 Kenko Fisheyewith metal lens cap |  Kenko Fisheyewithout thread mount |  Kenko Fisheyeon 52mm to B50 mount |
|
Kenko Fisheye with metal lens cap | Kenko Fisheye without thread mount | Kenko Fisheye on 52mm to B50 mount |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Related Links:
16mm Fisheye page
Converting Panoramas to Circular Images and Vice Versa (w/o computer) by Jeffrey Charlesc
Greg Erker's Fisheye Macro Adapter Fun Page
FIFE CLoud Camera Lens Data Set
Fisheye .42x adapter review [8/2002]
Fish Eye Test Page (using 0.42x) [3/2000]
Fisheye Homebrew Tips (door peep-sight) [11/2002]
Fisheye Origins (WJM site)
Fisheye Photo Pages (Anthony Maw) [9/2000]
Fisheye to Lens Adapter Rings (1" hole to 52mm etc.) [9/2002]
Fisheyes and their Place in the Universe (projection types etc.) [10/4/99]
Fisheye-66 180 deg. on 120 by Greg Erker
Free Panoramic (fisheye conversion) software by H. Dersch
Hemispherical Photography Pages [01/00]
Kenko Fisheye Lens in HAL9000 Computer (20001 movie) [12/2000]
Making Environment Maps from Fisheye Photographs by Ken Turkowski (IPIX free)
Nikon's New
Manual 20mm f/8 fisheye URL thanks to Tan Kah Heng! [3/2001]
Pentax 17mm f/4 Fisheye (for 35mm) on 120 Rollfilm Project by Greg Erker [10/1/99]
Spherical Stitching (e.g. 16mm Fisheye Mountings..) [10/4/99]
Ultrawide Site
W.J. Markerink's Lens Registration Tables
W.J. Markerink's List of Fisheye Lenses (35mm etc.)
W.J. Markerink's Medium Format Fisheye Article
Zuiko 16mm Fisheye on 645 Camera Mount [10/4/99]
Notes:
2001 HAL Computer Eye = Kenko Fisheye
Bird's eye Mirror Homebrew Project
Fisheye photo effects for under $10US cost (note below)
Kiev 30mm fisheye on Bronica EC Project
Postings related to Fisheyes, Ultrawides etc.
Sakar Superwide .42x Mutar adapter (80mm x .42 = 32mm! for circa $50US)
True 30mm 6x6 fisheye for Bronica for under $250 Project Idea?
WJM on the Only MF Fisheye (Kowa)+ options (posting below)
WJM"s Kowa 19mm Fisheye #1 -
Kowa 19mm Fisheye #2
[Kowa fisheye photos courtesy of Dave Mewhinney [email protected]
These photos are believed to be W.J. Markerink's Kowa 19mm fisheye lens..]
Consequently, we have to turn to an alternative such as a
180-degree fisheye adapter to provide such fisheye effects. Fisheye
adapters such as the Kenko featured here are relatively inexpensive. At a
recent online photo auction (EBAY, 9/97), a used Kenko fisheye adapter
fetched a premium price just over $100US.
Do you have multiple camera systems in medium format and 35mm? These
adapters are very attractive means to achieving fisheye effects on all
of your systems by simply using various filter adapter rings. As the
photos show, there are even adapter rings for bayonet mounts, such as the
Hasselblad B50 mount among others.
These fisheye adapters use the screw threads of your normal lens
filter ring to mount the adapter on the front of the desired camera lens.
The lens is light weight, so this mounting method is quite sturdy. The
curved front surface of the fisheye makes it impossible to use standard
flat filters in front of the fisheye (use rear mounting instead). A unique
curved metal front lens cap protector is provided. A small flat circular
metal rear lens cover fits over the lens exit area at the base of the
fisheye adapter. Use both front and rear metal lens protectors to prevent
scratches to either lens element during storage.
Naturally, you can see and compose your fisheye adapter photos
using your regular SLR viewing system. Since the sun tends to get into
many of my fisheye adapter photos, my older 35mm TTL camera meters tend to
get fooled. A handheld meter can prove handy in such situations. If you
want to minimize curving horizons, a level tripod and the ruled lines on
your viewing screen will help. If you like such optical distortion
as I do, feel free to handhold. When handholding, I find it best to cup a
hand under the adapter to manipulate its controls and support it and the
normal lens.
The fisheye adapter can be set to match light acceptance cones on lenses from 30mm to 200mm, although the best results are for normal lenses in the 50mm (for 35mm cameras) to 80mm (for medium format) range. Corresponding f-stops can be set on the fisheye lens up to f-90 (for 200mm lens setting) to a minimum f-stop of f3.5 (on 30mm lens setting), with a range of f8 to f32 on the 70mm lens setting (or f5.6 to f22 on 50mm setting).
The sample medium format fisheye photos shown above were taken with a
normal 75mm lens and Kenko fisheye adapter. The original slides are
brighter and more saturated. Sorry, but I haven't figured out how to light
these larger slides on the scanner to offset the large dark area around
the central image. As you can see, the fisheye adapter provides a true 360
degree image, covering 180 degree field, and a real circular fisheye
effect. The image on film is not full-frame, but occupies the central 1-1
1/2 inch of the image (changing focal length on the Kenko changes
coverage).
The first image shows how natural objects (a tree) going through the center
of the fisheye is only minimally distorted. By contrast, the car is wildly
distorted in this fun photo. The next photo shows how huge the depth of
field is on these fisheyes, from inches in the grass blades to infinity.
The curving walls of the building give away the fisheye is being used.
The bowing of the walls in the cupola, and effect of shooting straight up
into the circular cupola, are shown on the next two slides. The last
photo shows the great curving effect of shooting at the horizon.
In this last photo and the third and fourth photos, you can see that these fisheye adapters have a tendency to flare in strong direct sunlight. Light falloff (as in the car photo and first photo rim) is also larger at the edges than for a prime fisheye. Color saturation and contrast is a lot better in the original slides, but a prime fisheye would probably beat the fisheye adapter here again. On the other hand, where else can you get a fisheye effect on medium format (outside rare Kowa true fisheye?). And the price is right (at $50US to $100US used), especially since this fisheye lens is readily shared between different 6x6 and 35mm cameras.
The 180 degree coverage of this fisheye makes a circular image on
film, with the greatest apparent fisheye effect (circular distortion)
visible near the edges of the image. The images are much better than I
expected from a used $50US adapter. Naturally, you will get sharper and
more uniformly lighted images from a thousand dollar original
manufacturer's fisheye lens - if one is available. But for most of us,
these fisheye adapters offer a way to inject an occassional fisheye
photograph into our presentations without breaking the bank.
Enjoy!
 SuperWide .42x Mutar |
 .42x Mutar Mounted |
Sakar .42x Mutar Converts Normal Lens to 30mm Equivalent Semi-Fisheye
See Bronica Wide and Tele Adapters Page for
related information, from which this section was abstracted:
The Sakar Super-wide .42x Mutar shown here provides a very
low cost superwide semi-fisheye effect on both 6x6 and 35mm cameras. A closeup view
of the .42x mutar shows its distinctive round inner lens element shape.
The surface of the lens is actually relatively flat. For 35mm camera
use, a built-in very short lens hood pops up to reveal some filter ring
grooves. But this short 3/16ths inch high lens hood only protects about
a sixty degree swath of the top and bottom of the lens when put into
position. A filter would likely vignette the image severely, let alone a
projecting lens hood extending into the long axis of a 35mm camera photo.
So about a 120 degree segment is removed from each side of the pop-up
lens hood ring to prevent vignetting the long axis of a 35mm camera
image. On square 6x6 formats, you would
leave the lens hood in the down position to prevent vignetting.
In theory, your 75mm normal lens on 6x6 becomes the equivalent of a 32mm
super-wide angle lens on 6x6 format (or 21mm equivalent on 50mm normal
lens of 35mm camera). The mutar mounts in a series VII filter. You will
need a series VII to VIII ring to match the Bronica normal lens 67mm (or
series
VIII) filter mount.
This is not a rectilinear wide angle
lens, so
expect to see considerable fisheye distortion effects. The edges of the
6x6 format are cut off in the corners, but only slightly (circa 3/8ths of
an inch). The fisheye barrel-distortion effect is very pronounced at the
center. The horizon curves easily if you move out of level alignment
either up or
down. On the other hand, this is a pretty wide angle lens on the 6x6
format, well beyond the 50mm wide angle usually found.
The fisheye distortion effect is less
than when using a Kenko Fisheye Adapter on your
Bronica. The math suggests this adapter should produce wider coverage
than a 40mm lens. You should expect less sharpness and contrast and
greater
tendency towards flare from any adapter. But for circa $50US for a used
.42x Mutar adapter, you can't go too badly wrong. Ability to use the same
adapter on many medium format and 35mm cameras, simply by getting series
VII to lens filter thread size adapter rings, is an attractive feature.
Modern Photography of September, 1962 article titled "Fisheye Photos"
(p. 56-9, 107)credits Karp with developing the ultrawide and fisheye adapter.
Photographer Tony Karp started with some negative lenses from Edmund Scientific. Using a
35mm f/1.5 lens, he ended up with a fisheye adapter covering about 170
degrees and a focal length of 8 to 10mm and maximum lens speed around f/3.5.
How did he do it? Closes to the camera lens, Karp placed a double
concave lens, some 20mm in diameter, having a focal length of -40mm.
The next lens is a plano-concave lens, with flat surface facing inward
towards the lens. This lens is about 30mm in diameter, and has a focal
length about -30mm. Finally, the front element is a 43mm diameter
negative meniscus lens, whose focal length is about -73mm. Karp used
adapter rings and tape to hold his setup together.
An earlier effort used a camera, focusing ring and adapter, a 35mm f/1.5
lens, several adapter rings and a macro photocoupler, plus some negative
lens elements in a variety of rings. The result was a super-wide but
not quite fisheye adapter, roughly similar to the 0.42x Mutars described
here.
Be forewarned that such efforts are closely tied to the individual lens(es)
used in their construction. So even if you had a similar lens of a different
brand, you might end up with different results. I am not suggesting that
you try to build your own fisheye or ultrawide lens. It would be much
cheaper and more functional to buy a ready made fisheye adapter, and the
resale value would be higher. However, if you want to have some fun, and
maybe come up with your own unique odd-ball lens designs too, this note
may provide some encouragement!
A tip from our Bronica homebrew lenses article
suggests several very low cost alternatives for taking fisheye style photos.
Spherical security mirrors are one way to take a photograph with your
regular lens that provides a fisheye effect at low cost. These security
mirrors are the kind you see hanging in corners so you can see around
the corner into the next corridor. Remember to
focus not on the mirror but on the distant objects when you use this
trick. You can combine this fisheye effect with deliberate distortion
in some backbround mylar or other reflective metalized plastic film to get
some really wild reflection effects.
Another under $10US fisheye adapter can be made using a fisheye
security adapter mounted in a lens cap (metal preferred) in front of
your normal lens. You have probably seen these fisheye security
adapters mounted in the peepholes of your last hotel room? By mounting
them in a metal lens cap, you can use your regular lens to get a wild
fisheye effect. The same fisheye wall adapter can be used on your 35mm
camera lens with another lens cap. When you get bored with it, you could
always put it back into that hole in your hotel door. See
Tom Fuller's Return of the Fisheye article in
Shutterbug
Ads of December 1991 p.100 for more details.
