that is not that much wider.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
thanks again Evin! i was thinking sigma might be fine for b&w, but will steer safe anyway and go for the constant aperture 17-35mm F2.8 Nikkor and wait for what Red may deliver.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
rarely breaths? assuming you tested the AI vintage on a 35mm DOF adapter? lets hope the AFS has the same characteristics.
 
Evin. Why the 15mm rather than the 14mm? I discounted the 15mm because of the propensity to flare, but my knowledge of these lenses is entirely from reports, I haven't tried either, so I am interested in why you prefer the 15mm.

Martin
 
Guys,
So where or how do get really wide with RED? Working underwater I need something thats gonna give me 35mm equivalent of around 14 to 15mm !! Any pointers for lenses to achieve that?

Cheers,
Mark.
 
CamDiver. If you don't want to spend too much and a fisheye is okay you could try the Peleng 8mm http://rafcamera.com/mcl/wide/peleng_pl.htm Arri PL mount so it will go straight on the camera and it is a real bargain. There is a quote from Matt Uhry on that page

"I projected the lens at Clairmont and it came up incredibly sharp. 200 lp/mm in the center, better than the Nikon 8mm's they rent there for like $150/day. You can see the results at: TV Spots and Music Videos. Click on the Honda ad, it was shot only with the Peleng 8mm."

The Honda Ad doesn't seem to be up up at his site anymore but I see that Matt is posting in this forum so you could ask him if it is any good. Seems to get pretty good reviews.

Martin
 
Hi Martin and Anders,
Thanks for that. I do actually own an external 120 degree wide angle adapter lens which I use in conjuction with a Sony HVR-Z1U in a Gates underwater housing. The Z1 lens basically translates to a 67degree FOV and there are a few people looking into whether or not this could also work with RED. It would be a shame if it couldn't as its also a $4500 piece of glass!!

Cheers for the info and link, appreciated.
Mark.
 
Martin said:
Evin. Why the 15mm rather than the 14mm? I discounted the 15mm because of the propensity to flare, but my knowledge of these lenses is entirely from reports, I haven't tried either, so I am interested in why you prefer the 15mm.
Martin
Click to expand...

The 14 has a very wavy distortion/focus charachteristic that I was never really fond of. I think the 15 is just a better optic all around. It is definately sharper.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/14mm/14mm_test_3.html
 
Evin Grant said:
The 14 has a very wavy distortion/focus charachteristic that I was never really fond of. I think the 15 is just a better optic all around. It is definately sharper.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/14mm/14mm_test_3.html
Click to expand...

Yes. I had seen that test, the Nikons performance is not bad it is awful, it just made me wonder if he got a duff one. Looking at other reports no one seems to comment on the weird "ring of sharp focus" effect he got. The wavy distortion issue is widely reported but seems to only takes effect in the extreme corners. In this review http://www.naturfotograf.com/14nikkor_review.html the guy had the lens on a D1 and commented that the wavy distortion was cropped on that sensor. More reviews:
http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/AF14.htm
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/650/nikon-14mm-f28d-af.html

I just noticed that the guy 1t 16-9 also reviewed the 15mm Nikon and he commented on the same toroidal focus distortion effect on that lens. Weird:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_2/sigma1224vnikon15b.html Why can't I find this picked up anywhere else???

Anyway. Not trying to knock your choice of the 15, just trying to further my own knowledge.

Cheers

Martin
 
Hang on. read the small print down the bottom of the page http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/14mm/14mm_test.html. All lenses were tested on a CANON 5D, i.e. using a lens mount adapter. In fact he re-tested the 15mm using a different adapter and then got totally different results. That makes me very suspicious, the fact that no one else picked up on his toroidal focus effect makes me think it was probably down to the adapter.

Ken Rockwell has commented on both lenses too.

Martin
 
Martin said:
CamDiver. If you don't want to spend too much and a fisheye is okay you could try the Peleng 8mm http://rafcamera.com/mcl/wide/peleng_pl.htm Arri PL mount so it will go straight on the camera and it is a real bargain. There is a quote from Matt Uhry on that page
Click to expand...

Thanks for this link... I have the Peleng 8mm for about six years... used to use it on my 35mm still camera for creating panoramas from 3 or 4 circular fisheye images, also on my 35mm Wall movie camera with Nikon mount for interesting cropped fisheye time-lapse... I wonder if they would handle just the conversion to PL for my existing lens without selling me an already converted unit...

While on the subject of fish-eyes... anyone know of a full 180 fisheye that would fit the complete image circle within the RED's sensor size? That would be nice to locate for future reference...
 
do you guys intend on making post rectlinear conversion from fisheye?
 
My interest in fisheye comes from being curious about using RED for full dome shows. Most of the larger domes can handle an effective 180 degree fisheye image (called a dome master) at 4k by 4k. Selecting the largest possible square section of the RED sensor and filling it with a circular 180 degree fisheye image would be the best you could do outside of shooting the same setup on 65mm...
 
i see!!! :)

no need for 3 projectors manually syncronized then..
 
Akcelik said:
i see!!! :)
no need for 3 projectors manually syncronized then..
Click to expand...

A 180 degree fisheye angle lens is just for the photography side of things, projecting that image is more complicated.

Most of the dome venues rely on quite a number of high resolution video projectors, each overlapping and blended to create the full image. You can use a single projector in the right place with a fisheye lens, but you can't get a goodly amount of light out of it to make the image bright enough for proper viewing on a larger dome. With multiple projectors, you can significantly increase the illumination. Multiple projectors have their own set of issues, as it's nearly impossible to perfectly blend them at the seams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top