|
|
Help!! Looking Manual (or Auto) 12-14mm Fisheye full format 35mmlowest F# possible
I can find the Nikkor 14mm f2.8 but I'd REALLY like something with fair to excellent image quality (point spread OK) AND a low F# ... lower than 2.8. HELP!?? Vintage lenses OK.
|
Help!! Looking Manual (or Auto) 12-14mm Fisheye full format 35mm lowest F# possible
|
Help!! Looking Manual (or Auto) 12-14mm Fisheye full format 35mmlowest F# possible
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 12:51:19 PM UTC-6, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-15 09:25:16 -0700, said: HELP!?? Vintage lenses OK. Why do you need a "fish-eye" faster than f/2.8? I'm trying some "creative" wide/ultrawide starry sky imaging on some digital cameras and I wanted to gather as much light as possible. I appreciate your insight on fisheye vs. uwfov and have been experiencing these design differences first hand. I've currently acquired used copies of the Nikkor 10.5, 14 and the 16. I was led to believe that Schneider, Voigtlander, Leitz and perhaps Century all made extremely low F# UW or Fisheye designs in years past but I'm having a tough time finding much more than casual allusions to such.. and I'm not even sure they made them for FX full format cameras. The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is not a "fish-eye" it is an ultra-wide angle lens. There is more to a "fish-eye" lens than just being a wide angle. Typically the idea is to capture a 180 degree field of view and that is usually attained by a combination specialized lens construction imparting a spherical distortion beyond that imparted by an ultra-wide angle. I seriously doubt that you will find a "fish-eye" lens faster than a f/2.8 as it is not usually needed. Nikon has two dedicated "fish-eye" lenses, one DX & one FX. The Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 is their current DX "fish-eye" offering. Their FX "fish-eye" is the 16mm f/2.8. http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...%252F2.8D.html There are several other dedicated "fish-eye" offerings such as this one from Tokina. http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/pro...afdxnhfisheye/ -- Regards, Savageduck |
Help!! Looking Manual (or Auto) 12-14mm Fisheye full format 35mm lowest F# possible
On 2013-06-16 13:11:29 -0700, Robert Coe said:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:51:19 -0700, Savageduck wrote: : On 2013-06-15 09:25:16 -0700, said: : : I can find the Nikkor 14mm f2.8 but I'd REALLY like something with fair : to excellent image quality (point spread OK) AND a low F# ... lower : than 2.8. HELP!?? Vintage lenses OK. : : Why do you need a "fish-eye" faster than f/2.8? : : The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is not a "fish-eye" it is an ultra-wide angle : lens. There is more to a "fish-eye" lens than just being a wide angle. : Typically the idea is to capture a 180 degree field of view and that is : usually attained by a combination specialized lens construction : imparting a spherical distortion beyond that imparted by an ultra-wide : angle. I'm far from an expert in optics, but I was under the impression that it's the other way around. I.e., an ultra-wide-angle rectilinear lens requires more drastic corrections, because ultra-wide lenses naturally tend to be fisheyes. Am I misinformed? (The Wikipedia article is vague on that point and can be read either way.) Bob I don't own a fish-eye, but I have my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which at best is going to give me a 104-84 degree angle of view, and it is no fish-eye, but is well described as an ultra-wide angle. My expectation of a true fish-eye lens would be to get as close to a 180 degree angle of view as possible, and deal with the associated distortion. The Tokina 10-17mm fish-eye meets those expectations with a 180-100 degree angle of view. The AF Fisheye-Nikkor 16mm provides a 180 degree AoV on a FF DSLR, and 107 on a DX DSLR. The AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G gives the DX Nikons that 180 degree AoV. As for correction, I guess that depends on what exactly you mean to correct. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Help!! Looking Manual (or Auto) 12-14mm Fisheye full format 35mm lowest F# possible
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:52:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: : On 2013-06-16 13:11:29 -0700, Robert Coe said: : : On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:51:19 -0700, Savageduck : wrote: : : On 2013-06-15 09:25:16 -0700, said: : : : : I can find the Nikkor 14mm f2.8 but I'd REALLY like something with fair : : to excellent image quality (point spread OK) AND a low F# ... lower : : than 2.8. HELP!?? Vintage lenses OK. : : : : Why do you need a "fish-eye" faster than f/2.8? : : : : The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is not a "fish-eye" it is an ultra-wide angle : : lens. There is more to a "fish-eye" lens than just being a wide angle. : : Typically the idea is to capture a 180 degree field of view and that is : : usually attained by a combination specialized lens construction : : imparting a spherical distortion beyond that imparted by an ultra-wide : : angle. : : I'm far from an expert in optics, but I was under the impression that it's the : other way around. I.e., an ultra-wide-angle rectilinear lens requires more : drastic corrections, because ultra-wide lenses naturally tend to be fisheyes. : Am I misinformed? (The Wikipedia article is vague on that point and can be : read either way.) : : Bob : : I don't own a fish-eye, but I have my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which at : best is going to give me a 104-84 degree angle of view, and it is no : fish-eye, but is well described as an ultra-wide angle. My expectation : of a true fish-eye lens would be to get as close to a 180 degree angle : of view as possible, and deal with the associated distortion. : : The Tokina 10-17mm fish-eye meets those expectations with a 180-100 : degree angle of view. What you're saying is that the 11-16 is a rectilinear lens, while the 10-17 isn't. I'm suggesting that the 10-17 was probably easier to design and that the more UW an UW lens is, the closer it is to a true fisheye by default. I've always understood that to be the case, but I'm not a lens designer. Bob |
Help!! Looking Manual (or Auto) 12-14mm Fisheye full format 35mm lowest F# possible
On 2013-06-18 19:52:12 -0700, Robert Coe said:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:52:11 -0700, Savageduck wrote: : On 2013-06-16 13:11:29 -0700, Robert Coe said: : : On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:51:19 -0700, Savageduck : wrote: : : On 2013-06-15 09:25:16 -0700, said: : : : : I can find the Nikkor 14mm f2.8 but I'd REALLY like something with fair : : to excellent image quality (point spread OK) AND a low F# ... lower : : than 2.8. HELP!?? Vintage lenses OK. : : : : Why do you need a "fish-eye" faster than f/2.8? : : : : The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is not a "fish-eye" it is an ultra-wide angle : : lens. There is more to a "fish-eye" lens than just being a wide angle. : : Typically the idea is to capture a 180 degree field of view and that is : : usually attained by a combination specialized lens construction : : imparting a spherical distortion beyond that imparted by an ultra-wide : : angle. : : I'm far from an expert in optics, but I was under the impression that it's the : other way around. I.e., an ultra-wide-angle rectilinear lens requires more : drastic corrections, because ultra-wide lenses naturally tend to be fisheyes. : Am I misinformed? (The Wikipedia article is vague on that point and can be : read either way.) : : Bob : : I don't own a fish-eye, but I have my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which at : best is going to give me a 104-84 degree angle of view, and it is no : fish-eye, but is well described as an ultra-wide angle. My expectation : of a true fish-eye lens would be to get as close to a 180 degree angle : of view as possible, and deal with the associated distortion. : : The Tokina 10-17mm fish-eye meets those expectations with a 180-100 : degree angle of view. What you're saying is that the 11-16 is a rectilinear lens, while the 10-17 isn't. I'm suggesting that the 10-17 was probably easier to design and that the more UW an UW lens is, the closer it is to a true fisheye by default. I've always understood that to be the case, but I'm not a lens designer. Bob The 10-17mm FE was probably easier to design, and certainly the rectilinear nature of the 11-16mm is complex and performs very well within its design criteria. ....and yet the ultra-wide 11-16mm is 76 degrees in AoV away from being labeled a fish-eye. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Help!! Looking Manual (or Auto) 12-14mm Fisheye full format 35mm lowest F# possible
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:18:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: : On 2013-06-18 19:52:12 -0700, Robert Coe said: : : On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:52:11 -0700, Savageduck : wrote: : : On 2013-06-16 13:11:29 -0700, Robert Coe said: : : : : On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:51:19 -0700, Savageduck : : wrote: : : : On 2013-06-15 09:25:16 -0700, said: : : : : : : I can find the Nikkor 14mm f2.8 but I'd REALLY like something with fair : : : to excellent image quality (point spread OK) AND a low F# ... lower : : : than 2.8. HELP!?? Vintage lenses OK. : : : : : : Why do you need a "fish-eye" faster than f/2.8? : : : : : : The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is not a "fish-eye" it is an ultra-wide angle : : : lens. There is more to a "fish-eye" lens than just being a wide angle. : : : Typically the idea is to capture a 180 degree field of view and that is : : : usually attained by a combination specialized lens construction : : : imparting a spherical distortion beyond that imparted by an ultra-wide : : : angle. : : : : I'm far from an expert in optics, but I was under the impression : that it's the : : other way around. I.e., an ultra-wide-angle rectilinear lens requires more : : drastic corrections, because ultra-wide lenses naturally tend to be : fisheyes. : : Am I misinformed? (The Wikipedia article is vague on that point and can be : : read either way.) : : : : Bob : : : : I don't own a fish-eye, but I have my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which at : : best is going to give me a 104-84 degree angle of view, and it is no : : fish-eye, but is well described as an ultra-wide angle. My expectation : : of a true fish-eye lens would be to get as close to a 180 degree angle : : of view as possible, and deal with the associated distortion. : : : : The Tokina 10-17mm fish-eye meets those expectations with a 180-100 : : degree angle of view. : : What you're saying is that the 11-16 is a rectilinear lens, while the 10-17 : isn't. I'm suggesting that the 10-17 was probably easier to design and that : the more UW an UW lens is, the closer it is to a true fisheye by default. I've : always understood that to be the case, but I'm not a lens designer. : : Bob : : The 10-17mm FE was probably easier to design, and certainly the : rectilinear nature of the 11-16mm is complex and performs very well : within its design criteria. : : ...and yet the ultra-wide 11-16mm is 76 degrees in AoV away from being : labeled a fish-eye. |
Help!! Looking Manual (or Auto) 12-14mm Fisheye full format 35mm lowest F# possible
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:18:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: : On 2013-06-18 19:52:12 -0700, Robert Coe said: : : On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:52:11 -0700, Savageduck : wrote: : : On 2013-06-16 13:11:29 -0700, Robert Coe said: : : : : On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:51:19 -0700, Savageduck : : wrote: : : : On 2013-06-15 09:25:16 -0700, said: : : : : : : I can find the Nikkor 14mm f2.8 but I'd REALLY like something with fair : : : to excellent image quality (point spread OK) AND a low F# ... lower : : : than 2.8. HELP!?? Vintage lenses OK. : : : : : : Why do you need a "fish-eye" faster than f/2.8? : : : : : : The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is not a "fish-eye" it is an ultra-wide angle : : : lens. There is more to a "fish-eye" lens than just being a wide angle. : : : Typically the idea is to capture a 180 degree field of view and that is : : : usually attained by a combination specialized lens construction : : : imparting a spherical distortion beyond that imparted by an ultra-wide : : : angle. : : : : I'm far from an expert in optics, but I was under the impression : that it's the : : other way around. I.e., an ultra-wide-angle rectilinear lens requires more : : drastic corrections, because ultra-wide lenses naturally tend to be : fisheyes. : : Am I misinformed? (The Wikipedia article is vague on that point and can be : : read either way.) : : : : Bob : : : : I don't own a fish-eye, but I have my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which at : : best is going to give me a 104-84 degree angle of view, and it is no : : fish-eye, but is well described as an ultra-wide angle. My expectation : : of a true fish-eye lens would be to get as close to a 180 degree angle : : of view as possible, and deal with the associated distortion. : : : : The Tokina 10-17mm fish-eye meets those expectations with a 180-100 : : degree angle of view. : : What you're saying is that the 11-16 is a rectilinear lens, while the 10-17 : isn't. I'm suggesting that the 10-17 was probably easier to design and that : the more UW an UW lens is, the closer it is to a true fisheye by default. I've : always understood that to be the case, but I'm not a lens designer. : : Bob : : The 10-17mm FE was probably easier to design, and certainly the : rectilinear nature of the 11-16mm is complex and performs very well : within its design criteria. : : ...and yet the ultra-wide 11-16mm is 76 degrees in AoV away from being : labeled a fish-eye. A rectilinear lens would no more be labeled a fisheye than a cardboard box would be labeled a beachball. And that's true no matter how wide the cardboard box is. Bob |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com