Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Fisheye versus UWA

  1. #1

    Default Fisheye versus UWA

    Hi Folks

    Juz a thot.

    If u are concern with the weight of the lens (UWA > Fisheye), price of the lens (UWA > Fisheye) and most of the time u post process your images, wld u consider buying a fisheye instead of UWA and de-fish the images taken?

    Tks & Rgds

  2. #2
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    Quote Originally Posted by lowhl76 View Post
    Hi Folks

    Juz a thot.

    If u are concern with the weight of the lens (UWA > Fisheye), price of the lens (UWA > Fisheye) and most of the time u post process your images, wld u consider buying a fisheye instead of UWA and de-fish the images taken?

    Tks & Rgds
    Nope.

    It is so much easier to shoot and composing with a (rectilinear) wide angle lens, than to shoot a fisheye with the back-end intention of getting it composed for wide shots.

    I'd rather skip the de-fishing process, it is a tedious unnecessary step.

    By the way a fisheye is not necessary wider than an ultrawide angle lens, and they are probably not cheap as well.

    Ryan

  3. #3
    Member kane-rulez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Singapore-
    Posts
    264

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    Get the UWA and give them the fish eye effect in PP. that way your lens can be put for more versatile use.

    Converting from Fish eye to normal is a bit complex. unless you use specific software like Dxo etc. Ultra wides when you shoot ultra close objects will give you partial fish eye kind of effect
    [Nikon-D7000|Manfrotto 055XPROB, Gitzo 275 BH| Nikon-AF 50 f1.4D| Nikon-SB600]

  4. #4

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    I carry and use both the UWA (10-22) and fisheye (8-15L) around as I don't like to spend too much time on post processing. They have their specific uses. No idea what system you use but at 1.6x crop, the fisheye distortion at 15mm end of the 8-15L fisheye is actually not as bad. Maybe post a picture later when I reach home.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    Personally I'll get a fisheye and uwa lens seperately for their specific use

    Converting them isnt only tedious, but may not get the best results

  6. #6
    Senior Member digitalpimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Shèng Gǎng
    Posts
    2,744

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    I tried defishing a fisheye shot one time. The result isn't exactly pretty. Corners and midsections are horrible and can be seen even at low res.

    Last edited by digitalpimp; 11th July 2012 at 05:35 PM.

  7. #7
    Member kane-rulez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Singapore-
    Posts
    264

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    Quote Originally Posted by digitalpimp View Post
    I tried defishing a fisheye shot one time. The result isn't exactly pretty. Corners and midsections are horrible and can be seen even at low res.
    but the picture still looks nice :-)
    [Nikon-D7000|Manfrotto 055XPROB, Gitzo 275 BH| Nikon-AF 50 f1.4D| Nikon-SB600]

  8. #8
    Senior Member digitalpimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Shèng Gǎng
    Posts
    2,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kane-rulez

    but the picture still looks nice :-)
    Thank you. I still hate it hahaha.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    Quote Originally Posted by digitalpimp View Post
    I tried defishing a fisheye shot one time. The result isn't exactly pretty. Corners and midsections are horrible and can be seen even at low res.


    baiyoke sky?

  10. #10
    Senior Member Anson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    ansonchew.com
    Posts
    8,209

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    This shot is taken using a FE..


  11. #11
    Senior Member digitalpimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Shèng Gǎng
    Posts
    2,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eleveninth

    baiyoke sky?
    Yessir.

  12. #12
    Senior Member edutilos-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Universe
    Posts
    5,991

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    Quote Originally Posted by lowhl76 View Post
    Hi Folks

    Juz a thot.

    If u are concern with the weight of the lens (UWA > Fisheye), price of the lens (UWA > Fisheye) and most of the time u post process your images, wld u consider buying a fisheye instead of UWA and de-fish the images taken?

    Tks & Rgds
    I'd buy both. They aren't interchangeable for me.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    Quote Originally Posted by edutilos- View Post
    I'd buy both. They aren't interchangeable for me.
    i'd second this.

    UWA and Fish-eye lenses give you different effects.

    UWA generally gives you a wider FOV, while Fish-eye lenses give you that wider FOV, as well as extreme distortions with a 180 degree view

  14. #14

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    Quote Originally Posted by CamInit View Post
    ... Maybe post a picture later when I reach home.
    ok, a couple of pics from the 8-15L on crop camera for illustration. The full diagonal fisheye should be around 10mm.

    at 14mm


    and a square crop from something more recent at 12mm


    As your focal length increases, the fishy-ness doesn't jump out so immediately until you start looking for the horizontals. A fisheye prime (even if cheaper than a UWA) would be much more limiting since you have to manage with the fisheye look all the time.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Fisheye versus UWA

    Hi all

    Using m4/3 system. Comparing panasonic 7-14mm and 8mm.

    Tks for all the advice and images.

    Cheers

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •