Review: EPL5 with Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye MFT in Oly housing with Athena 100mm port

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

jhelmuth

Contributor
Messages
986
Reaction score
15
Location
Clearwater, FL
# of dives
1000 - 2499
For those of you who are considering options to shoot a fisheye lens with the Olympus Pen series, here is some testing I did and results that I hope will help you...

Camera: Olympus Pen E-PL5
Lens: Rokinon 7.5mm f3.5 m4/3 (MFT) fisheye (180 degree FOV) Note: this lens also goes by the Samyang and Bower names as well
Housing: Olympus PT-EP10 (but any non-lighted PT-EPxx housing should also work)
Port: Athena OPD LH100 100mm dome for Olympus Housing (designed for the Lumix 8mm fisheye lens)



Here is what I did...


> Used an Inon D2000 strobe as my "subject" since it had several qualities that I thought would help me decide on focus clarity.

> Used 2x BigBlue 2500 lumen LED torches as my ambient lighting (which afforded me an ISO of 400 and shutter of 1/100 - 1/125 at various apertures)

> Snipped several bit of old measuring tape (the type that is stiff and rolls into the case by itself) so I could measure distance, but also because the fine lines and graduations would give me a better objective to judge focus.

> Tested distance of 2", 4", 6", 8", 10", 12", 18", 24" (inches) all at f11 (I've been able to prove to myself that this seems to be the aperture sweet spot), but different focus settings (0.3ft, 0.4ft, 0.5ft, 0.65ft, 0.8ft)

> I wanted to test 2" and 4" shots, but I'm weighting them quite low as I do not intend to shoot 4" and in. Still, I took them as a reference to help me figure out what was going on

> As a final test, I used several objects set in background and foreground and tried f16 and f22 at the 0.65ft focus, as well as f11 (again) and f8.

Here is what I found...

* 0.3ft (minimum focus) and 0.4ft were all pretty much rubbish except at the 2" and 4" distances (actually, even the 4" distance was rubbish with the 0.3ft focus)
* 0.8ft looked best only beyond 6"
* The 2 contenders for best DOF seemed to fall to the 0.5ft and 0.65ft shots.
* As one might suspect, the background focus was slightly better at the 0.65ft shots, while the foreground focus was decidedly better with the 0.5ft shots
* f11 was a clear winner in the final test shots (I think this is the sweet spot of the lens overall)
* @ f11 and 4" - 6" - 8" - 10", 0.5ft & 0.65ft were virtually identical - I could not call a winner
* @f11 and 12" (and beyond) 0.65ft was more clearly the "winner" as the distances became longer.

Final Results...

So now I considered f11 focused at 0.65ft (which was actually as close to exactly between 0.5ft and 0.8ft as I could guesstimate) to be my decided "winner"
Now I wanted to "see" what f22, f16, an f8.0 would produce... and f11 was the clear winner.

Conclusion: The results with the Rokinon lens was impressive. :D Given the closeness of the physical size to the Lumix (Panasonic) 8mm fisheye, I expected it would work - but how well? Other than the lack of auto focus, and the tinyest bit of mechanical vignetting (see note and examples below) the Rokinon was indeed a pleasant surprise (given it's less than 1/2 - 36% - the cost of the Panasonic 8mm). If you are absolutely in need of having the ability to use auto-focus (and I have no idea how that may - or may not - be better), then maybe the Rokinon would not be for you. But - if your like me - lenses at this focal length are rarely in need of anything more than setting up the hyper-focal distance setting and shoot away (which for a dome port WILL be different than any land/air settings). In doing some research, the Rokinon easily held it's own against the Panny 8mm (on land anyway).

In my limited testing, I would choose f11 focused at as close to exactly between 0.5ft and 0.8ft on the focus ring as my correct hyperfocal setting for anything 4" and beyond (excepting 2" and 24"+ - in which case I'd choose 0.5ft for the 2" shot, and 0.8ft for the 24"+ shot)


sqm9gx.jpg

ISO 400 1/100th f11 (2" with focus set to 0.5ft)

34gpqir.jpg

ISO 400 1/100th f11 (6" with focus set to 0.65ft)

ve14yo.jpg

ISO 400 1/100th f11 (12" with focus set to 0.65ft)

aemteq.jpg

ISO 400 1/100th f11 composite

PS - I do get the tinyest mechanical vignetting with this Dome/lens combination (again - Athena 100mm fisheye dome for Oly PT-EPxx [designed fromLumix 8mm] with a Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye)

---------- Post added August 2nd, 2014 at 10:48 PM ----------

PS... I'm headed down to the keys for a couple of days for some R&R (which has to include diving!) and will get some real-world shots to share with you when I get back...
 
thanks for the review. do you have a photo of the lens in the housing? have you shot any underwater pics with it?
 
No pics in open water - yet (which I noted in my original post - I'm taking this to the Keys and will post some pics when I get back).

Will do on the lens/housing pics...
 
Thanks for sharing this- I love my Rokfish lens and would like to get it underwater. I know one of the Zen domes can be used with multiple lenses- 9-18, 60 macro etc. Any idea if your Athena can do the same? I understand that the optics are different, but it would be pretty useful if I could stuff more than one lens inside.
 
I believe I am correct in stating that Zen makes an equivalent fisheye dome to the Athena, but the Zen WA-100mm for the 9-18mm and 14-42mm (works for the 60mm macro?) will NOT work for the Lumix 8mm, nor the Rokinon.

Your assumption is correct - the optics are all wrong, and you'd need a completely different dome (such as the Athena or Zen short fisheye domes).

---------- Post added August 6th, 2014 at 12:28 AM ----------

Here is a sample (cropped) shot from the pool test...
1grpi.jpg


...and some pics of the lens/housing...
2q9ia1i.jpg


35ko5du.jpg
 
Here is a sample of today out at Pickles. Bad storms last night had things stirred up a good bit, so water quality wasn't the best...
x6k60n.jpg

ISO 200 f11 1/125th dual YS-350 Pros with H/W Digital Adapter in conjunction with Oly EPL5 in Fill mode and RC on.

---------- Post added August 8th, 2014 at 10:30 PM ----------

If I look at this at 100%, focus is not that good.

I shot this with focus fixed at 0.5ft (or 0.15m). Give the DOF scale, I'm now wondering if this wouldn't have been better at something closer to 0.8ft (0.24m)...

Strobes are a bit hot too... so I think I should have maybe shot it at 160th sec. (or have set the camera's EV to maybe -0.3)?

PS - really kinda amazing (to me anyway) that the YS-350s work so well with this (thanks to the H/W Digital Adapter). I only had 2 misfires all day and by setting the Olympus EPL5 to "use" RC (Remote Control ON) and the YS-350s to TTL, I had a fair bit of success (at least after I set the ISO to 200 down from 400, and increased the Shutter to 1/125th)
 
PS - really kinda amazing (to me anyway) that the YS-350s work so well with this (thanks to the H/W Digital Adapter). I only had 2 misfires all day and by setting the Olympus EPL5 to "use" RC (Remote Control ON) and the YS-350s to TTL)

Hi Helmuth, I guess that the H/W digital adapter you refer to is the one by Heinrichs Weikamp.
I think it should normally be used with "normal" flashing, not RC.
Did he make a version that decodes RC??

Best regards, Eskil
 
I can't tell you "why" it works - just does (but not 100% - most of the time, yes ...seems like about 95+ % of the time).

Using it without RC mode seemed to cause it to fail more often than not.

This is NOT an evaluation of the DA. I'll need more time to see if I can "decode" how this works - but it does work!
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom