Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

First fish eye lens ever made?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:00 am    Post subject: First fish eye lens ever made? Reply with quote

The Beck Hill Sky lens Click here to see on Ebay made for weather / cloud watching (not intended to promote that auction, just for info...)




(c) Wikiwand

The "Hill Sky Lens" was designed by R Hill in 1924 (R. Hill, "A Lens for Whole Sky Photography" Proc.Opt.Conv.1926) and patented (British Patent 225,398), later produced by company BECK of London.

Here about it: http://www.novacon.com.br/odditycameras/hillscloud.htm

German Company AEG made an advanced one ("Wolkenkamera") in 1932 (German Patent 620,538), which was found by a friend of mine (#13 made), then auctioned off at Westlicht http://aeg-weitwinkelobjektiv.de/index-eng.htm
It was also shown here: http://forum.mflenses.com/aeg-wolkenkamera-sold-for-eur18-000-t49689.html


PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ООООООООООООООООООООО!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lenses with ultra wide fovs are now easy and cheap to make due to the advent of moulded plastic aspheres - the huge front element is a moulded asphere. Before such moulded aspheres, the front element was a very difficult piece to produce, hence they were very expensive.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Lenses with ultra wide fovs are now easy and cheap to make due to the advent of moulded plastic aspheres - the huge front element is a moulded asphere. Before such moulded aspheres, the front element was a very difficult piece to produce, hence they were very expensive.


I've done a bit of research into the Nikon 8mm lenses and Canon FD 7.5mm. I have not found any indications anywhere that these lenses have aspherical elements anywhere. And, with the possible exception of the Nikon 8mm f/2.8 (and certainly the Nikon 6mm f/2.8 ) they were not particularly expensive to produce.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Lenses with ultra wide fovs are now easy and cheap to make due to the advent of moulded plastic aspheres - the huge front element is a moulded asphere. Before such moulded aspheres, the front element was a very difficult piece to produce, hence they were very expensive.


I've done a bit of research into the Nikon 8mm lenses and Canon FD 7.5mm. I have not found any indications anywhere that these lenses have aspherical elements anywhere. And, with the possible exception of the Nikon 8mm f/2.8 (and certainly the Nikon 6mm f/2.8 ) they were not particularly expensive to produce.


My knowledge too Michael, but what do we know ... Twisted Evil

Here some writing of my friend Marco Cavina about early fisheyes:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/AEG_fisheye_1935/00_pag.htm
and nooo, Nikon did not copy... it just looks so similar

Here what he found out about Nikon fisheye lenses, only the rare 10mm OP fisheye used an aspheric front lens:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Nikkor_fisheye_story/00_pag.htm



PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:


My knowledge too Michael, but what do we know ... Twisted Evil



So you failed to understand what I said but your arrogance makes you think I am in the wrong....

I never said aspheres were used in all fisheyes, I said nothing of the sort.

I merely said that ultrawide FOV lenses are now easy and cheap to make because of the advent of moulded plastic aspheres.

How you twisted that into ALL such lenses contain asphericals is beyond me.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An example of the sort of moulded plastic asphere I was talking about:




Lens from a DLP projector:



Yields a roughly 170 degree FOV:





PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:06 pm    Post subject: Re: First fish eye lens ever made? Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
The Beck Hill Sky lens Click here to see on Ebay made for weather / cloud watching (not intended to promote that auction, just for info...)

The "Hill Sky Lens" was designed by R Hill in 1924 (R. Hill, "A Lens for Whole Sky Photography" Proc.Opt.Conv.1926) and patented (British Patent 225,398), later produced by company BECK of London.
Here about it: http://www.novacon.com.br/odditycameras/hillscloud.htm

German Company AEG made an advanced one ("Wolkenkamera") in 1932 (German Patent 620,538), which was found by a friend of mine (#13 made), then auctioned off at Westlicht http://aeg-weitwinkelobjektiv.de/index-eng.htm
It was also shown here: http://forum.mflenses.com/aeg-wolkenkamera-sold-for-eur18-000-t49689.html


In the modern age : the first universal fisheyes (not specific to a single tm) were

https://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=232822
http://forum.mflenses.com/fs-vintage-soligor-0-15-fisheye-adapter-t26222.html

ps: i sell my soligor fisheye converter


PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A very interesting article, especially on Nikon fisheyes:

http://www.pierretoscani.com/fisheyes-(in-english).html


PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm messing with one of those Kenko fisheye .15x adapter things you mention there PBFacts.

It gives a true full fisheye on APS-C with an f/2 35mm, I guess its an effective 5-6mm focal length.
The image circle decreases as you stop down.
The quality is not very good.

On a 50/2, where I have done more tests, it does a truncated fisheye.

I should do a post on that thing.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
kds315* wrote:


My knowledge too Michael, but what do we know ... Twisted Evil



So you failed to understand what I said but your arrogance makes you think I am in the wrong....

