Best 2K Lenses + a Few Super 16mm Lens Qestions

[Andrew Patterson]

I am interested in knowing what everyone thinks are the best 2K Zoom lenses. I know this will depend on experience, preferences, usage, application, etc. But I am hoping to pool that information from different points of view -- and gather that info in one thread.

I have been learning from this link a lot: http://cinematechnic.com/resources/o..._super-16.html

But there are some unanswered questions for me still about Super 16 Lenses and zooms in particular -- so here they are:

• Many of these zooms seem EXTREMELY wide -- 6.6mm, 10.8mm, 8mm -- these are wider than I am used to at the 35mm level. These seem almost Fisheye to me. So I am curious, are these the same Field of View as a lens made for a full sensor (35mm)? When I see a 6.6-66mm Canon Zoom, would that be the exact equivalent to a 6.6mm Field of View on an 35mm 6.6mm Equivalent? Is a 6.6mm going to look super curved? With barrel distortion?

• Based on a Wikipedia Entry, RED's 2K is 2048x1080. Is this the standard for 2K? I am reading in other places 2K can be 2048x1152 and other variants

• This is going to be a difficult question, but I'm going to try: If I buy a Super16 Lens -- let's say the Canon 11.5-138mm -- I have read that 2K is covered by this lens through its entire zoom range with no vignetting. But what I would like to know is how many pixels does it cover if I'm shooting 3K? In other words, what is the maximum resolution that can be pulled from this lens or similar? Knowing that I will be vignetting and will have to crop out corners in post, what is the active pixel count both vertically and horizontally I could get from this lens or similar? I've read that 2.5K is sort of the sweet spot, but what is the standard for 2.5K? I have no problem shooting with vignetted corners and cropping down to 2K.

• Why do Super16 Primes typically seem to only go up to 50mm? Is it just assumed after that you will start using 35mm Glass instead with a crop factor?

• What is everyone's favorite Super 16 Zoom? What are it's strengths? What are it's weaknesses?

• I'm looking for something with a minimum FOV of 18mm (could go wider) on the wide end and a minimum of 80mm (could go further) on the far end -- I would also like to focus closer than 3 Ft. Any suggestions?

Thank you for anyone that gives this a shot. I am looking for lightweight options that I can't seem to get with Still Lenses and 35mm Cinema Lenses are too heavy for my needs.

[Sam Eilertsen]

• Many of these zooms seem EXTREMELY wide -- 6.6mm, 10.8mm, 8mm -- these are wider than I am used to at the 35mm level. These seem almost Fisheye to me. So I am curious, are these the same Field of View as a lens made for a full sensor (35mm)? When I see a 6.6-66mm Canon Zoom, would that be the exact equivalent to a 6.6mm Field of View on an 35mm 6.6mm Equivalent? Is a 6.6mm going to look super curved? With barrel distortion?

I not exactly sure what you are saying here, but the field-of-view for a given focal length is certainly not the same for 16mm as for 35mm. Field of view is proportional to format size. Super 16mm is about half the width of super 35mm, so a 6.6mm lens would be roughly the equivalent of a 13mm lens on super 35, or a 17mm lens on full frame 35mm, which is very wide, but there are many lenses out there that go that wide.

Barrel is distortion is often an artifact of wide angled lenses but it is not necessarily present. For example, the Tokina 11-16 is extremely wide with no visible distortion. It varies by the lens, some are deliberately fish-eye while others are engineered to have minimal distortion.

• Based on a Wikipedia Entry, RED's 2K is 2048x1080. Is this the standard for 2K? I am reading in other places 2K can be 2048x1152 and other variants

2K just means that its 2048 pixels wide. There is no standard aspect ratio.

[Dave Blackham]

I dont know if you have an ipad or iphone but this app may help work out lens equivalent field of view.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/match...315223799?mt=8

There are far better people than me to explain this here so will hope they offer some explanations.

[Andrew Patterson]

Okay -- So on Super16 Lenses, you need to double the focal length? In other words if I wanted to shoot with a Field of View of 18mm on a full 4K sensor -- then I would need a 9mm in terms of Super16 Lenses?

So, 9mm = 18mm? 12mm = 24mm? Etc.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes more or less, though you are mixing metaphors so to speak -- Super-16 is a physical size, 4K is not... in theory you can cram 4K onto a 16mm sized sensor or a 65mm sized sensor (as in the case of the Phantom 65).

So if you mean a 4K sensor that is 35mm cine / Super-35 / APS-C in size, yes, it's roughly double, but to be exact you'd have to do the math. But for general purposes, you can say that the Super-16 frame is 12mm wide and a Super-35 frame is 24mm wide, so the conversion factor between them is 2X. So yes, a 9mm on a Super-16 camera would give you a similar FOV as an 18mm on a 35mm camera.

Keep in mind that the focal length itself doesn't change whether the lens is put on a larger or smaller sensor camera, only the field of view changes due to the crop factor. But lens coverage can be a factor - a lens designed to fill a smaller sensor may vignette when put onto a larger sensor.

[Andrew Patterson]

David -- Thank You! I haven't seen this stated in clear terms anywhere and where I live, I can't just go rent a lens or two to find out.

So, I know it varies with each lens, but a Super 16 Lens will cover 2K. Does it cover more thank 2K? In other words, if I wanted to shoot something at 3K with a Zeiss 11-110mm and live with the Vignetting during production with the intent of removing it later in post, is there a downside to that?

You should know that I don't ever finish to anything higher res than 1080p.

Thank You.
Andrew

[Andrew Patterson]

Just to clarify, my intent is to get maximum resolution out of a Super 16 Lens -- the most pixels it will cover on the sensor. Then remove any side effects of this approach.

I need a light lens with a long zoom and don't need 4K all the time -- But I still want some room to play with above 1920x1080 if I need to do post stabilization, etc.

[David Mullen ASC]

Why do Super16 Primes typically seem to only go up to 50mm? Is it just assumed after that you will start using 35mm Glass instead with a crop factor?

The same reason why 35mm prime lens sets generally stop at 100mm. 18mm to 100mm is the most common range of focal lengths used in narrative 35mm cinema shooting. Which is also why many 35mm zooms fall into that range.

Lenses don't have a crop factor.

Yes, most people use 35mm cine glass for more telephoto shots in Super-16, or adapted still camera lenses for extreme telephoto. It's all a supply & demand issue: Super-16 cameras need shorter focal lengths to achieve wide-angle shots, plus there is generally a desire to build and use physically smaller lenses for Super-16, which is possible since they don't have to cover the 35mm area. However, above 50mm, there wasn't enough market demand to build Super-16 prime lenses designed specifically for Super-16, not when at that point, most shooters are willing to use 35mm prime lenses for those longer focal lengths.

I'm not a Super-16 shooter, but looking at an old Birns & Sawyer catalog on my desk, the Super-16 zooms they were renting 10 years ago were:
7-63mm T2.6 Canon
8-64mm T2.4 Canon
11.5-138mm T2.5 Canon
11-165mm T2.5 Canon
12-120mm T2.4 Zeiss

[David Mullen ASC]

The 3K area of the Red One sensor is 16.59mm wide. I don't know if Super-16 lenses cover this but my guess would be that most of the wider-angle Super-16 primes and wide-angle ends of the zoom won't... because they barely covered Super-16. But how much more beyond the 2K area that they cover is just something you have to test on a lens by lens basis.

If you really want a zoom that covers 3K and goes from wide-angle to telephoto, you probably have to look at 35mm zooms, not Super-16 zooms. If you want something lighter, you may have to look at a 35mm still camera zoom.

[Andrew Patterson]

This helps a lot. I was unclear on a few points and this helps confirm my suspicions.

I am okay if 3K isn't covered on the wide end of a zoom. My preference would be to find a lens that shoots higher than 2K in order to still provide more than 1920x1080 worth of pixels, since I finish in HD. Then I will have some wiggle room. I don't need 4K most of the time, but when I do, I have those lenses already.

So it would help to have an all purpose lens that weighs little, breathes little, zooms far and doesn't ramp. And certain Super 16 Lenses seem to fit that bill if you are okay shooting 2K. Plus I still have RAW workflow and eventually HDRx, which you can't get at 2k or 1080p anywhere else, really.