See British Journal of Photography, November 19, 1997 issue (p. 28) titled Very Big Fish
by Roger Hicks describes adapting a Kiev (Zodiak) 30mm fisheye lens as a custom 4x5" film back camera.
The lens is mounted in a leaf shutter onto a wooden view camera rear (with film holder) which in turn
mounts 4x5" film holders. You
have circa 81mm lens registration distance on the Kiev-88 mount models, providing some limited space for
mounting and shutter clearance. The lens throws a circular fisheye image of about 83mm. The lens has its
own focusing mount, a plus compared to simpler barrel lenses. A striped lens might fit into a #3 shutter,
possibly even a #1 shutter, with the right hardware and tools. The result is a pretty unique large format
circular fisheye effect covering 83mm, from a lens which can be acquired for less than $250!
Accompanying photo shows circular fisheye lens on a rollfilm camera style body with a large
film winding crank prominent, along with a carrying case.
Source: Telephoto and Wide Angle Photography by Robert Simmons, Amphoto, 1959, p.110.
Somehow, this nikon 120 rollfilm camera is not often noted among the short list of nikon
medium format (120 rollfilm using) cameras. And at 16.3mm, it may well be the widest production
fisheye lens specifically designed for medium format camera use ever!
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
[3] Re: Medium format circular fisheyes
Date: Sat Sep 06 1997
Jose Marma Requena [email protected] wrote:
>Hello,
>I am looking for information about medium-format lenses equivalent to
>the wider fisheyes in 35mm (8 and 7.5mm). I'd like to get a circle shot
>180 degrees at least. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks.
The only one *ever* made was the 19mm/f4.5 Kowa, for the Kowa Six, Six MM
and Super 66. 180 degree all around, 360 degree along the rim.
A monsterous lens, as clumsy as the 6mm/f2.8 Nikon.
A pretty rare one too, I doubt that more than a few hundred where made,
probably much less. Very few people even know that it exists, and I was
very lucky to find one for a decent price.
For details on this lens, and other fisheyes for 35mm and medium
format, check my homepage:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm
An alternative/better solution (definately price-wise), is either mounting
a normal fisheye for a 35mm camera on a medium format body (must have focal
plane shutter and must be shallow), or a normal fisheye for medium format
on a large format body (again focal plane shutter and shallow construction;
there are some fisheyes with lens shutter, but there is hardly any way to
release that shutter).
I am planning to mount either a Kiev 30mm or Mamiya 37mm on a Speed Graphic
body. Will require lots of hacking, but you then have an image circle
between 85mm (Kiev/Hassy) and 95mm (Mamiya/Pentax).
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
[email protected]
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998
From: Mark L [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: WTB: Fisheye lens or attachment for AE1
Hi,
Thanks alot. I'm not the biggest photo buff in the world, I am a comic
artist and painter, and I love to use my instructor's fisheye for reference
photos. But, school's almost out, and I wanted one for myself. His cost
$800 and that was way outa' range. I knew these attachments existed and
have been to every camera shop in the area and they have no idea what I'm
talking about (New Jersey...yeesh). I've been looking for one for a year,
and within 10 minutes of your info I found one for $40 online. THANKS ALOT.
So there are a few good ones left in the world,
mark
Photo courtesy of D. St. Denny
| A True 30mm 6x6 fisheye for Bronica for under $250 Project Idea? |
|---|
|
Can a true 6x6 fisheye 30mm f3.5 lens be adapted for classic Bronicas?
The 6x6 circular fisheye lens is a
Zodiak lens for Kiev-88 mounts that costs only $200US. The image
circle is an impressive 81mm! An accessory
adapter is available for $35 to convert to Pentax screw-mount (M42) or
Nikon mounts.
Before you say Kiev lenses with a multi-start thread lens mount of
82.10mm lens registration can't mount on a classic Bronica S2a mount of
101.70mm, think again. Remove the helical mount. Observe that you have
over an inch from the previous lens-mount height to the start of the
mirror box. Recall that the Bronica S-series used a dropping mirror
design. Even if the lens extends further into the body, no harm is done.
This observation could mean a lot of lenses might be remounted onto a
recessed Bronica mount using this same approach, starting with
Kiev-88s.
One key issue remain to be determined. Can the Zodiak lens fit into the
throat of the Bronica S2 series body with the helical lens mount removed?
The hole is just under three inches, but I can't get 30mm lens size
information from the US representatives. If the lens can be made to fit,
and focusing provided, it might be relatively simple to build a simple
mounting plate to fit inside the Bronica S2 series. Only the last inch
of lens needs to be recessed into the body, and this looks at least
feasible from the 30mm lens
photographs.
One side effect would be the ability to mount any of the Kiev-88
lenses in the classic Bronica body. These lenses have very good quality
for the price reputations, and many new lenses for under $350US are
available. Besides the 30mm fisheye, a 45mm f3.5 superwide ($250US), 65mm
f3.5 ($145US), and 150mm f2.8 ($310US) and 250mm f5.6 ($180US) or 250mm
f3.5 ($250US) and even a 500mm macro f5.6 ($990US) for the well-heeled.
Using this same approach, any of the Hasselblad 1000f and 1600f lense
might also be mounted, as they share the Kiev88 mount (at 82.10mm).
Note that there are both multi-coated and non-multicoated lens versions
available.
Another intriguing project idea would use the PCS Arsat Shift lens for
Kiev-88 (82.1mm mount) - a 55mm f4.5 lens with 12 mm of shift on a 360
degree axis! Obviously interesting for architectural work, this lens
could use the Bronica 6x6 series focal plane shutter and a special mount.
Possibly Dr. Zorkendorfer could supply such a mount on a custom basis?
|
[Ed. note: glad to have confirmation that our project works!!! ;-) ]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Ooffy)
[1] Re: Adapting Kiev Fisheye to a Pentax 645
Date: Wed Mar 31 1999
I have modified a Kiev 30mm Fisheye to fit my Bronica ECs. It's fairly
easy to adapt lenses to the Bronica EC because of the split mirror system
(the lower front half of the mirror fold down and the upper rear fold up)
allows you to put the rear element far back into the body without hitting
the mirror. This, combined with a removable focusing helical makes it
real easy to "stuff" lenses into the Bronica body.
I don't know much about the mirror mechanism on a Pentax 645. The starting
backfocus dimension on a Kiev is 82.10mm and the Pentax 645 is 70.87mm. I
don't know if there is a half inch of "free" space behind the bayonet on the
645 before you'd run into the mirror.
A handy source for dimensions on camera backfocus can be found at
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm
Good Luck,
Ron Bennett
[Ed. note: a followup posting...]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Dear Bob:
Here follows a response to the posting on adapting Kiev lenses to fit the
earlier Bronicas. Fell free to post it on your site if you feel it's
germane.
I'm not yet ready to show picture of the conversion or offer to do others
-- but I may at a future date.
Best wishes,
Ron
Having actually modified a 30mm Arasat fisheye lens to fit a Bronica, I
can say that an adapter is out of the question. The backfocus on the
Bronica is almost an inch greater than the two Kiev cameras.
To mount the 30mm, you have to remove the Kiev lenses mounting system (it
doesn't really matter if you start with a 30mm for the 60 or the 88 since
they both are bolt-on "adapters" for the 30mm), engineer a Bronica
large-mount bayonet, and mount it to the lens. This is the easy part. The
"fun" comes in completely reengineering the aperture ring/stop-down system
to clear the lens mount and still be able to set the aperture. Now getting
the Bronica's stop-down lever to operate the 30mm's mechanism is a whole
other question.
The 30mm is worth the effort IF you have a need to a lens that wide.
Engineering the other Arasat lenses to fit the Bronica would indeed be a
waste of time in light of the superb lenses already available for the
Bronica.
Ron Bennett
From: [email protected] (Ooffy)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 16 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Russian Lens coverage.
I've modified a 30mm Arasat to mount on my Bronica ECs (6x6) and in
developing the mounting system, I did check the image circle. It covers
6x6 very well with only the expected sine-Xr falloff. Although I did not
write down my measurements (since 6x6 coverage was all I was interested in
at that time), I do remember being most favorable impressed with the
coverage and feel it should have no problem covering 6x7 but 6x9 would be
pushing it. I have no experience with the 65mm.
Ron Benmnett
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 17 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Russian Lens coverage.
Ken Ruth (Photography on Bald Mountain) had modified a 30MM Russian
(Ukranian) wideangle for Bronica EC- was this for you, or did you do this
yourself?
He told me he even got the stopdown lever to work - from up and down
motion in the Bronica to push in pin on the 30MM.
Can you tell more about how you did this modification and my hat is off to
you for being able to do it. Why not write to Bob Monaghan at his great
Bronica site to tell him about it-
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html
- Sam Sherman
From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hassy/Pentacon fish eyes WAS:Re: [CONTAX] 350mm/f4 for 645
Glad to hear that Herwig has gotten his adapter ready. I'm sure he
will find it a very popular item. If I get a Contax 645 this would be
first on my list so I could use my collection of CZJ lenses.
You may just be surprised if you compare the 30mm Zodiak (now sold as
Arsat) to the Hasselblad lens. We've compared them at Shutterbug and
there is damned little difference other than that the Arsats show
typically lax Ukrainian quality control. Get a good one and no one
could distinguish the photos from ones taken with the Zeiss.
One point, though. These lenses were both designed for 6 X 6 format,
so won't be 180 degree fisheyes on 645 format.
Bob
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Peter Mikalajunas)
[1] Re: Should I buy a fisheye lens???
Date: Wed Mar 31 1999
[email protected] (Ken) wrote:
I picked up an Arsat 30mm on eBay for a ridiculously low price, under $200.
A couple of things. This is an ultra-wide lens. It is not the 180 degree
coverage that some may think it is.
The MC Zodiak-8 30mm does give 180 degree of coverage, at least according to
Kalimex's web page.
http://www.dedal.cz/optics/medium_format_lenses.htm
_Know which one you are purchasing_.
I just had the Arsat out today. It is a big, heavy chunk of glass. Not
something, I would just toss into a day sack. It also seems to be a very nice
lens. You really have to "pick" your subject carefully.
Many years ago, I ran out and got a 20mm for my Canon A1. I used it maybe
3 or 4 times. It just sat collecting dust, till I sold it. Unless you
have a real "taste" for these ultra-wide lenses, be careful.
True 180 degree coverage is not something you will be using every day.
You may just be better off renting when you need/want one.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
[1] Re: Should I buy a fisheye lens???
Date: Thu Apr 01 1999
>_Know which one you are purchasing_.
BOTH give 180 degree view....but ONLY diagonally, since it is a full-frame
fisheye. For 180 degrees in all directions you end up with a CIRCULAR
fisheye. But apart from a very rare Kowa 19mm/f4.5, and a batch of 15
Nikkor 'cloud-cameras', these don't exist for medium format.
An overview of fisheyes, 35mm and medium-format, full-frame & circular, is
on my homepage:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm
The only two significant differences between MIR/Arsat/Zodiak is that some
later ones are multicoated, early ones are not.
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998
From: D. L. Feinberg [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lenses
I have one of the 30 mm / 3.5 "Zodiak" (Kiev) lenses.
It is a very good lens. I bought it in E. Europe for $120, new. It
sells in the US for more like $800+.
My unit is smooth as silk. Mechanically, it's probably the best Kiev
lens I own (I have 7).
A real problem is that it only comes in two mounts: one for the Kive 88
(like Hasselblad 1600), and one for Kiev 60 (like Pentacon 6). I don't
know how one would mount one on a contemporary Hasselblad.
One other problem: Though well made, the lens is not MC. This means,
especially for such a wide angle lens, one has to be very aware of sun
angles, light sources in the frame, etc.
Don Feinberg
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: soligor .15x fisheye adapter (no adapter) - $79 at Brooklyn
Camera 6/15/98 - http://www.brooklyncam.com/buy.html
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.video,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Looking for VERY wide angle lens
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998
[email protected] wrote:
> I'm wondering how wide an angle is possible. I'm wondering > if it's possible to have a lense or assembly of lenses that > gives 270 degrees. Something that can be placed on an exterior > corner and see all the way from one wall to the other. If not, > what is the widest angle possible? >
Using a convex-mirror assembly easily gives 300 degrees or more,
but you have your camera in the middle of the image. You can buy
adapters at
Regards
Helmut Dersch
From: [email protected]
[email protected] (Paul Rubin) wrote:
You can use my free program "Panorama Tools" to convert fisheye
images (or parts of fisheye images in case the field of view is
too large) into "normal" (ie rectilinear) images, or panoramic
images. It runs on Macs (recommended) or DOS-machines.
Regards
-------------------------------------
Free Panorama Software:
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[email protected] (ArrFilms) wrote:
I think Adorama offeres a .42X for about $50...
(You want one that takes a Series-VII adapter - then
get a XXmm-to-Series-VII stepping ring [You may need
to get creative with step-down rings to go from a big
lens front-thread size to Series-VII {which is about
52mm...} for your purposes]).
BTW, I've tried at least 5 optically-different .42X's,
and they performed differently on particular lenses,
but the differences were mostly in field curvature
(which may not affect your use...).
David Ruether
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected] (Roman Prokhorov) wrote:
Note that the Zodiak/Mir/Arsat 30mm is not a *circular* fisheye, but a
*full-frame* design, covering the complete 56x56mm of a 6x6 frame.
There have only been two (or three, still investigating) circular fisheyes
for medium format, the ancient Nikon 'Cloud-Camera' (don't know spec's),
and the Kowa 19mm/f4.5. There is also a 24mm Hassy that gives a circular
image, but it is still not sure whether that is fisheye or ordinary
rectangular (any lens can produce a circular image).
Btw, for those interested, I can supply an Arsat 30mm for US$250....;-))
More data about fisheyes, both 35mm and medium format, both circular and
full frame, can be found on my homepage:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm
--
I'm trying to figure out some sort of way to use a fisheye lens on a large
(4x5) format camera. I have a bunch of Toyo parts, so I am planning to use
the revolving Toyo back and machine an adaptor for a medium format fisheye
lens. No camera body, just mount the lens right to the back. I've done this
in the past with Mamiya Universal lenses, and it worked just fine.
The two choices seem to be the RB67 37mm, and the Pentax 67 35mm.
I am under the impression that they are both full frame 180 degree fisheyes,
so the image circle of the Mamiya lens is a bit bigger than the Pentax, and
in fact will almost cover a 100mm circle, which would give a nice round
image on a 4x5 sheet.
The Mamiya lens has a built in shutter, which is nice, but it is almost
twice the price of the Pentax lens. My idea with the Pentax would be to
mount a #3 Copal behind the lens.
Has anyone had any experience with creating fisheye images with a large
format camera? Is there an easier or less expensive way to do this? Is
there an optical advantage that one of these two lenses might have?
Gary Helfrich
From: [email protected] (B Yen)
[email protected] (Gary Helfrich) wrote:
Some hardcore astrophotographers have built such cameras. The Distagon
30mm/3.5 is excellent. (I've seen Europeans do this, German & Slovakian).
I've seen astrophotos witht the Pentax 35mm/4.5 (on 120), & the stars begin
to distort in the outer frame (they get oblong-shaped). However, many
Japanese astrophoto rigs use this combination. I've heard someone talk
about playing with the Mamiya, but he had your same concerns: unsure about
the quality, before plunking down $$.
As a matter of fact, over the weekend, I did 6 exposures using a Kiev
Zodiak 30mm/4.5 (copy of Distagon 30mm/3.5) on 4x5 (custom built camera),
for the Geminid meteor shower. You can see my 35mm results at:
http://www.comet-track.com
I used E100S slide film, & I was really surprised! The stars on the outer
portions didn't show any gross aberrations: they only got triangular &
hints of slight-bloating. For me, I was pretty satisfied (vs laying out
$3000 for a used Distagon. You can get the Zodiak for $200-$300). I think
the discriminating types wouldn't be satisfied with the Zodiak, however.
Keep in touch with me, Re: your project. I want to do the same project.
I was considering the Pentax 35mm/4.5. I am scrounging for a Distagon, but
will probably settle on the Zodiak.
BY
From: [email protected] (Helge Nareid)
[email protected] (Gary Helfrich) wrote:
I have done this with a 35mm Pentax67 fisheye. I have a Sinar camera
with the Sinar/Copal behind-the-lens shutter, so it was a fairly simple
matter of fitting a Pentax bayonet mount (taken from a cannibalized
Pentax67 to K-mount adapter) to a plain lensboard. The flange focal
distance of the Pentax67 mount is large enough to (barely) allow
infinity focus with this adapter.
The 35mm Pentax67 Fisheye provides a nice circular image of slightly
more than 90mm diameter. Great care must be taken to avoid tripod legs,
monorails or feet in the image.
--
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
...
(my Mamiya choice was dual, as I also want to shoot Kodak IR in medium
format, and that only works with 70mm perforated....add 6x7, and only
Mamiya RB is left....and the APO 350mm has enough appeal that I will stick
with this system for a while)
(posted & mailed)
--
Willem-Jan Markerink
From Medium Format Digest:
For all you wide angle wierdos!
Anyone ever successfully modify a 35mm 16mm full frame fisheye lens to mount
it on their medium format camera?
In theory this should give you a circular image on your film and a
complete 180 degree circular view of the world. The image would give you a
diameter of about 43mm and an area 4 times that of a 35mm circular fish
eye image. Unfortunately due to the small registration distances in 35mm
cameras the modified lens would probably have to be mounted in the throat
of the medium format camera (that had a mirror up fucntion) and focusing
would be by guesswork.
Focusing wouldn't be a big issue since this focal length inherently has a lot
of depth of field and composition could be accomplished by using one of those
peep holes people install in their doors, that give a fisheye view of the
world.
If you have modified a lens successfully I'd be very curious to learn which
camera and lens combination you used. Also how the lens was mounted to the
camera.
thanks Rolland Elliott
From Medium Format Digest:
I do not have specific answer for you. In order to use current
camera,it may need a removable back, film plane shutter and ground
glass at film plane. So we can use the ground glass for focusing.
It needs to have true mirror lock (the mirror will not return after
the shutter tripped.)
The 6x6 format may be good for this kind application. May be
Hasselblad F 1000 can do it. I would like to see some generic
camera which can use 120 roll films and most 35 mm and MF lenses.
It will have the above descriptions (no mirror, focus plane
shutter, removable back and ground glass focusing) and the camera body
will be thin like most 35 mm camera with a generic lens mount to build
lens adapters for all other brands assuming that the lens has distance
and aperture control.
From Medium Format Digest:
Having to have a focal plane shutter does limit the options that are
open to you. If you can fit a leaf shutter behind the fisheye then you
have a few more possibilities:
Use a Hasselblad Flex body with a custom adaptor.
You don't really need the body of the camera to do very much, so you
could use a back attached to a simple spacer (for instance the Mamiya
Press system has some rear extension tubes that fit between the back
and the body). Again, you could attach the lens to the spacer with a
custom made adaptor.
There are a number of firms around who make custom adaptors. One in
the UK is called SRB Film Services.
Didn't some of the old 5x4 press cameras have focal plane shutters?
Could you dissect one of those to fit the lens?
I'm not a fisheye fan myself, but I love the idea of doing things with
cameras that you aren't supposed to (er... if you see what I mean) and
I wish you well. If you succeed in your quest, I hope you will let us
know how you did it.
Alan
From Medium Format Digest:
You could just jump the Iron Curtain and buy a Kiev 6C/60/88 and the 30mm
F3.5 fisheye (180 deg).
I picked one up for $100 and it's great. Stop it down to F8/11 and the
quality is breathtaking when you print to 8x10 or above.
Jase
From Medium Format Digest:
Why bother with this Rube Goldberg exercise. You can easily adapt
(using suitable filter adapters) a fisheye auxiliary lens marketed by
Spiratone, Samigon, et al to your 80mm lens and shoot 180 degree round
fisheye photos. While these lenses are no longer made, they can be
found in the used lens sections of camera stores. I recently picked on
e up for about $40.00. The 49mm to Hassy B50 adapter cost me another
$15.00 and I can use it on any of my Hassy B50 lenses.
The images are more than adequate. I have also adapted a 30mm Ukranian
lens made for the Kiev 88 to my Hassy 2000 and as Jason said, the
results are very very good. Unfortunately my 30mm cost me about
$200.00. The conversion from Kiev to Hassy mount is about $400.00. . .
still much cheaper than the real Hassy 30mm!!!
If you can't find the auxiliary fisheye lens, keep trying you'll find
one. I did, now I have two!
Good Luck!!!
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
I bought one at Spiratone's store in New York back in 1968-69 and have
been using it ever since. Its coverage depends on what focal length it is
attached to. On a normal lens, gives an ultrawide effect. On a 28mm, a
round fisheye effect. Like any front-lens attachment, don't expect
edge-to-edge sharpness but a Curvatar can be lots of fun. For the past 10
years I have used mine only on video cameras. Nice wide coverage, and you
can vary that by zooming through it (g).
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999
Simon Nathan wrote:
On the PhotoKina 1996, I saw a huge ISCO fisheye lens....think I
posted about that one on the list....relatively long focal length,
which implied a strange large format application....don't think it
was ment as a cinema/projector lens (although I have seen bizar large
projector systems on last years Kina....units that used spools with
10" or taller film, like a giant continuous overhead
projector....also requiring a fork-lift to drag it around....8-))
Oh btw, my Mamiya 37mm fisheye and Speed Graphic 4x5" finally
met....for the record: image circle is 92mm (at f16, no aperture-variation
checks yet....seems most fisheyes increase image circle when stopping
down, but some (Sigma 8mm) go the other way....note though that 92mm
is only 2mm larger than the theoretical coverage of a 56x70mm
frame (original RB)).
Now I only need to take a deep breath and cut off the 4 ears on the
lens....8-))
--
Willem-Jan Markerink
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999
I have modified an Arsat 37mm fisheye to shoot full frame on 5x4, it
works wonderfully, I had steve grimes fabricate an adaptor that replaces
the real lens coupling so that it screws straight into a Copal #3
shutter. Once I verified everything I cut off the built in lens hood
and placed the bits in the lens cap so that I could still use it.
BTW if you can get a hold of a poor condition RB body you can remove the
front panel and adapt it so that you can use RB lenses on 5x4, with or
without a 120 back. I have a 127 KL that covers at close distances.