I never said aspheres were used in all fisheyes, I said nothing of the sort.

I merely said that ultrawide FOV lenses are now easy and cheap to make because of the advent of moulded plastic aspheres.

How you twisted that into ALL such lenses contain asphericals is beyond me.


To be clear here, Ian, I was merely questioning your assertion that these moulded plastic aspheres were the first cheap fisheye lenses . . . or cheaper at any rate. Your assertion goes against my own experience. In addition to the Nikon and Canon lenses I referred to above, I also recall seeing fisheye adapters for cheap, which are still around, btw:


and a fisheye lens that Spiratone used to sell. 180 degree FOV:


To the best of my knowledge, none of these types of lenses use or used aspherical elements.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I made no such assertion - that the first cheap fisheyes were aspheric.

What I said was that today, and I was referring to in the modern age, i.e. the 21st century, fisheyes can be made cheaply by use of moulded plastic aspheres.

The first plastic moulded aspheres were in the mid-70s for the Kodak Disk camera, but that was a tiny element about 5mm in diameter.

My point was that if you wanted to make something like the Beck Sky lens today, it would be possible to do it far more easily and cheaply because of this plastic moulding technology.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laugh 1

Ambiguity impossible to predict yielding plausible but mistaken meaning interpretation.

Happens to me all the time -- I actually try to include the possibilities, but nearly always am surprised by the meaning extracted by others, assembled from ambiguities I'd not noticed...


PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
I'm messing with one of those Kenko fisheye .15x adapter things you mention there PBFacts.

It gives a true full fisheye on APS-C with an f/2 35mm, I guess its an effective 5-6mm focal length.
The image circle decreases as you stop down.
The quality is not very good.

On a 50/2, where I have done more tests, it does a truncated fisheye.

I should do a post on that thing.


On my om 55mm 1.2 + soligor 0.15 .. the circle is round
The converter beeing officialy a 0.15x (or perhaps a 0.14 or a 0.16 ?) the circle depends of the true focal lenght of the primary lens (the focal lenght is no more the true focal lenght as before when 48mm or 52mm were common lenses)

if all the indications are true :
55mm x 0.15 = 8.2mm = 100% round circle
50mm x 0.15 = 7.5mm = 100% round circle


PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:

The image circle decreases as you stop down.


Perhaps you use the stop ring of the lens..You MUST use the lens at full aperture and modify it with the converter's stop ring

luisalegria wrote:
The quality is not very good.


The quality is on par with MOST round fish eyes lens .. Ok on center / low on edges / fringing on edges ..
The 1970 sigma fisheye had similar quality/problems (the 1961 8mm/12 is much lower) and the 2015 lensbaby fisheye ~300€ has same quality/problems !


PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had one of those things Luis mentions, many many years ago. Quality was rather bad
and I got rid of it soon... Cheap thingy, had several, all rather bad, gave up on these.
Sold under many brand names...


PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes the pettiness and deliberate obtuseness of members here impresses me.

I suppose, it must be, that the larger the glass is, and the more it must be ground and polished, the cheaper the lens is to make. Right? It's probably why all those ultrawides and fisheyes were so incredibly cheap to buy when they first came out...

That aside, I must comment that the camera and its lens are pretty wonderful. Would be interesting to see photos taken with one, as intended, of the clouds.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="iangreenhalgh1"]An example of the sort of moulded plastic asphere I was talking about:




Lens from a DLP projector:

That shot is actually really good for a cobbled-together lens. Better than I've seen from some real fisheyes.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RichA wrote:
That shot is actually really good for a cobbled-together lens. Better than I've seen from some real fisheyes.


Don't be fooled by the images presented. A true fisheye lens noticeably bends all straight lines, except the radial ones. You got it?


PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mos6502 wrote:
Sometimes the pettiness and deliberate obtuseness of members here impresses me.

I suppose, it must be, that the larger the glass is, and the more it must be ground and polished, the cheaper the lens is to make. Right? It's probably why all those ultrawides and fisheyes were so incredibly cheap to buy when they first came out...

That aside, I must comment that the camera and its lens are pretty wonderful. Would be interesting to see photos taken with one, as intended, of the clouds.


What I wrote wasn't that hard to understand, was it?

Fisheye/Ultrawide lenses require large and highly curved front elements which are difficult and expensive to produce by the grinding process, therefore fisheye/ultrawide lenses were expensive.

However, modern injection moulding technology and optical resins means that large, highly curved elements, including aspherical ones, are easy and cheap to produce, therefore it is now much cheaper to produce a fisheye/ultrawide lens.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of those old fisheye attachments just popped up on ebay UK:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VINTAGE-49MM-JAPAN-FISH-EYE-WIDE-ANGLE-LENS-/311917459990?hash=item489fbaba16:g:xfEAAOSwsXVZa6SO


PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
A very interesting article, especially on Nikon fisheyes:

http://www.pierretoscani.com/fisheyes-(in-english).html


Like 1 Thank you!