Wide angle rectilinear versus fisheye

[BlueDevil]

I know this is probably a matter of personal preference to a large extent but I am wondering about people's views on wide angle rectilinear lenses versus the barrel distortion of fisheye lenses.

While I quite like images of pier piles taken with a fisheye I find the distortion a 'novelty' that looks okay for some images but I'm not sure I would want that with all my images. The underside of piers certainly look great in a wide angle view, but I think I would prefer wide angle undistorted images most of the time.

Of course the issue is less significant for most natural underwater shots (reef etc) that don't involve straight lines near the edges of the image.

What is your opinion? Is it worth putting up with barrel distortion in some of your photos (eg piers) in order to get the widest possible angle of view? Or do you prefer to get the widest angle rectilinear view and avoid distortion?

 

[Storker]

I know this is probably a matter of personal preference to a large extent but I am wondering about people's views on wide angle rectilinear lenses versus the barrel distortion of fisheye lenses.

I started a similar thread a couple of months ago, you'll find some opinions there.
In this thread, Guy Harrison has some interesting views on fisheye vs. rectilinear WA (particularly in this post), which made me decide on getting a rectilinear WA before a fisheye.

 

[Interceptor121]

Does the question refer to housed SLR or mirrorless cameras or to camera with wet lenses?
Usually at around 110 degrees or 15mm equivalent you have barrel distortion anyway even with a flat lens

 

[BlueDevil]

I started a similar thread a couple of months ago, you'll find some opinions there.
In this thread, Guy Harrison has some interesting views on fisheye vs. rectilinear WA (particularly in this post), which made me decide on getting a rectilinear WA before a fisheye.

Thanks Storker, I will have a close look at those threads. At a glance it looks like there will be some useful material in there.

---------- Post added February 10th, 2013 at 08:56 PM ----------

Does the question refer to housed SLR or mirrorless cameras or to camera with wet lenses?
Usually at around 110 degrees or 15mm equivalent you have barrel distortion anyway even with a flat lens

A good question Interceptor and in reality this question is partly to help me decide what direction to take in upgrading my camera.

At present I just have a Canon S95 in Canon housing. Being on a budget I am thinking of upgrading this by addition of a strobe and wet lenses (preferably via an Inon LD adaptor). Importantly I would be looking at buying stuff that could be used on other cameras if I upgrade to a new camera.

In the long term I am considering either a Sony RX100 (so could make use of the wet lenses I plan on buying for the Canon), or moving to an Olympus E-PL5 (would probably go for the 9 - 18 lens in that case).

Have been wondering about the Inon UWL-100 but not sure if it will be wide enough for the 'stunning reef shot with diver in background and sunburst'. Adding the optional dome would give me adequate wide angle, but I figure would introduce significant barrel distortion. Also concerned about size and weight (and cost) of the Inon with dome.

 

[Interceptor121]

The inon without the dome is good provides around 100 degrees and very limited barrel distortion, this is however not the same as a flat lens behind a dome as the camera has anyway a flat port and the wet lens corrects pincushion distortion and other aberrations
If you think of going to a Sony RX100 the Inon is the way to go
If instead you are thinking about an changeable lens camera the story is completely different you will need a dome for wide angle even if you have a rectilinear lens on the camera.
In terms of field of view the Inon at 145 degree is equivalent to a 7mm that would anyway be pretty much a fisheye

 

[bullshark]

Guy Harrison has some interesting views on fisheye vs. rectilinear WA (particularly in this post),

All due respect to Guy Harrison, who's air photos are quite nice, if you take the time to look at his portfolio, you will see next to nothing in U/W photography. In all candor his opinions appear to be highly biased by his land experience and lack of U/W photographic experience (one might also surmise that he does not have a fisheye lens and port for U/W). No doubt about it, if you want the lens for in-air shots and shooting architecture, the 8mm FE is not the lens for you.

One of the criticisms was that it[8mm] was "one dimensional". Just exactly what is "One-dimensional"? If you don't want things to be in focus from 8mm to infinity, then you haven't been in the water with a Whaleshark, Manta, or Humpback, or else you haven't taken a good photo of them.

• One of the most popular wet mount WA lenses in the world the UWL-04 is a 165° FOV. Fisheye.
• Probably near 100% of the best big animal U/W photos you have ever seen were shot with a fisheye.
• With the widest rectilinear mft, you will get maybe 114°; significantly less without an optically correct dome.
• The rectilinear lens is bigger and heavier.
• The 7-14 is egregiously expensive.
• The 9-18 only give about 19% increase over the 12-50.

MFT Lens focal length	FOV (air or correct dome)	FOV (flat port)
12-50mm	84°	60°
9-18mm	100°	74.6°
7-14mm	114°	85°
8mm FE	180°	n/a

Having just returned from Isla del Coco, I can tell you 3 things:

1. Fisheye was the weapon of choice for every camera in the water there.
2. Every DSLR-owner was eyeballing my 4.33" dome with notable interest (as compared to their giant domes).
3. Next time, I won't even bother taking the 12-50 to Cocos, or silver banks, or any other big critter destination.