I used a guitar string (metal) and brass tube to improvise a cocking
mechanism to use the built in shutters, mirror up. I didn't have a speed
graphic handy.
So that I didn't waste the rest of the body I attached it to a panel and
use it the back of a 5x4 for quick 120 work with moderate movements,
mirror, prism and fast polaroid changes, works a treat.
Just thought that you may be interested.
Glenn
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999
Hi All,
Glenn Barry wrote:
I have done a very similar thing. I have mounted my 30mm Arsat in a
Copal #3 and mounted this on my Slivestri S4 4x5. The good thing
about the Arsat is that its angle of view is close to 186 degrees.
However the bad thing is that it does suffer a bit from flare when
bright lights are in its field of view. I sent my Arsat back to the
Ukraine to have its glass surfaces multi-coated. This has improved
the image quality and reduced the flare a little but the flair can
still be a bit of a problem.
I may look around for a Mamiya RB 37mm to try next as Willem has
done.
You can buy the RB/RZ mounting ring from an extension tube as a spare
part. As I recall it is hard to get the mount from the front of an
old body and effectively use that.
Cya
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999
Steve Morton wrote:
Don't forget to rate them against each other in respect to optical
quality too....don't have experience with the Arsat/Mir, but I am not
100% convinced that the RB is optically king of the hill...
That's what I did....ordered a body-mount, assuming/being-told that
the one on the tube was identical....they are slightly different
though, the tube-version is a full circle on the outside, the
body-version has a slight straight part....doesn't affect mounting
though. Don't forget to order the screws too, and check screw-thread
taps in size M2.5, to tap the matching holes in the lens
board (once got a Graphic board along with a camera, with a large
diameter opening, almost made for it, only had to drill & tap the
screw holes....surprising match).
--
Willem-Jan Markerink
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
To answer your questions: yes, yes, and use the 50. I have a cheap fisheye
adapter that I mount on a Yashica 50 (filter ring size 52mm). There is no
name on it, just "Made in Japan," I guess that this is what they referred to
as a "cheap Jap adapter" in the movie Mean Streets.
The results are fine when you stop down to f:11 or so. I can't help but
think that the $2000 Zeiss fisheye might give me better sharpness in the
corners though.
Bernard
B Whillans wrote
[Ed. Note: source for fisheye adapters (under $50!)]
Bob, FYI, We have the adapters new for $42.50 + step ring.
Amy
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999
[email protected] writes:
Hi Bob
We're big fans of them as well. Although our medium format customers are a
bit pickier about it. A couple of other things about medium format and
adapters, FYI, I had a customer who couldn't afford a 150mm for his 645, so
he bought a Canon TV lens teleconverter and put it on his standard lens with
step rings. It's not the same quality as a 150mm but pretty darn good he
said. We have those as well.
The other thing is we both know that the tele/wide converters for TLR are
hard to find and expensive. We put on some autofocus and rangefinder aux
lenses on a 124G with some step rings and they worked! A little vignetting
on the wide angle, but not a lot to where it's really noticeable. We're very
creative out here in San Diego :)
Take care.
Amy
incidentally, they are even more useful with medium format cameras where
there is no equivalent fisheye optic ;-)
From: [email protected]
The place below sells retro-fited Kiev 30mm full frame fish eye lens to fix
many Japanese and European 120 cameras.
Panorama Camera Center
Kiev 88 and German cameras repaired
From: [email protected] (BandHPhoto)
i think it's kind of expensive to actually buy a fish eye lens so i was
thinking is there a fish eye filter. Is there is any, pls kindly state the
particulars.
A couple of places sell a fish-eye adapter you can screw onto the front
of your
50mm lens to get a fish-eye effect and they're considerably cheaper than a
fisheye lens. Try Porter's at http://www.porters.com/
===============================
regards,
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999
see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronfe.html Fisheye adapter pages
Adorama had a samigon 0.18x fisheye for sale under $50, I think Goodwin
photo also has these adapters for less than usually seen on ebay ($75-100+)
try Amy and Goodwin at http://members.aol.com/gdwnphoto/index.htm and if
not there, look around from listed dealers which also have them for sale at:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/albro.html
anyway, the fisheye adapters are relatively inexpensive ($50 or so up to
$100+) way to try out fisheye 180 degree circular images on your camera
for low cost, they mount on front of lens filter threads (with adapter ring)
and the results are surprisingly good for the money IMHO.
granted, my prime fisheyes have higher contrast, somewhat less flare (but
they all flare a good bit, let's face it, at 180 degree with sun in shots),
and a bit less sharp around the edges of the photo. Better results if you
stop the adapter down to about f/11 and leave camera lens wide open, use
normal lens (f/1.8 better than f/1.4..) etc.
are they as good as primes? Heck, no! But they are about 5-10% of the cost!
For many users and purposes, the impact of the fisheye image on the
screen and fun nature of the lens far outweighs any minor technical issues.
the fisheye adapters are also handy as they work on lenses from 28mm to
200mm+, meaning you can get some fisheye distortion effects on all those
lenses. Since there are no 28 or 35mm fisheye lenses for 35mm SLRs, this
is the only way to get that kind of distortion in those focal lengths, so
even if you are a pro, these might have a place in your lens kit.
most fisheye users either run out of ideas by the third roll of film, and
their expensive fisheyes are rarely used, or they use them a lot to spice
up slide shows and prints and all that. IMHO, a fisheye adapter is a
cheap way to see if this style of photography is for you or not...
regards bobm
[Ed. note: Caveat Emptor!]
Look on eBay for a userID of "kievcamera" He'll sell you either
a new Kiev 88 or Kiev 60 kit for about $350 and the 30mm fisheye
will cost an additional $130 or so. He may be in Kiev right now
but he can be reached by email.
If you aren't an eBay member, and you want his email address, I
can get it for you. Included in the Kiev 88 kit is a TTL prism
that fits the Hasselblad and it uses S76, silver batteries.
Leonard
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999
[email protected] writes:
Fish eye lens
I have an old Spiritone auxiliary fish eye lens which I attatch to the front
of my 80mm. It works great, and I've using it for years. I don't know if they
still make it, but if you can get one, try it.
MartyF
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999
Hey all,
If they are only on to US sites, then why not locate your sites on overseas
servers.
I believe that will stop their little red wagon.
BTW I have a 30mm Arsat that I have converted to shoot full frame fisheye on
5x4,
do they own the patent on that Idea too? the fact that I thought of it
notwithstanding.
Glenn
From Panorama-L panoramic Photography List:
I have posted a page on how to create panos using two images made
with the Nikon Coolpix950 with Fisheye adapter and Panorama Tools.
Example images are provided (sorry, just a parking lot).
LivePicture, Smoothmove and large-vfov-QTVR-panos are covered.
See
http://www.fh-furtwangen.de/~dersch/coolpix/coolpix.html
Regards
Helmut Dersch
[Ed. note: besides noting the existence of these inexpensive prime
fisheyes (from Kalimex in the Ukraine, Arsenal..), it is worth noting
that while fisheye adapters are considered softer in the edges, so are
some of the prime fisheyes! ]
I've been thinking about getting a circular fisheye, and recently I saw an
ad for the Peleng 8 mm circular fisheye lens. The ad mentioned the
resolution was 65 lp/mm in the center and 15 lp/mm at the side.
Putting aside just how this was measured, or how this measurement applies to
every Peleng 8 mm, most lenses I own don't suffer a decrease a factor of 4+
in resolution from center to side. I can think of three reasons for this.
1) The projection used in fisheyes, sort of magnifying the center and
demagnifying the edge, may result in lower resolution.
2) Circular fisheyes, unlike every other lens, shows the end of the image
circle. The edge of the image circle is affected the most by diffraction
off the aperture and edge of the lens. This may be why every circular
fisheye image I've seen appears a bit fuzzy at the edge. But because of
this, one would think a lens tester wouldn't go all the way out to the edge.
3) The lens is crap.
Does someone with familiarity with circular fisheyes know if any of these
are correct? If anyone owns a Peleng 8 mm, information on how this lens
performs compared to the Sigma 8 mm (or the Nikkors, which are somewhat out
of my price range) would be appreciated.
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Duri,
A friend once gave me a very inexpensive Star D brand fisheye auxiliary
lens. It was the kind of lens that would thread onto the 52mm filter
thread of my standard or wide-angle Nikkors to convert them into fisheye
lenses. I'm sure it was nowhere up to Nikkor optical standards, but it was
a great way to play with the fisheye effect, and I took a number of
published photos with it. I'd still probably use it off and on today if it
hadn't been stolen along with my Photomic FTN and a bag full of other
gear. If you just want to experiment with the fisheye distortion look, you
might consider such a lens.
William Sampson
From: Alexander [email protected]
Hi Kevin,
You are right. It is not coated. I would also suspect that it is single
coated. Kalimex&Wiese Fototechnik have multicoated lenses which are
coated (at high temperatures in vacuum) by Hartblei company in Kiev (Not
Arsenal). The 80mm Arsat, 120mm Vega and 250mm Telear are coated by
manufacturer. There is MC Tair 300mm/4 for Kiev88 too and it was
produced in Russia. This summer I prefered to buy used 4 lenses which
were coated and reassembled by Hartblei. It was even cheaper for my if I
would buy non-coated in Kiev.
Regards,
Alexander.
[email protected] wrote:
From: [email protected] (Tom)
...several more questions snipped....
First, I think you are trying to understand focussing of a "real" lens
in terms of so-called "thin-lens" formulae as you might see in a high
school physics book. Real lenses are more complicated.
The following 3 books will get you started on understanding issues
like how focal points can be placed further from the back of a wide
angle lens than the focal length would seem to say is possible:
1) A History of the Photographic Lens -- Rudolf Kingslake; Hardcover
2) Lens Design Fundamentals -- Rudolph Kingslake; Hardcover
3) Optics in Photography (Spie, Volume 6) -- R. Kingslake(Editor);
Kingslake also has a 3 volume set on lens design that didn't show up
when I searched amazon.com. It may be out of print. These books are
quite thorough, at least as of their publication dates, but because
they are not the most recent, may not cover ultrawides as thoroughly
as you might like. Expect a quite bit of math and geometry, but
nothing too esoteric.
I think that your second fundamental interest is to have an
understanding of the coordinate transformations of different types of
lenses. Here is a short version:
For this second discussion, pretend we are only considering very small
aperature (small diameter) lenses, so we can ignore all focussing
issues, and the fact that there is a converging cone of rays meeting
at each image point. For this discussion, consider the lens as simply
a magic pinhole in a plane that transforms angles on the object side
of the plane into angles on the film side of the plane.
Perfect, distortion free rectilinear lenses map (x,y) coordinates in
an object plane into (x',y') coordinates in the image plane by a
simple, scalar multiplicative constant, the magnification, M with
x' = M*x and y'=M*y. ...easy...end of story.
A fisheye lens takes the two angular spherical coordinates of the
direction to an object point relative to the lens and its axis (ie,
theta = the angle off axis, and phi = the angle around the axis), and
maps them into an image point direction, theta-prime and phi-prime.
At minimum, the perfect fisheye will have phi-prime = phi (or phi+180
depending on how you define your coordinates). However, I don't
believe that the "correct" theta transformation of "a perfect fisheye"
is universally defined.
