Thread
:
Help!! Looking Manual (or Auto) 12-14mm Fisheye full format 35mmlowest F# possible
View Single Post
#
9
June 20th 13, 02:11 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
Posts: 4,901
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
Robert Coe
View Public Profile
View message headers
Find all posts by Robert Coe
Find all threads started by Robert Coe