wide angle vs fish eye

[bs0604]

I am having difficulty understanding the difference between my nikon 14-24 mm lens set at 16 mm vs the nikon 16 mm fishe eye lens, which I am considering buying. Would be mounted on my D800. Is the difference only in the "fish eye" appeaance of the latter lens, or is there a difference between the two lenses in terms of "real estate" or field of view captured?.

 

[supraman215]

I think the FOV (field of view) should be the same for 16mm regardless of the "type" of lens. I could be wrong on that. I would guess that the fisheye just has more barrel distortion on purpose.

 

[480sparky]

The 14-24 is a rectilinear lens, meaning it works real hard at keeping straight lines in the image straight, regardless of where they are in the image. With a fisheye, the further a straight line is from the center of the frame, the more it will be curved in the image.

Edit to add: Once you start getting into 'ultrawide' territory, the focal length alone won't tell you if a lens is a fisheye or not. I have a Nikkor 10-24mm lens that isn't, but my 10.5mm is. I used to own a 17mm fisheye.

 

[Dave Devoid]

Im guessing you get the bending effect with fisheye, but not with he wide angle? or is that not the case??.

The bendy look is quite appealing in pictures, but i guess it would get a bit tiresome if used all the time...

im must admit i do find this effect really cool and would like to achieve it, so will be purchasing a lens to do this at some point...

 

[480sparky]

Fisheyes usually are 180° FOV. Either corner-to-corner or circular. There are rare lenses that go wider... Nikon has on old one that does 220°.

The 'bending' effect can be created in post, but the lack of a 180° FOV in the original image usually give the trick away.

 

[Dave Devoid]

I see you have the Nikkor 10.5 in your repertoire Sparky...

Best price i can see online for that one is £436....

A bit pricey for me to be honest, so a cheaper alternative will be the order of the day.

 

[480sparky]

I see you have the Nikkor 10.5 in your repertoire Sparky...

Best price i can see online for that one is £436....

A bit pricey for me to be honest, so a cheaper alternative will be the order of the day.

I chose the Nikkor because of it's speed (f/2.8) and small size/light weight. All the 3rd-party lenses were slower and larger/heavier.

 

[Helen B]

In general, a fisheye lens has a wider field of view than a rectilinear lens of the same focal length. Good fisheye lenses usually have a consistent 'projection' method - it isn't just some random distortion added at the whim of the lens designer. Their behaviour is predictable.

One of the advantages of the common type of (proper) fisheye is that the image illumination is more even across the frame than it is for a wide angle rectilinear lens. The latter suffers from fall-off for natural optical reasons, and the lens designer has to try to compensate for it by using some fancy tricks (tilting pupils, or the Slyusarev effect). These aren't necessary with a fisheye because the image magnification decreases as you go away from the axis (that also explains the increased angle of view). Therefore in post production you have the option of correcting for residual fall-off in illumination if you use a superwide rectilinear lens, or correcting for the fisheye projection if using a fisheye. Back in the days of digital cameras with a low dynamic range, correcting for the light fall-off may have been the less preferable option. Of course the image from a superwide rectilinear lens may need some transformation to get things near the edge of the frame to look right to humans, even though they are optically correct.

 

[supraman215]

The Nikon 14-24 2.8 is amazing for wide angle rectilinear lens I used it recently with incredible results. I'm very jealous!

 

[bs0604]

In reference to Sparky's 10.5 lens: My impression from reading Ken Rockwell's site is that for fisheye the 10.5 is the lens to get for the DX bodies but the 16 mm is better for the FX bodies. Is this a corrrect interpretation on my part?

 

[480sparky]

In reference to Sparky's 10.5 lens: My impression from reading Ken Rockwell's site is that for fisheye the 10.5 is the lens to get for the DX bodies but the 16 mm is better for the FX bodies. Is this a corrrect interpretation on my part?

Yes. The 10.5 is for crop sensors, the 16 is for full frame. But you can use them on the 'other' body if you want. The 16 on a crop body won't get you 180° FOV, but you still will get the curving lines. You can put the 10.5 on a FF body and either shoot in DX mode, or shoot in FX mode and get as much data as the lens will produce and you can edit it in post.

 

[BrianV]

A 16mm F3.5 Fisheye-Nikkor has a 137degree horizontal by 88degree FOV. The 15mm F5.6 Nikkor has a 100degree by 77degree FOV. Source- Nikon/Nikkormat Manual.

The fisheye distorts, the edges give a wider FOV. You can also get a fisheye attachment for lenses if it is a low-use novelty shot.

 

[480sparky]

A 16mm F3.5 Fisheye-Nikkor has a 137degree horizontal by 88degree FOV. The 15mm F5.6 Nikkor has a 100degree by 77degree FOV. Source- Nikon/Nikkormat Manual.........

Doc Brown and Marty McFly called..... they want their lenses back. Those are both from the 70's, man!

Nikkor 10.5 f/2.8 DX fisheye. 180° on a DX body, or an FX body in DX mode.
Nikkor 16 f/2.8 FX fisheye. 180° on an FX body, 107° on a DX.

 

[BrianV]

Most of my Nikon glass is from the 40s through the 70s, on cameras made from the 40s. They still work on new cameras.


The intent is to show that Fisheye lenses have a larger FOV then rectilinear lenses.

I converted a Nikkor 20/3.5 to be a Fisheye lens, used the negative optics from an 8mm F2.8 lens that was surplus. It worked.

 

[Patrice]

I am having difficulty understanding the difference between my nikon 14-24 mm lens set at 16 mm vs the nikon 16 mm fishe eye lens, which I am considering buying. Would be mounted on my D800. Is the difference only in the "fish eye" appeaance of the latter lens, or is there a difference between the two lenses in terms of "real estate" or field of view captured?.

Get your mother's soup ladle out and look at yourself using the back of the spoon - that's what a fisheye lens will sort of look like. Read Helen's post, time well spent.