For example, for most photographic applications, perfect linear
angular demagnification, theta-prime = M * theta (where M<1) would
likely be just as acceptable as any general transformation,
theta-prime = f(theta) as long as it was monotonic and theta-prime
was always less than theta (eg, say it turns a 150 degree conical FOV
(ie, almost a half-space) into (say) a 45 degree diverging cone of
illumination heading towards the film. The only applications that I
can think of that require a tightly controlled theta transformation
involve measurement problems (eg, astrophysics - fisheyes looking up
at the sky to measure the angular distribution of cosmic ray showers).
To answer one more of your questions, the difference between a full
frame and circular fish eye is simply that in the full frame, the
edges of the cone of illumination on the film side of the lens is
outside the film boundaries, whereas in the normal circular fisheye,
the edge of the same cone of illumination falls totally within the
film boundary and is recorded by the film as a circle.
All in all, this is a non-trivial topic and, if you are interested in
pursuing it further, it is more appropriately done by textbook and
engineering journal article, not by newsgroup postings. You will
find that if you pursue this topic, you will also need to more
accurately / quantitatively state some of your other questions.
Hope this helps a bit,
Tom
[Ed. note: an ad, but has some useful info and prices comparisons..]
Nobody need fish-eye lens every day. It's seems ridiculous to spend
thousands of dollars for lens - you, probably, will use few times per year,
or even less. But having
this superweapon in your ARSENAL would definitely help you to know when and
how to use it.
The idea is simple - inexpensive single lens reflex rollfilm(120)6x6 camera
with fish -eye lens 3.5/30mm and waist- level finder.
Former producer of soviet military optic , Kiev's "ARSENAL" factory, makes
it all possible for just $570 , including shipping & handling in
continental USA.
Kit includes :
1) brand new Kiev 60 camera body (similar with Pentacon six , Exacta and
Pentax67)
shutter speeds B,1s- 1/1000s with Kiev mount
2) brand new MC Arsat/Zodiak lens 3,5/30mm with Kiev mount, cap
3) basic foldable waist- level finder
More expensive options and additions are:
lens and accessories prices - same with both mounts types
P.S. All prices includes shipping & handling in USA
P.P.S New York state
residents please add 8 1/4% sales tax
P.P.P.S. Specify country
for S&H charges outside USA
Boris Vyatkin
From: Helmut Dersch [email protected]
F. Hayashi wrote:
The ideal fisheye lens' projection characterisics follows a
simple f * theta law, f being the focal length and theta the
angle (in radian) between optical axis and object. That means a 30mm
180degree lens displays an image circle with
30mm * 1.57 = 47mm radius, while the 8mm has
8mm * 1.57 = 12.6mm radius.
Real fisheye lenses often deviate from this behaviour.
Quite common is the 2*f*sin(theta/2) mapping.
Helmut Dersch
From Nikon MF Mailing List
Hi,
I have the MC PELENG A 2,8/17 fisheye lens and I am very happy with it.
It is one of my favorite lenses. They are made at the Belomo factory in
Ganst that is well known in Europe for their optical manufacturing.
Ken Weissblum
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Hi,
Contact Vladimir Gritsuk at [email protected], he used to auction off lenses
at Ebay but I bought one direct from him for $300 (including postage). I
wired him the money and received the lens in under a week. He seems to be
very reliable, I had checked his reference on ebay first. Feel free to use
my name. He gets the lens directly from the factory using currency
advantage.
Ken Weissblum
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
Robert Monaghan wrote:
I have done something similar. I have mounted a 24mm Mamiya 645 fisheye
with a Copal #3 on a 4x5 camera. After cutting off "lens hood" I get
an image over 70mm in diameter with an angle of view of 190.
I tried an Multicoated 30mm Kiev but it did suffer from flare a bit when
a bright light source was in thefield of view
Cya
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000
Hi Robert,
I like strange lenses and enjoyed your page, I made a srange discovery to
day I put a T- Mount x2 converter on my 12mm sigma and it turned into a
full frame ~16mm fisheye !! the x2 converter in question is a ELCAR 2X
Converter T-mount Japan For 300mm - 500mm I paid $5.00 Aust for it in a
junk box at a photo shop, I am now looking for a 1.4X converter to see
what that will do.
Regards
John Papandreou
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
To expand a little on this answer, the Yashica-brand auxilliary lenses are
generally thought to be better than aftermarket lenses, but this has not
been proven to my knowledge. With the aux. wide-angle lens you can get
softness at the edge of the frame unless you shoot at about f8 or smaller.
The aux telephoto is sharp at all apertures, however you must understand
that both of them reduce sharpness somewhat, but not to any degree I find
objectionable. Don't use them for images that you're going to enlarge to
the size of a barn door. At up to 11x14 I've never seen any problems when
shooting at modest apertures.
The close-up attachments have the same characteristics -- use them at
modest apertures and don't try to make extremely big enlargements, and
you'll probably find they are useful and the images are acceptable.
....
From Rollei Mailing List:
There are two new fisheye lenses coming onto the market from the former
USSR. One is made in Russia and one comes from the Arsenal factory in
Kiev. One is a circular fisheye with an 8mm focal length, the other a full
frame fisheye with a 16mm focal length. Both are supplied in M-42 screw
mount and Nikon AI mount. I don't recall which is which at the moment,
but have samples of both on the way for evaluation. Price will be under $
600 new.
The 8mm is probably a copy of the old Nikkor. The 16 looks like a pretty
good copy of the F-Distagon 16.
Bob
From Hasselblad User Group List:
There have been a few negative comments about the use of the 30 distagon,
and its being a rather "cheap-shot" lens. Well the 30 is the reason I
cannot part with my blad system. True, it does not get too much use, but
I've taken some images with it that cannot be taken with any other lens ie
"unique" images. Like any lens, using it all the time would "spoil" the
shock effect of its character, but no more than someone using a 50 to
shoot every thing or a single technique. The opposite is also true; using
it all the time allows one to learn more about it and produce more
"mature" work.
The 30 is a great lens. It is a "full-frame" fisheye and does not produce
those circular images ( which do become somewhat obvious) and used
sparingly and subtlely, it can work wonders. I was "sucked" in by the
works I kept seeing in Forum magazine, and I've not regretted it at all.
It has special qualities as a portrait lens, for land/cityscapes and for
interiors. I have a few images made with this lens at
http://www.clubhasselblad.ballarat.net.au/
in the gallery section, and I'm working on a full essay and series on the
lens in the near future. Don't knock it till you try it ;-)
Alastair Firkin
http://users.netconnect.com.au/~firkin/AGFhmpg.html
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999
Hi Trond!
Russian fisheye lens, ZENITAR 2.8/16mm
This lens has two mount choices: for M42 (Pentax - Praktica) mount, and,
for Nikon Ai mount. I am not sure whether there is one for Pentax-K
bayonet mount.
I have used one for M42 mount with Old Pentax, Praktica and Russian
(Zenit) bodies. The lens gave me satisfactory image result. It has compact
size and reasonable price. So, I think it is good candidate for your first
fisheye lens. This lens has only auto-aperture system. There is no manual
- auto aperture switch on this lens.
If you have body with Yashica/Contax mount such as Yashica FX series,
Contax RTS, etc., you can use the M42 mount ZENITAR through Yashica/Contax
- M42 mount dapter. The adapter push the aperture pin and the camera can
use its exposure meter function as step-down metering.
Hoping this info help you,
I. K.
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999
Hi Trond,
The Zenitars are made by KMZ in Krasnogorsk near Moscow, not by Kiev.
I currently have on order both the 16mm Zenitar, and the 20mm Mir. These
lenses are available in Praktika/Pentax screw mount and Pentax K mount.
For double the money, you can get them in Nikon mount. All are Multi
Coated- the older lenses may or may not be - I am speaking of brand new
lenses here.
Based on considerable experience with other "Russian" lenses, you can
expect to get very excellent optics which would rival the major
manufacturers. I am looking forward to receiving mine to test.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999
"Wayne Daigle" [email protected] wrote:
Pick up an inexpensive (used) Pentax body such as a ZX-M, P30T, or
even an AF style body. Then buy one of Pentax's SMC-P F 17-28
f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye lenses. It is a fun lens, and provides a fisheye
effect throughout the range of 17mm through 28mm. The field of view
varies from 180 deg. to a little over 94 deg.
If you shop wisely you could probably get the entire outfit for under
$600; less than half the cost of the $1500 you mention above, plus you
will have opened up the world of the K-mount.
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999
"Zenitar" 16mm lenses are available new in the UK for about $200
equivilant, I believe these are Russian, else there's an 8mm "Peleng" for
about $300 equivilant which is available in M42/PK/NA1 mounts. You should
be able to find something similar locally, else the retailer advertising
is [email protected] . Please note, I have NOTHING to do with
these people and have never dealt with them or heard any report good, bad
or indifferent about them. Simply passing on info in their recent advert.
Trust this helps.
.....
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999
I have the fisheye that Dave references, the Pentax 17-28 f/3.5-4.5 .
It's a nice piece of glass for playing around with creative shots of
landscapes and cityscapes. Bridges, especially suspension bridges,
look nice. It's also nice to get an image of most of a room which is
not possible with standard lenses. The lens is underrated on the web
because the lens evaluations are geared to standard lenses which
aren't supposed to be distorted and fisheyes, by definition, provide
distorted images. It's actually rather sharp wide open and is very
well made, like most Pentax lenses. It costs about $400 and you can
buy a new manual ZX-M for $160, so the investment is $560 for the two.
You may get hooked on Pentax and decide to buy more Pentax lenses and
eventually, the ZX-5n body which all of us Pentax cult people rave
about so much:)
Ed
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999
It was some obscure message I recieved a year ago on this newsgroup
about a year ago that described how to fit Kiev lenses on the Mamiya
645. I saved it for some reason and came back to it.
Here's my situation
I am a wedding photographer in Southern California. Cleints often ask
if I use a fish eye lens because some other photographers in my price
range offer it.
My feeling on fisheye lenses is that the thousand to fourteen hunded
dollars you would spend on a used Mamiya probably would never be
recovered.
Mamiya makes a nice one, the new 24mm ULD is perfect, you could use it
for advertising thanks to the ULD glass and make beautiful images all
day long.. If I charged twice as much and had twice as many clients
maybe I could easily justify the price. But as I said before, only
used for a few images in a wedding, and cleints want nice, clean
looking images.
From what I read about Kiev, the body's were large clunky things that
leaked light and reflected light internally causeing wierd looking
light leaks on film. There are a few places on the net that give
ideas how to fix them.
I read a review about Kiev lenses that basically stated that they
were good beyond f/8. Someone told me that the Russians were better at
optics than mechanics.
Kiev has a 30mm fish eye lens. They also sell a mount that fits this
lens onto a Mamiya 645 body. After a couple of phone calls I got the
mount and the lens for $500 from Kiev USA, (not the $525 they wanted
for the lens alone). The Kiev 60 mount is simular to a certain
Hasseblad mount, so with this mount I can also mount some Hasseblad
lenses on my Mamiya, what a trip!
The lens showed up a few days ago, it must weigh at least five pounds.
It came with a nice case and filters for the back side of the lens.
