[JensE]

Yes, but I'm one of those strange people who doesn't care so much about accurate landscapes; I want fishiness in my fisheye lens.

I wouldn't call landscapes 'accurate', but yes, they do need a little help of straight structures at the edges for a pronounced effect.

Please do post a comparison to the Zenit 16mm when you get a chance.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by JensE; 01-18-2017 at 09:38 AM.

[Groucho]

The Samyang can definitely give pretty distorted images, though...







It's the centers that are different, I think; I'll have to get some comparisons one of these days, like I said.

[Scorpio71GR]

Exemplary for ... non-obvious fisheye photos?


These also don't play with the fisheye distortion, but shine through extreme wide angles. I really like the perpendicular textures/converging lines with two convergence points in the last one.

Thank you for the compliment. I used the 10-17 just for the extra field of view. I have the Sigma 8-16 but it was just too heavy to take this time. I was careful to keep the camera level. I also used Liveview and Composition Adjust to take some more distortion out. I did the final distortion adjustment in post. Not all the distortion was removed since doing so would have ruined the photo. The last shot was taken while walking back to my truck. I had already put my camera away but liked the lighting so I got it back out. Final processing was done in Topaz Clarity.

I agree with others and the cliff photo is exemplary. I wish we had some formations like that around here. Instead we flat land as far as the eye can see.

[WPRESTO]

Looking at images taken with the 10~17 @ 10mm and the 8~16 @ 8mm, I find the horizontal FOV at mid-height almost identical. The fish-eye seems primarily to add coverage in the corners, plus of course the the curved distortion. SO. IMHO, if you fully de-fish the Pentax 10~17 you'll get an image almost indistinguishable from one taken with the 8-16 @ 8mm. You can therefore capture pretty much the same image by: carrying less weight, taking the 10~17, but at the expense of considerable PP - - OR, save yourself the bother of PP but at the expense of transporting the greater weight and bulk of the 8~16, unless you want the F-E distortion as a composition element.

[goatsNdonkey]

The Samyang can definitely give pretty distorted images, though....

What it did to that ship is stupendous!

I get that there are ways to decrease some kinds of distortion with fisheye lenses, though that may often be by increasing the distortion of something else by choice of framing, But if someone complains about distortion when using a fisheye lens, isn't that like a diner saying that this or that type of fish tastes too "fishy." (Does anyone say a steak tastes too beefy?)

I get of course that their might be too much fisheye distortion for the way one wants to capture a subject. I get that different full-frame fisheye lenses might offer choices of how much and what kind of distortion to use, and making those lens choices are about creative decisions serving a picture.

But isn't the typical fisheye lens, by definition, a tool of distortion, imposing on the world, or drawing out from the world around us a kind of plasticity, a kind of previously unseen potential for change and movement? And don't people who want to flaunt their fisheye photos love that about the fisheye lens type?

Or is there something I am completely missing when people talk about de-fishing images or reducing the distortion like it's something to avoid?

[JensE]

I wish we had some formations like that around here. Instead we flat land as far as the eye can see.

Sorry, no fisheye shots from your area - had to keep an eye on weight to fit everything into the baggage limits when we picked up our daughter from Dowling after her high school exchange year last summer. She had already brought my 8-16mm, so only 'rectangular' UWA shots from that trip. But the dunes slightly north of Ludington are already amazing and Sleeping Bear Dunes spectacular and not too far for a weekend. Still have to work on the pictures from the UP. For sure there's nothing remotely comparing to the colors at the Lake Superior shoreline, or the Pictured Rocks, anywhere drivable from here in 6h.

---------- Post added 2017-01-18 at 13:39 ----------

Or is there something I am completely missing when people talk about de-fishing images or reducing the distortion like it's something to avoid?

Yup:

I want fishiness in my fisheye lens. I'm not a particular fan of UWA lenses and I feel like Samyang is trying to make the fisheye more UWA-friendly, which is not what I'm after.

We're trying to 'flaunt' their fishyness.

[Scorpio71GR]

Nordhouse Dunes is an amazingredient place. I used to go there a lot years ago. Unfortunately time is no longer my friend. The last time I hiked the dunes my asthma almost killed me. Its hell getting old. I grew up in Muskegon on Lake Michigan and I really miss being on the lake. This year I hope to get some camping up north along Lake Michigan.

