Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
Search this Thread |
08-23-2013, 11:22 PM - 9 Likes | #1 |
Loyal Site Supporter | UWA Lens Comparison
Good Evening, I have wanted to make a comparison across Ultra Wide Angele (UWA) lenses for a while. Not your typical comparison, but I wanted to try something a bit different. Before we start, I am going to ask that you humor me a bit here. Stop, go in to the kitchen and pick up 1) a soup bowl and 2) a flat dinner plate. Are you back yet? Ok, put the dishes off to the side for the time being. So here are the lenses.
All the images were taken within a 5 minute period, using my K5 body setup at ISO 100 at f8. I let the shutter speed float. I used auto focusing, since they are all auto focusing lenses. Ok, so let's step through the images. I have taken the images and arranged them in descending order according to Angle of View width. What we have are the following:
_________________________________ Let's go back to the soup bowl for a minute. I want to make a comparison to close vs. distant objects. You take a picture of a landscape - as below. You are looking at the soup bowl with the bottom facing away from you. Immediately, you have someone step into the frame, who is standing very close. Since they are very close, they become distorted - so you take the soup bowl and flip it around where the bottom is not facing you. The center of the lens rather than pushing the scene in to the background as in the case of the landscape, is now pulling the scene - the person even closer into the frame. You have not touched anything in terms of the settings of the lens (or focus, since the depth of field in from nearly touching the lens to infinity). Last edited by interested_observer; 07-25-2014 at 07:01 PM. Reason: comparison of close vs distant handling of objects within the frame |
These users Like interested_observer's post: |
08-24-2013, 04:39 AM - 1 Like | #2 |
I liked this thread. I recently received my samyang 8mm, but had not much time to try it out for good. Actually it is first time i am using UWA lens, so this comparison gives me some idea what to look out in my lens. I'll actually go out and about today with it, maybe try to take some long exposure pics at night in town, to see how it will look... | |
These users Like Mr_Radzins's post: |
08-24-2013, 06:37 AM | #3 |
Hey UWA guy thanks for doing this comparison...I think you may have just saved my wallet ~$700 I was considering spending on that 8-16mm. I have the 10-17mm and quite often use it as a UWA for landscapes, I have also had success using an 8mm Rokinon FE as well and the angle of view of that one is quite spectacular. However I sold it a while back thinking at that time I would get a 10-20mm zoom, but I may just get another 8mm and leave it at that especially since it is very cost effective considering the image quality it is capable of. I must say that in some instances I like the stretching of the clouds the 8-16mm provides...sort of has that long exposure look to it. You wouldn't happen to have a 10-20mm lens would you that you could comment on?
| |
08-24-2013, 09:14 AM - 1 Like | #4 |
Loyal Site Supporter Original Poster | I liked this thread. I recently received my samyang 8mm, but had not much time to try it out for good. Actually it is first time i am using UWA lens, so this comparison gives me some idea what to look out in my lens. I'll actually go out and about today with it, maybe try to take some long exposure pics at night in town, to see how it will look... Hey UWA guy thanks for doing this comparison...I think you may have just saved my wallet ~$700 I was considering spending on that 8-16mm. I have the 10-17mm and quite often use it as a UWA for landscapes, I have also had success using an 8mm Rokinon FE as well and the angle of view of that one is quite spectacular. However I sold it a while back thinking at that time I would get a 10-20mm zoom, but I may just get another 8mm and leave it at that especially since it is very cost effective considering the image quality it is capable of. I must say that in some instances I like the stretching of the clouds the 8-16mm provides...sort of has that long exposure look to it. You wouldn't happen to have a 10-20mm lens would you that you could comment on? No, unfortunately I don't have a 10-20 for comparison. I have what I need, I think that I will stop with the UWA lenses. Actually I have several 28mm lenses, and I think that I will be putting my Leica R 28 up on the Marketplace as I like the Contax Zeiss 28 much better for color and rendering - but that's a different post. I am cutting down on my duplicates. ___________________ I updated the images so that they would not be so flat - did a bit of post processing. I also took a chip out from each of the images, should represent about the same area. The intent was to show the perspective, and the projection distortion applied based on type of lens (fisheye, normal) and focal length. The perspective is not changing, its the projection distortion that is at work here. Also, the amount of area each pixel represents. You will detect more softness at the top, progressing to less softness as the lens and focal length changes. The wider the angle of view, the more the softness - or lack of sharpness, because each pixel is representing more space - so as to accommodate the expanded field of view on to the sensor (that is not changing its size).