Its beautiful, and built like a brick s--t house. It had no problem
mounting to my m645 body, and I must say, though it is somewhat crude,
its none-the-less a good solid feeling.
There is a mount for the Nikon Body as well.
The lens has a simular coverage to the 17mm lens for my Nikon (its a
Tokina). So I am standing just short of callng it a true fish-eye, but
for most people, its close enough.
The big disadvantage to the system is that it doesn't hold open the
apature ring on the lens, if you set it at f/8 you will see it get
dark.
OK, I took a test roll of black and white yesterday and printed it today.
Took the negs and looked carefully under the enlarger. Here is what I
found.
Edge to edge sharpness Very good, I shot most of the pics at 1/500th at
f/8. I focused at different ranges and the lens does check out.
Contrast- Looked fair, this will not be one of the lenses strong suits
but with a higher contrast film, a lot of this can be eliminated.
Criticial sharpness- Its not a Hasseblad, nor a Mamiya, but I must say
that I am impressed with what it does. It produces salable prints for
not a lot of dolllars down. I think my clients will be very happy.
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999
Even cheaper - use a chrome door knob as a mirror.
GI
Bill Lange wrote:
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 99
John Coz [email protected] wrote:
Unless it says 'fisheye' on the barrel, you can exclude it from being a MF
lens....there are no 24mm rectalinear lenses for MF, only fisheyes (yes,
that's plural, I doubt many folks will know what the second one
is....:-)).
An overview of fisheye lenses, both 35mm and MF, both circular and
full-frame, can be found on my homepage:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm
(that second 24mm fisheye isn't listed on my homepage btw....too rare, too
little known about it)
(posted & mailed)
[Btw, one COULD have a rectalinear 24mm lens for medium-format....the only
thing needed is a Canon EOS panorama body, allowing 24x58mm frames when a
TS-E tilt/shift lens is mounted (24, 45 or 90mm)....it's all within the
coverage of these lenses (11mm shift to either side means
36+11+11=58mm)....I am currently poking my Canon contacts to see if Canon
Japan has ever thought about this at all....considering the success of the
Hassy X-pan and the upcoming Voigtlaender Bessa L/15mm, it would be a
blast for Canon to launch a cheap panorama body (non-AF (TS-E is manual
focus), perhaps not even SLR but viewfinder (although an SLR construction
would make it different than all other pan cameras)....
If anyone is as lyric about such a solution as I am, please send me a
confirmative mail!
(just to illustrate the fun: the horizontal view of a 24mm lens with a
24x58mm frame (101 degree) means a similar horizontal view as a 14mm lens,
or the diagonal view of a 17mm lens)
--
Willem-Jan Markerink
[Ed. note: not an endorsement, just for your info..]
Hey Allan,
The Nikon Mounted 16mm fisheye lens made in Russia can be bought at:
http://www.russia2all.com/cameras.htm web site. They have some other
Russian made equipment there for sale, but this fisheye lens drew my
attention since it could be mounted to a Nikon camera. The 220VR RoundShot
has a Nikon mount so I wonder what that lens would do on it?!!
George Pearl
From Pentax Mailing List:
Brent was confronted with the prohibitive cost of fisheye lenses....
If expense is a concern, you might consider trying a fisheye
adapter. It's
a supplementary lens that screws on to the front of a rectilinear lens
(presumably a standard lens or conventional wide angle) like a filter and
provides the fisheye "effect" at much lower cost ($30-$50). Although this
sort of rig will not offer the same performance as a true purpose built
fisheye, I've seen results from them which were seemed quite serviceable.
It would, at the very least, allow you to experiment with the fisheye
perspective and decide whether a true fisheye lens would be a worthwhile
investment for your photography.
Regards,
TJR
From Pentax Mailing List:
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
The 30mm Distagon Fisheye has a 112 degree horizontal and vertical angle,
and 180 degrees diagonally. If you look at the Zeiss page, they give you
the distortion, which is about 10% at 10mm from the center, 20% at 20mm,
maybe 35 % at 30mm, and 100% as expected at 39mm (the corner). In other
words, the expected height of an image at 10mm is about 90% of what would
be the case if there were no fisheye effect. And so forth. (It has to be
almost 0% (100%-100%) at 39mm, since the no fisheye height is infinite
(ninety degrees, tangent is infinite.) So you can use the distortion plot
to get an idea of how the Distagon 30 maps the world onto the film. I
would appreciate a formula. (I can always just fit a curve to the plot
they give, but I would prefer a derivation etc.) What inspired this was
seeing what people are doing with fisheyes and computer reconstruction of
the full circle of image around a point (and so you can look in any
direction).
This is not unlike a map projection I guess.
Thanks for a lead or for the information.
Martin ([email protected])
PS I know there are other fisheye like lenses (I think Nikon made one)
that are "ortho" something, more for the scientists. So I assume that
"fisheye" is a particular lens's version of half a sphere.
[Ed. note: experiencing cutoff with fisheye on 50mm lens?...]
I thought I would let you know that the 50mm 1.8 has worked
perfectly. My theory (which is mine, which is to say that it belongs
to me..........oooops, I am not Anne Elk, but I digress) is that it
is important for some reason that the end of the adapter be not too
far from the film plane. I can set the focal length to the minimum
now with the 50mm and still get a perfect circle. My 50mm 1.4 is a
much longer lens, and so cuts off the the circle. The 1.8 seems to be
a particularly short lens, as I remember the 50mm that I used with
the Minolta was. I hope that this information can help someone else
if they run into similar difficulty.
I thank you for your time and help!
Edwin
From Pentax Mailing List:
you wrote:
This is really beautiful super-wide (fisheye) lens. But KMZ
(Krasnogorsk Mechanical Plant) also produce 20mm rectilinear
lens - Mir-20M 20/3.5, but only in screw mount.
Here in Russia it is only $80-$90 in screw or K-mount, and
$130-$140 in Nikon mount. But i am not shure about world wide
sales. KMZ sales department can be contacted via E-mail:
More information can be obtained here:
http://www.zenit-foto.ru/eng/ind.htm
S.Y. Roman
From Panoramic Mailing List;
what size circle does the 30mm ruski make? i am interested if it is close
to the circle made by the pentax 67's 35mm fisheye pentax. this has no
shade and its entire image circle fits exactly the 4" dimension of 45 film
. i have mounted a no of these in ilex 5 shutters, and the effect can be
stunning.
ralph
From Panoramic Mailing List:
I have the 30mm Arsat mounted in Copal #3 shutter, lens-hood removed and
it makes an 83 mm image circle for memory, I don't have a neg to hand to
measure.
Suffice to say that if fits easily on 4x5.
Glenn
...
From Panoramic Mailing List:
steve trumpets the 24 mamiya and michael the 30mm hasselblad lens,
claiming respective superiority from comparisons.
no one has mentioned the 35mm pentax lens for the 67. while i have
compared both on rollfilm to the pentax which as good as either of these
these in their natural habitats. Its advantage on 45 is that the circle is
a perfect match for 4" dimension, demonstraby better for blowups becuase
of larger image size and larger circle. also has no shade.
I have inserted at least ten of these in
ilex 5 shutters mostly for fine art and landscape photographers, this
shutter has much larger opening than copal 3 & also is a self-cocking
rimset. about half the 45 fisheyes that i made up were w/graflex xl
spacers,
all using lens standards matching the photogaphers system camera .
an elcheapo setup is the revolving cambo universal 45 back itself, no
standard necessary. I have ilex 5's available and can supply dimension of
front and back openings, depth etc.
From Panoramic Mailing List:
ralph wrote:
I have not tested the 30mm Zeiss, I was curious about a direct
comparison with the 24mm Mamiya. I am not claiming the 24mm is better
than the Zeiss. The thing that makes the 24mm stand out for me is that
its angle of view comes very close to 190 degrees (I measured this
carefully). This is of great value for VR imaging if you want to shoot
just two images to make up a sphere. The other "180" fisheyes I have
tried including the 37mm Mamiya, 30mm Arsat, 16mm Nikkor, 7.5mm Nikkor,
8mm (f2.8) Nikkor, Sigma 8mm, all have little image to offer over 180.
It would be interesting to accurately measure the angle of view of the
Pentax and Zeiss lenses on 4x5.
Cya
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Hi,
We are looking for a fisheye lens for a mediumformat camera (6x6 / 6x7) or
a camera wich uses 4'x5' sheet film with an angle of view MORE then 180�.
We heard of a camera: Fowa (japanese camera) with a circular fisheye more
then 180� Does someone know where we can buy the camera or is there
information about it somewhere on the internet.
Ivo
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Dredged this up from some time ago. Maybe it will help.
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000
Hi All,
I am selling a couple of medium format 180 fisheye lenses which are
possibly suitable for use on 4x5. One is a 37mm
Mamiya fisheye.
See:
http://www.physics.monash.edu.au/~smort/Bigfish.html
All the best
Steve
From Panoramic Mailing List:
I have tried a few different medium format fisheyes on 4x5. The 37mm
Mamiya and the 30mm Russian Arsat are OK, but only offer a useable image
of just over 180. A far better lens for this is the 24mm Mamiya fisheye
originally for the 645. This 24mm lens produces an image circle about
74mm in diameter with an angle of view of almost 190 degrees. The one
drawback of using the 24mm is that it does not have an internal shutter.
It would be possible to mount the lens on an old 4x5 Speed Graphic body
to make use of the inbuilt focal plane shutter. I mounted my 24mm on a
Copal #3 shutter which was then mounted on a 4x5 camera body.
Cya
From Panoramic Mailing List:
I have a 5x5 aerial Kodak camera that I set up to except a 30mm Ziess
fisheye lens. It is motor driven (3 shots per sec.), has two 50 foot
backs which have vacuum plates, and it is set up with a gyro so it can be
shot straight down out of a helicopter. I no longer have a lens for it and
I would be willing to sell it. Anyone interested.
Michael
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Dear Gene,
I hadn't thought about selling my fisheye camera until I read all the
e-mails. I designed and built this camera from a WWII aerial strike
camera (K-25). As I remember, it has a large focal plain shutter, with
several speeds, plus B. As for the gyro; I have always used low speed
(10,000 rpm) 24 vt gyro's with heavy balls because they come up in 30sec.
as compared to a Kenyon Gyro which takes 10 min. The camera was designed
to shoot down on cities and will produce an image which will enlarge to
six foot dia., and show people at 800 foot alt. (if serious I could show
sample images) The vacuum is required because the camera is pointed down
and the film will fall down otherwise. (Not to say this camera couldn't be
used for other things, like church's.) The camera weights 25 lb. and is
suspended by a 8 foot cord.
I also have some amount of frozen film, to be determined if anyone has
interest. As for the price I would like to see what interest I can
generate, as I see no need to get rid of it unless I can make enough to
cover development. Please note there isn't a lens, because (how can I say
this) .. .
I dropped it. Oops. As for the 30mm Zeiss (Hasselblad); I compared it
to all the other lenses you people have been talking about, and if you are
serious be aware the 30mm is a vastly better lens. It will perform better
at F3.5 then any of the others at F8. If someone wanted to shoot city
fisheyes this would be the camera, I myself have gone in other directions,
and if no one wants it I will make it over with a more conventional lens
(which you could also do.) As for the 3 frame per sec. shooting seed;
when working from a helicopter the motor driven aspect of this camera
comes into play because of all the other things that are happening. The
camera can also be operated (single shot) by a hand crank.