Now, if your primary concern for your camera and lens is land-based photography, then guy harrisons POV makes a lot of sense. But if you are an underwater photographer, I think it's near heresy to contemplate in-air utility for your lens choices underwater. Except for the fact of a camera being involved the two subjects are unrelated.

If your interest is U/W photography and you can have only one WA lens(in addition to the the 12-50), IMO the 8mm is your best choice, hands down. You just can't appreciate it until you have it in the water. It is very good for photographing other divers. You can easily get the whole diver (or several) while being close enough to light them with your strobes. A significant benefit, not to be understated for travelers (ie those who actually use their rigs) is the space and weight savings of this setup.

The 8mm can make do for some macro work, too. I posted this before in another thread but the Scubaboard uploader trashed it.

Please click on the thumb, then click on the image to see the full-resolution and incredible detail provided by this "one dimensional" lens.

 

[Diver Dave1]

I love shooting a Tokina 10-17 in a minidome with an SLR. I have a large dome for rectilinear lenses and I never us it.

 

[dhaas]

Amigos,

I think there's a mindless obsession with edge to edge sharpness and the like or dislike of curved WA images.

If shooting a compact camera (I group this as anything other than a APS-C or Full Frame SLR or some 4:3 Mirrorless models) I think many people can use a WA rectilinear (flat field, i/e/ NON-Fisheye) lens and get fine photos.

As I've made the point many times most people never shoot as close as they think they are For WA scenics 1.5' to MAX of 5' is best.

For SLR shooters using a non-Fisheye WA lens the trick is to use either a larger dome port (meaning 8" versus smaller dome) and finding the right extension. Or if using a smaller dome port find the "sweet spot" where it will be sharper plus shoot at f8 or even smaller if at all possible.

Your edges "MAY" be softer but seriously? With today's megapixels you can either crop them out or many times this can lead a viewer's eyes to your main in focus subject.

I have mostly used APS-C cropped sensor models Nikon early in digital with a 1.5X crop factor then switched to Canon with a 1.6X crop factor.

Before the very nice Sigma 15mm Fisheye (a full frame model) and the now popular Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye lenses came along I was very happy with "tighter" FOV (field of view) lenses such as the Nikon 12-24mm, 18-35mm ED and in Canon the 10-22mm EF-S lens.

When the "edge sharpness obsession" came along I bought both the Sigma 15mm and Tokina 10-17mm. I see a slight lessening of curvature from the Sigma FIXED 15mm or Tokina 10-17mm when shot at 14-15mm. At 10mm even a non-fisheye lens will have outer edges distorted somewhat.

Many love the curved razor edge to edge look and accept it as gospel for UW shots. But lately I'm shooting more an equivalent "film" FOV of about 18 - 24mm.

The last couple of trips when using compact cameras I've even gone without a WA attachment (!!!!!!) See my recent Canon G1X shots for WA images using nothing but the IN CAMERA "SCENE" Fisheye modes........

So don't think you MUST have a FISHEYE lens with 110 - 180 degree FOV to get nice WA shots........

Grouper photo below was shot with a Canon 10-22mm EF-S behind only a 6" Ikelite port. (JUST ADDED SOME POOL SHOTS WITH Canon 10-22mm, fixed at 12mm in an Ikelite 6" dome port.)

I have tons more photos I'm very happy with before using the Sigma 15mm and Tokina 10-17mm. The Canon 10-22mm I refer to as an examples lens is also a great surface WA lens.

Meaning one less lens to invest in and haul...........

YMMV and just keep shooting underwater pics having fun

David Haas
www.haasimages.com

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

All due respect to bullshark, but you are wrong on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin.

First this is what Guy said in his post, “I will be the first to say that there are many pros who like the fisheye. However, I emphasize the word "pros." They like the unique look and have the time and dedication to master the difficulty of shooting such an ultra-wide and one-dimensional lens for an entire dive”. I think the point being made here is that the fisheye is a lens with a unique look that those who have looked at thousands of photos can immediately identify as a fisheye. Second that it is a lens that takes time to master and third that it is a lens you are, in the case of a DSLR or Mirrorless interchangeable lens camera stuck with for an entire dive. Guy expresses that his preference is for a rectilinear zoom lens (in this case Panasonic 7-14) because it can cover a wider range of subject matter and subject distances during one dive. The Tokina 10-17 zoom/fisheye is an exception but not for M43 camera use.

The idea that a lens like the Panasonic 8mm has DOF from 8mm to infinity and that you imply that this is the only way to get a large animal like the Whaleshark, Manta or Humpback in focus throughout the frame is laughable. First you would need to be shooting at F/22 to come anywhere near 8mm to infinity with the 8mm fisheye and second at F/22 the Panasonic 7-14mm zoom would be in focus from about eight inches to infinity as well. If you are shooting Humpbacks, Mantas and Whalesharks closer than eight inches we would all like to see those shots.


