Fisheyes and 16mm?

Kitty · 01-23-2011, 12:31 PM

I am wondering about the lenses such as the Pentax 16-45 f/4 which don't say fisheye. I looked at samples with this lens at 16mm. So this lens can get that wide without appearing distorted in a fisheye way? But others are 16mm but very much fisheye because people might prefer to have that distortion? I would love to save the PP work and get the one that won't distort, I don't prefer fisheye unless it's just for fun.

clockwork247 · 01-23-2011, 12:39 PM

you are on a crop sensor, 16 is more like 24mm on ff which is no where near fish eyes, 16mm fish eyes are mostly for ff camera

Kitty · 01-23-2011, 12:46 PM

Oh, I was wanting a lens that goes as low as possible without distorting. Or I don't mind if it distorts a bit at the end, but I know I'm getting the widest I can. So, that means this 16-45 isn't the best I can get, I need the 10-24 or so? I might get a couple primes instead but I am just trying to figure out the numbers. (Also I am curious about buying a fisheye but doing PP, to get wider than I can without PP.)

clockwork247 · 01-23-2011, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Kitty

Oh, I was wanting a lens that goes as low as possible without distorting. Or I don't mind if it distorts a bit at the end, but I know I'm getting the widest I can. So, that means this 16-45 isn't the best I can get, I need the 10-24 or so? I might get a couple primes instead but I am just trying to figure out the numbers. (Also I am curious about buying a fisheye but doing PP, to get wider than I can without PP.)

how about this?
8mm f/3.5 Fisheye Lens: Samyang, Pro-Optic, Bower

sgtkashim · 01-23-2011, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by clockwork247

how about this?
8mm f/3.5 Fisheye Lens: Samyang, Pro-Optic, Bower

I think Kitty wanted it without distortion...

But that is indeed a good alternative, just needs some extra processing. This guy is worth a read - Fisheye to Rectilinear Conversion - photo.net

SpecialK · 01-23-2011, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Kitty

Oh, I was wanting a lens that goes as low as possible without distorting.

The Pentax 12-24, Tamron 10-24 or Sigma 8-16.

**Just1MoreDave** · 01-23-2011, 03:04 PM

Fisheye lenses must be allowed to break the rules when it comes to focal length measurement. I don't know exactly why. If you look at field of view in degrees, the Pentax DA 10-17mm fisheye zoom has the same field of view at 17mm as the Pentax DA 12-24mm f4 zoom does at 12mm.

To make up for not knowing that explanation, I offer these photos. The first is with the Pentax 16-45mm zoom at 16mm. The second is with a Sigma 16mm fisheye lens meant for film use. Because I'm using it on an APSC-sized sensor, the sensor only sees the center of the lens and misses out somewhat on the fisheye effect.

The same lens used on film, with a subject that shows the distortion:

Last edited by Just1MoreDave; 01-23-2011 at 05:49 PM.

Ira · 01-23-2011, 03:50 PM

The Pentax 10-17 is outstanding, because it only fisheyes at the widest end (which is spectacular), but gives you extremely decent "regular" shots at 14.

And 14 is damn, damn wide.

sgtkashim · 01-23-2011, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

Fisheye lenses must be allowed to break the rules when it comes to focal length measurement. I don't know exactly why. If you look at field of view in degrees, the Pentax DA 10-17mm fisheye zoom has the same field of view at 17mm as the Pentax DA 12-24mm f4 zoom does at 12mm.

To make up for not knowing that explanation, I offer these photos. The first is with the Pentax 16-45mm zoom at 16mm. The second is with a Sigma 16mm fisheye lens meant for film use. Because I'm using it on an APSC-sized sensor, the sensor only sees the center of the lens and misses out somewhat on the fisheye effect.

The same lens used on film, with a sibject that shows the distortion:

They're not "breaking the rules" - they're playing by a different set of rules. There are different "projections" a lens can use, each having its unique strengths and weaknesses. Think of map projections - different types of maps use a different representation. Some keep relative sizes correct, while others keep border lines straighter. Same issue with lenses. Rectilinear lenses do a better job of keeping straight lines straight, while fisheyes using stereographic projection gives a wider view, but curves straight lines.