Michael
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Yes, they're pretty big. The viewing area is about 3" across in diameter,
but the end protruding out the door is about 1". Which makes me thing that
perhaps this may be an interesting way to build an Action finder using a
standard Kiev prism by mounting it to the viewing peephole on the prism.
I also acquired an Elgeet lens which turned out a lot smaller than I
expected! It's a cine lens. But thinking further, maybe I can use it as a
magnifier through the same prism. I'll go home and give it a shot.
...
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Ivo Vleugels wrote:
With 'Fowa' you most likely mean the Kowa 19mm/f4.5 circular
fisheye for the Kowa Six or Super 66 camera....resulting in a 52mm
image circle on 120/220 format film.
You can see two pictures of this lens, together with the 8mm/f4.0
Sigma as size reference on:
http:/www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eoskowa.htm
I believe I once did a field-of-view test with it, and it showed a
bit more than 180 degrees (or I am confusing it with the results of
my Mamiya 37mm....can you remember Steve?....;)).
Also interesting, for the fisheye-freaks among us, is this page:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/iscofish.htm
(yes, there are fisheyes larger and heavier than both the Nikon
6mm/f2.8 and Kowa 19mm/f4.5 together....WAY more heavy!....:))
--
Willem-Jan Markerink
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000
"Snorre A. Selmer" [email protected] wrote
That statement is actually mistaken, even though I do understand what
you are saying. Consider a spherical object towards the edge of
the image. A normal wide-angle lens will image that object as an
ellipse, which is _not_ geometrically correct.
In some ways, a fish-eye lens is actually more correct in its imaging
than a rectilinear lens (i.e. a "normal" wide-angle lens).
That is only correct if the square is normal to the optical axis of
the lens, if not you are more likely to get a parallellogram.
The problem for _any_ wide-angle lens is that it is mapping a
3-dimensional space ("reality") into a 2-dimensional image. That is
less of a problem with longer focal lengths. For short focal lengths,
the human visual system is less able to cope with the perspective
distortion caused by the wide field of view.
A conventional wide-angle lens (also called a rectilinear lens) will map
the 3-dimensional cartesian coordinates in the object space to a 2-
dimensional cartesian space in the image space (i.e. the film). Once you
get off-axis, you have a problem in that the line connecting the object to
the lens is no longer parallell to the optical axis of the lens. For the
mathematically minded, this starts to happen when the paraxial condition
"x = sin(x) = tan(x)" (with x in radians) breaks down (which is about 5
degrees from the optical axis). The further you get from the optical axis,
the worse things get, and when you go outside approximately 30 degrees,
things get really noticable. A 3-dimensional object at the edge of an
extreme wide-angle (rectilinear) lens will certainly be distorted. A
rectilinear wide-angle lens will only provide perfect geometrical
reproduction for flat objects on a surface normal to the optical axis.
A fish-eye lens, on the other hand, maps from spherical coordinates in the
object space to polar coordinates in the object space. Unlike a
rectilinear lens, this mapping does _not_ break down with objects at
different object distances far from the optical axis. That does not mean
that it _looks_ natural, but no image covering 180 degrees of field can
possibly look natural, since the viewing angle is way beyond what the
human visual system can deal with as a single image. Mathematically,
however, the fisheye image is _not_ distorted.
Unfortunately, I know of no good treatment of this subject in any optics
or photography textbooks. There is a reasonably good explanation of
wide-angle distortion in Ansel Adam's "The Camera", which should be
fairly widely available in libraries or bookshops (it is a book which
I would strongly recommend for any serious photographer anyway).
The widest angle of view for photographic fish-eye lenses that I have
seen is 200 degrees for Nikon's 6mm lenses. That is possible for a
fish-eye lens, but it is more common to limit the field of view to
180 degrees, which means a 8mm focal length for a circular image on
a 35mm frame, or 15-16mm for a full-frame view.
The angle of view for a rectilinear lens can be found from the
equation:
theta = 2 * arctan( d / (2 * f) )
where theta is the angle of view, d is the width of the image
(approx 43.3mm for the diagonal of a 35mm image), and f is the focal
length of the lens. It can easily(?) be seen that it is impossible
to get an angle of view greater than 180 degrees from a rectilinear
lens. A 15mm lens on a 35mm camera will have an angle of view of
approximately 110 degrees diagonally from corner to corner.
For a "perfect" fish-eye lens, the angle of view in _radians_ can be found
from the equation:
theta = 2 * r / f
where r is the distance from the centre of the image.
This gives a resulting focal length for a 180 degrees lens filling the
35mm frame of 13.8mm. Most actual full-frame fish-eye lenses have longer
focal lengths than this - typically in the range 15-16mm, which means that
their images do not quite follow the "ideal" fish-eye geometry.
There is also a class of fish-eye lenses which will provide a circular
image on the film. For 180 degrees field of view on 35mm film, the focal
length will normally be in the range 7.5 to 8mm, and there a few lenses
which provide even larger field angles, such as Nikon's 6mm lenses which
provide a 200 degrees field of view.
--- Helge Nareid
Thanks for your interesting page.
I have a Kenko fisheye lens adapter and was interested to find that this
lens was used to film the "Hal" computer in the Kubrick movie "2001, A
Space Odyssey".
It might make an interesting reference to your page.
Here's the URL:
Jeff
Hello Folks,
since several weeks a interested man asked me
via eMail about the mirror-technilogy like
"my Birdeye" or Cyclovision-Mirror.
But the Cost for buying this equipment
are to high for him, that he decided to build one
with an old bicycle-lamp for 8 Marks.
It would be pleasure for me, if you would
look at his german Website, to see how
he build it. Software is from Helmut Dersch,
of course. See the Idea and the genius of
improvisation. THE RESULT !
http://www.crosus.de/panorama/panorama.html
If someone want to write to Tilo, because he
isn't in this List, please: [email protected]
Thank you!
Thomas
TBK - Digital Panorama Technologie
From Leica Mailing List;
Roland,
With Canon FD lenses you are almost 'home and dry'. There's an adapter
that Canon made called the 'Lens Mount Converter B', this puts Canon
(breechlock) lenses onto (Canon)/Leica screw mount bodies at the right
distance for correct scale focusing. Add a screw to bayonet adapter and
away you go.
As for 'finders, I made one from a security door viewer. they come in
dfferent angles of coverage. Check to see if you need 150 or 180 degrees,
(etc.) and then mount onto an old / cheap / broken accessory finder. If
it's full frame you may wish to paint a black rectangle (ratio 2:3) on the
front face, if its a circular image, then just leave it alone.
Ain't life fun!
Jem
[Ed. note: thanks to Mr. Meyers for sharing these tips on using a 35mm T
mount fisheye on a 6x9cm rig ;-)]
I checked out the web site and it's very good. Spiratone
had a 12mm f/8 in T mount many moons ago. A few prototypes
were made at f/5.6, which is the one I have. I put it
in a 6x9 speed graphic and have groundglass focusing and
interchangeable rollfilm backs. Removed the bellows and front
of the camera, of course. Ed
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
IPIX and a couple other specialty consumers rounded up a lot of the 8mm
f/2.8 lenses, and possibly the 6mm f/2.8. One guy converts them to sell
at a mark up to the motion picture industry.
There was a brief time around early 1991 when you could have gotten a
steal on one or two of the 6mm f/2.8s,--the UK Government (Ministry of
Defense) ordered a couple of those along with several 2000mm f/11 lenses
to support the Gulf War effort. Unfortunately for them, the war ended
quickly and the special orders were cancelled with Nikon,--Nikon dumped
them on the open market at heavily discounted prices.
There was a 6mm f/5.6 listed on eBay recently but the reserve was
insane,--and the guy who DID bid for it thought he was bidding on the 6mm
f/2.8 (BIG difference). This lens sold in Oct 1972 for $995. The seller
had a reserve north of $5000.
No 6mm f/2.8 has been seen on eBay to my knowledge. (And I'm a collector
of Fisheye Nikkors).
Dan Lindsay
From ROllei Mailing List;
Remember the good ol' days when fisheye lenses and some ultra wides
had built-in filters on a wheel? The lens was designed with the filter
as part of the optical path so it made no difference. The current
Zeiss F-Distagon for Hasselblad and Rollei comes apart in the middle
so you can insert a filter. My Kiev fisheyes and my Rubinar mirror
lenses take filters on the back, and supply a clear element for when
you want no filter.
Bob
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
How about a Spiratone Spiralite "Custom Proxivar"? This is a variable
magnification "zoom" close-up lens, with a 52mm thread to be put on the
front of a normal lens. I found this one in mint condition at a camera
show for the princely sum of $1. It's even got the manual.
The second shot is my Spiratone 12mm fisheye. Note the Sigma logo in front
of the serial number. I have no doubt at all that Sigma made this for Fred
Spira.
Jeff
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
I am expecting a bunch of Kenko/Spiratone fisheyes in the mail soon.
Tomorrow I'll pick up one here in NYC.
I'll keep you posted on variations.
As we speak I have been selling off a big bunch of .42x semi-fisheye
adapters on ebay. I linked to your site as a reference. This one has he
"infra-red" coating and claims to be "AF"!
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1205662295
There are huge differences in coverage and quality. The best of the
bunch, in my opinion, is the Zykkor and this is the one I am keeping.
....
Woew, just picked up the Kenko and have it side by side with the Spiratone
fisheye. The Kenko came with a Xeroxed copy of the *accura* manual. I
would say the two are remarkably similar but also very different. Maybe
even different manufacturers. Coating, mechanical parts, sizes different.
One marked .15x the other .16x and I think this "Kenko fisheye" collection
craze I am starting will reveal a lot of ancient forgotten secrets......
(I apologize for quick, sloppy digital snaps)
[Ed. note: glad to have them!...]
....
Postscript:
Correct, the Kenko has a Samigon manual, not an accura. There is an accura
felt lens sleeve with it though....strange
[Ed. note: thanks to Sam Sherman for sharing these points on fisheye use
;-)!]
Several have said that the 30MM f3.5 fisheye is the best Kiev lens but the
least used.
I have had one for 10 years and hardly used it. I guess in a way the
curving distortion is unpredictable and one has to learn how to be
creative with it.
I had formerly used it on a Kiev 60 at eye level and that is weird to use.
I have found it more comfortable using it with the waist level finder on
the Kiev 88CM.
Today I went to a carnival in my town, loaded with colorful booths, a
ferris wheel, various rides and a house of horror.
I shot three rolls of 120 Fujichrome there and am confident I got many
excellent shots.
Using odd angles and the fisheye effect creatively to fill the square
frame, I felt I was doing some of my best photography.
Having used this lens/camera/film combination recently with excellent
results, I have high hopes for today's photography.
- Sam Sherman
From Kiev88 Mailing List;
hi , the 30mm is fantastic for more than the classical use ... i use
professionaly it for Macro photography ..i shoot roses for Plantation
roses in ecuador ... the client like the full shot of his flowers and all
the plantation in the background ... Cropping a little bit the full framne
we have a good perspective ,,, for landscape, if you take the camera
leveled you dont have any round distortion (be careful with the trees ...)
it is a great lens ... Careful with dust in the front lens or rain mark
... for other cases ..if you have right lines better the 45mm (see
attachment) ... taked last week for fashion catalog .
olivier .
