Meike announces $150 7.5mm F2.8 fisheye lens for six APS-C camera mounts

Third party fisheyes for around $150 seems to be where the party is at right now in terms of cheap third party lenses. I'm not saying these are bad, but it's like "Oh, another fisheye for $150...." Maybe someone should do something crazy like a 4mm for APSC (I know there are limits as to how wide a lens can be before it either gets expensive or too big/heavy or just doesn't work optically) but it's like a race to see who can make the cheapest 7-8mm fisheye.

10 months agopermalink

philzucker

The Laowa 4mm for APS-C and MFT has been out for a while: https://www.dpreview.com/products/venus/lenses/venus_laowa_4_2p8_fisheye_mft

10 months agopermalink

MagicCH

Nice to see more Meike lenses, use several of its 6.5mm and they are very good, use also the Samyang 7.5 and 8mm in various versions and they are also very good. Meike is underrated for its lenses I think. Well made generally good specifications and good performance for the price. Only downside for some is they are manual, but that is not a real issue. Use a lot of adapted lenses on full frame whihc are in the most part manual and no issues. Meiki have alsways produced good products and are more known for the battery gripos whihc again great value and performance against the OEM versions.

10 months agopermalink

Leijona

The lens design seems identical to the 7artisans 7.5mm f/2.8, not surprising of course but the 7 artisan is a bit cheaper, i can't say obviously how they compare mechanically. Both are 11 lenses in 9 groups and feature 190 degree diagonal view with a minimum focus distance of 0.15 meters.

10 months agopermalink

jeffharris

The world really needs another fisheye lens.

10 months agopermalink

Ilia Snopchenko

I've counted four APS-C mounts named in the news piece, not six.

BTW today a new APS-C mount was born, so that's a happy occasion - also for the lens manufacturers. :)
(For clarification, I know there have already been some Super 35 R mount cameras, but these were/are cine so hardly a consumer tool for photography...)

10 months agopermalink

GodSpeaks

I'll stay with my Samyang 7.5mm f3.5.

10 months agopermalink

Eh Photographer

How is Micro Four Thirds considered APS-C?

10 months agopermalink

Tim Reidy Productions

some manufacturers use the same lens and have different mounts.

10 months agopermalink

GodSpeaks

M43 View of Angle:
Diagonal 146.4°
Horizontal 118°
Vertical 89.2°

Aps-C View of Angle:
Diagonal 190°
Horizontal 161.8
Vertical 106.5

10 months agopermalink

Drahila

I get what you are saying. Indeed, Micro Four Thirds is a lens mount, not a sensor size. I think the title tries to say: "Meike announces a fisheye lens for six camera mounts, covering image circle up to APS-C sized sensor."

10 months agopermalink

photography-lover

It seems they disagree with Kipon and still think M mount is here to stay? :-)

10 months agopermalink

SW Anderson

Given the huge number of EF-M mount cameras still in use around the world and that will be for years to come, including an M-mount version of this lens makes good sense.

Just out of curiosity, is throwing shade on Canon gear a favorite pastime or more of a business/career thing?

10 months agopermalink

photography-lover

Do you see something they don’t deserve?

Selling millions of M mount bodies and quietly abandoning their users is a business behavior you find ethical?

10 months agopermalink

The odd thing I guess is we don't see the RF mount, but we have the Z and E mounts.... I would have expected them to release an RF mount version, but do agree that there are a lot of EF-M users out there, and even if they are discontinued tomorrow, that population likely won't change overnight. Too bad they didn't wait a bit for the RF-S announcement, and they could have done an RF version too, but as some have mentioned above, it's likely a common design with different mounts, so making an RF version likely won't be too hard.

10 months ago*permalink

photography-lover

Why exactly would abandonned M mount users choose to remain with Canon?

10 months agopermalink

I think we have to partially look at this in terms of expense too. The EOS M system was not an entirely expensive system, it's not like bodies were $3,000 or lenses were $3,000 so I think people (to a point) understand that not everything lives forever and that there will be some change. Diehard Canon fans will upgrade/move to the RF mount (hopefully seeing the benefits of doing so, and now that Canon has affordable RF mount options -- like the R7 which in some respects, is better than the first gen FF R/RP).

I thnk the only people who might throw a fit would be those who feel that they are entitled or that Canon/Sony/Nikon owe them something. They don't. Even as a Nikon shooter myself, I'm happy to see Canon taking this step because they are uniting their FF and APS-C bodies under one mount, at the cost of forcing some people to upgrade systems/lenses. I'm sure that we may see a few M to RF adapters (if they aren't around already).

