Lenses

[leslie]

7 hours ago, heart0less said:

This is what I've found on cinema5d.

 

Based on this, here are my calculations:

And if one used a 2x adapter:
(by 4:3 video I mean GH5's ability to record 4:3 open gate [using whole sensor height])

My numbers may be wrong!

kudos for making a spreadsheet. Even if the maths is wrong, i'm still impressed ?

All i know is, i like the look i get with anamorphic lenses. it gives me an expansive view, its got flares, its also different from everything else out there at the moment, whats not to like ?

[noone]

5 minutes ago, leslie said:

 

All i know is, i like the look i get with anamorphic lenses. ...., its got flares, ........, whats not to like ?

Flares!!!!   (at least that WILL be the case once people endlessly use the same lens in the same situation) since that is a characteristic of the lens and it is not subtle....for NOW, I agree but I reckon in a pretty short time that will change.

 

[leslie]

5 minutes ago, noone said:

Flares!!!!   (at least that WILL be the case if people endlessly use the same lens in the same situation since that is a characteristic of the lens and it is not subtle....for NOW, I agree but I recon in a pretty short time that will change.

it will be like the slow motion craze... Hmm flares in slow motion that might be novel, remember i said it first.

we will do it because we can ? join the movement or else !!

[kye]

There certainly seems to be a new focus on anamorphic in the cinematic YT echochamber of late.

Personally I'm not that enamoured with the look.  The flares are cool as a special effect, but I think they'd get old quickly, and even after re-watching all three seasons of The Expanse recently, which is sci-fi at its finest and also included more than its fair share of people in spacesuits exploring the unknown whilst their headlamps create absolutely spectacular (circular) lens flares, even then part of me was thinking how cool it looked and the other part of me was wondering WTH it had to do with space adventuring.

I'm more inclined to think that the oval bokeh and flares are more of a sentimental association with cinema rather than cool in an absolute sense.  Of course, the wider aspect ratio does look epic to me, and I think that's because you're forced to compose with people fitting into the frame vertically and therefore you're getting more panoramic effect, taking a small step towards immersion.

I was thinking last night that 2.35 is 1.32 times wider than 16x9, so I suspect (pending verification of the maths) that my 7.5mm wide cropped to 2.35:1 is actually the FF equivalent of a 20mm anamorphic setup, and cropped to 2.66:1 it's also the equivalent of a 22mm anamorphic setup.  They're approaching the classic 21/24/28mm FOV that Hollywood loves so much, right?

@heart0less your spreadsheet seems to be calculating FOV as an angle, but doesn't convert that back into equivalent focal length, is that right?  That doesn't align with my brain, which thinks about FOV in FF equivalent lens terms.

 

[thebrothersthre3]

53 minutes ago, kye said:

There certainly seems to be a new focus on anamorphic in the cinematic YT echochamber of late.

Personally I'm not that enamoured with the look.  The flares are cool as a special effect, but I think they'd get old quickly, and even after re-watching all three seasons of The Expanse recently, which is sci-fi at its finest and also included more than its fair share of people in spacesuits exploring the unknown whilst their headlamps create absolutely spectacular (circular) lens flares, even then part of me was thinking how cool it looked and the other part of me was wondering WTH it had to do with space adventuring.

 

 

I am not a huge fan of the flares, they can be distracting especially if over done (ahem star trek). That said I love the other characteristics they can have, especially the more funky lenses. 

[heart0less]

5 hours ago, kye said:

heart0less your spreadsheet seems to be calculating FOV as an angle, but doesn't convert that back into equivalent focal length, is that right?  That doesn't align with my brain, which thinks about FOV in FF equivalent lens terms

Actually, it's the other way around. 

It's supposed to show the results in 35mm EQV. 

I was never a fan of FOV angle, to be honest. 

7 hours ago, leslie said:

kudos for making a spreadsheet. Even if the maths is wrong, i'm still impressed ?

Thanks!

I've been using it for some time now, so it's not that I made it right here, on the spot. (( :

[kye]

5 hours ago, heart0less said:

Actually, it's the other way around. 

It's supposed to show the results in 35mm EQV. 

