View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:13 am Post subject: Fish-Eye vs. Rectilinear corrected Ultra-Wide |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
Out of curiosity I did a comparison between my Pentax SMC Fish-Eye 17/4 on Sony A850 FF vs. CV 12/5.6 Ultra-Wide rectilinear corrected lens on Ricoh GXR-M APS-C (resulting in 18mm FOV on FF).
The perspectives have been the same for both pictures, i.e. the tripod wasn't moved.
I've tried as much as I could to get rid of the field curvature of the fish-eye lens in Adobe Camera Raw, however it wasn't possible to get a similar "correct" picture comparable to the CV lens.
Still the 17mm lens delivered a slightly broader FOV than the "18mm" lens, but that's the only advantage of the fish-eye.
I'd previously planned also to include the 8mm fish-eye on MFT which would result in 16mm FOV, but as this lens is even more extreme than the Takumar I skipped it finally.
For me it's once again a proof that I don't like fish-eye lenses.
The only interesting aspect was that the sharpness for both pictures was comparable good, i.e. usable from edge to edge. There was no smearing or color shift whatsoever. However, the colors from the two different cameras turned out to be different as usual (that's nothing new for me), most probably based on different WB algorithms. I didn't spend my energy to correct that afterwards.
Super-Multi-Coated FISH-EYE-TAKUMAR 17mm/4 on Sony A850 (F8 ):
Voigtländer Ultra-Wide 12mm/5.6 on Ricoh GXR-M (F5.6):
_________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
In my opinion if you're treating a fisheye as if it was just a very wide rectilinear lens, you're using it wrong. A fisheye is a special purpose lens and needs to be used properly. Comparing a regular UWA with a fisheye doesn't make sense, they're two very different things even if the focal length is similar. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
miran wrote: |
In my opinion if you're treating a fisheye as if it was just a very wide rectilinear lens, you're using it wrong. A fisheye is a special purpose lens and needs to be used properly. Comparing a regular UWA with a fisheye doesn't make sense, they're two very different things even if the focal length is similar. |
Maybe you are right. Nevertheless, I don't like the special effect of a fish-eye lens and tried to get rid of it during post processing. It failed anyway.
I should rather sell my fish-eye lenses as I don't use them at all and look for something which might make more sense for me.
At the end of the day it's purely a matter of taste and as we all know: Tastes use to be different, there is no need to argue about that. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
One more thing. Regarding the field of view and which is wider, there's no true answer. The UWA could be wider from side to side but the fisheye with the same FL is wider from corner to corner.
And if you try to use a fisheye as a UWA, you can do that only if you put the horizon right in the middle of the frame and that's very limiting. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
miran wrote: |
And if you try to use a fisheye as a UWA, you can do that only if you put the horizon right in the middle of the frame and that's very limiting. |
But that's exactly what I've done. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
I know, I'm just saying this is a big limitation of fisheye lenses. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
A fisheye simply can't be used as a 'normal' UWA; end of story.
Yes, software can correct distortion to a degree, but the way a fisheye projects is just too much to be corrected fully.
Old manual lenses wider than 24mm are rarely very good, there are a handful of exceptions but they can cost as much as a modern UWA lens and the modern lens is surely a better performer.
One example is the Tokina 3.5-4.5/20-35, a lens designed back in the early 1990s so not all that modern. However, it visibly outperforms all my old manual UWA lenses. The modern lenses like the Tokina AT-X 11-16 for APS-C offer performance and perspectives that you simply can't get with old lenses.
To get UW perspectives without IQ problems and lashings of distortion, stitching multiple images is the way to go. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
A fisheye simply can't be used as a 'normal' UWA; end of story.
Yes, software can correct distortion to a degree, but the way a fisheye projects is just too much to be corrected fully.
Old manual lenses wider than 24mm are rarely very good, there are a handful of exceptions but they can cost as much as a modern UWA lens and the modern lens is surely a better performer.
One example is the Tokina 3.5-4.5/20-35, a lens designed back in the early 1990s so not all that modern. However, it visibly outperforms all my old manual UWA lenses. The modern lenses like the Tokina AT-X 11-16 for APS-C offer performance and perspectives that you simply can't get with old lenses.
To get UW perspectives without IQ problems and lashings of distortion, stitching multiple images is the way to go. |
That is certainly true.
However, I simply wanted to try it at least and as I did it for myself anyway, I also thought it might be worth sharing here.
From the old lenses I personally know the 15mm/3.5 Takumar is certainly an extraordinary UWA, unfortunately I don't have one myself. However, my old 20mm lenses from Pentax and Minolta are not really bad as well.
I don't have experience with those new zoom lenses as for APS-C I am rather fine with my CV UWA lenses in LTM but for FF I don't have anything comparable, i.e. really usable (for my taste) below the mentioned 20mm. Only some fish-eyes. Therefore the experiment....
Panorama stitching is certainly one way to go, but not always feasible under all possible circumstances.
Finally my widest lens in the "good old film times" was always 24mm and I didn't really miss anything. So the 20mm on FF should be OK for me for some more years to come. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10805 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Besides "using it wrong", gauging what result will be after "de-fishing" when taking photos can be challenging.
Some of the better fish-eye photos imho have no perspective clues -- that fish-eye lens is used is not apparent. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
Some of the better fish-eye photos imho have no perspective clues -- that fish-eye lens is used is not apparent. |
+1 _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
A fisheye simply can't be used as a 'normal' UWA; end of story.
Yes, software can correct distortion to a degree, but the way a fisheye projects is just too much to be corrected fully.
Old manual lenses wider than 24mm are rarely very good, there are a handful of exceptions but they can cost as much as a modern UWA lens and the modern lens is surely a better performer.
One example is the Tokina 3.5-4.5/20-35, a lens designed back in the early 1990s so not all that modern. However, it visibly outperforms all my old manual UWA lenses. The modern lenses like the Tokina AT-X 11-16 for APS-C offer performance and perspectives that you simply can't get with old lenses.
To get UW perspectives without IQ problems and lashings of distortion, stitching multiple images is the way to go. |
That is certainly true.
However, I simply wanted to try it at least and as I did it for myself anyway, I also thought it might be worth sharing here.
From the old lenses I personally know the 15mm/3.5 Takumar is certainly an extraordinary UWA, unfortunately I don't have one myself. However, my old 20mm lenses from Pentax and Minolta are not really bad as well.
I don't have experience with those new zoom lenses as for APS-C I am rather fine with my CV UWA lenses in LTM but for FF I don't have anything comparable, i.e. really usable (for my taste) below the mentioned 20mm. Only some fish-eyes. Therefore the experiment....
Panorama stitching is certainly one way to go, but not always feasible under all possible circumstances.
Finally my widest lens in the "good old film times" was always 24mm and I didn't really miss anything. So the 20mm on FF should be OK for me for some more years to come. |
The Minolta 20mm is not bad at all.
I've tried a lot of old UWAs and honestly, to go really wide, a modern zoom is the best bet, especially wider than 20mm. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
The Samyang 12mm/2.0 for APS-C is quite good too for a relatively low price. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|