Group: Administrator
Post: 1,371 (303 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Feb 8, 2019 21:13:39 GMT
Posted: Feb 8, 2019 21:13:39 GMT
I'd say I'm partial to wide angle lenses in general, but this one is a bit more extreme - and certainly not a standard rectangular wide. This might not be something I'd regularly have in a ready-bag to grab and go, but I'll probably find more than a few uses for it when I need it. It might be rare, but that wasn't the driving factor when I recently picked one up at auction. I wanted to have the extra-wide option as a shooting lens and 2k+ isn't in my budget at the moment for the alternatives in this same field of view, whether rectangular or not. Please bear in mind that the day I took these test shots, it was -2/-22 F outside (real temp / wind chill), so I wasn't about to spend a lot of time in setting up anything pretty to compose to. I pretty much treated these as pre-set zone focus shots with the widest aperture I could get away with on a Sony NEX-F3 @ 200 ISO in the blazing winter sun. All shots were at f/3.5, and the needle was pegged and blinking at 1/4000 for the shutter. These obviously will be even wider and more extreme for the whole image on full frame film or digital, but even at the 1.5X crop on APS-C, this are still plenty wide. The down side is not (yet) knowing how sharp it will be at the FF edges, but if these tests are any indication, I won't be surprised if it's surgical-sharp across the whole frame. In my haste to get the shots, I missed the fact I'd previously set my exposures to -1 EV for some earlier shots, and I forgot to reset it before doing these. Other than making an adjustment in Lightroom to compensate for my goof, the only other change was for a very slight CA removal on the 2 sun-facing shots. No sharpening or any other modifications.  [Facing the sun]  [One step forward, same settings/corrections]  [Away from the sun] This really is an outstanding lens, and to be honest, I wasn't expecting it to be this good. I'll certainly be able to 'un-fish' the curvature in DxO to get a more-or-less equivalent shot to a more traditional rectangular wide angle like the ML 21mm or Distagon 16mm. And If I want to take it one step further, I'll probably be able to get a passable correction for perspective too. It won't be like using a PC tilt/shift lens, but it might work well enough. |
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,010 (77 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Feb 12, 2019 3:58:48 GMT
Posted: Feb 12, 2019 3:58:48 GMT
That's a nicely controlled lens. I like the 15mm focal length, but like you said, it's usage is limited. I bought mine (Voigtlander/Leica M)for those times I just can't back up any further to get everything in the shot, and it came in handy the first day I took it with me.  Railroad Artifacts by P F McFarland, on Flickr Truth be told though, this shot was the reason I bought the lens, as I had taken it before, but had to do a panorama stitch of five photos to get it all in the frame. PF |
|
Group: Member
Post: 415 (92 liked)
Join date: March 2017
Status:
|
|
on Mar 6, 2019 17:51:59 GMT
Posted: Mar 6, 2019 17:51:59 GMT
Nice lens to have in the collection but, as you already said, the usage is limited, and for sure not cheap. ridgeblue99, How did you achieve to avoid the barrel effect of the lens?... Your shot looks great! |
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,010 (77 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Mar 7, 2019 4:15:29 GMT
Last Edit: Mar 7, 2019 4:17:56 GMT by ridgeblue99
Nice lens to have in the collection but, as you already said, the usage is limited, and for sure not cheap. ridgeblue99 , How did you achieve to avoid the barrel effect of the lens?... Your shot looks great! It's a Voigtlander! No actually, I think the key is to center the horizon. And get a Voigtlander.
PF
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 415 (92 liked)
Join date: March 2017
Status:
|
|
on Mar 7, 2019 7:40:57 GMT
Posted: Mar 7, 2019 7:40:57 GMT
It's a Voigtlander! No actually, I think the key is to center the horizon. And get a Voigtlander.
PF
 Voigtlander, sponsor official of this thread. |
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,371 (303 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Mar 7, 2019 20:34:20 GMT
Last Edit: Mar 7, 2019 20:35:34 GMT by lumiworx
Ariel ... There's a slight difference in PF's 15mm Voigtlander and the Yashica 15mm. The Ultra-Wide Heliar is a rectilinear lens, with a 110 degree view - and the Yashica is a true fisheye, with a 180 degree view. PF's lens has a large amount of distortion corrections built into the design, where the Yashica doesn't have as much. Both have aspherical elements to control the barrel distortion, but the Voigtlander keeps the curved edges under control far better without having to resort to post processing to remove the peephole look. The down side (for me, at least) is that is isn't available in a C/Y mount, so that I can use it on my Contax or Yashica film bodies along with all the other C/Y lenses I'd carry and use on them. I really like the results - and the price on used Heliars can be reasonable - but it means having another film-loaded body that would only be used for one single lens. That's not necessarily bad, but, it is more 'stuff' to carry and keep in running condition. I'd still use it on digital (mirrorless, for me) but that's yet another adapter to carry for using it there. Here's a 3-pane test of one of the tests shots as-run through to correct the distortion - in DxO v9. (I'm rebuilding a PC with the latest version, so it should yield even better results than these). If you'd like to see the individual images at 2048px widths, they're posted on my testbed site. I think that the middle version is perfectly acceptable as an un-fished image, and in a pinch I don't mind the results on the bottom with the extra perspective control... but, I'd probably opt for that if it was for architectural subjects that needed the tilt/shift type straightening, where I'd loose a fair chunk of the image in cropping it. - Top - the original.
