Panasonic 8mm fisheye and 7-14mm

A week ago I wrote in another threat that I am curious how a defished Lumix 8mm compares with 8mm for the 7-14mm. The former is a smaller and lighter lens. It is also considerably cheaper since the recent price increase of the 7-14.

In response, Hagane kindly posted a useful web site comparing the Samyang 7.5mm fish eye with the 7-14mm and the Olympus 9-18mm.


But I understand that the 8mm has less distortion than the Samyang, and there maybe someone who has more direct experience with the two Panasonic lenses.





so, I would be grateful for comments on whether the Panasonic 8mm might serve as an smaller, lighter, and less expensive ultra-wide lens when its images are defished rather than the 7-14, or whether I have to bite the bullet and buy the 7-14mm (and maybe the 8mm for its own fish eye qualities down the road)

There does not seem to be a recent thread on this subject.

Thanks

F.

Personally I don't have experience with that, and I'm not sure if the 8mm has less distortion than the 7.5 (if it is, it'll be due to the difference in FL I think). That aside, if you did bite the bullet for the 7-14, why not get the 7.5 fisheye instead of the 8mm for fisheye stuff? It really is an excellent lens. If you intend to defish instead, I'll leave that advice to others.

I have both, and tried this, but the de-fished images were no match for the original images from the 7-14. There is no free lunch, and when you de-fish, you lose resolution. If you need wide, get the 7-14.

I was afraid someone was going to say that!

Thanks

F.

I would buy them together.

Thanks for that suggestion. Will do some more research into the relative merits of the two lenses.

F.

I might too if I could afford it.

thanks

F.

FrankS009 said:

FrankS009 wrote:

In response, Hagane kindly posted a useful web site comparing the Samyang 7.5mm fish eye with the 7-14mm and the Olympus 9-18mm.

http://m43photo.blogspot.nl/2012/04/defished-fisheye-compared-with-ultra.html

Click to expand...

Here is a real life example comparing the Lumix G 7-14mm @ 7mm with the Samyang 7.5mm, original and defished:

http://m43photo.blogspot.nl/2012/06/lumix-g-7-14mm-compared-with-samyang.html

I think this is a better comparison between the two.

FrankS009 said:

But I understand that the 8mm has less distortion than the Samyang, and there maybe someone who has more direct experience with the two Panasonic lenses.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is the other way around. The Lumix G 8mm fisheye has more barrel distortion. See a direct comparison here:

http://m43photo.blogspot.fi/2012/02/fisheye-lenses-different-projections.html

FrankS009 said:

FrankS009 wrote:

A week ago I wrote in another threat that I am curious how a defished Lumix 8mm compares with 8mm for the 7-14mm. The former is a smaller and lighter lens. It is also considerably cheaper since the recent price increase of the 7-14.

In response, Hagane kindly posted a useful web site comparing the Samyang 7.5mm fish eye with the 7-14mm and the Olympus 9-18mm.

http://m43photo.blogspot.nl/2012/04/defished-fisheye-compared-with-ultra.html

But I understand that the 8mm has less distortion than the Samyang, and there maybe someone who has more direct experience with the two Panasonic lenses.

so, I would be grateful for comments on whether the Panasonic 8mm might serve as an smaller, lighter, and less expensive ultra-wide lens when its images are defished rather than the 7-14, or whether I have to bite the bullet and buy the 7-14mm (and maybe the 8mm for its own fish eye qualities down the road)

Click to expand...

To some extent a fisheye, whether the Panasonic or the Samyang, can substitute for the 7-14 at its widest setting. However, you should be aware of the following:

If you defish to rectilinear projection and then crop so as to match the 7-14 at 7 mm, the quality will be decent but certainly not on a par.

If you defish to rectilinear projection without cropping, the image will look horrible (in my opinion) both because of the distortion ("fattening" of objects toward the edges) and the loss of resolution due to the excessive stretching of the edges.

If you (partly) defish to a projection other than rectilinear, you may get excellent results in many cases but the horizontal FoV will be considerably wider than that of the 7-14 at 7 mm (about 132 versus about 102 degrees).

