fish eye lens- examples of images?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Joe, Apr 14, 2006.

  1. Joe

    Joe Guest

    I have a Nikon F100. I'm thinking of getting a fish eye lens, but of course
    they're expensive. So, I'm not sure how much I really want one- I'd love to
    see lots of examples of photos taken with one to see if that kind of
    photography interests me. In particular, I'd like to see such images taken
    within forests- as I'm a "professional forester". If anyone knows of any
    good fish eye images on the net, please post the URLs here.
     
    Joe, Apr 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Most affordable fisheyes are 3rd party, to that end:

    http://medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html
    http://medfmt.8k.com/third/wierd.html

    Generally about medium format but there is a lot about 35mm -- the
    usual gig being to adapt a 35mm fisheye adapter to an MF camera.
    http://medfmt.8k.com/bronfe.html
    Not to point out the obvious, but Google images for "fisheye".
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Apr 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Joe

    Don McC Guest

    Google Images search of "fish eye OR fisheye"
    http://tinyurl.com/hqqbc
     
    Don McC, Apr 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Joe

    no_name Guest


    http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=fisheye+lens&btnG=Search
     
    no_name, Apr 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Joe

    Matt Clara Guest


    Not _that_ great of a shot, but here's one:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=94537
    Actually, the shot is ok, it was just too "partly cloudy" that day for IR
    film. Thus, contrast is too high, and, in this case, the shadows dominate
    as a result. I don't use my fisheye all that often.
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 15, 2006
    #5
  6. Joe

    That_Rich Guest

    That_Rich, Apr 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Joe

    Skip M Guest

    Taken with a Sigma 15mm f2.8 EX fisheye:

    http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900666

    The image was taken to show some of the limitations of the lens on a Canon
    5D, and you can see that the edges are very soft.
    The problem with that fisheye on your camera is that the 1.5x crop will cut
    off much of the distorted area (if that's what you're looking for in the
    lens), leaving you with a pretty standard looking shot. This lens didn't
    come back into its own until we got the 5Ds to replace our 20Ds as our main
    cameras. However, Nikon does make a fisheye designed specifically for their
    1.5x crop cameras, the 10.5mm f2.8 ED AF DX, which sells for about $550.
     
    Skip M, Apr 15, 2006
    #7
  8. Joe

    Paul Furman Guest

    I think a fisheye is going to look very weird in a forest (curved trees)
    <http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=fisheye forest&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wi>
    but an ultra-wide rectilinear looks great in the woods, unlike with
    people & architecture, the distortion is unnoticeable in the woods.
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.ph...Area/Mt-Tam/2006-01-29-muir-woods&PG=1&PIC=1>
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.ph...rea/Mt-Tam/2006-01-29-muir-woods&PG=4&PIC=23>
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 15, 2006
    #8
  9. If the view is straight up it works,

    http://foto-friends.com/galerija/albums/userpics/10022/normal_891_9109.jpg

    I think fisheyes work best with geometrical subjects with radial lines --
    trees only geometer in the up and down direction which sort of puts a bit
    of a damper. A log jam might be fun.

    There are programs that turn fisheye pics into panoramas and/or rectilinear
    shots but I have no experience with them.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Apr 16, 2006
    #9
  10. Joe

    Gordon Moat Guest

    He could also get one of those Pelang (or something like that) former
    Soviet lenses. I think there is an 8 mm that goes for under $200 new.
    Should be interesting on a cropped sensor. Of course, using any fisheye
    is done because the distortion is wanted.

    On your 15mm shot, I wonder if you could get a straight horizon line by
    levelling the camera. Seems like this was taken from that park on
    Coronado, or was it somewhere else? If it was Coronado, seems like
    something closer to 35 mm would have been a tighter crop of the skyline.
     
    Gordon Moat, Apr 16, 2006
    #10
  11. Joe

    Skip M Guest

    Yep, taken from Centennial Park in Coronado, here's the shot at 35mm,
    http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900679
    And, indeed, it is tighter, but not tight enough. 70mm is tighter, but
    maybe too tight:
    http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900701
    Maybe 50mm would be better.
    I was shooting these to give an idea of the performance of my lenses, mostly
    zooms, on the 5D, not to actually shoot competent landscapes.
     
