PDA

View Full Version : Oh, the irony (and the lack of options in the 20mm range)



taubkin
09-06-2012, 12:53 PM
I spent years of my recent life wondering about bein able to own a 24mm 1.4. I looked and looked for the legendary nikon, and after the dslrs came around I just couldn't resist renting the canon 24 1.4L whenever I could. So comes Rokinon, making not only affordable versions of this lens - along with another beauty, the 35mm 1.4 - but better yet, making cine-versions of them. Fantastic.

And then there comes a revolutionary raw camera that has a proprietary sensor size and make the 24mm, albeit incredibly useful, a lot more boring and not so much the fast wide I searched for all this time. Granted it still is fantastic, I'll use it a lot on my larger sensor cameras as a fast wide, the hole remains in the set of options for the BMC. Want wide? tokina. Want normal? the availiable primes will do. Want tele? You can shoot an american film in europe without travel expenses, with a stable hand. Want a fast wide, that should be around 20mm, there is only a sigma lens that will do.

By the way, I love my sigma 35 f1.4. Does anybody have any experience with the 20mm 1.8?

J Davis
09-06-2012, 01:08 PM
its not great. bulky for what it is.
not so much need for fast wide now that we have such lowlight sensitive cameras these days. wide at f2.8, f3.5, f4 does just fine

taubkin
09-06-2012, 01:26 PM
That's precisely the problem. With faster stocks and sensors, there has never been any demand for fast lenses, people tend to go with sharp over fast, especially for still photography. Hence the limited selection. For film, it was crucial to have f1.4 or f2.0 lenses for night scenes, be it 16mm or 35mm. Today, we can do a lot with f 2.8. The problem with 2.8, from my experience with the GH 2, is that it looks way to deep, when you are dealing with big crop factors. Much different than 2.8 in cinema, wich looks pretty nice. F2.0 is miles away better, on the GH, for instance...

Thanks for the feedback. I guess the scenario will change a bit until I get my hands on a BMC, though...

J Davis
09-06-2012, 02:04 PM
I had this conversation in another thread - you don't need shallow dof on a wide scene. Aperture is therefore only for exposure.

taubkin
09-06-2012, 02:47 PM
i beg to differ. Not all of wide angle shots are wide shots, and, at least on MTF, 20mm is much closer to normal than it is to wide. I can understand this argument for the sigma 8-14 or the tokina 11-16, but not for a light wide angle. I need to see the camera in my hand and understand it tough, this myriad of sensor sizes makes it impossible to predict how lenses are going to behave. Shooting film I see it would be pretty pointless to try to get shallow focus out of 18mm shots, but for 28mm and even 24mm, there is some crazy stuff you can do. Like some Terry Gillian - style close ups and steadicam shots.

Anyway, surely there is a lot we can do with the camera and available lenses , so complaining about the few things we can't do is rather silly. But i'm bored, I'm sick today and just found about BMC user... :)

Brian@202020
09-06-2012, 03:06 PM
I have an older Nikon 20mm f3.5 that I'll be using for a while to cover that. It's a little slow, but the optics are good. I'll replace it at somepoint for something faster I'm sure. You might be able to find one of those cheap on ebay.

taubkin
09-07-2012, 07:29 AM
Well, nevermind, then...

mbeck
09-07-2012, 08:05 AM
Well, nevermind, then...
LOL :)