Fish eye lens - what does it really mean?

[tkamiya]

I am interested in Fish eye lens for my Nikon line of camera bodies.

Looking at THIS site: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/All-Lenses/index.page

I see there is a 16mm f/2.8 fish eye. It's spec calls for 180 degrees field of view when used with full frame cameras such as F100.
Now, there is also the famous 14-24mm zoom (which is NOT a fish eye) but it's maximum coverage is 114 degrees.

On Sigma line of products, there are 4.5mm and 8mm fish, then 10mm and 15mm fish.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/fisheye-lenses
I am not interested in round images, so first two are out.

Here's what I would like to know...
What does focal length do in fish eye lenses? Obviously, it does not define angle of coverage like it does for all other lenses.
Additionally, what IS fish eye then? Is that severe barrel distortion that makes a lens fish eye? Or is it 180 degree coverage? Or are they one and the same?
Somewhat related to both, how come 14mm regular wide angle has less coverage than 16mm fish?

How would I pick the "best" fish for me? Maybe that will come clear when I know the answers to my questions...

I am going to visit Cape Kennedy Space Center soon. Inside the Vehicle Assembly Building, I would like to make use of the "fish".

Thanks!

 

[benjiboy]

I never wanted a fisheye lens because they are very expensive and of very limited practical use in everyday photography, if I needed one for a special purpose I would hire one.

 

[Barry S]

The fisheye is a non-rectilinear lens and the listed diagonal angle of view means the same thing as you'd see for a rectilinear lens. Focal length relates to angle of view in a fisheye, but isn't directly comparable to rectilinear focal length. The quality of Nikon fisheyes is spectacular and I highly recommend the 16mm f/2.8 Nikkor.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As Barry said the fisheye is non-rectilinear. I find the distortion is so great that it is somewhat less than useless except to very few situations. That is why I have the Hasselblad 903 SWC and the Widelux cameras.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Rectilinear means that straight lines in the photo are still straight and not bent round such as in a fish eye. I would not purchase such a lens as it gets boring fast. Rectilinear is the way to go but even those have limited applications. I have a 14mm rectilinear which I don't use often. Also make sure the lenses you are looking at are designed for 35mm and not smaller digital formats.

 

[Hatchetman]

They can be fun. I am not a fisheye hater. I have some great pictures of my kids horsing around in the sprinkler, that kind of thing. Lot of lenses I would sell before my fisheye.

 

[AgX]

Basically you got a similar relation between angle of view with fish-eye lenses as with rectilinear lenses:
The smaller the focal lenght, the larger the angle of view.

With a 15mm fish-eye lens you got 180° over the frame diagonal. But with a 7.5mm fish-eye lens you got 180° even over the frame height and thus a full circle covering 180°.
Furthermore there are fish-eye lenses that go beyound that 180°.
There are also basic different distortions between fish-eye lenses depending on design, though these differences are hardly relevant for pictorial photography.

 

[Ian Grant]

Good manufacturers show examples of what their lenses are capable of. I'd have thought there'd be some images on the Nokon & Sigma websites. Be aware some lenses are for the APS sized digital sensor not full frame.

Like any lens Focal lenght is related to angle of coverage even with a fish-eye.

You'd be better hiring than buying as has already been said, and that would give you th chance to choose the most appropriate lens.

Ian

 

[darkosaric]

If you find it too expensive - alternative is zenitar fisheye. Even cheaper - go for Lomo fisheye: I had one and it is a great fun , specially version 2 with viewfinder and bulb option.

 

[Dr Croubie]

There's also the RokiBowYang 8mm fisheye. It's designed for smaller digital sensors, but you can cut the hood off on the first version for use on film/FF, the second version they made the hood removable for this purpose. But you're going to lose a bit on the frame edges, it's somewhere between a circular fisheye and a fullframe fisheye.
Here there's a (digital) comparison of the Falcon (Samyang) 8mm with and without hood, and Zenitar 16mm.
There's also the 12mm Lensbaby fisheye, but nowhere does it say if it's for aps-c or 35mm...

For the difference between fullframe and circular fisheyes, read the wiki. Also has some good examples of the difference between Stereographic, equidistant, and equi-angle.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I never wanted a fisheye lens because they are very expensive and of very limited practical use in everyday photography, if I needed one for a special purpose I would hire one.

I have one for my Canon FD system. If you want borrow it come to Richmond, Va!

Jeff

 

[Ian Grant]

There's also add-on fish-eye attachments that'll fit many lenses, optically they aren't great but they will produce some funky images, lots of aberrations

I have a few of these all acquired alongside other equipment, one's a fish-eye, designed for 35mm I've used it on a MF camera and intend to use it for LF.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I had the Canon FD 7.5mm circular fisheye. Fantastic lens to own for a while, but eventually you get it out of your system and sell it. Something like a 14mm or 15mm rectilinear is more like a keeper for the long term, or better, if you shoot larger formats, get an ultrawide for whatever larger formats you shoot, because a larger neg is more capable of rendering all the detail an ultrawide lens can take in. 47mm for 4x5" is my widest rectilinear lens for any format that I shoot. I also have a Noblex 150, which takes in 135 degrees, swing lens panoramic style.

 

[Trail Images]

I cannot speak for the specific lenses you've listed, so, take my input for what it's worth. I have an RB67 ProSD that I use the Mamiya 37mm fisheye lens with and really like the setup. It is stated to be 180 degree coverage. My usage is more towards shooting as flat a scene as possible, if that can be said using a fisheye. Basically, yes it will show exaggerated distortion if you want it to, but you can minimize the look depending upon on how flat you angle the view. I've taken numerous landscape scenes that have a very acceptable look to them.
Just my 2 cents on the subject.

 

[winger]

I have the Sigma 15mm 1:2.8 180 degree fisheye for my Pentax 35mm cameras. I didn't want to buy one of the really good and really expensive ones and that seemed like a good compromise. It has been, too. I don't use it that much and it got gimmicky pretty quickly. For the little use it gets, the lower cost one is good enough. As I post, I can't remember if you're a subscriber or not, but I think there might be a shot in my gallery with mine (if not here, then likely at photochimps.com). I know I used it at PNC park in Pittsburgh and got a cool shot.

 

[Hatchetman]

I have a Pentax 6x7 35mm fisheye

Maywood Part 3 (Maywood is on the Move)

 

[tkamiya]

Someone needs to fix that power line pole....

 

[Truzi]

Umm, I see worse telephone poles everyday, lol. Would photographing them with a fisheye make them looks straight?

 

[Maris]

The rule with fisheye lenses is that the focal length sets the "bigness" of image elements in the centre of the picture. The taper to the far edge of the image (usually 90 degrees from centre) is steeper for the longer focal length fisheye lens. The effect is like looking at a scene reflected in big and small mirror spheres.

I use a Mamiya 37mm fisheye a lot for natural landscapes where there are often no straight lines to announce the fisheye effect. The one straight line that comes up occasionally is a water versus sky horizon. Then the other rule comes into play namely straight lines that go through the centre of a fisheye picture stay straight. An exactly level camera renders horizons straight. Here's an example:

Island, Lake Cootharaba​

Gelatin-silver photograph on Freestyle Premium Reserve VC FB, image area 16,4cm X 21.2cm, from an Ilford 120 format SFX 200 negative exposed in a Mamiya RB 67 camera fitted with a 37mm f4.5 fisheye lens and #25 red filter.

 

[Xmas]

If you scan there is software to fix telegraph poles if you have the plug in for your lens...

no tease!

 

[Hatchetman]

If you scan there is software to fix telegraph poles if you have the plug in for your lens...

no tease!

Wouldn't it be easier to make straight telephone poles in the first place?

 

[John Koehrer]

Wouldn't it be easier to make straight telephone poles in the first place?

There's never enough time to do it right, but plenty of time to fix it.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

In the late 1990's and early 2000's, a company iPix, created spherical immersive image from back-to-back fisheye images (film or digital). It was interesting technology and I did some work for them in the late 90's. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPIX

 

[fstop]

I love the round image effect of a true fish eye lens.

 

[ic-racer]

Here are a few fisheye images done on 35mm using a Zeiss 16mm Fisheye and Yashica 15mm fisheye.