- Middle - w/ fish-eye correction, parallel perspective correction (using 2 lines to mark what's parallel), and volume deformation corrections (for pillow and minor barrel issues).
- Bottom - w/ fish-eye, rhombus perspective correction (skewed, 4-line box to mark both horiz/vert parallels ), and volume deformation.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 415 (92 liked)
Join date: March 2017
Status:
|
|
on Mar 8, 2019 7:51:53 GMT
Posted: Mar 8, 2019 7:51:53 GMT
lumiworx, thanks for the analysis and tests, now I understand better why ridgeblue99 said "get a Voigtlander". It is good that now the digital post process is making easy to correct the results of a fish-eye lens, but when using film the results on the negs would look like the test picture on the top, so now I wonder how to do the corrections using a traditional enlarger and get the same results on paper. I will try to find some info over the net.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,371 (303 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Mar 8, 2019 16:11:43 GMT
Posted: Mar 8, 2019 16:11:43 GMT
lumiworx , thanks for the analysis and tests, now I understand better why ridgeblue99 said "get a Voigtlander". :D It is good that now the digital post process is making easy to correct the results of a fish-eye lens, but when using film the results on the negs would look like the test picture on the top, so now I wonder how to do the corrections using a traditional enlarger and get the same results on paper. I will try to find some info over the net. That's been part of my learning curve too, as this fish-eye is my first - ever. I've used rectilinear wide angles for decades, with focal lengths in the usual ranges like 24mm, 28mm, or 35mm primes. When I was processing my own film and doing my own enlargements, there wasn't anything I needed to add to the process apart from dodging, burning, or applying filters during the exposure process to get an image onto photo paper. Those rectilinear lenses may have had an exaggeration in angles that were obvious, but that was okay and acceptable when viewing the results as there wasn't any curved distortions to detract from the view. PF's Heliar is in that same family of lenses, but it's at the more extreme end for focal length than what used to be sold in the film-only era. After the world of digital appeared, I expanded my tool-set - and not only for use with the digital bodies I use. Although I don't shoot film in the same volume I once did, it still is an avenue I want to keep open for any new gear I buy. I've just learned what additional steps can be done to make use of things in both worlds. I have scanners for film negatives (or slides) of up to 4x5 sizes, and can create a digital file from that original piece of film. Then the same software I'd normally use for a 100% digital workflow, can be used to somewhat take the place of a physical darkroom. I have no illusions that I'll be able to do the impossible and optically un-fish a fish-eye's distortions onto photo paper, but I can explore a 15mm fish-eye lens that I probably never would have purchased for film-use only. Now I have the advantage of having a fish-eye to use on the film bodies I already use - when I can accept the overly-curvy results in the finished print. |
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,010 (77 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Mar 9, 2019 3:25:14 GMT
Last Edit: Mar 9, 2019 3:28:16 GMT by ridgeblue99
BTW, I like the last correction to the image best. You didn't have to crop out anything of importance to the main image, so it works fine for me.
PF |
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,371 (303 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Mar 9, 2019 6:03:35 GMT
Posted: Mar 9, 2019 6:03:35 GMT
BTW, I like the last correction to the image best. You didn't have to crop out anything of importance to the main image, so it works fine for me.
PF Thanks PF... In this case, and with this shot, I too could be happy with the last version. It's when I'd run into the same circumstance as you did, backed up as far as you can and still can't get all the piers in... that's where I probably wouldn't use the full set of correction options on digital. Funny... This thread reminds me of one of my first college classes in basic photography, where one of the teacher's most often used instructions was: "You will often have to frame the shot with your feet, and not just the lens". And... on the Zeiss 15mm. Whether it's at the $2k I alluded to early on, or the $1898 when discounted - it's a bit too rich considering how much I'd use it. I'd be far more tempted to buy a Heliar and an adapter. I'm sure I could find a Bessa or a Minolta CLE and save a huge wad of money over the Distagon. For now, I'm happy with the Yashica. |
|
Group: Member
Post: 132 (14 liked)
Join date: September 2017
Status:
|
|
on Mar 11, 2019 20:18:23 GMT
Posted: Mar 11, 2019 20:18:23 GMT
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 132 (14 liked)
Join date: September 2017
Status:
|
|
on Mar 13, 2019 10:10:20 GMT
Posted: Mar 13, 2019 10:10:20 GMT
|
|
