How wide is the Angie 5.9mm?

[Scott Bryant]

Does anyone have any pics or footage shot with the angenieux 5.9mm lens? I was wondering if there was any kind of distortion and exactly just how wide of a shot it produced.

[Steve Wallace]

I have no pics, but the image is wide. IIRC it was around 160 degree FOV. I used a c-mount version on a bolex regular 16mm.

[Ian Cooper]

Using this online tool and entering the std16 frame size of 10.26x7.49mm shows the diagonal angle of view for a 5.9mm lens is 94 degrees.

 

Because of the different format aspect ratios it might be better to use horizontal angle of view, in which case:

 

std16: 82 degrees

S16: 93 degrees

 

35mm equivalent: 21mm = 81 deg

120 equivalent: 32mm = 82 deg

 

 

 

Of course this doesn't directly help, but a search of sites such as Flickr for photos taken with either a 21mm lens on 35mm, or a 30/40mm lens with medium format should give an idea about what a 5.9mm will produce on 16mm

 

eg:

135 format Leica with 21mm lens

135 format Leica with 21mm lens

Voigtlander R4a with 21mm lens

 

Hope those links provide a guide as to how wide it will look, as for distortion etc. you'll obviously need to hold out for a frame grab from the Angenieux itself.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Ian Cooper

[Scott Bryant]

Thanks alot

[Michael Nash]

Does anyone have any pics or footage shot with the angenieux 5.9mm lens? I was wondering if there was any kind of distortion and exactly just how wide of a shot it produced.

 

I assume you're talking about the 16mm format...

 

You can estimate field of view with a simple geometric formula: a lens that's twice as long sees half as wide. So a 5.9mm will see twice as wide as a 12mm on the same format.

 

I'm not familiar with this lens, but I would expect noticeable barrel distortion at that focal length.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I'm not familiar with this lens, but I would expect noticeable barrel distortion at that focal length.

 

It's not a fish eye, so it'll look more like the Kinoptik 5.7mm.

[Steve Wallace]

I find that 82 degrees a bit narrow, from my experience. But I just googled, and other people are claiming around the same thing. I guess my memory is a bit cloudy. I can attest to it looking similar to the Kinoptik 5.7... I've used both (in r16) on different cameras.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Steve Wallace

[Michael Nash]

It's not a fish eye, so it'll look more like the Kinoptik 5.7mm.

 

It doesn't have to be fisheye to exhibit barrel distortion. It's a matter of "degree" (no pun intended) :P

 

I was thinking of the Century 6mm which does distort, but just a little.

[Justin Lovell]

Video sampler of the ang. 5.9mm on my bolex S16mm. Didn't put in the letterbox for you.... Notice how it isn't vignetting? I was shooting around t- 5.6 1/2 - t- 16.

 

http://framediscreet.blogspot.com/2008/04/...are-bboyin.html

[steve hyde]

...I've used the lens on a Bell and Howell Filmo DR with great results. It will vignette on Super 16 for sure. I have also used the lens on a Beaulieu Super 8 camera for fixed focus shooting with great results. On Super 8 it is no longer wide angle.

 

My Ang 5.9 has good coatings and colors look amazing. I am also pleased with the fact that edge distortion is not noticeable. However, it may be that the colorist took care of that during telecine by cropping. All in all - it's a nice wide lens for regular 16 shooting

 

 

 

-s