You may want to have a look at this thread for some examples:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3373069

You find some additional examples here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50745081

As you can see, I have both the Samyang 7.5/3.5 and the 7-14/4. I don't see them as substitutes for one another but as complementary. But I don't think the fact that they both have their pros and cons should prevent you from going ahead and get the less expensive fisheye before the more expensive 7-14. The Samyang is particularly attractive from a price point of view, and an excellent lens if you can find a good copy (it took me some time to do that) and can live with the fact that it is a completely manual with regard to focus and aperture control alike (as I can without much of a problem in the rather special case of a fisheye).

FrankS009 said:

There does not seem to be a recent thread on this subject.

Thanks

F.

Click to expand...

You can defish a 8mm fisheye, but you'll end up losing image quality, especially at the corners as simply you're trying to extract pixels that 'aren't really there'.

It's not the same as cropping down a rectilinear lens... as nothing is 'lost' or 'gained' by cropping

Those comparisons are fascinating. They certainly give me more insight into the characteristics of a fish eye lens than I had before, and the expectations to be had when de-fishing.

Thank you.

F.

Both of the DP threads are instructive. When I suggested that I could not find threads comparing the 8mm and the 7-14mm, I might have mentioned the first one although it deals with the Samyang rather than the Panasonic. I remember reading it and it may have begun my curiousity about this subject. The first one shows it may be useful to partially "defish" the 7-14mm as well.

I have been convinced that these are two different kinds of lenses. It does not seem from the comments in this tread that it is practical to try to make a fish eye into a prime with Panini processing.

Therefore I will plan to buy both the 7-14 and a fish eye. A very wide prime of 8 or 9mm could be an alternative for the 7-14, but there isn't one on the market.

So some homework is required comparing Samyang and Panasonic fish eyes, keeping cost and your efforts to find a good copy of the former in mind.

I think I need the 7-14 more than a fish eye at this point, and will try to make it my first purchase.

Thank you.

F.

Thanks, I appreciate your point.

F.

Thanks for the information.

(to me the 7-14mm is still the best option for UW)

---

Thanks Aleo,

F.

FrankS009 said:

FrankS009 wrote:

A week ago I wrote in another threat that I am curious how a defished Lumix 8mm compares with 8mm for the 7-14mm. The former is a smaller and lighter lens. It is also considerably cheaper since the recent price increase of the 7-14.

In response, Hagane kindly posted a useful web site comparing the Samyang 7.5mm fish eye with the 7-14mm and the Olympus 9-18mm.

http://m43photo.blogspot.nl/2012/04/defished-fisheye-compared-with-ultra.html

But I understand that the 8mm has less distortion than the Samyang, and there maybe someone who has more direct experience with the two Panasonic lenses.

so, I would be grateful for comments on whether the Panasonic 8mm might serve as an smaller, lighter, and less expensive ultra-wide lens when its images are defished rather than the 7-14, or whether I have to bite the bullet and buy the 7-14mm (and maybe the 8mm for its own fish eye qualities down the road)

There does not seem to be a recent thread on this subject.

Thanks

F.

Click to expand...

Why not get the sigma?

FrankS009 said:

FrankS009 wrote:

Both of the DP threads are instructive. When I suggested that I could not find threads comparing the 8mm and the 7-14mm, I might have mentioned the first one although it deals with the Samyang rather than the Panasonic. I remember reading it and it may have begun my curiousity about this subject. The first one shows it may be useful to partially "defish" the 7-14mm as well.

I have been convinced that these are two different kinds of lenses. It does not seem from the comments in this tread that it is practical to try to make a fish eye into a prime with Panini processing.

Therefore I will plan to buy both the 7-14 and a fish eye. A very wide prime of 8 or 9mm could be an alternative for the 7-14, but there isn't one on the market.

So some homework is required comparing Samyang and Panasonic fish eyes, keeping cost and your efforts to find a good copy of the former in mind.

Click to expand...

I don't think the trouble I had to find a good copy of the Samyang should deter you from trying that route if you find it promising in other regards. It may just be that I had bad luck. Based on the reports of others, I haven't seen any systematic signs that there are bigger problems with the Samyang than with other lenses.

FrankS009 said:

I think I need the 7-14 more than a fish eye at this point, and will try to make it my first purchase.

Thank you.

F.

Click to expand...

Which Sigma?

F.

FrankS009 said:

FrankS009 wrote:

I was afraid someone was going to say that!

Thanks

F.

Click to expand...

Better to know that going in, though. If I had to choose only one, it would be the 7-14, which is more useful (for me) than the fisheye. But I do love that fisheye on occasion.

I agree it is better to know. Thanks again for you helpful comment.

F.