The idea that anyone would be shooting the 7-14 zoom on a 4/3-M43 camera without a dome port is like saying you would get less AOV if you were shooting your fisheye behind a flat port, who would do that. Also to infer that one only gets 114 degrees behind with a dome port with the 7mm end of the 7-14 shows a clear lack of understanding of U/W photography. The gold standard of U/W lenses for decades was the Nikonos 15mm, a rectilinear lens with a U/W AOV of around 96 degrees. I can assure you that thousands of the U/W shots (including many in focus iconic big animal shots) we all have seen were taken with this NON-fisheye lens and the that lenses in this focal range are very much in use in U/W photography today as well.

Regarding fisheye lenses for your DSLR trip companions the 10.5, 15/16 and Tokina 10-17 zoom are the most used these days and many DSLR users have gone to the 100mm optical glass ports like the steller ZEN Underwater ports, (myself included, I use a Zen 100mm with the 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-M5 and Nauticam NA-EM5 housing). If you are not up on the metric system 100mm is smaller than your Nauticam 4.33 inch (110mm) port and very well used by many U/W shooters of all levels and system types around the world.

Regarding the Panasonic 7-14 zoom its weight is 300 g (10.58oz) and the US price is around $900.00, the Panasonic 8mm fisheye weight is 165 g (5.82 oz) and is around $640.00 in the US. By comparison the Nikon 14-24 with about the same zoom range as the 7-14mm, for “full frame 35mm sensors” is around $2000.00 US and weights 969 g, it also requires a 230mm port if you expect to get anywhere near good corner sharpness. In APS-C sensor size the Nikon 10-24 covers a 109-61 degree range at 459 g and would require a 200mm port for best results. This makes the 7-14 a clear winner in the focal range regarding cost and quite high in over-all image quality according to many reviews. The Panasonic 8mm is no more or less expensive than most other fisheye offerings. It is of course less expensive than the quality wide zoom lenses as it should be.

The idea that land photography is that much different from U/W photography is also flawed. All of this camera equipment other than the after market stuff is made for land photography without a bit of thought being given to the underwater guys and gals by Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Pentax, Sony and others. Olympus is the only camera maker that gives any thought to U/W and that is only in the form of the U/W W/A and Macro mode settings in cameras they are making a housing for. How much difference is found between shooting architectural photography and shooting a wreck or the pier pilings described by Blue Devil in his original post? Water, both subjects are man made structures and both will look better with straight lines rather than curved ones. If you are an excellent nature photographer out of the water chances are much of your knowledge will carry over to underwater photography. One sure sigh of a novice underwater photographer is one who can’t make the connection between land and underwater photography.

I shoot with the 8mm fisheye and several rectilinear lenses both above and below water and I understand the merits of both. I also understand that many reading this forum will only want to buy one lens and port for wide angle. Some will chose a fisheye for its distinct look and very close focus while others will want the greater flexibility and range of control found in a quality rectilinear lens. What you are shooting makes a big difference, for those shooting models in a pool the fisheye will be a poor choice. For those shooting reefs in two foot visibility the fisheye may be the best choice. The idea that one lens is superior to the other is just wrong.

I would just like to close by saying that Guy has put his real name to his posts and while I have no problems with screen names when you get as personal in a post as you have it might be nice to at least know who it really came from.

Phil Rudin

 

[Storker]

Phil: Very interesting writeup (or should I say rant? )

Me, I'm coming from topside photography, which I've been doing - with varying degrees of enthusiasm and at least as varying degrees of success - for about three and a half decade (BTW, my Flickr account is here in case anyone wants to see what I can show to support my arguments). I'll never claim I'll be able to reach the level of the pros, or even those who win photo contests, but I consider myself to be decently skilled and moderately gifted among the run-of-the-mill amateur photogs. And I've started to build myself an OM-D system after being limited by the tech specs of my housed Canon G9 which I started bringing underwater last year. I fully expect a long and steep learning curve before I'm able to master the underwater environment.

Now, to get on topic, when I was deciding on what system to build I was - like the OP - looking at all those beautiful UW shots taken with fisheyes and thinking hard about going the fisheye route myself. My problem was that despite all the kudos for the fisheye lens, I knew that at least topside the fisheye is a very specialized lens which takes a long time - or great talent - to master beyond the novelty effect. Because of this, I was very happy to see Guy's opinions on the fisheye vs. rectilinear question, and now also yours. Those opinions support my skepticism about the fisheye. At my skill level and with my talent, I expect that I'll probably get more keepers by using a - for me - more flexible and more familiar rectilinear WA zoom than the rather specialized FE. And who knows, maybe one time in the future I'll feel confident enough in my abilities to try to master the FE. But not right now.

Anyway, this is really just MHO and from a POV with virtually no experience in underwater photography, so y'all can take it with as many grains of salt as you prefer. But thanks to Phil for contributing some perspective to the discussion.