I do use the 10-17 for actual fishe-eye shots but those shots are rare when the fisheye actually works. Defishing a shot for me essentially is clicking a button in Lightroom. No real work at all. Sometimes I will go back and do a few manual tweaks but that takes a few seconds. My 10-17 was the first autofocus lens I bought and I never have any intention to sell it. The Sigma 8-16 has its advantages over the 10-17, however size and weight are not two of them.

---

Last edited by Scorpio71GR; 01-18-2017 at 01:47 PM.

[JensE]

For everybody to try and find out how to connect this up with my previous picture of the Gautschgrotte:



The fisheye definitely challenged my spacial recognition abilities when I reviewed the pictures at home, the wet rock and falling water didn't want to fit together.

[Groucho]

What it did to that ship is stupendous!

It's something, all right. I'm not sure how I feel about that picture but it is something you couldn't do with a regular lens.

I get that there are ways to decrease some kinds of distortion with fisheye lenses, though that may often be by increasing the distortion of something else by choice of framing, But if someone complains about distortion when using a fisheye lens, isn't that like a diner saying that this or that type of fish tastes too "fishy." (Does anyone say a steak tastes too beefy?)

I get of course that their might be too much fisheye distortion for the way one wants to capture a subject. I get that different full-frame fisheye lenses might offer choices of how much and what kind of distortion to use, and making those lens choices are about creative decisions serving a picture.

But isn't the typical fisheye lens, by definition, a tool of distortion, imposing on the world, or drawing out from the world around us a kind of plasticity, a kind of previously unseen potential for change and movement? And don't people who want to flaunt their fisheye photos love that about the fisheye lens type?

Or is there something I am completely missing when people talk about de-fishing images or reducing the distortion like it's something to avoid?

Some people just don't like the fishy look (no account for taste, I know! ) but a defished fisheye shot can often be as wide or wider than a rectilinear UWA lens... and yet I want more fishiness! I love the distorted look, different than we'd see with our own eyes, and I love how the slightest change in perspective can make for a very different photo with a fisheye.

I also like that you can do really different things to create different "looks", like this shot where there's a bunch cropped off the bottom, putting what's normally in the center at the bottom of the image: (10-17mm on my old K-7)

[PenPusher]

Over the last few days I have worked my way steadily through this thread, I have to say that I have been very surprised, I had not realised how versatile and useful a fish-eye lens could be, particularly the 10-17mm as you can ring the changes to suit the occasion. I had assumed, quite wrongly, that it was good for only the occasional serious shot and the odd comic one now and then. How wrong can you be, I am now seriously considering this lens instead of the DA 15 as my next purchase.

Thank you all for some fine photographs and for opening my eyes.

[stevebrot]

The fisheye definitely challenged my spacial recognition abilities when I reviewed the pictures at home, the wet rock and falling water didn't want to fit together.

Ha! Ha! I guess not! Very astute observation


Steve

[JensE]

Ha! Ha! I guess not! Very astute observation


Steve

Luckily, I had recorded the resolution of that physical illusion as well in another fisheye photo - which completes the mini-series of the 'grotto'.

[WPRESTO]

Here's A NO-NO = architecture with a fish-eye, but I wanted to include the graffiti on the balcony rail as well as much of the church floor as possible, with good focus on both.

[JensE]

Here's A NO-NO = architecture with a fish-eye,

Really? It can give a good sense of space, best with symmetric compositions. E.g., I found the church in jwc77's post fairly impressive (sans the busy foreground).

... graffiti on the balcony rail as well as much of the church floor ... with good focus on both

Hasn't worked out too well. Sadly, the 8mm Samyang fisheye does not have any depth-of-field indication. The little pocket hyperfocal distance diagram in my bag, which I made for such situations, tells me to roughly focus on 0.5m to get 0.25m to infinity (which by all practical means the other wall is) in focus at f/8. As shot at f/5.6, setting focus at 70cm, you have to have 35cm distance to keep the foreground acceptably sharp. Looks much closer to me.

[gofour3]

Here's A NO-NO = architecture with a fish-eye

Yes-Yes, I use my fish-eyes for architecture shots all the time, puts a nice spin on some buildings!

Here's two with my Takumar 6x7 35/4.5 taken with my 6x7. (Film is Ilford SFX 200 using the built-in red filter) The 6x7 fish-eye suffers with flair big time, but it's still a great FE.





Phil.