Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
new Sony E ultra-wide lenses
#11
That is steep. Out of curiosity, how much do the old fashioned fisheye lenses have? 10 or 15%?
#12
Nah, a typical fisheye has around 50%.


At the end of the day, it's the output quality that counts. You can still have good corners at 10% (corrected). You just won't have great ones.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#13
Also the 10-20mm shows a similar figure for distortion...

https://www.lenstip.com/632.6-Lens_revie..._view.html
stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#14
Just short of 10%. But not reaching that figure. Smile
I guess Klaus will have a lot of fun with these lenses when they inevitably end up in da lab.
#15
(06-03-2022, 12:17 PM)Klaus Wrote: Nah, a typical fisheye has around 50%.


At the end of the day, it's the output quality that counts. You can still have good corners at 10% (corrected). You just won't have great ones.

<ROFL>

IMO, it is debatable whether that is really distortion, considering the different projection method used. To me, if a straight line through the optical centre, i.e., perpendicular to the optical axis of a fisheye, through that axis, is straight, it is fine, no distortion if you ask me. Smile In that case it does what it is supposed to do Smile.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#16
Well, it is distortion, because the image is not rendered in a rectilinear projection as we see it (more or less...) That a small part of the image is not affected by it doesn't change the overall phenomenon, does it?
#17
(06-10-2022, 12:25 PM)Rover Wrote: Well, it is distortion, because the image is not rendered in a rectilinear projection as we see it (more or less...) That a small part of the image is not affected by it doesn't change the overall phenomenon, does it?

I would only consider it distortion if it is not intended that way. If it was a rectilinear lens, yes, it would be distortion. Some fisheyes actually do show some distortion, although that tends to be hard to see. In that case it generally is pincushion distortion.

That lines through the optical center are straight is part of the way a fisheye renders, by design Smile.
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#18
I'm slightly wondering why the blogosphere is more excited about the 15mm f/1.4 G. That's a FF 23mm f/2.1. Normally nothing to get overly excited about.
However, the 11mm f/1.8 (aka 17mm f/2.7) for relatively little money seems to be an awesome offering in my book.
And with these specs, it'll even kill the Laowa 9mm f/2.8 in terms of value - easily.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)