I've been interested in doing the same thing. I've scoured
the net for examples of photographs taken with this lens (they
sometimes accompany EBay auctions for them). Where the photo
shows all or most of the image circle projected by this lens,
it is possible, using Photoshop, to create a mask which isolates
the Super-16 field and gives a good estimate of the effect.
To my eye, it appears to me that there is still a great deal of barrel distortion evident - more than would be seen with a properly-corrected (rectilinear) lens like the 8mm Distagon, where straight lines really do remain straight. Mind you, I haven't bought the lens myself - I'm still sitting on the fence and hoping that a 5.7mm Kinoptik will fall out of the sky into my lap.
The Peleng's effect might be just what you're looking for if you're going for a "monster's POV" shot or something equally subjective. I guess we've both got to weigh the Peleng's low cost and Super-16 coverage against the slight fish-eye effect.
I've just had the good fortune to acquire both of the lenses
you mentioned i.e. the Peleng 8mm and the Tegea 5.7mm for
my LTR in Super 16, and since I've just run a test on both,
I think I can answer your questions.
Naturally the 5.7 is a straight line (non fisheye) super wide with an angle that corresponds to around an 18mm lens on a 35mm stills camera. The lens itself (I have a series 2) is great stopped down, slightly soft at the edges when opened up, as one would expect. The biggest characteristic of this lens is the perspective change, greatly noticeable when the camera is in motion (i.e. panning, tracking etc). or if an object moves in front of the camera. The change in perspective is greatly magnified.
The 8mm yields a slightly narrower angle of vision, around a 24mm on a 35mm stills camera. Although this is technically a fisheye (and indeed, any straight edges near the edge of the frame are rendered as curves, as one would expect), since in super 16 we're only using the very centre of the available lens coverage area, such effect is much less noticeable than when the lens is fitted onto a 35mm stills camera (where the image is pretty near to a full circle).
Actually, if the camera or object is moving, the perspective change effect is less pronounced (as can be expected) but also when panning across a room or structure with vertical lines, the fisheye's curves serve to soften the picketing effect (it's still there, but less noticeable than with a straight-edge lens) and so it would be very useful for, say, cars moving through forests, or handhelds where there aren't too many straight lines (i.e. in nature) to give the fisheye away.
Another thing - the Kinoptik goes from T2 to T16 in a stepless (cine lens) movement and has a fixed focus, whereas the Peleng goes from f 3.5 to f16 in full stop clicks (and father pronounced ones at that) and focuses from infinity to around 0.2 meters. There's also an aperture preset ring that I think should be marked OPEN/PRESET but is marked LOCK/UNLOCK instead that's pretty nifty once you learn it. I managed to have the good fortune to pick up both lenses fairly inexpensively and of course, you know what I’m going to say...
Because of its extreme perspective magnification I think I'd be using the Tegea less than the Peleng (as I'd use an 18mm less than a 24mm in stills), and the curved edge (i.e. fisheye) nature of the Peleng means it too is more of a specialist lens, I'd have both of them on my mind and equipment rental list if the shot requires it, and get both when the deals come up.
I have a Nikon mount for my 8mm...
If you go to www.downstream.ca/8mm.htm you can see a couple of images I just uploaded.
These were taken with my D100, so I'm afraid I can't help you with a convenient 16mm equivalent...I don't have the exact measurements of the CCD handy. But it gives you some idea of the effect you can get.
In the top image, of my friend Ken the editor, his glasses are a couple of inches from the front element of the lens. That illustrates the fisheye effect with a close subject... While the curvature of the walls in the second image shows how more distant objects are affected.
I've used the lens shooting 35mm, and as advertised, it does not vignette in 1.85...And actually comes darned close to covering TV...I should also mention that the images are resized and .jpg compressed to fit more comfortably on a web page...Plus, I shot these handheld with 1/15 shutter speed, so they're not exactly the greatest images to evaluate sharpness or other lens characteristics!
For a little documentary to be filmed on S16 considering the use of a Peleng 8mm.
Would like to know if anyone has had good or bad experiences.
Emmanuel from Munich
SUYS Emmanuel wrote :
>For a little documentary to be filmed on S16 considering the use of a >Peleng 8mm.
Why? It's a fisheye that covers 35mm, so you'll just get a small part of the distortion in a S16 frame. There are many other 8mm lenses (Optar Illumina, etc) that cover S16.
Of course, the Peleng is cheap...but I think it's real place is on a 35mm cine camera.
Jeff "anyone on this list* know Uncle Fishhook?" Kreines
*besides Sam Wells
I've used it on S16mm and like it. I also like a longer (16mm) fisheye in 35mm. It gives you the ability to use the distortion somewhat selectively, the center of the lens is pretty flat and "normal" looking but you can bend the sides and horizon. Mr. Boyle has used this wonderfully in some of his work.
I can send you some stills of 16mm through the Peleng. The one drag with this lens is the "lock" mechanism, which must be set in order to stop down. I recommend taping the lock once it is set.
Anders "funny coming from Mr. 50mm" Uhl
ICG, New York
Jeff Kreines wrote:
>Of course, the Peleng is cheap...but I think it's real place is on a 35mm >cine camera
That is another reason why I am looking at it..
Emmanuel from Munich
Go out and shoot some time-lapse with this lens...you will
Jeff Barklage, s.o.c.
US based DP