Rob, Thanks for information. I think wrt fisheye, the biggest question for me is its performance off-center, because that's where the biggest hit is in remapping (btw, I use the "PanoramaTools" plugins). I have found that, in fact, often I prefer cyllindrical projection to both, fisheye and rectilinear -- it looks most natural to me. So it would seem that a fisheye is the best choice since it allows the greater flexibility wrt the final result. However I found Zenitar way too sofft off center, which magnifies a lot after the remapping .
I guess, now my questions would be, do you know which one would give a better corner performance, 17mm/4 or 16mm/2.8 fisheye? Also, I understand that the biggest drawback of SLR ultrawides is distortion -- how bad is it in 15mm/3.5? Again, if it's predictable (read: can be removed in photoshop), it's not a problem. Best, Mishka ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 10:46 AM Subject: Re: ultrawide lens questions > On 9 Feb 2003 at 2:07, Mishka wrote: > > > Rob, > > As I mentioned, I am looking for something *really* wide. My widest lens now is > > 24mm, and I have played for a while with 20mm Mir, but decided that I need > > better quality (both mechanical and optical). The intended use is for either > > interior, or for "near-far" shots. My film ends up scanned, and that's why I am > > considering rectilinear lenses as well as fisheyes -- I can remap them in > > photoshop. I tried that with Zenitar fisheye and it seem to work OK. But Zenitar > > had its own problems, so I had decided to get something either SMC -- until I > > ran into a very positive review of Voigtlander lenses, which seem to be > > relatively inexpensive for what they promise. I appreciate any advice. > > Hi Mishka, > > Well for me it really comes down to wether you need to see the view through the > finder. A lot is revealed WRT flare using an SLR and near-far composition is > virtually a guess using a range finder due to parallax errors between the > finder and taking lens. Also it very hard to compare a fisheye against a 15mm > rectilinear, a rectilinear re-mapped image from a fisheye makes a 15mm rect > look like a telephoto :-( > > Use the right film and apply your re-mapping algorithm well (and correct for > chromatic separation) and you can end up with very good results from a Pentax > 16/2.8. I owned a Hologon for four years and whilst its optical characteristics > were excellent I was often a little disappointed with surprises due to flare > and parallax as I mentioned. The 15mm is wide but no where near the 12mm Voigt > however it isn't such a problem WRT edge illumination either. So I guess you'll > really have to base your decision on the most demanding use for the lens then > select a lens that will be least compromising in that application. > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html > > >