What you really need to do is to look at the overall image within the context of the entire frame, rather than any single item within the frame. Also, in the chip outs below - take a look at the coloring and rendering. The uniformity and consistency of the colors is excellent across all of the lenses - fisheye, normal, Sigma and Pentax. _____________________ Note - the fourth image down is mis-identified. Rather than 10-17@10, it should have been 10-17@17 (a cut and paste error). Sorry Last edited by interested_observer; 07-20-2014 at 06:15 AM. Reason: labeling error on the 4th image down.... |
These users Like interested_observer's post: |
08-24-2013, 10:23 AM - 3 Likes | #5 |
Thanks so much Gordon for these comparisons, commentary and for cleaning up and processing the previous images...it gives me a better perspective. I can see your reasoning for obtaining the 8-16mm unfortunately for me (but fortunately for my wallet) I don't really need that quality in a lens. I don't do much architectural type photos or any other that really require a more intact depiction and preservation of straight lines...I mostly use UWA for landscapes and such. Its funny how with my current 10-17mm FE or any other FE I've had for that matter I rarely use it for its more intended and desired effect but rather for dramatic style landscaping. So in terms of rectilinear lenses my 15mm will suffice for the few times I may need to capture something in the frame in that way. One thing I do like however from the 8-16mm that is depicted in your example is the cloud stretching, as I mentioned before, but more specifically and subtlety it is way that elements in the image (particularly clouds) seem to converge towards the distant center of the photo...its both dramatic and unique. I like that look for certain things but the cost of entry is a bit steep for me for that. Also the detail in the distant mountains of the Sigma photos seems to be very good as well...maybe a slight edge here for the 8-16mm in these examples. So this leaves me with my original and more cost effective plan of re-acquiring a Rokinon 8mm (or some variant) at a later time for very UWA landscapes and any other type where I may want a unique look. Here are a couple of examples of what I typically would do and how the 8mm FE more than suffices for this type of shooting. Thanks again and happy shooting! Last edited by gda13; 08-24-2013 at 10:41 AM. | |
These users Like gda13's post: |
08-24-2013, 10:37 AM | #6 |
Makes me realize that my 10-17 and 15Ltd are all I need.
| |
07-19-2014, 08:50 AM | #7 |
Thanks so much Gordon for these comparisons, commentary and for cleaning up and processing the previous images...it gives me a better perspective. I can see your reasoning for obtaining the 8-16mm unfortunately for me (but fortunately for my wallet) I don't really need that quality in a lens. I don't do much architectural type photos or any other that really require a more intact depiction and preservation of straight lines...I mostly use UWA for landscapes and such. Its funny how with my current 10-17mm FE or any other FE I've had for that matter I rarely use it for its more intended and desired effect but rather for dramatic style landscaping. So in terms of rectilinear lenses my 15mm will suffice for the few times I may need to capture something in the frame in that way. One thing I do like however from the 8-16mm that is depicted in your example is the cloud stretching, as I mentioned before, but more specifically and subtlety it is way that elements in the image (particularly clouds) seem to converge towards the distant center of the photo...its both dramatic and unique. I like that look for certain things but the cost of entry is a bit steep for me for that. Also the detail in the distant mountains of the Sigma photos seems to be very good as well...maybe a slight edge here for the 8-16mm in these examples. So this leaves me with my original and more cost effective plan of re-acquiring a Rokinon 8mm (or some variant) at a later time for very UWA landscapes and any other type where I may want a unique look. Here are a couple of examples of what I typically would do and how the 8mm FE more than suffices for this type of shooting. Thanks again and happy shooting! This was such an informative thread that I do not feel bad reviving it. GDA13, it appears from your signature that you did eventually acquire an 8-16. Can you share you impressions? You had thought that the rokinon 8mm fisheye would suffice. Thanks for anything you can add to this ever interesting topic. | |
07-19-2014, 12:53 PM | #8 |
I thought the comparisons were interesting. My widest lens (other than a kit 18-55 that I do not like) is a STak 20/4.5. The reviews critique the barrel distortion. But I have found that to be quite endearing. Your top two images side by side, comparing FE and rectilinear help me to see what I find likeable about the 20.
