Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 22-01-2013, 12:29 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,183
Best fisheye for full frame camera?

Can anyone recommend the best fisheye lens for a full frame camera?

I am using a Nikon D800E.

Sigma 15mm F2.8 is often commented on, I think they also make a 10mm not sure if its full frame or not. Nikon 16mm F2.8 seems good.

I want F2.8 for nightscapes so the Nikon 16mm F3.5 would be too slow.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23-01-2013, 11:18 AM
Poita (Peter)
Registered User

Poita is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,586
The Nikon 16mm f2.8 AF-D is great for daytime use, no CA that I can see in my photos, but I would rent one to see how it goes at 2.8 for the type of nightscape you want to shoot. I haven't tried it on the night sky but for daytime use it is a little soft in the corners unless I stop down a bit.
Only noticable on large prints though.

I'd pony up for the 14-24 though if you can afford it. Sharper than the Nikon 14mm f2.8 prime, and is just an astounding lens. You will never part with it!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 23-01-2013, 11:25 AM
Steffen's Avatar
Steffen
Ebotec Alpeht Sicamb

Steffen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toongabbie, NSW
Posts: 1,975
I hear the 10.5mm DX fisheye works well and produces a circular image if you remove the lens shade (with a dremel or hacksaw).

(I'm not kidding)

Cheers
Steffen.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 23-01-2013, 12:08 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,389
HAD A Sigma 16mm f/2.8 for the 5D MkII. Severe vignette, (obviously intended for clip sensors), a little severe CA, SOLD it. OTherwise, a fantastic lens. I like the Sigma lenses.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23-01-2013, 04:28 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita View Post
The Nikon 16mm f2.8 AF-D is great for daytime use, no CA that I can see in my photos, but I would rent one to see how it goes at 2.8 for the type of nightscape you want to shoot. I haven't tried it on the night sky but for daytime use it is a little soft in the corners unless I stop down a bit.
Only noticable on large prints though.

I'd pony up for the 14-24 though if you can afford it. Sharper than the Nikon 14mm f2.8 prime, and is just an astounding lens. You will never part with it!
Thanks for that Peter. I have the 14-24mm Nikon already and yes it is a fantastic lens. The Samyang 14mm is also a very good lens and is considerably smaller and lighter.

I was more looking for a fisheye to go even wider field most likely for time lapses like Alex's recent terrific time lapse.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23-01-2013, 04:30 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steffen View Post
I hear the 10.5mm DX fisheye works well and produces a circular image if you remove the lens shade (with a dremel or hacksaw).

(I'm not kidding)

Cheers
Steffen.
This lens is one I was considering. It does seem to be very good as does the Nikon 16mm F2.8. The Sigma 15mm F2.8 is the one I mostly hear good reviews about. The Samyang 8mm seems good as well but seems to be designed for crop cameras mostly.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 23-01-2013, 04:31 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM View Post
HAD A Sigma 16mm f/2.8 for the 5D MkII. Severe vignette, (obviously intended for clip sensors), a little severe CA, SOLD it. OTherwise, a fantastic lens. I like the Sigma lenses.

I don't like CA due to the need to shoot wide open for nightscapes and CA messes with your ability to get nice saturated colours in the rest of the image. Sometimes those remove CA features can wash out other colours as well.

The Sigma 15mm seems to do better here.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 24-01-2013, 03:15 PM
Poita (Peter)
Registered User

Poita is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,586
The 10.5 for DX doesn't really work on a full frame.
See here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10m...x-IMG_4287.jpg
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105fe.htm
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 24-01-2013, 03:44 PM
naskies's Avatar
naskies (Dave)
Registered User

naskies is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,865
How about the Nikkor 6mm Fisheye? f/2.8, 220° FOV... perfect! Here's an unboxing video and a demo of it attached to a D800:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=zIDbw4gjunY#!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 24-01-2013, 05:04 PM
Steffen's Avatar
Steffen
Ebotec Alpeht Sicamb

Steffen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toongabbie, NSW
Posts: 1,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita View Post
The 10.5 for DX doesn't really work on a full frame.
You'll have to shave off the lens shade. Then you go from this:

http://www.virtualtourpro.com/Tutori...ack-border.jpg

to this:

http://www.virtualtourpro.com/Tutorial-pics/Kitchen.jpg

Cheers
Steffen.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 24-01-2013, 08:58 PM
axle01 (Alan)
Registered User

axle01 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Townsville
Posts: 312
I have the 10.5 fisheye and i cut the hood off with a hack saw, i admit very carefully and i use it on my Nikon d3s, I've only used it once for night shooting when we had the Geminid meteor shower a few weeks ago.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 24-01-2013, 09:39 PM
Steffen's Avatar
Steffen
Ebotec Alpeht Sicamb

Steffen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toongabbie, NSW
Posts: 1,975
Cool! How did the shots turn out?

Cheers
Steffen.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 25-01-2013, 10:30 AM
axle01 (Alan)
Registered User

axle01 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Townsville
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steffen View Post
Cool! How did the shots turn out?

Cheers
Steffen.
Good enough for me, i took 270 - 30 second shots and even though i saw over 20 meteors i only got 2 in the shots.
I had a lot of light on the left from a suburb and on the right from the Townsville harbor, in hindsight i should of gone out of town or used a longer lens.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 25-01-2013, 04:35 PM
astroboy's Avatar
astroboy
Registered User

astroboy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Bathurst NSW
Posts: 702
Hi Greg
When we were doing the Eastern Fireball Survey we used Russian 16mm F2.8 which were quite sharp wide open, but since you have a 14-24 I wonder if a Circular Fisheye wouldn't be the go for a really different view.

Zane
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 25-01-2013, 04:52 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by astroboy View Post
Hi Greg
When we were doing the Eastern Fireball Survey we used Russian 16mm F2.8 which were quite sharp wide open, but since you have a 14-24 I wonder if a Circular Fisheye wouldn't be the go for a really different view.

Zane
The Zenitar 16mm F2.8? That's interesting.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 25-01-2013, 05:12 PM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,147
The best AFAIK is this little beastie http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...le-itself.html

The next-best is http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...yes/8mmf28.htm

Now... go take a look at the prices for one of those lenses... mind boggling.

You can use lenses - but there is a catadioptic solution if you want a fisheye view of the whole sky recorded in a circular image... this is especially suitable if you want a really fast lens - and I am sure most of you could make one of these.

Find a large convex lens - for a full-frame camera you will need one approximately 150mm diameter, the radius isn't important as long as it is really strongly curved like the meniscus of a Maksutov - and have the convex surface aluminised. This will give you a very good convex mirror. In my case I used a condenser lens from an old overhead projector.

Find a piece of board to use as a base (MDF will do) larger than the lens, paint this black and glue the lens on it, convex side up.

For the camera, if you're using a full frame camera (in my case a 35mm film SLR) the ideal lens is a 135mm telephoto able to focus at about 1 metre, the faster the better. For an APS-C camera, about 100mm, or 75mm for m4/3 body.

Make a tripod using 6mm clear perspex strips for the legs such that the camera is suspended over the convex mirror, pointing down at the mirror. The reflection in the mirror is a very nice fisheye view. In my case the condenser lens gave a 200 degree field of view - the whole sky, plus a bit of the ground too right up to the mirror. The reason to use the perspex is that it is sufficiently transparent that the legs will not be seen in the shot. With a bit of creativity I'm sure you could bend a thin strip of perspex into an arc to support the camera well enough.

If you are using a compact camera with a good macro capability you could scale the whole thing down quite nicely - a 60mm condenser lens should do nicely.

Even though the plane of the virtual image in the mirror is curved (at half the radius of the mirror) the lens combinations that I tried this with will have enough depth of field to give quite a good image.

The effective focal ratio of this setup is determined by the f/ratio of the camera lens. In my case, I was using Pentax Takumar 135mm f/2.8 and the image was beautifully sharp, and the image was equivalent to an 8mm.

Other aspects:

- the only downside is that the camera body will appear in the shot.

- you need to use the self-timer to trigger the camera, and run away to get out of the frame before the shutter opens !

- while it is important to keep the mirror clean, the focal plane of the virtual image seen in the mirror is located at R/2 behind the mirror. With a fast camera lens, minor dust on the mirror won't be in focus and should be so blurred that you won't see it in the image.

- with an effective focal length about 8mm the depth of field is huge - everything beyond the perimeter of the mirror will be in focus.

- dew may be an issue on the mirror, but since it is a thick piece of glass, the simplest solution is to warm it up a bit before taking a shot.

Even better - if you have a short telephoto lens that is even faster, say f/2 or even f/1.4, this will work too.

NOBODY makes an f/1.4 8mm fisheye... such a thing does not exist, unless you make one as per the above.

Last edited by Wavytone; 25-01-2013 at 10:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement