On 10 Oct 02 at 9:55, Icoz, Evrim wrote: > How many times did you REALLY need a shot in that range? HOw many film > photographers have a 14mm lens?
Even 14mm isn't wide enough, and a 8mm circular fisheye[*] is nearly useless on less than 24x36mm....Coastal Optics even designed a shorter focal length many years ago, just to match the Nikon & Kodak/EOS digi-SLR's of that time (newprice is downrigh offensive....if anyone ever sees a used one for sale (or upgrades from half-size sensor to full-size....;)), please let me know!....:)). Or: why do you think Voigtlaender released a 12mm lens for their rangefinder series? Not just because they *could* (such a symmetrical/non-retrofocus wide angle is much easier to design than for an SLR (for which you need a retrofocus design, lens at much larger distance than the focal length). The only downside is that there is only so much an image circle of 22mm can hold, especially since this is about the lowest object/image magnification you ever see on film....most details go lost on film, you need almost a graphic/b&w vision to create a good image....to a slightly lesser extend this also applies to a 14mm rectangular (actually, a fisheye has a longer focal length in the center than on the edge, so they are not as different in the center magnification as the focal length would suggest).... But sadly there are no medium-format circular fisheyes to compensate for this magnification issue.... (other than the ultimate rare Nikon Cloud Camera (first one ever, only 15 made, only 8 known today I belive), or the industrial Hasselblad 24mm, or the just as rare Kowa 19mm (3 known samples, probably less than 100 made). Only alternative is mounting a full-size medium-format fisheye on a large format camera (a Speed Graphic with focal plane shutter is a nice solution)....with a 37mm Mamiya RB you then get an image circle of 90mm....:)) This is also why in some cases, a swing lens panorama camera is better suited for the task....since it uses only a mild wide-angle, 28mm (on 35mm film; 50mm lens on 120/220), image magnification is much better, all stretched out on a much larger piece of film (24x58mm and higher, 50x120mm for medium format). Also, the Virtual Reality community is not satisfied with anything below this full 180 degrees in all directions....immersive imaging is almost impossible without. [*] shame to Canon for still not offering one....the FD-range still holds lenses EOS can't match! (before Sigma offered theirs in EOS-mount, only a few years ago, I converted quite a bunch from Nikon/Pentax/Yashica/Olympus to EOS, to supply other wide-angle freaks) For several samples of both circular fisheye and panorama images (all b&w/infrared at the moment; a few stunning color skiing shots are still waiting to be scanned), see my homepage: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm (or http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/thumnail.htm directly) <end of wide angle pet peeves & rantings>....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