| |
07-20-2014, 03:31 AM | #9 |
Good comparisons, I sold my DA15mm f/4 Limited in favor of the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5-6 EX DC because it was noticeably sharper in the corners than the pentax prime - though I had to go through several copies of the Sigma lens to find one that was optically perfect. It is interesting to note that the Pentax 10-17mm lens is able to see slightly more than the sigma lens does at 8mm. Though I have to say I tend to use my Sigma 8-16mm at f/11 to keep IQ consistent across the frame. Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 ASPH EX DC - ISO80 f/11 1/60th @11mm | |
07-20-2014, 07:59 AM - 1 Like | #10 |
Loyal Site Supporter Original Poster | When I acquired my 8-16, there was a lot of back focusing. I could have played the grab bag exchange game of chance, but I took the camera body and the lens over to CRIS (they also do Sigma warranty work) and they optically calibrated, aligned and tuned the lens to their optical standard, and then checked out the lens/body combination. Since the lens was just a couple of days old, it was free and has been perfect since! When you think about it, ripping everything away from a lens' focal length, it can be thought of as a measure of magnification. Bear with me for a moment. As you walk the focal length to higher values, you essentially zoom in - or magnify (or not magnify in the case of WA and especially UWA lenses). Think of the succession of say 15 to 30 to 50 to 90 to 135 to 200mm. Essentially you are narrowing down the field of view, which basically is a form of magnification. When a fisheye lens is labeled - say 8mm, what are they really trying to describe? The fisheye distortion is so radical (as compared to a rectilinear) that for the most part the focal length is meaningless - except for the center of the lens. The focal length for both types of lenses is a good measure of magnification. The problem is that as you travel away from the center (in what ever direction) the distortion (and/or various corrections) take over. Then when you look at the entire image from both lenses, they become radically different representations of the same view - and the focal length labeling (and what it represents) just gets lost. As for the fisheye 10-17 @10mm seeing a wider field of view than the Sigma rectilinear 8-16 @ 8, it is a combination of the field of view and projection of the lens - which comes down to the distortion and how the distortion is corrected (or not). Let's for the moment take the fisheye. Just about all of them (99.44% Ivory soap's purity) are at least 180 degrees from corner to corner (on the diagonal). But that is a measurement that does not really mean a lot, especially since most fisheyes provide a rectangular image. So the question is what is its field of view side to side? And some will argue - what does it matter? Anyway, a couple of years ago I was wondering, after asking Pentax and receiving no answer, so I went out and measured it ( a couple of ways - which was pretty simple). The answer is - somewhere between 150 to 135 degrees - depending on how you measure or calculate it. Here is the process...Why such a radical difference between the corner to corner (diagonal) measurement of 180 degrees vs a calculated width of 150 degrees and the observed 135 degrees - same lens, same focal length. Well, when you take the fisheye's image, defish it and look at the results, you can start to understand what is going on - visually. It is the pinching at the waist of the image - in the middle (both from side to side and top to bottom), that controls the wide difference in the angle of view. When the fisheye image is distorted, everything looks ok. Then when you defish it - flatten it, the image is then stretched in the same way as a UWA image. Also, what does NOT change between the fished and defished images? The center. It essentially remains unchanged. That is the key to the focal length labeling along with just how much cropping (which is a form of magnification) takes place around the center of the image. To keep lines straight, you get the massive pulling effect along the edges and in the corners. This website has a wonderful explanation of the process and the results.With defishing, you are remapping the image from a spherical surface to a flat surface. I came a cross this example as a excellent visual of what occurs. It is this mapping that pinches the image down, and therefor is the most responsible for the differences in the angle of view. Last edited by interested_observer; 07-20-2014 at 08:11 AM. |
These users Like interested_observer's post: |
Bookmarks |
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
bit, bowl, clouds, fisheye, image, images, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens, soup, view |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 8~16 UWA Lens (Mint, Near New) [Price Drop: 525] | joe.penn | Sold Items | 5 | 03-01-2013 05:48 AM |
Replace Kit Lens or Buy Sigma UWA. | Pheo | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 20 | 07-07-2012 10:41 PM |
Stitching as a substitute for UWA Lens? | GlennG | Digital Processing, Software, and Printing | 5 | 05-07-2011 02:49 AM |
DA* UWA lens??? | Loren E | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 11 | 02-12-2011 03:56 PM |
System comparison for weight, UWA and WR | juu | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 4 | 01-08-2010 02:43 PM |