same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
viking79
Forum ProPosts: 13,120Gear list
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24
In reply to Jaberwok, 5 months ago

Jaberwok wrote:

Arn wrote:

Jaberwok wrote:

Faith Yeung wrote:

Hi Arn,

Looks like the fisheye can deliver similar resolution to the ultra-wide. Right?

I am amazed by it.

With the Hemi software, I think it can really replace the 12-24. What do you thnik?

Nope! Not nearly as sharp and not as well corrected.

Depends on what you mean. Sure, it isn't corrected for distortion, but that means it doesn't distort perspective.

Rectilinear lenses distort perspective but maintain straight lines. Fisheye lenses distort straight lines and maintain perspective.

Take your pick, you can't have both in a flat image.

It is sharp and it's not supposed to be corrected at all in the way that rectilinear wide-angle lenses are.

Exactly. So you agree a 10mm fisheye can't match a 24mm corrected wide angle?

No, the fisheye is just as sharp as the 12-24mm. It is just different, they aren't used for the same purpose. I can't resolution test my fisheye or I would (the software can't handle that much distortion, plus you can't exactly photograph a flat chart in the corner with a lens with 180 degree diagonal field of view.

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX30 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Arn
Arn
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,483Gear list
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24
In reply to jennyrae, 5 months ago

jennyrae wrote:

12-24mm with fish-eye adapter or fish-eye effect processing is better my opinion.

Producing a fisheye effect in post is a completely different thing than using am actual fisheye lens and totally defeats the purpose. The fisheye is used for more reasons than the distortion. You know - maintaining proper proportions on border areas, getting enough field of view - especially in tight spaces, maintaining perspective, etc. Using an adapter on a wide angle lens would produce absolutely inferior results compared to an actual fisheye lens.

 Arn's gear list:Arn's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Samsung NX20 Sony Alpha 7 +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Arn
Arn
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,483Gear list
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24
In reply to tecnoworld, 5 months ago

tecnoworld wrote:

I read a lot about fisheye, but never experienced it. I'm very interested in this issue. For a landscape, if you keep the line of horizon in the middle, does it remain rectilinear?

Keeping the horizon straight will minimise the bending of the horizontal lines, but won't make the image the same as a rectilinear wide angle, because it still won't stretch the borders of the image but compared to a wide angle will sort of compress the borders. This is actually more "natural" in my opinion.

 Arn's gear list:Arn's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Samsung NX20 Sony Alpha 7 +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tecnoworld
Senior MemberPosts: 4,101Gear list
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24
In reply to Arn, 5 months ago

Based on the pics I saw, I agree with you. I never liked landscapes taken with ultra wide lenses, while I like fisheye ones.

-- hide signature --

* Dear haters, you are now in my ignore list, so your hostile responses are probably not visible to me.

 tecnoworld's gear list:tecnoworld's gear list
Samsung TL500 Samsung NX100 Samsung NX200 Samsung NX300 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Arn
Arn
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,483Gear list
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24
In reply to tecnoworld, 5 months ago

Based on the pics I saw, I agree with you. I never liked landscapes taken with ultra wide lenses, while I like fisheye ones.

-- hide signature --

* Dear haters, you are now in my ignore list, so your hostile responses are probably not visible to me.

It's just, that you may have trouble getting good landscape shots in wide open spaces with a fisheye, but it works in places with lots of stuff around and close to you.
--
pics: http://500px.com/arnrna
http://www.pbase.com/arn

 Arn's gear list:Arn's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Samsung NX20 Sony Alpha 7 +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jennyrae
Senior MemberPosts: 1,365
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24
In reply to Arn, 5 months ago

fish-eye adapter only distort picture. why would it make picture quality inferior? it is like saying macro adapter will make picture also inferior. so I not agree with your notion.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Arn
Arn
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,483Gear list
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24
In reply to jennyrae, 5 months ago

jennyrae wrote:

fish-eye adapter only distort picture. why would it make picture quality inferior? it is like saying macro adapter will make picture also inferior. so I not agree with your notion.

