Fisheye 10-17 question

[Gonz]

I've seen some nice pics from this lens.  W. Hamler's recent "Hot Dog 
Heaven" is a prime, err... zoom example.

My question is related to its fishiness.  I've heard that the lens is a 
fisheye at 10mm, but loses its "fishiness" as you head towards 17mm, so 
that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm.  Anyone have any experience 
that could confirm/disprove this?

Thanks,

Gonz


-- 
Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I 
was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's 
a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man?
- Mitch Hedberg

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

> I've seen some nice pics from this lens.  W. Hamler's recent "Hot Dog 
> Heaven" is a prime, err... zoom example.
> 
> My question is related to its fishiness.  I've heard that the lens is a 
> fisheye at 10mm, but loses its "fishiness" as you head towards 17mm, so 
> that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm.  Anyone have any experience 
> that could confirm/disprove this?

I've 17-28 FishEye zoom lens. On full frame it is very FE at 17 mm and 
slightly curved at 28 mm. It never becomes rectilinear. I would suspect 
that 10-17 behaves more or less the same way.

Just my pixels...

Boris

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[David Savage]

By 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent.

Here are a couple of examples of mine (taken in the exact same position):

10mm



17mm



HTH

Dave


On 1/6/07, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've seen some nice pics from this lens.  W. Hamler's recent "Hot Dog
> Heaven" is a prime, err... zoom example.
>
> My question is related to its fishiness.  I've heard that the lens is a
> fisheye at 10mm, but loses its "fishiness" as you head towards 17mm, so
> that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm.  Anyone have any experience
> that could confirm/disprove this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonz

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[Rick Womer]

Well, I disagree with Dave.  The lens is still quite
"fishy" at 17mm, and if you look at the curvature in
the buildings, trees, and road in the second pic, you
can see it easily.

It's a great lens.  I enjoyed the 17-28 so much on my
(P)Z-1p that I asked for the 10-17 for my birthday,
and got it.  Much fun.

Rick


--- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> By 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent.
> 
> Here are a couple of examples of mine (taken in the
> exact same position):
> 
> 10mm
> 
>

> 
> 17mm
> 
>

> 
> HTH
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> On 1/6/07, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've seen some nice pics from this lens.  W.
> Hamler's recent "Hot Dog
> > Heaven" is a prime, err... zoom example.
> >
> > My question is related to its fishiness.  I've
> heard that the lens is a
> > fisheye at 10mm, but loses its "fishiness" as you
> head towards 17mm, so
> > that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm.  Anyone
> have any experience
> > that could confirm/disprove this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gonz
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> 


http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[David Savage]

I can see a slight amount in the tree & building but none in the road.

I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my 
archive for another shot at 17mm and it displays obvious "fishiness". So 
I'm withdrawing my "pretty much non-existent" comment. Funnily enough 
almost all the shots I've made with this lens have been taken at the 10mm FL.

Cheers,

Dave

At 03:40 AM 6/01/2007, Rick Womer  wrote:
>Well, I disagree with Dave.  The lens is still quite
>"fishy" at 17mm, and if you look at the curvature in
>the buildings, trees, and road in the second pic, you
>can see it easily.
>
>It's a great lens.  I enjoyed the 17-28 so much on my
>(P)Z-1p that I asked for the 10-17 for my birthday,
>and got it.  Much fun.
>
>Rick
>
>
>--- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > By 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent.
> >
> > Here are a couple of examples of mine (taken in the
> > exact same position):
> >
> > 10mm
> >
> >
>
> >
> > 17mm
> >
> >
>
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > On 1/6/07, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I've seen some nice pics from this lens.  W.
> > Hamler's recent "Hot Dog
> > > Heaven" is a prime, err... zoom example.
> > >
> > > My question is related to its fishiness.  I've
> > heard that the lens is a
> > > fisheye at 10mm, but loses its "fishiness" as you
> > head towards 17mm, so
> > > that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm.  Anyone
> > have any experience
> > > that could confirm/disprove this?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Gonz


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[Gonz]

Makes you wish you had that prototype 8mm fisheye that never made it to 
market huh?

rg


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I can see a slight amount in the tree & building but none in the road.
> 
> I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my 
> archive for another shot at 17mm and it displays obvious "fishiness". So 
> I'm withdrawing my "pretty much non-existent" comment. Funnily enough 
> almost all the shots I've made with this lens have been taken at the 10mm FL.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave
> 
> At 03:40 AM 6/01/2007, Rick Womer  wrote:
> 
>>Well, I disagree with Dave.  The lens is still quite
>>"fishy" at 17mm, and if you look at the curvature in
>>the buildings, trees, and road in the second pic, you
>>can see it easily.
>>
>>It's a great lens.  I enjoyed the 17-28 so much on my
>>(P)Z-1p that I asked for the 10-17 for my birthday,
>>and got it.  Much fun.
>>
>>Rick
>>
>>
>>--- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>By 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent.
>>>
>>>Here are a couple of examples of mine (taken in the
>>>exact same position):
>>>
>>>10mm
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>17mm
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>HTH
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>On 1/6/07, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
I've seen some nice pics from this lens.  W.
>>>
>>>Hamler's recent "Hot Dog
>>>
Heaven" is a prime, err... zoom example.

My question is related to its fishiness.  I've
>>>
>>>heard that the lens is a
>>>
fisheye at 10mm, but loses its "fishiness" as you
>>>
>>>head towards 17mm, so
>>>
that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm.  Anyone
>>>
>>>have any experience
>>>
that could confirm/disprove this?

Thanks,

Gonz
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I 
was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's 
a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man?
- Mitch Hedberg

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[David Savage]

Here is another shot @ 17mm:



Dave

On 1/6/07, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can see a slight amount in the tree & building but none in the road.
>
> I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my
> archive for another shot at 17mm and it displays obvious "fishiness". So
> I'm withdrawing my "pretty much non-existent" comment. Funnily enough
> almost all the shots I've made with this lens have been taken at the 10mm FL.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> At 03:40 AM 6/01/2007, Rick Womer  wrote:
> >Well, I disagree with Dave.  The lens is still quite
> >"fishy" at 17mm, and if you look at the curvature in
> >the buildings, trees, and road in the second pic, you
> >can see it easily.
> >
> >It's a great lens.  I enjoyed the 17-28 so much on my
> >(P)Z-1p that I asked for the 10-17 for my birthday,
> >and got it.  Much fun.
> >
> >Rick
> >
> >
> >--- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 10mm
> >
> > >
> > > 17mm
> >

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[Gonz]

Thanks Dave.  I dont see much distortion at 17mm, but its hard to tell 
since there are not many lines to allow a clear conclusion.

rg


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> By 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent.
> 
> Here are a couple of examples of mine (taken in the exact same position):
> 
> 10mm
> 
> 
> 
> 17mm
> 
> 
> 
> HTH
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> On 1/6/07, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>I've seen some nice pics from this lens.  W. Hamler's recent "Hot Dog
>>Heaven" is a prime, err... zoom example.
>>
>>My question is related to its fishiness.  I've heard that the lens is a
>>fisheye at 10mm, but loses its "fishiness" as you head towards 17mm, so
>>that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm.  Anyone have any experience
>>that could confirm/disprove this?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Gonz
> 
> 

-- 
Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I 
was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's 
a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man?
- Mitch Hedberg

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[David Savage]

I got the lens for a specific project that ended up not happening.
(360 degree QT VR panos of a ship's interior).

Cheers,

Dave

On 1/6/07, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Makes you wish you had that prototype 8mm fisheye that never made it to
> market huh?
>
> rg

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[K.Takeshita]

On 1/05/07 1:57 PM, "David Savage", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I can see a slight amount in the tree & building but none in the road.
> 
> I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my
> archive for another shot at 17mm and it displays obvious "fishiness". So
> I'm withdrawing my "pretty much non-existent" comment. Funnily enough
> almost all the shots I've made with this lens have been taken at the 10mm FL.

You did not say it is near-rectilinear or anything like that.  What you said
was "by 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent." which I agree.
Nobody expects this lens be near-rectilinear at any FL, and if you look at
images closely, you always find curvature somewhere.  But I agree that in
some occasions, and particularly when choosing compositions carefully (avoid
straight lines as much as possible etc), curvature might look "pretty much
non-existent", and sometimes you might even be able to get away with it if
talking to the uninitiated people.

I no longer have an FEZ (I used to have a film version which was sold to one
of the list members) but I thought the film version exhibited more curvature
than DA version (I could be wrong).

As FEZ is unique and it does help when trying to capture as much interior or
landscape as possible, with a knowledge that it could be made rectilinear
later, I intend to buy a DA version at some point.

Ken


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[Jan van Wijk]

Hi Gonz,

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:38:39 -0600, Gonz wrote:

>I've seen some nice pics from this lens.  W. Hamler's recent "Hot Dog 
>Heaven" is a prime, err... zoom example.
>
>My question is related to its fishiness.  I've heard that the lens is a 
>fisheye at 10mm, but loses its "fishiness" as you head towards 17mm, so 
>that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm.  Anyone have any experience 
>that could confirm/disprove this?

Well, the effect gets a lot less towards 17mm but is still there.
I don't have two images from the same subject, but compare
these two PESOS made at 17mm and 10mm respectively:

http://www.dfsee.com/gallery/index.php?id=192
and
http://www.dfsee.com/gallery/index.php?id=186


Regards, JvW

--
Jan van Wijk;   http://www.dfsee.com/gallery



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[Gonz]

Aha, thats a better example.  Thanks.

rg


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here is another shot @ 17mm:
> 
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
> On 1/6/07, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>I can see a slight amount in the tree & building but none in the road.
>>
>>I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my
>>archive for another shot at 17mm and it displays obvious "fishiness". So
>>I'm withdrawing my "pretty much non-existent" comment. Funnily enough
>>almost all the shots I've made with this lens have been taken at the 10mm FL.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>At 03:40 AM 6/01/2007, Rick Womer  wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I disagree with Dave.  The lens is still quite
>>>"fishy" at 17mm, and if you look at the curvature in
>>>the buildings, trees, and road in the second pic, you
>>>can see it easily.
>>>
>>>It's a great lens.  I enjoyed the 17-28 so much on my
>>>(P)Z-1p that I asked for the 10-17 for my birthday,
>>>and got it.  Much fun.
>>>
>>>Rick
>>>
>>>
>>>--- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
10mm
>>>
>>>
>>>
17mm
>>>
>>>
> 
> 

-- 
Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I 
was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's 
a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man?
- Mitch Hedberg

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Fisheye 10-17 question

[K.Takeshita]

On 1/05/07 2:28 PM, "David Savage", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I got the lens for a specific project that ended up not happening.
> (360 degree QT VR panos of a ship's interior).

Oh, you did it again to me! :-).
I love ships and always wanted to make it one of my themes.  Moving into an
urban condo, I cannot find many subjects for photographing except concrete
jungle and I need to come up with a few themes on which I enjoy working on.
Other list member I envy is Tom C.  From what he shows from time to time, he
must be living in a very scenic place with plenty of subjects to capture.

The only thing which resembles to ship in our area is those "lakers" which
are not my idea of ships.
I have to move to Halifax or Vancouver to see "real" ships.  One of these
days, I like to make a trip to the coastal side of this continent just for
photographing ships.
If you made any QT VR Pano of ship interior, please post it.

Thx,

Ken


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net