Welcome to ScubaBoard, an online scuba diving forum community where you can join over 100,000 divers from around the world discussing all things related to Scuba Diving. To gain full access to ScubaBoard you must register for a free account.
As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 500 dive topic forums and browse from over 3,000,000 posts.
Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
Post your own photos or view from 80,000 user submitted images.
Gain access to our free classifieds marketplace to buy, sell and trade gear, travel and services.
Use the calendar to organize your events and enroll in other members' events.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact the ScubaBoard Support Team.
back again on the new lens:
I am a little puzzled on the possibilities of the new lens and this in relation to the 8mm fisheye:
- both are +/- same price
- the 8mm is a 'real' fisheye: angle 180 degrees
- the 9-18 has probably an max angle of 110 (I saw that the angle of the 'unaffordable' 7-14mm was 75 - 114 degrees, on the Belgian site there is mentioned that the angle of the 9-18 is 65 °, but this for the 18mm-side probably)
If I had to chose (I want to buy one) between the 8mm fisheye and the new one 9-18mm for underwater photography what is now really the best choice. For sure you can use/enjoye the 9-18 also above the water, which is not the case for the 8mm.
Probably also important if you consider the extra cost of the port: the 8mm needs a dome port, the 9-18 probable a less expensive port (not dome)
But what to do if you only consider the possibilities underwater ?
tnks
jan
I'm assuming the 9-18 is a rectilinear like the 7-14. So while you lose a little bit of view angle, you gain by not getting the distortion to straight lines. A lot of people post that the fisheye effect isn't that bad for underwater shots since most of what you shoot is 'organic' and not rectilinear anyway, but imaging a shot of the leg structure on an oil platform dive, or a wreck, and you can certainly see the interest in avoiding the fisheye distortion effect as well.
I really don't think you'd want to use the 9-18 behind a flat - any more than you would the 7-14. Domes preserve view angles at the cost of image distance, flat ports exchange field of view for magnification. Putting an extreme WA lens behind a flat would defeat the purpose...you'd be just as well off sticking with the 14-54 behind your dome, I guess.
p.s. just read on DPreview that the 9-18 will be compatible with the EC14 and EC20 teleconverters. What exactly would be the benefit of using a WA lens with something that has the effect of doubling its focal length...vs using a middle-wide standard lens in the first place ???
__________________
To a hammerhead shark, everything looks like a nailfish... A Noob's Photo Gallery
Finally completed new rig: E330 with Ike housing, 8" dome port/5503 small macro dome, 14-54mm and 35mm Macro lens, dual DS50s, ULCS buoyancy arms and Fantasea Nano focus light.
After doing my first trip with the 50mm lens, I'm so glad I listened to Phil, Roger and others. That lens absolutely rocks. Throw a custom woody's diopter in front and you're getting some killer macro. I'll post some results later. Just got back and I'm whipped.
Looking forward to seeing your images !!!
__________________
Safe Diving
Andrew
Oly E3 / Nexus housing, 50mm Macro, 35mm macro, 8mm FE, 12-60mm & 135-400mm : 2 x Inon Z 240's + Fisheye Fix Light
Linear Mode
