14mm fisheye on 1D Mark II

[HKFEVER]

Does anyone has the experience on this matter.

Will there has dark corners when shooting 14mm fisheye with 1D mark II. :?:

[Jon]

I believe most 14 mm fisheyes would be full-frame even on 35 mm. So it'll fully cover anything smaller. Whose fisheye is this? Canon and Sigma have 15 mm offerings, not 14.

[HKFEVER]

Sorry, it is Canon 15mm fisheye.

Which len will you pick Canon or Sigma?

[IncompletePete]

Judging by your current set-up, I'd go the the Canon version, Sigma just wouldn't cut it for you!

[blackviolet]

there are no dark corners on the 15mm fisheye even on full frame bodies. i have both a sigma 15mm and a zenitar 16mm and they are great on the mkii. here is one example (http://www.pbase.com/iagrafx/image/36557817) of the sigma.

the sigma or zenitar 8mm, on the otherhand, will vignette the corners even on a 1.6 crop body...

[HKFEVER]

Thanks guys, can anyone post a Canon fisheye shot.

I need a fisheye len to shot some high mountain fog scent.

[DaveG]

Does anyone has the experience on this matter.

Will there has dark corners when shooting 14mm fisheye with 1D mark II. :?:

There are two kinds of fisheye lenses, full frame and circular. The circular produces a disk on the film/capture like the image circle was to small to cover the format, which is exactly the case. The full frame fisheye just has a bigger image circle.

I wouldn't think that there would be dark corners from the 15, especially on the 1.3 Mark II, but all super wide angles are going to have "darker" corners than the centre. The light is forced to travel farther so there's less of it hitting the corners.

In large format photography you can buy a centre graduated density filter that's semi specific to super wide angle lenses. This blocks some light in the centre and gradually lightens as you get closer to the edge/corners. Your lens loses a stop or more but then it's even from corner to corner.

But you don't have to worry about this. The 15mm fisheye lens is supported by the brilliant and free PTLens program and it will fix this vignetteing problem easily and without the need for a filter.

http://www.epaperpress.com/ptlens/

[HKFEVER]

Thank you, will post some picture after the job. :lol:

[Kenski]

I have some 15mm canon shots but they are all on a 1.6x sensor, not on a 1.3 sensor... I don't think you want them then...

[planesh00ter]

Sigma- 370$, Canon-574$
mmmmmmmmm
no "L" problem here
any more comments?

[HKFEVER]

You are right "L" is not the issue, I am more concern:
- Over all Sharpness
- AF speed
- Size
- Noise from the AF
- Build quality

[blackviolet]

one big thing to remember - since you are letting in more light, the fisheyes tend to overexpose very quickly if you aren't careful

here is another example (http://www.pbase.com/iagrafx/image/36597675) as well as a 100% crop (http://www.pbase.com/iagrafx/image/36597744). although this isn't the bext example, this lens can be very sharp. build quality and low af noise are roughly on par with the canon equivalent.

[DaveG]

one big thing to remember - since you are letting in more light, the fisheyes tend to overexpose very quickly if you aren't careful

here is another example (http://www.pbase.com/iagrafx/image/36597675) as well as a 100% crop (http://www.pbase.com/iagrafx/image/36597744). although this isn't the bext example, this lens can be very sharp. build quality and low af noise are roughly on par with the canon equivalent.

That's not true.

An f-stop is an f-stop. How does a fisheye at f8 let in any more light that a 100mm lens at f8? and if you change to f5.6 on either lens you let in one more stop, no more no less.

[HKFEVER]

Thank you guys, I just went out 3 hrs ago and bought the Canon 15mm fisheye.

Will try it out later today. But its AF is quite noise. :shock:

[blackviolet]

That's not true.

An f-stop is an f-stop. How does a fisheye at f8 let in any more light that a 100mm lens at f8? and if you change to f5.6 on either lens you let in one more stop, no more no less.

believe me, i have always thought that as well. i don't know if they average to get to f8 (to accomodate the longer light path of image at the edges) or if they have completely mis-calculated all of the aperture settings on both lenses??! all i know is i have to stop down 1/3 of a stop or more on both of my fisheyes compared to any of my other lenses or it can blow highlights near the centre of the image (and when i tested the canon, i had to do the same).

[DaveG]

That's not true.

An f-stop is an f-stop. How does a fisheye at f8 let in any more light that a 100mm lens at f8? and if you change to f5.6 on either lens you let in one more stop, no more no less.

believe me, i have always thought that as well. i don't know if they average to get to f8 (to accomodate the longer light path of image at the edges) or if they have completely mis-calculated all of the aperture settings on both lenses??! all i know is i have to stop down 1/3 of a stop or more on both of my fisheyes compared to any of my other lenses or it can blow highlights near the centre of the image (and when i tested the canon, i had to do the same).

Apertures are derived by dividing the exit pupil into the focal length of the lens (50mm lens: 25mm exit pupil. 50/25 =2, ie f2). Then you use the diaphragm to "half" that aperture. It's not a measure of transmission but a mathmatical formula. Movie lenses ARE marked in T-Stops (transmission) and are specifically tested to make sure that T11 is really T11 before they blow a few thousand dollars worth of film.

But any digital capture will handle 1/3 stop of overexposure without blowing out the highlights unless there is overexposing to begin with. What does your histogram look like on an average scene with the fisheye and say a moderate wide angle? If the peak of the histogram is already on the right hand side then you are cheating towards overexposure already.

There will be fall off from a fisheye or super wide angle but normally not enough to notice. If your exposure is right down the middle for both the fisheye and the wide angle then I suspect that this more of post production situation where you are reading the highlights as being blown out when they are not.

If you still get overexposure on the fisheye at f8 and OK results from the wide angle at f8, then f8 on your fisheye isn't f8. I have a 90 mm f8 lens that use on my 4x5, which is the eqivilent of a 19mm lens on 35mm. When I look though the ground glass it look MUCH darker than my 300mm f9. Yet I know that when I select 22 on either lens it will give me the same exposure. F8 is f8 is f8, unless it's marked f8 and is really f5.6 (point, something).

[blackviolet]

all i can say is it's much more pronounced at f2.8 than it is at f8. at 2.8 it could be as much as a full stop or more, especially in bright, non-cloudy/diffused conditions. at f8 it's not nearly as noticable. the histogram might display a similar curve on both the fisheye and say a wide angle - a little towards the right but no where near clipping.

anyway, they are great lenses and i'm getting much more usage out of them than i thought i was going to.