I was never a fan of FOV angle, to be honest. 

and now that you say that, it's obvious!  oops ???

[KnightsFan]

I made a little 3D simulation once that showed a comparison between different focal lengths on different size sensors, maybe I should look into adding anamorphic and/or more specific camera sensor sizes? Would anyone be interested?

[noone]

On 12/8/2019 at 7:37 AM, noone said:

Anyone used the old Tamron adaptall 28-80 3.5-4.2 SP on digital recently?     It seems it had a good reputation a few years ago.     Worth paying $10 (Australian) for? (not like I NEED another lens but since it is there!).

 

Ok, I bit the bullet and got it (for $8 Australian).     I didn't realise it actually had a FD adaptall fitted (until I started trying to put another FD adaptall on the bottom....so much for looking at it closely).

 

First impressions are i think I will like this lens...will try it at a Xmas lunch party tomorrow.

[leslie]

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

I made a little 3D simulation once that showed a comparison between different focal lengths on different size sensors, maybe I should look into adding anamorphic and/or more specific camera sensor sizes? Would anyone be interested?

sure, i think i take things in better visually

 

21 minutes ago, noone said:

Ok, I bit the bullet and got it (for $8 Australian).     I didn't realise it actually had a FD adaptall fitted (until I started trying to put another FD adaptall on the bottom....so much for looking at it closely).

 

First impressions are i think I will like this lens...will try it at a Xmas lunch party tomorrow.

try and get some flares ??

[KnightsFan]

14 hours ago, leslie said:

sure, i think i take things in better visually

Sounds like a nice weekend project then. Here's the program so far: http://gobuildstuff.com/CropFactorApp/. It takes a really long time to load right now, I'll try to improve that as well.

[noone]

17 hours ago, noone said:

 

 

First impressions are i think I will like this lens...will try it at a Xmas lunch party tomorrow.

 

Took it for a walk this morning.     Seems very nice but there is play between the adaptall and FD to E adapter so sometimes it does not focus to infinity (or at all).    Going to be hard to use for video but some stills use (I will just have to try other combinations of adaptalls and adapters before knowing if it just joins the junk lying around).

This beach is hundreds of miles inland but was just named as the ninth best in Australia for 2019!  Jpeg as taken (resized only).  A7s and 28-80 Tamron (model 27A).

[leslie]

quite a strong vignette ? is that at the wide end of things ?

damn,  your up pretty early?   its 6 am here.  I'm a bit envious of that water, i'd have a three inch pump sitting on that sand if it were me ?  Got a 30 ton excavator coming in next week to de silt  the damn and give it a bit more depth. I did have have a storm pass close by yesterday afternoon got a shower of rain out of it. i setup the gopro with its battery eliminator and run a timelapse. seemed to work ok. i defished the images and run deflicker on sequence  in gopro studio dragged it into resolve kinda graded it. As per one of tito's tutorials i think i gave it a 2.40 aspect ratio by reducing the height to 800 and stretching the width by 1.33 allowing for the letus anamorphic. I was quite happy with result.

Regarding the movement issue your having, i get the same thing but not so bad. i think mine is more rotational maybe 1mm or less with various lenses and adapters, it is annoying. I am strongly considering  cutting up a 6mm alloy sheet i have here and making a base plate support that runs the length of the camera, adapter, taking lens and anamorphic. you could try rails perhaps, either way it gets fiddly to pull apart i think.

[kye]

@leslie did you put an anamorphic lens on your gopro? Or just replicating the aspect ratio?

In terms of getting stability I'd suggest doing it right and only having to do it once. If you can look at how rails systems work and learn how they've solved the various design issues while keeping flexibility then fabricate something that applies those principles then I think that would probably be worth the effort.

[leslie]

30 minutes ago, kye said:

@leslie did you put an anamorphic lens on your gopro? Or just replicating the aspect ratio?

In terms of getting stability I'd suggest doing it right and only having to do it once. If you can look at how rails systems work and learn how they've solved the various design issues while keeping flexibility then fabricate something that applies those principles then I think that would probably be worth the effort.

 its the real deal, a letus 1.33 adapter for the gopro. Real men have no need to fake it ?

That storm from yesterday took out the telephone line and our neighbors telephone about 50 meters from our house, it was loud. Had the gopro timelasping it all, the strike was just out side the camera view sadly or between photos doesn't seem to show up in the timelapse.

edit.... it was another 20 meters to the left when i look at the photo, so never in the shot

 

[noone]

22 hours ago, leslie said:

quite a strong vignette ? is that at the wide end of things ?

damn,  your up pretty early?   its 6 am here.  I'm a bit envious of that water, i'd have a three inch pump sitting on that sand if it were me ?  Got a 30 ton excavator coming in next week to de silt  the damn and give it a bit more depth. I did have have a storm pass close by yesterday afternoon got a shower of rain out of it. i setup the gopro with its battery eliminator and run a timelapse. seemed to work ok. i defished the images and run deflicker on sequence  in gopro studio dragged it into resolve kinda graded it. As per one of tito's tutorials i think i gave it a 2.40 aspect ratio by reducing the height to 800 and stretching the width by 1.33 allowing for the letus anamorphic. I was quite happy with result.

Regarding the movement issue your having, i get the same thing but not so bad. i think mine is more rotational maybe 1mm or less with various lenses and adapters, it is annoying. I am strongly considering  cutting up a 6mm alloy sheet i have here and making a base plate support that runs the length of the camera, adapter, taking lens and anamorphic. you could try rails perhaps, either way it gets fiddly to pull apart i think.

Yeah, was disappointed with the vignette in that....is at 28mm

I am a low light lowlife so I am often up early for a walk  long before dawn.

I wish you all the water you need!

 

I did not take the lens to the party but swapped adaptalls using the same adapter and it now works just fine and the lens is a keeper if only going to get sporadic use.....NO vignetting now and no play with the adapters.

The lens has a minimum focus of about three feet at 28mm but beyond that gets much shorter ...down to about a foot....a bit strange but I do like it.

[leslie]

 

13 hours ago, noone said:

I am a low light lowlife so I am often up early for a walk  long before dawn.

I did not take the lens to the party but swapped adaptalls using the same adapter and it now works just fine and the lens is a keeper if only going to get sporadic use.....NO vignetting now and no play with the adapters.

The lens has a minimum focus of about three feet at 28mm but beyond that gets much shorter ...down to about a foot....a bit strange but I do like it.

don't put yourself down mate .... leave that to us ?

its sometimes worthwhile playing with these things, i learned that with the soviet 40mm lens i bought. That took more than a few adapters to sort out

Optics can be weird, just got to use em and work with their intricacies

 

[Anaconda_]

Hey all, I hope the holiday season's been treating you well.

I'm looking for a wide full frame lens and keep coming back to Canon's L 17-40 f4. It's a pretty 'old' lens, but is amazingly low priced second hand. Is this still a reasonable lens to be looking at? 

It'll be going on a speedbooster and be used in tandem with the 24-105 f4. Essentially, they're both f2.8 and I figure will match characteristics pretty well.

[noone]

13 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

Hey all, I hope the holiday season's been treating you well.

I'm looking for a wide full frame lens and keep coming back to Canon's L 17-40 f4. It's a pretty 'old' lens, but is amazingly low priced second hand. Is this still a reasonable lens to be looking at? 

It'll be going on a speedbooster and be used in tandem with the 24-105 f4. Essentially, they're both f2.8 and I figure will match characteristics pretty well.

I think it is ok (never used it though).     Not the greatest but if it is cheap enough.      I used to use a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 that was often considered (depending on who was posting) as good or better or not quite as good (the Tamron has been updated fairly recently too and there is a similar Sigma.      These days I use an even older Canon EF 20-35 2.8 L which is again, not the greatest but still quite nice for the price (there have been four replacement models since).      One thing with all these old lenses, there is often copy variation when they were new let alone not knowing how hard a life each individual lens has had (been knocked around? dropped?  Was it decentred in the first place? ETC ETC.      Try it if you can and if you like it, buy it...Good luck.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

17-40 is totally okay on a budget, especially at the current used prices. Very useful set of focal lengths in a car! Versatile for run and gun/handheld work, too. It's just slow and optically middling.