A fisheye adpater will definitely an inferior solution compared to an actual fisheye lens, just as a macro adapter (diopter lenses) will produce worse image quality compared to a macro lens. The angle of view will probably not be as wide as the fisheye, image will be softer overall at least to some degree, there will be more corner softness, CA, flare, probably reduced contrast, etc. I'm not saying that they can't be used or that they are completely useless, but I must disagree, when you say an adapter or processing would be better than the real thing.

jennyrae wrote:

12-24mm with fish-eye adapter or fish-eye effect processing is better my opinion.

You can google for some fisheye adapter tests like this: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-pen-converter-lenses-tested-16886#Fish-eye

 Arn's gear list:Arn's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Samsung NX20 Sony Alpha 7 +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Taffy
Taffy MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,432
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24. Hiya Tecno ......................
In reply to tecnoworld, 5 months ago

Do you have any examples of the tyoe of shots that you are referring to here, or could you point us to the type of image to which you are talking about. I don't think that I've seen a landscape shot with a fisheye before, or maybe I just can't remember it, age you see, I'm proabably having a "senior moment," here, again lol.

tecnoworld wrote:

Based on the pics I saw, I agree with you. I never liked landscapes taken with ultra wide lenses, while I like fisheye ones.

-- hide signature --

* Dear haters, you are now in my ignore list, so your hostile responses are probably not visible to me.

-- hide signature --

Have a good day.
Regards, Allan.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Taffy
Taffy MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,432
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24
In reply to Arn, 5 months ago

Well along with most others here, I like #1. The only think I don't like about it is the intrusion onto the top of the "arch," of the roof tiles. Bit the shot itself is briliant, and to show the difference between the two lenses, it is a superb example. I love nimber one, if I were you, I'd get that printed out, and frame it in a prominent position on a wall at home.

-- hide signature --

Have a good day.
Regards, Allan.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Laurie899
Regular MemberPosts: 127Gear list
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24. Hiya Tecno ......................
In reply to Taffy, 5 months ago

Hi Allan

A couple of fisheye landscapes using the Samyang 8mm 3.5. I have since swopped it for the Samsung 10mm.

Laurie

Roaches North Staffs UK

Mordreads Wood

 Laurie899's gear list:Laurie899's gear list
Samsung NX20 Samsung NX 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OIS Samsung NX 50-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Samsung NX 12-24mm F4-5.6 ED Fujifilm XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tecnoworld
Senior MemberPosts: 4,101Gear list
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24. Hiya Tecno ......................
In reply to Laurie899, 5 months ago

Very nice! But I think Allan (hiya!) was asking for some landscape with no vertical lines (eg. seaside, desert...). Those imo are the landscapes that result better with a fisheye, for what I saw around.

-- hide signature --

* Dear haters, you are now in my ignore list, so your hostile responses are probably not visible to me.

 tecnoworld's gear list:tecnoworld's gear list
Samsung TL500 Samsung NX100 Samsung NX200 Samsung NX300 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jennyrae
Senior MemberPosts: 1,365
Like?
Re: same shot with 10/3.5 and 12-24
In reply to Arn, 5 months ago

thank you for reply Arn. but you misunderstand my mean by better.  I say better because it is easy. no need to swap lens and cost-effective. and because how much you use fisheye only in shots. of course buy only fish-eye if dedicate more time with effect than rectilinear like 12-24.

like other lens, adapter optics is same as lens optic quality. if buy poor quality, you get poor result also. be it adapter or pure fisheye. also adapter dependent on lens used also and aperture used. if used poor lens, you get poor result also. performance is relative. buy better adapter, not bad adapter. if want more coverage, use UW lens with adapter. with 12mm, can achieve 5mm coverage. that is 180 degree cover now. with regard to corner performance, that is asinine with fisheye because effect to look for is concentrated on center and border distortion of picture, not corner.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads