I prefer fisheye with TC to wide rectilinear on FX

[loftus 42]

When I had my D200, I really liked using my 16mm or the Tokina 10-17 at the 17mm end for wide angle compared to the 12-24. This was particularly the case both in the pool with models, and diving with close-up of divers or sharks for example. On FX I have used my 17-35 and I have seen images taken with the 14-24 underwater and I think there is significant distortion particularly peripherally. For sharks etc, the animals appear more stretched, I prefer the perspective with the TC and fisheye with slight barrell distortion. With human subjects things like feet and fingers are all stretched out near the periphery with the wide rectilinear. On the WP Oceanic Whitetip trip, I much preferred the slight barrel distortion with FE and TC to the pincushion distortion I saw with the the 14-24 on FX (Aquatica large dome) and the Nikon 10-24 on DX (Seacam Superdome)

Today I took some photographs of freediver and Wetpixeller Will Wiggins, and I decided to go back to the fisheye TC combination because I was unhappy with the distortion of the wide rectilinear, and knowing I would be in close on a stretched out subject. I used my 16mm with 1.4 TC rather than the 10-17 because I knew the light would be poor at Blue Springs. The only problem with the 10-17 and TC is that in low light the viewfinder is not as bright as I would like.

Just a couple of images; first a model image, modified for work safety, with the 17-35, to demonstrate what I don't like with the stretched out foot. Then a shot from today with the 16mm and TC showing a better perspective in my opinion.

I don't think this is a concern for underwater landscapes, but I prefer the perspective with the extended fisheye. What do other folks think?

 

 

Edited July 20, 2009 by loftus

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Nice modification!

 

I think it is an interesting question, to which there is no right answer. It depends on the subject, how the image is composed and the taste of the photographer.

 

With the sharks (on the WP trip) I was pleased that I shot both the 17-35mm and FE + TC combo. In this situation I find corner issues with the rectilinear lens unimportant, although I do prefer the slightly more heavily built look that the FE + TC gives to the sharks.

 

This is with the 17-35mm:

 

For reef CF angle etc - I invariable prefer the FE+TC, for the corner performance. I also find it a useful combo when shooting people, as it is less distorting that the FE alone

 

 

When shooting in your pool, Jeff, I was very happy to be on the 17-35mm, but I do think that there is a need to keep the extremities of the model away from the corners of the frame. I have (still) not caught up with the processing on these yet - so this is the only one I have at 500 pixels:

 

Personally I tend to leave the 17-35mm at home more than the TC. But then that's mainly because it is heavier. I didn't take the 17-35mm on my recent Red Sea trip, although had I had it there I am sure I would have done a coupe of dives with it. But I could not justify the extra weight, just for a couple of dives. For reef photography I'd rather be without the 17-35mm, than the TC (in the Red Sea it is the FE straight that is used on most dives anyway).

 

I guess in conclusion, I'd say I think that it is important to have a good working set up for both. Because they are different tools for different jobs and, like you, I value having both options. But I don't value the 17-35mm enough to think that the 14-24mm would be a worthwhile investment.

 

Alex

[Drew 0]

It all depends on the subject and the composition the photography wants. It's pretty simple. You want minimal distortion, shoot 24mm or higher. Adding a TC to any lens is not as sharp due to the added glass. Many people don't mind, I do. But again it's another tool for whatever shot you want.

[loftus 42]

It all depends on the subject and the composition the photography wants. It's pretty simple. You want minimal distortion, shoot 24mm or higher. Adding a TC to any lens is not as sharp due to the added glass. Many people don't mind, I do. But again it's another tool for whatever shot you want.

I agree it depends on choice of subject; but I like Alex am tending toward the FE more often than the wide rectilinear.

I think you make an assumption about sharpness that one would expect, but I have not seen with the FE / TC combination being as sharp as the rectilinears to my eye underwater and behind a dome.

 

See the parasites on this whaleshark? Pretty sharp I think.

 

[Drew 0]

Looks like a dotted tadpole. And I thought even though Galileo claimed the earth is round, it's not as curved as that?

Here you'll see that the earth isn't as round and the leatherback doesn't look like a tadpole. Don't mind the text as it's my new year's greeting card (12-24 Sigma at 12mm)

 

Here you'll see the distortion on rectilinear does show up but it's still not a tadpole. 12-24 Sigma at 12mm

[loftus 42]

Looks like a dotted tadpole. And I thought even though Galileo claimed the earth is round, it's not as curved as that?

Here you'll see that the earth isn't as round and the leatherback doesn't look like a tadpole. Don't mind the text as it's my new year's greeting card (12-24 Sigma at 12mm)

 

Here you'll see the distortion on rectilinear does show up but it's still not a tadpole. 12-24 Sigma at 12mm

I only added that pic to show that sharpness with a Kenko 1.4 Pro TC is not an issue, I agree it looks like a tadpole. That image was taken at the 10 end (14mm with TC) with the Tokina, one sees very little of that curvature at the 17mm end with TC. (As shown in my freediver pic using 16mm and TC, and I've posted a bunch elsewhere in the forums). There is much more written about lack of edge sharpness with very wide rectilinears. My point being that given that one can get similar sharpness with either combination, I find mild to moderate barrel distortion more pleasing than mild to moderate pincushion distortion for the type of images I've shown. The other potential benefit is that fisheye with TC at it's widest is still wider than the widest rectilinear. In fact if you'd had a TC Fisheye on your camera you'd probably would not have cut off the turtles but.

One other practical issue is that I find barrel distortion easier to correct in post, with less unwanted distortion elsewhere in the image, having tried PS and PT lens for this purpose

Edited July 20, 2009 by loftus

[Drew 0]

I would've missed the butt with any lens... because I wasn't looking throught the VF when I shot this as I was trying to time the head coming back down... plus this is a 1.5m leatherback turtle shot at 3 ft away and would've zoomed off if I didn't watch where it's eyes were looking. I'm not a great shooter. I'm just lucky at getting the opportunities at great shots Plus I never show the good stuff on WP

The barrel distortion on the 12-24 Sigma is minimal. That's the strength of the lens. It's not the sharpest zoom but it's the widest FOV and very controlled distortion. At 12 is 122° FOV diagonal. The 15mm FE is 129° FOV with a TC. The Tokina 10-17+1.4TC is about the same at 10. The added glass of the TC gives it a certain softness I dislike. It's simply not as crisp as if I shot with a 1.3 crop camera sans TC. Obviously it's a personal decision but my preference is whichever lens that will give me the shot I want. I have the Kenko, Nikon and Canon 1.4 TC. They all affect the image somewhat. Take a shot with and without them and see for yourself.

What we are discussing is the type and degree of distortion that is acceptable. All images can be corrected for distortion, you just lose a part of the image to correct for the distortion. That's like cropping really. You can do the same on rectilinear shots and get decent corners. As Alex says, a strong lens selection would have both in the bag. He just happens to live in an area where they weigh his bags often and he has to chose his tools more carefully.

You know what the funny thing is, on film, soft corners were an accepted part of any WA shot. Only when digital came with smaller sensors where decent corners were available that it became less acceptable. And now there's a big push back to FF. LOL

[loftus 42]

I think if Tokina ever come out with their version of the Pentax 17-28 fisheye zoom, I think it will be as popular on FF as the 10-17 is on DX.

[dhphoto 0]

Hi,

thanks for your samples and thoughts. It is exactly what I was looking for, since I am in doubt myself about WA vs. FE on my 5D. Now, if you guys could just agree it would be even more helpful;-)

No, just kidding of course, but one problem Loftus, I can't see your pics...? I can see Alex's and Drew's - anyone else have this problem?

 

Cheers,

David

[loftus 42]

Hi,

thanks for your samples and thoughts. It is exactly what I was looking for, since I am in doubt myself about WA vs. FE on my 5D. Now, if you guys could just agree it would be even more helpful;-)

No, just kidding of course, but one problem Loftus, I can't see your pics...? I can see Alex's and Drew's - anyone else have this problem?

 

Cheers,

David

Hmmmm... not sure what the problem is, I can see them, they're linked to a Picassa album. Just a point to be made here is that I'm not comparing wide angle to full fisheye coverage those are clearly different and have different applications. I'm specifically comparing superwide rectilinear with TC converted fisheye giving them similar fields of view and uses.

Edited July 20, 2009 by loftus

[dhphoto 0]

pics are up again. Dunno what happened.

Loftus, I def see what you mean with acceptable results with the FE. His fins look a tiny bot too small, but his front hard does not look much bigger than the other, so I think it looks more than acceptable to me. How close do you think you were to him?

 

D.

 

Hi,

thanks for your samples and thoughts. It is exactly what I was looking for, since I am in doubt myself about WA vs. FE on my 5D. Now, if you guys could just agree it would be even more helpful;-)

No, just kidding of course, but one problem Loftus, I can't see your pics...? I can see Alex's and Drew's - anyone else have this problem?

 

Cheers,

David

[Drew 0]

I'm happy with the 15mm fisheye and the 12-24 for SWA. NO MORE LENS purchases! reduce, reuse, recycle!

[loftus 42]

Remember I am down below him and his fins are further away from me so I would expect them to look smaller. In fact I suspect that if I had a rectilinear on, the fins would look even smaller, or at least thinner and longer. I'm estimating that his hand was between 2 and 3 feet from me.

Just adding another couple of pics for comparison, similar angles of an Oceanic Whitetip, first the 17-35 at 17, then the 10-17 with TC at 17. The animal is probably further away and as you can see looks leaner and longer with the 17-35. I'm sure some will prefer the rectilinear image, I prefer the fisheye with TC. The 'correct' perspective is probably somewhere between the two.

Obviously it's a matter of preference, I just think the fisheye TC is a better match with my visual perception for these up close images.

 

Sorry about the color I have not corrected these for web.

 

Edited July 20, 2009 by loftus

[loftus 42]

I'm happy with the 15mm fisheye and the 12-24 for SWA. NO MORE LENS purchases! reduce, reuse, recycle!

That's exactly why I did not throw my 10-17 away.

See we actually think alike.

[Drew 0]

The 'correct' perspective is probably somewhere between the two.

Obviously it's a matter of preference, I just think the fisheye TC is a better match with my visual perception for these up close images.

Rectilinear by design is going to be closer the majority of the image.

 

See we actually think alike.

Err no, you seem to have a distorted view of things whereas I'm straight... line inclined.

[Marcelo Krause 1]

Dear Friends,

 

Do you know which teleconverter will work with a Nikon 16mmFE? My nikon TC-14eII won't work

 

Thanks

 

Marcelo Krause

www.marcelokrause.com

[james 0]

I shot two lenses on my recent Wetpixel trip (on full frame) the Canon 17-40L and the Sigma 15mm fisheye + Kenko 1.4x TC.

 

I would say I prefer the slight barrel distortion of the FE to the 17-40L. For some reason the dome port REALLY exacerbates the pincushion of the 17-40. Example attached.

 

Cheers

James

[loftus 42]

What dome did you use James?

Today I shot with the 16mm and 1.4 TC, here's a quick censored example.

More pleasing perspective I think, particularly the way the feet are portrayed near the edge of the frame.

Edited July 27, 2009 by loftus

[Drew 0]

Dear Friends,

 

Do you know which teleconverter will work with a Nikon 16mmFE? My nikon TC-14eII won't work

 

Thanks

 

Marcelo Krause

www.marcelokrause.com

 

Marcelo

The Kenko 1.4x Teleplus DG is a popular TC that works with most lenses. Another one is the Tamron.

 

James, from recollection, the 17-40 had barrel distortion up to about 30mm then it reverses to pin cushion. Is that about right? What diopter did you have on at the time?

[loftus 42]

Marcelo

The Kenko 1.4x Teleplus DG is a popular TC that works with most lenses. Another one is the Tamron.

 

James, from recollection, the 17-40 had barrel distortion up to about 30mm then it reverses to pin cushion. Is that about right? What diopter did you have on at the time?

 

Marcello,

As Drew suggests, the Kenko 1.4, works well. Kenko makes two different convertors, the 1.4 Pro 300 DG, and a 1.5

The reports are that the quality of the 1.5 is not as good as the 1.4.

[james 0]

Hi Guys,

 

How did you censor that one Jeff? Did you cut/copy/paste in a whole piece of fabric? If so good job!

 

I used the 17-40L w/ no diopter, the Seacam Superdome and PVL35

 

Cheers

James

[loftus 42]

Hi Guys,

 

How did you censor that one Jeff? Did you cut/copy/paste in a whole piece of fabric? If so good job!

 

I used the 17-40L w/ no diopter, the Seacam Superdome and PVL35

 

Cheers

James

If you look bottom right you can see the white edge where I quickly duplicated the piece of fabric and rotated it 90 degrees.

I was just asking about the dome, as I was curious to see if the larger domes are better in this regard than my Subal FE2. It does not appear that they are.

I suspect that that this is a problem that is exacerbated by the dome and is probably not lens dependent but will occur with any wide rectilinear. As I definitely see this problem far more behind a dome, in fact with the 17-35 I cannot detect any obvious pincushion distortion at 17mm in similar images topside. Just reinforces my impression that fisheyes with their curved plane of focus are a better match for the simple optics of a dome port.

Edited July 27, 2009 by loftus

[Viz'art 24]

I think if Tokina ever come out with their version of the Pentax 17-28 fisheye zoom, I think it will be as popular on FF as the 10-17 is on DX.

 

I seriously think we should petition Tokina on the subject, stress the point that a sizable portion of the 10-17mm is sold for underwater usage. Anybody out there who knows how to set up those online petition, we could get the community behind this, who knows maybe they are like us and listen to their customers , that is the one lens that would tip the balance for a lot of peoples