Fisheye correction question

[Taylor510ce]

I have no experience using fisheyes, but was curious about something. If you use a fisheye for superwide landscapes ( lets say 8mm ), can the distortion be easily corrected in post (CS5) if you want a traditional landscape and not a fisheyed look? Would this require so much cropping that you would wind up with an angle of view that you could have shot with a much longer focal length ( say 18mm for instance ).

 

[pbelarge]

Taylor
Take a look at this and see if this is what you are concerned with.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwjVAEvF2s[/ame]

 

[KmH]

I have no experience using fisheyes, but was curious about something. If you use a fisheye for superwide landscapes ( lets say 8mm ), can the distortion be easily corrected in post (CS5) if you want a traditional landscape and not a fisheyed look? Would this require so much cropping that you would wind up with an angle of view that you could have shot with a much longer focal length ( say 18mm for instance ).

No, Not easily. Why use a fisheye just to correct in post?

 

[D-B-J]

I have no experience using fisheyes, but was curious about something. If you use a fisheye for superwide landscapes ( lets say 8mm ), can the distortion be easily corrected in post (CS5) if you want a traditional landscape and not a fisheyed look? Would this require so much cropping that you would wind up with an angle of view that you could have shot with a much longer focal length ( say 18mm for instance ).

No, Not easily. Why use a fisheye just to correct in post?

To get as wide a field as possible..

 

[SrBiscuit]

i think they make ultra wides for that no?

i think a well done pano might be another decent solution.

lens distortion correction will only get you so far i think. ive messed with it before and its taken away the minor distortion caused by the 18mm at close range...not sure if its up to the task of a full on fisheye.

edit*
that vid looks pretty good, but things seem to still be leaning in quite a bit. maybe some free distort can rememdy some of that.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Yeah, I was just thinking of getting a really wide angle with a cheap manual fisheye like Pro-optics, or Bower. Panos work well, but I would also like to use it for other wide shots that weren't just wide open horizon shots. I knew of the lens correction for minor distortion caused by some wide angle lenses, but didn't know if it could effectively remove extreme fish angle distortion without degrading the image somehow. I didn't want to go out and spend top dollar on a wideangle since I will probably not use it too often. Just figured I would check. You guys pretty much confirmed my initial assumption.

Thanks for the tips. Maybe I will just look for a used super wide angle to show up on ebay or craigslist. Seems that they don't show up very often and sell fast.

 

[SrBiscuit]

check some of the entry-level ultra wides on amazon too. theres a zenitar ive been looking at. seems the prices are decent too.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Another question I guess that would tie into the cheaper manual focus wides. Your AF lights typically light when AF is achieved, based on contrast/color etc that the camera uses to judge how to focus. So theoretically ( unlike a lens and TC combo that darkens too far for AF to work ) a manual focus lens should still make those AF light illuminate when you achieve focus manually, because even though their is no motor to let the Camera AF the lens, the camera is still "Aware" that the image is now in focus?

Is my reasoning here correct?

 

[SrBiscuit]

your reasoning is def correct. manual or af, the camera should know when focus is achieved.
i read a lot of the reviews on those cheap ultrawides, and the consensus seems to be that they are rather forgiving lenses as far as focus is concerned. i would say trust your focus indicator, and check the results. there are some people who actually recalibrate the focus rings so that the focus is attained when the distance and the distance meter match up.