    Skip M, Apr 16, 2006
    #11
  12. Joe

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Actually, the 35 mm shot could work, maybe just moving the view more
    south. I figured they were test shots; the light and sky that day did
    not seem too great.

    Funny thing is that the GigaPXL Project shot of downtown was also from
    Coronado. He did not seem to be trying to shoot a competent landscape
    either. ;-)

    Definitely think downtown would be good for lens testing, though when
    the air is like it has been lately, and all the wind, tough to tell
    much. Hopefully should be somewhat more normal soon.
     
    Gordon Moat, Apr 17, 2006
    #12
  13. Joe

    Skip M Guest

    Weather should be good this week.
    I thought that that view would be good to test lenses, detail in the
    foreground, vertical lines of the buildings, and detail in the windows and
    such. I also shot the portico at Petco to test distortion, the bricks and
    I-beams used in the construction should, and did, show that fairly well.
     
    Skip M, Apr 17, 2006
    #13
  14. Joe

    Gordon Moat Guest

    I haven't tried that section of Petco yet. Since I need to do some tests
    with my 4x5, that might be a good spot. The view from Coronado is one
    area for downtown views, though there is also Shelter Island and Harbor
    Island. Of course, more nicer spots to take a break in Coronado than in
    those places.

    Considering how fast many building went up, some of those structures
    probably have more distortion than any of your lenses. My usual tests
    involve more light and colour, flare resistance, that sort of thing.
    Most modern lenses seem less than 1% distortion, though perhaps
    decentering due to quality control might be more common.

    Anyway, thought about you and Heather recently when I entered some B/W
    images at EAP. Sort of miss seeing both of your images up there. So I
    entered some of my own . . . on display 13 May. Perhaps I will catch up
    with you then.
     
    Gordon Moat, Apr 17, 2006
    #14
  15. Joe

    Tony Polson Guest


    That depends on your point of view. Using a fisheye lens is a very
    good way to avoid the light fall-off that is inherent in ultra-wide
    angle rectilinear lenses. Most fish eye lenses show a very even
    illumination compared to ultra wide angles, which can show as much as
    two to three stops of light fall-off..

    It can also be argued that using a fisheye lens avoids the distortion
    that is inherent in ultra-wide angle rectilinear lenses. Objects near
    the edges of the frame appear elongated if ultra-wide angle
    rectilinear lenses are used. With a fisheye lens they appear to be
    rendered at a size more in proportion with reality, albeit with
    straight lines away from the horizontal and vertical axes rendered as
    curved.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 17, 2006
    #15
  16. Joe

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Sure, there is correcting distortion later in post, and taking advantage
    of the illumination. I think the Pelang 8 mm is about the cheapest way
    to try this out. My personal widest choice is 20 mm, but not a fisheye
    lens. Just really not that often I want to compose something that wide,
    nor any wider.
     
    Gordon Moat, Apr 17, 2006
    #16
  17. Joe

    Skip M Guest

    For some reason the EAP has quit notifying me when they have a new show
    going up, so it makes it hard to get anything in there. I'm going to have
    to have a talk with them...
     
    Skip M, Apr 18, 2006
    #17
  18. Joe

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Yeah, they completely missed notifying me in January, though I was able
    to make special arrangements with it not being a juried exhibit. Good
    thing on that one, since the image sold.

    You probably remember our discussion on lead times prior to exhibits.
    Well, now it seems like there are one or two more weeks more on many
    shows from the time of drop-off until exhibit opening. It would be
    better if it was tow or three weeks from drop-off to exhibit opening.

    Anyway, I managed an Honorable Mention for one image. Got two images
    into the next show, maybe something might sell.
     
    Gordon Moat, Apr 18, 2006
    #18
  19. Joe

    BC Guest

    Light falloff may be common in ultra-wide angle rectilinear lenses, but
    it is by no means inherent. With proper design it is possible to
    achieve virtually flawless illumination uniformity in rectilinear
    lenses having a full field angle of 140 degrees or even more.

    Brian
     
    BC, Apr 19, 2006
    #19
  20. Joe

    Skip M Guest

    Congrats, Gordon on the HM...
     
    Skip M, Apr 20, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.