A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Help!! Looking Manual (or Auto) 12-14mm Fisheye full format 35mmlowest F# possible



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 15th 13, 05:25 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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.
  #4  
Old June 17th 13, 02:45 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
John K ABQ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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


  #5  
Old June 17th 13, 05:52 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

  #6  
Old June 19th 13, 03:52 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default 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
  #7  
Old June 19th 13, 05:18 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

  #8  
Old June 20th 13, 02:07 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default 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.
  #9  
Old June 20th 13, 02:11 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame Fisheye on a DX sensor Bob Digital SLR Cameras 4 May 16th 08 03:40 PM
Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding digital vs. Medium Format film Progressiveabsolution Digital Photography 15 September 17th 06 11:22 PM
A Fisheye adapter for Medium Format? Ronin Medium Format Photography Equipment 8 October 13th 04 03:32 AM
A Fisheye for Large Format? Ronin Large Format Photography Equipment 18 October 11th 04 12:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.