Fisheye versus UWA

[lowhl76]

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

 

[giantcanopy]

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

 

[kane-rulez]

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

 

[CamInit]

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.

 

[photoart]

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

 

[digitalpimp]

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.:sweat:

 

[kane-rulez]

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.:sweat:

but the picture still looks nice

 

[digitalpimp]

but the picture still looks nice

Thank you. I still hate it hahaha.

 

[eleveninth]

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.:sweat:

baiyoke sky?

 

[Anson]

This shot is taken using a FE..

 

[digitalpimp]

baiyoke sky?

Yessir.

 

[edutilos-]

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.

 

[kei1309]

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

 

[CamInit]

... 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.

 

[lowhl76]

Hi all

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

Tks for all the advice and images.

Cheers