This explains some of it.
Fisheye lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RioRico · 01-23-2011, 04:50 PM

Back to OP's question: 16-45 ain't very wide on an APS-C sensor. I've not tried any 8-16 nor 10-20 nor 12-24 nor the estimable 14 and 15's, but I currently own:

* DA10-17 fisheye zoom (and it's fishy everywhere)
* Tamron 10-24 (not fisheye, but distorting at its widest)
* Vemar 12/8 (fishy on FF; my copy is bad on APS-C)
* Zenitar 16/2.8 (fishy on FF, not so fishy on APS-C)
* DA18-55 and 18-250 (not fishy; nearly as wide as 16-45)
* Kenko (Hoya) 180 Degree Fisheye Adapter (ultra-fishy)

As mentioned, fisheyes and rectilinears use different projections. Various fisheye projections exist too, giving full-circle or various frame-filling images. Glass that's mildly fishy on APS-C, like the Zenitar-16, or the DA10-17@16mm, can be easily defished in PP without losing much IQ.

I tend to use the Zenitar 16/2.8 indoors because it's noticeably faster than my other glass in that neighborhood. I use the DA10-17 if I want widest FOV and/or strange angles and curves. I use my new T10-24 for wide FOV with least distortion (although mine is a little soft in one corner -- I may go for a replacement). I need to adjust the Vemar 12/8 a bit -- more on that another time. And I use the Kenko 180 on a 35-70 or 28-80 zoom, with full-circle at around 35-40mm and frame-filling from around 60-80mm -- that's a good test-bed for projections, although it's soft around the edges.

Options for wide shots depend on 1) how wide? and 2) how distorted? and 3) how much money? Aw hell, it's only money, eh? Grows on shrubs, eh?

SpecialK · 01-23-2011, 08:43 PM

I like to put this up in appropriate threads. I only wish I had done the 10-17 at 10mm...

Ron Kruger · 01-23-2011, 09:20 PM

I've been testing the 10-17. It's very fishy at 10. Generally, I'm not pleased with the quality overall. For a zoom, I believe the Sigma 10-20 is best. For a prime, the DA 15 Limited is the best lens I've ever used or owned. It's coated in magic. Very little bending, which is only noticable if you get a verticle object on the far edges.
I still want a fisheye and will probably get a Bower 10mm or 8mm at half the price.

Kitty · 01-24-2011, 03:19 AM

Most of the options mentioned seem great but too expensive for me. The only affordable one seems to be the Pentax 10-17 and then it could use defishing in PP most of the time. I'll probably wait and try to get a good deal on a 10-24 someday, as it's not that much more expensive, and I like it going higher b/c my main lens is 28-75.

I wish there were more primes that were cheap, even if they are older MF. I don't see any in the database below 17mm that are reasonably priced, they seem to cost almost as much as the 10-17.

So, for a related question, since I can't afford the wideangle yet (and might buy another lens, like a 75-200, first) -- would it look good to stitch 2 or 3 pics together in CS3? For example, if I was trying to shoot that same Century21 building with my 28-75mm lens. Would my end result be nearly the same, better, worse than shooting at 10mm, 12mm, 14mm, 16mm? I am guessing I'd get the other kind of distortion which is sort of like reverse of fisheye distortion? Especially the higher number I am using so shooting at 28mm is worse than if I had a 24mm or 17mm to shoot with?

cats_five · 01-24-2011, 08:39 AM

Y'no Kitty, you keep asking us about another bit of kit. If you have a camera and a lens I'd go out and take pictures until I find the kit is stopping me 'create my vision'. Now having had SLR cameras before (both film and digital) that meant I came to the K7 with a good idea what extras I needed, beyond memory cards and a spare battery that is. In fact I had some of them - I didn't sell them with the E510.

But so far as I know you've not got an SLR background. Maybe a lot of playing before you buy lots of extras might be worthwhile?

sgtkashim · 01-24-2011, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Kitty

Most of the options mentioned seem great but too expensive for me. The only affordable one seems to be the Pentax 10-17 and then it could use defishing in PP most of the time. I'll probably wait and try to get a good deal on a 10-24 someday, as it's not that much more expensive, and I like it going higher b/c my main lens is 28-75.

I wish there were more primes that were cheap, even if they are older MF. I don't see any in the database below 17mm that are reasonably priced, they seem to cost almost as much as the 10-17.

So, for a related question, since I can't afford the wideangle yet (and might buy another lens, like a 75-200, first) -- would it look good to stitch 2 or 3 pics together in CS3? For example, if I was trying to shoot that same Century21 building with my 28-75mm lens. Would my end result be nearly the same, better, worse than shooting at 10mm, 12mm, 14mm, 16mm? I am guessing I'd get the other kind of distortion which is sort of like reverse of fisheye distortion? Especially the higher number I am using so shooting at 28mm is worse than if I had a 24mm or 17mm to shoot with?

Stitching workds great. I've attached an example - this is a panorama I shot with an old 28mm prime. The one issue with stitching is you're limited to rather static objects - you can't have objects moving from frame to frame.
RE this pic - I could have included another row of the rocks close - that would have given it a more normal aspect ratio.

You also get a bit of perspective distortion (it looks a little curved...) unless you shoot off an L bracket. The image above suffers from this - there was no bend in that river when I shot it. They make special brackets that mount in the tripod to let you rotate around the lens' front element, rather than the camera axis.

Jumping back to your original question a bit - what is your goal for this lens?
What shots do you want to take that you've been unable to get?

01-23-2011, 12:31 PM	#1
Kitty Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 102	Fisheyes and 16mm? I am wondering about the lenses such as the Pentax 16-45 f/4 which don't say fisheye. I looked at samples with this lens at 16mm. So this lens can get that wide without appearing distorted in a fisheye way? But others are 16mm but very much fisheye because people might prefer to have that distortion? I would love to save the PP work and get the one that won't distort, I don't prefer fisheye unless it's just for fun.

01-24-2011, 03:19 AM	#13
Kitty Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 102 Original Poster	Most of the options mentioned seem great but too expensive for me. The only affordable one seems to be the Pentax 10-17 and then it could use defishing in PP most of the time. I'll probably wait and try to get a good deal on a 10-24 someday, as it's not that much more expensive, and I like it going higher b/c my main lens is 28-75. I wish there were more primes that were cheap, even if they are older MF. I don't see any in the database below 17mm that are reasonably priced, they seem to cost almost as much as the 10-17. So, for a related question, since I can't afford the wideangle yet (and might buy another lens, like a 75-200, first) -- would it look good to stitch 2 or 3 pics together in CS3? For example, if I was trying to shoot that same Century21 building with my 28-75mm lens. Would my end result be nearly the same, better, worse than shooting at 10mm, 12mm, 14mm, 16mm? I am guessing I'd get the other kind of distortion which is sort of like reverse of fisheye distortion? Especially the higher number I am using so shooting at 28mm is worse than if I had a 24mm or 17mm to shoot with? Last edited by Kitty; 01-24-2011 at 03:24 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
pentax fisheyes...	insulinguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	10-07-2009 10:13 AM
What Fisheyes are available to K10?	gozerthegozarian	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	10-21-2008 01:28 PM
fisheyes make you seasick?	nostatic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	02-21-2008 07:16 PM
Fisheyes	AV82GOLF	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	10-19-2007 12:31 PM
Fisheyes - Zenitar vs Pentax 10-17?	Groucho	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	07-05-2007 06:03 AM

01-23-2011, 12:39 PM	#2
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	you are on a crop sensor, 16 is more like 24mm on ff which is no where near fish eyes, 16mm fish eyes are mostly for ff camera

01-23-2011, 12:46 PM	#3
Kitty Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 102 Original Poster	Oh, I was wanting a lens that goes as low as possible without distorting. Or I don't mind if it distorts a bit at the end, but I know I'm getting the widest I can. So, that means this 16-45 isn't the best I can get, I need the 10-24 or so? I might get a couple primes instead but I am just trying to figure out the numbers. (Also I am curious about buying a fisheye but doing PP, to get wider than I can without PP.)

01-23-2011, 12:50 PM	#4
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	Originally posted by Kitty Oh, I was wanting a lens that goes as low as possible without distorting. Or I don't mind if it distorts a bit at the end, but I know I'm getting the widest I can. So, that means this 16-45 isn't the best I can get, I need the 10-24 or so? I might get a couple primes instead but I am just trying to figure out the numbers. (Also I am curious about buying a fisheye but doing PP, to get wider than I can without PP.) how about this? 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye Lens: Samyang, Pro-Optic, Bower

01-23-2011, 02:08 PM	#5
sgtkashim Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 90	Originally posted by clockwork247 how about this? 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye Lens: Samyang, Pro-Optic, Bower I think Kitty wanted it without distortion... But that is indeed a good alternative, just needs some extra processing. This guy is worth a read - Fisheye to Rectilinear Conversion - photo.net

01-23-2011, 02:12 PM	#6
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Originally posted by Kitty Oh, I was wanting a lens that goes as low as possible without distorting. The Pentax 12-24, Tamron 10-24 or Sigma 8-16.

01-23-2011, 03:04 PM	#7
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Fisheye lenses must be allowed to break the rules when it comes to focal length measurement. I don't know exactly why. If you look at field of view in degrees, the Pentax DA 10-17mm fisheye zoom has the same field of view at 17mm as the Pentax DA 12-24mm f4 zoom does at 12mm. To make up for not knowing that explanation, I offer these photos. The first is with the Pentax 16-45mm zoom at 16mm. The second is with a Sigma 16mm fisheye lens meant for film use. Because I'm using it on an APSC-sized sensor, the sensor only sees the center of the lens and misses out somewhat on the fisheye effect. The same lens used on film, with a subject that shows the distortion: Last edited by Just1MoreDave; 01-23-2011 at 05:49 PM.

01-23-2011, 03:50 PM	#8
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	The Pentax 10-17 is outstanding, because it only fisheyes at the widest end (which is spectacular), but gives you extremely decent "regular" shots at 14. And 14 is damn, damn wide.

01-23-2011, 03:58 PM	#9
sgtkashim Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 90	Originally posted by Just1MoreDave Fisheye lenses must be allowed to break the rules when it comes to focal length measurement. I don't know exactly why. If you look at field of view in degrees, the Pentax DA 10-17mm fisheye zoom has the same field of view at 17mm as the Pentax DA 12-24mm f4 zoom does at 12mm. To make up for not knowing that explanation, I offer these photos. The first is with the Pentax 16-45mm zoom at 16mm. The second is with a Sigma 16mm fisheye lens meant for film use. Because I'm using it on an APSC-sized sensor, the sensor only sees the center of the lens and misses out somewhat on the fisheye effect. The same lens used on film, with a sibject that shows the distortion: They're not "breaking the rules" - they're playing by a different set of rules. There are different "projections" a lens can use, each having its unique strengths and weaknesses. Think of map projections - different types of maps use a different representation. Some keep relative sizes correct, while others keep border lines straighter. Same issue with lenses. Rectilinear lenses do a better job of keeping straight lines straight, while fisheyes using stereographic projection gives a wider view, but curves straight lines. This explains some of it. Fisheye lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

01-23-2011, 04:50 PM	#10
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Back to OP's question: 16-45 ain't very wide on an APS-C sensor. I've not tried any 8-16 nor 10-20 nor 12-24 nor the estimable 14 and 15's, but I currently own: * DA10-17 fisheye zoom (and it's fishy everywhere) * Tamron 10-24 (not fisheye, but distorting at its widest) * Vemar 12/8 (fishy on FF; my copy is bad on APS-C) * Zenitar 16/2.8 (fishy on FF, not so fishy on APS-C) * DA18-55 and 18-250 (not fishy; nearly as wide as 16-45) * Kenko (Hoya) 180 Degree Fisheye Adapter (ultra-fishy) As mentioned, fisheyes and rectilinears use different projections. Various fisheye projections exist too, giving full-circle or various frame-filling images. Glass that's mildly fishy on APS-C, like the Zenitar-16, or the DA10-17@16mm, can be easily defished in PP without losing much IQ. I tend to use the Zenitar 16/2.8 indoors because it's noticeably faster than my other glass in that neighborhood. I use the DA10-17 if I want widest FOV and/or strange angles and curves. I use my new T10-24 for wide FOV with least distortion (although mine is a little soft in one corner -- I may go for a replacement). I need to adjust the Vemar 12/8 a bit -- more on that another time. And I use the Kenko 180 on a 35-70 or 28-80 zoom, with full-circle at around 35-40mm and frame-filling from around 60-80mm -- that's a good test-bed for projections, although it's soft around the edges. Options for wide shots depend on 1) how wide? and 2) how distorted? and 3) how much money? Aw hell, it's only money, eh? Grows on shrubs, eh?

01-23-2011, 08:43 PM	#11
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	I like to put this up in appropriate threads. I only wish I had done the 10-17 at 10mm...

01-23-2011, 09:20 PM	#12
Ron Kruger Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 534	I've been testing the 10-17. It's very fishy at 10. Generally, I'm not pleased with the quality overall. For a zoom, I believe the Sigma 10-20 is best. For a prime, the DA 15 Limited is the best lens I've ever used or owned. It's coated in magic. Very little bending, which is only noticable if you get a verticle object on the far edges. I still want a fisheye and will probably get a Bower 10mm or 8mm at half the price.

01-24-2011, 08:39 AM	#14
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835	Y'no Kitty, you keep asking us about another bit of kit. If you have a camera and a lens I'd go out and take pictures until I find the kit is stopping me 'create my vision'. Now having had SLR cameras before (both film and digital) that meant I came to the K7 with a good idea what extras I needed, beyond memory cards and a spare battery that is. In fact I had some of them - I didn't sell them with the E510. But so far as I know you've not got an SLR background. Maybe a lot of playing before you buy lots of extras might be worthwhile?

01-24-2011, 09:18 AM	#15
sgtkashim Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 90	Originally posted by Kitty Most of the options mentioned seem great but too expensive for me. The only affordable one seems to be the Pentax 10-17 and then it could use defishing in PP most of the time. I'll probably wait and try to get a good deal on a 10-24 someday, as it's not that much more expensive, and I like it going higher b/c my main lens is 28-75. I wish there were more primes that were cheap, even if they are older MF. I don't see any in the database below 17mm that are reasonably priced, they seem to cost almost as much as the 10-17. So, for a related question, since I can't afford the wideangle yet (and might buy another lens, like a 75-200, first) -- would it look good to stitch 2 or 3 pics together in CS3? For example, if I was trying to shoot that same Century21 building with my 28-75mm lens. Would my end result be nearly the same, better, worse than shooting at 10mm, 12mm, 14mm, 16mm? I am guessing I'd get the other kind of distortion which is sort of like reverse of fisheye distortion? Especially the higher number I am using so shooting at 28mm is worse than if I had a 24mm or 17mm to shoot with? Stitching workds great. I've attached an example - this is a panorama I shot with an old 28mm prime. The one issue with stitching is you're limited to rather static objects - you can't have objects moving from frame to frame. RE this pic - I could have included another row of the rocks close - that would have given it a more normal aspect ratio. You also get a bit of perspective distortion (it looks a little curved...) unless you shoot off an L bracket. The image above suffers from this - there was no bend in that river when I shot it. They make special brackets that mount in the tripod to let you rotate around the lens' front element, rather than the camera axis. Jumping back to your original question a bit - what is your goal for this lens? What shots do you want to take that you've been unable to get?