10 months ago*permalink

But then again, it also comes down to choice. For some, they don't need the latest and greatest and will continue to shoot with the EOS M, others will upgrade because maybe they eventually had plans to go to FF, and that would have required an upgrade anyway (in lenses and a body, from an EOS M system).

10 months agopermalink

SW Anderson

In reply to photography-lover. I regret Canon's decision but don't see how it's unethical. Ford quit making Pintos and GM quit making Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles a long time ago. Nikon quit making Nikon 1 cameras and lenses. Eastman Kodak quit making cameras and films altogether. There was no stated or implied guarantee by any of these businesses that they would continue making the abovementioned products forever. Same goes for Nikon and Canon making DSLRs in the future. Businesses go where they perceive sufficient demand to maximize their profitmaking and/or cut their losses. Deciding to cease making a product would only be unethical if the producer promised or otherwise led the public to believe it would continue making the product forever.

10 months ago*permalink

Desert Cruiser

Will this work on a Canon M-100 without an adapter?

10 months agopermalink

fz750

The lens is available for EF-M, it says, so yes..

10 months agopermalink

oscarvdvelde

Their circular 6.5mm F2.0 fisheye version is very sharp and contrasty, and is built very solidly. A pity this one is f/2.8

10 months agopermalink

Gesture

What's the geometry of the image?

10 months agopermalink

From the Meike shopping page (linked above): -

Aps-C View of Angle:
Diagonal 190°
Horizontal 161.8
Vertical 106.5

So it must be a full frame fisheye, otherwise all angles would be the same.

10 months agopermalink

cosinaphile

have we accidentally stumbled into a quirky second age of "lenses"
[ and solidly manual,... solidly ancient f stop tech friendly designs?] people love natural control of technology .... even when it bumps up against "cutting edge'

due to makers giving permission to "shoot without lens" one of the unintended but fascinating otcomes of the age of mirrorless?

every era has its lovely quirks.....

discuss.....

10 months ago*permalink

AndKPhoto

Is it just me, or have there been an unusually high number of APS-C lens releases lately?

10 months agopermalink

Rob890

No K mount or SA love?

10 months agopermalink

Tim Reidy Productions

there are 8mm fisheyes from another manufacturer for k mount.

10 months agopermalink

winkalman

The long flange distance on SLR mounts almost certainly precludes that possibility.

10 months agopermalink

ggc

samples? circular fisheye on apsc?

10 months agopermalink

From the Meike shopping page (linked above): -

Aps-C View of Angle:
Diagonal 190°
Horizontal 161.8
Vertical 106.5

So it must be a full frame fisheye, otherwise all angles would be the same.

10 months agopermalink

A fisheye lens designed to be circular on APS-C would also be a great lens for Micro Four Thirds, despite being circular. Then again, why not make a circular APS-C version of the non-circular Micro Four Thirds Fisheye lenses? For scientific purposes, such as estimating leaf area index (LAI), this would be great!

10 months agopermalink

@Nigel Wilkins The diagonal angle of view is always higher than horizontal or vertical angle of view. The horizontal and vertical angle of view are only the same when the aspect ratio is 1:1, unless using an anamorphic lens.

10 months ago*permalink

JakeJY

@pannumon
I think the point is, if it's a circular fisheye, it's basically a 1:1 aspect ratio. If you look at other Meike circular fisheyes like the 6.5mm f/2.0, the page for that only gives Angle of view: 190°. There are no separate numbers for horizontal/vertical because it would be the same as the diagonal.

To be clear, a circular fisheye creates an image within the frame of the camera that is essentially a perfect circle with the rest of the frame being black.

10 months agopermalink

@pannumon
If the image is circular, the field of view is the same at any angle. It's only when the image circle is cropped by the camera's rectangular frame that differences occur between horizontal, vertical & diagonal. i.e. the diagonal, vertical & horizontal view of a circle are all the same.

10 months agopermalink

I had something missing at the end of the first sentence in my first reply. I should have written "...despite not producing circular image on M4/3." My bad.

@Jakejy, @Nigel Wilkins - Yes, but is it circular fisheye or are we just assuming? Because if it's not, then the logic that it's designed for FF sensor falls apart. Almost all of the consumer fisheye lenses are not designed to be circular on the cameras they are marketed for.

And my earlier point was: Make a normal "non-circular" fisheye lens for Micro Four Thirds, replace the mount so it fits a camera with larger sensor and there you have it: circular fisheye.

10 months agopermalink

@pannumon My initial point was that because the spec shows different angles of view for vertical/horizontal, then it must be a full frame fisheye on APS-C, as it needs to fill the frame to have different numbers. By full frame, I'm not referring to a full frame sensor. Full frame fisheye just means the image circle projected by the lens covers the entire sensor area of the format it's designed for. It's very unlikely to cover a full frame sensor.

10 months agopermalink