[Ed. note: see reference to Scientific American fisheye lens making
column...]
[email protected] writes:
Canon sold wide angles for LTM RF cameras of 19, 25, and 28mm in the 50s
and 60s. Zeiss made a pre-WW2 28mm Tessar for the Contax and the Hologon
wide angle for a variety of cameras. I recall that Spiratone featured a
18mm reverse retrofocus SLR lens in the early 60s. Even Scientific
American magazine, in its Amateur Scientist section, printed an article
about making your own 35mm wide angle lens with a 180 degree angle of
view. The article, published in the early 50s cautioned photographers to
hold the camera at arm's length or your feet would be in the picture. Fish
eye lenses with more than a 180 degree angle of view were developed in the
early 1900s for meterological and cloud photography. The technology for
making extreme wide angles has been around for a long time. It's just that
there was so little demand for images with such distorted perspective
until relatively recently.
LarryZ
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
I, for one, want to discuss the 30mm Russian Arsat lens. I have obtained
one and my impressions of it as a decent replacement for the F-Distagon
are positive. Maybe a little less resolution in the corners, but the
central area is similar. The out of focus qualities are nice. At close
focus the background has a nice effect, similar to the Zeiss. I would
recommend one for any seasoned 'blad user.
Jim Gumm
[Ed. note: points on coverage of Kiev 30mm worth noting...]
Hi Bob,
How are you? I had a conversation with you about getting a Pentacon Six to
T-Mount adapter earlier in the year. I just want to let you know that I
have finally found somebody make and I have just received it last week. It
is very well made.
I have gotten a Kiev 88 fisheye for Pentax 67. The lens cannot fully cover
the 6x7 frame but it is pretty close. It is much cheaper than the one from
Pentax. Unfortunately, my story is not as exciting as Sam Sherman's. I
just pay up then wait for the lens in mail.
On separate note, I went to Hong Kong visit my folks for two weeks in
July. I ran into a mad scientist/camera technician. My jaw dropped after I
have been this guy's work. He does a lot of crazy conversions. He has
converted a Voigtlander 15mm into M mount with RF coupling onto his
Minolta CLE. He has been mounting a lot of Schneider Super Angulon 47mm
onto old Voigtlander 6x9 camera. Some of his client claim the output is
better than the Hasselblad SWC. He told me he once converted a Canon 7
into Contax RF mount with RF coupling. I am toying with the idea of
getting a Canon FD body for him to convert into Contarex mount.
Let me know if you want any bitmap or info for the T-mount adapter and the
Kiev fisheye for Pentax 67 for your web page.
Cheers,
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
Hi Bob,
I have two pictures about the Russian Fisheye online. Here are the links.
I am putting one up forsale on ebay soon, maybe I will make a bit money
to help pay for the one I am keeping. I will send you more bitmap when I
have picture ready for the T-Mount adatper.
http://home.att.net/~marsian/p67fisheye.jpg (sample photo with the
fisheye)
http://home.att.net/~marsian/ebay/aug2000/p67fisheyel.jpg (the fisheye on
my Pentax 67II)
You are right. There are endless combination of lenses and cameras out
there. Some of the modification can be expensive. The guy is asking for
$150 labor and parts to modify a Canon body into Contarex mount. You would
have to provide the body also. The choice of body can dictate the final
cost.
On a separate note about your adapter page, Pentax made a P67 to M42
adapter similar to the one you have(P67 to PK) on the page. Let me know if
you need the bitmap I have the adapter.
Cheers, From Minolta Mailing List:
From: "Joseph S. Wisniewski" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fuji has just announced a rather interesting SLR
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002
Lewis Lang wrote:
> Pardon me for making a "dumb observation" but... wouldn't it make sense for a
> digi SLR manufacturer to either make a lens adapter (either add-on or
> incorporated somehow into the body itself) that would turn the digi camera w/
> less than a full sized sensor into being able to use the lenses at equivalent
> full sized magnification ie. 1x.... Sort of a wide angle/demagnifier adapter
> instead of the tele adapters that are commonly used to adapt manual lenses to
> AF cameras. Just a (1x) thought...
Astronomers call these "Focal Reducers". They're quite common with
astro-photographers, mostly to gain an extra stop or two (even 3 sometimes) from
the scope. They're available in T-mount from most scope manufacturers.
I've always wanted one for my 35mm. Most lenses 35mm lenses are produce a nice
image circle at least 43mm in diameter. A 0.55x focal reducer would let me use my
20mm (94 degree) and 14mm (114 degree) wide angles to do circular wide angle
architectural shots that should be simply breathtaking.
I've also thought about achieving the same effect by taking an old 6x4.5 body,
shortening it, and giving it a Nikon mount. I can't see needing an SLR
viewfinder if I'm doing super wide work. Focusing should be easy, too.
Ciao!
Joe
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002
From: Samuel Tang [email protected]
Subject: Re: filters on fisheyes
Hi Xkaes,
This needs a very Heath-Robinson approach (is "Rube Goldberg" the American
equivalence?). Make two or three small lumps of Blu-Tack, and cut the gel to a
suitable size. Apply the Blu-Tack lumps to suitable spots at the back of the
lens, then attach gel to back of lens. Fit lens to camera.
Messy, but works.
Best,
Sam.
[Ed. note: thanks to Ralph for sharing these tips on his fisheye conversions, see
related notes on his nifty Vistashift 612 cameras!]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Question for seller -- Item #1221838865
years ago i examined the 30mm russian fisheye. the stats say it must have a
filter attached at all times , uv if the color aren't wanted. at that time i
concluded and a couple technicians that the lens wouldn't make infinity on
the current hasselblad mt without leaving off the filter. the rear of the
mts might be easily removed if they were designed logically as the same
lenses are in both imitation 1000f mts and praktisix mts. i put about a
dozen 35mm fisheyes on 45 with a ilex 5 shutter but the price of the pentax
67 fisheye is now too high to adapt, though the perfect 4" circle is
unbeatable. never the less i'm going to the russian 30 into an ilex five for
a somewhat smaller circle at a greatly reduced price. some of the lenses i
put into 500c compur shutters were 12o imagons and 150 apo=lanthars but my
source for focusing mt and auto shutters has joined the great yellow father
in the sky. anywhay, happy hacking, ralph
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: 6x12 on Brooks
Robert: in the post below early i am [email protected]. i would
appreciate it if that was changed to [email protected] .
putting the 30 russian fisheye on 45 will be cost effective but lacks the
impact of the 4" circle of the pentax 67's 35 fisheye puts on 45.
either lens can be put into a #5 ilex shutter. i've done this a number
of times, going back ten years. the spacing of course is the same as the
parent camera, and the focusing mt works perfectlly. ground glass focusing
and viewing is a waste of photographic time. possible
the 30 mm russian could be used on the 34 polaroid with xl fittings. will
report after trial if the circle fits.
regards, ralph
> From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
> To: Bert MC-CLURE [email protected]
> Cc: rof [email protected]
> Subject: Re: 6x12 on Brooks
>
> thanks very much, Bert, for your interesting note; I have added it to the
> veriwide related postings at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/veriwide.html
>
> Sounds like you are exploring a number of the permutations; I have been a
> bit shocked by the realization that many of the big 6x12cm and bigger 6x17cm
> cameras take in less subject matter than the 47mm SA; and that's before
> modifications such as you have made ;-)
>
> I am gradually accumulating tips and ideas on various cameras including
> the veriwides at my medium format site; it hasn't been around for more
> than 3+ years so far, but over 1 2/3rds million visitors, so worth the effort
>
> Roger Hicks in Brit Jrnl of Photogr. described adapting the unique Kiev
> 30mm fisheye to a 4x5" back holder, with a spacer body and shutter combo;
> provided a fisheye effect; and there are some various odd-ball ultrawide
> lens (35-47mm) 4x5cm cameras out there see homebrew camera links at
> http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/homebrew.html
>
> I think the interest in ultrawide and panoramic camera options is
> growing, and lots of us are caught up in the wider is better - as the
> 14mm and now 12mm lenses on 35mm format cameras are showing - ;-)
>
> regards bobm
From Nikon mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002
From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
Subject: Fisheye comparison
hi all
Interesting document, which compares some commercially available fisheye lenses
by nikkor, peleng and asahi pentax etc.
It takes a lab-based approach to the comparison , and the methodology is purely
scientific. Only have had a browse so far.
http://www.coastalopt.com/fisheyep.pdf
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fishy business
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
[email protected] (Dave Farmer) wrote:
>[email protected] (Onepercentf) wrote:
>>Do you really want a fisheye or would a very wide angle rectiliniar lens do? I
>>would recommend the Tamron 17mm, because being an Adaptall lens it will fit
>>many cameras. When you no longer need it, there will be more people to sell it
>>to (apart from just Minolta users).
>I have Sigma's 18-35, so I think an extra mm or two (whilst nice to
>have) would be very expensive for the extra range I would get. That's
>why I'm interested in a full-frame fisheye - dramatic (if a little
>corny, but what the hell!?) and different to anything I can do right
>now.
The 16mm fisheye is considerably wider than an 18mm
non-fisheye due to the spherical-perspective
characteristics, though the central magnification is
not much different. It is also easier to hand-hold
successfully at a given slow shutter speed, and it is
often optically better than a similar-FL non-fisheye.
I like fisheyes for landscapes (the forground-to-
background size differences are minimized, and are
minimal for a super-wide) and for people-shooting (the
spherical perspective type is FAR kinder to rounded
objects near the image edges than the rectangular
perspective type super-wides are). BTW, the one 16mm
Minolta fisheye I tried (same as Leitz, as I recall),
required considerable stopping down to get the "corners"
sharp, but it was quite good around f16. The best
full-frame fisheye I have seen is the older Nikkor
16mm f3.5 - this lens has very high brilliance, great
resistance to flare, and it is sharp to the corners
wide-open. It is one of the best lenses I've ever
used, and it os often $250-300US used, a bargain
(and worth buying a Nikon body for). More on it is
at www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Hey, check out www.visitithaca.com too...!
From: "Daniel Irvin" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Self-made fisheye lens?
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002
I have made fisheyes in my early days using peep hole lenses from doors for
security. Some of the larger ones produce a pretty big image. I would
mount theses onto metal screw in lens caps using epoxy.
--
Daniel Irvin
Daniel Irvin Engineering
From: "zeitgeist" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Self-made fisheye lens?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002
> Several months back, I saw a lens cap fitted with a door peephole on Ebay.
> They were asking, I believe, $19.95 for their "fisheye" lens. I'm sure it
> was a joke, as the quality would stink, but who knows until you try it?
>
BAck in the 70's a photog named Jeremiah Bragstadt did that with a right
angle finder and was quite popular with architects. He could stick the
thing practically into the scale models they build to sell the concept, the
quality was mediocre but instead of standing over the model and only getting
an arial view they could show a pedistrian's point of view.
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002
From: "zaxxon4" [email protected]
Subject: Re: : fisheye fed
Some of the Voitlander Heliars aren't coupled either, because of that fact. As
far as viewfinders try a peephole for doors, like this:
http://www.belomo.by/en/7_1raz.html
or if you don't mind a 150 degree viewfinder (might make it easier to not see
the camera lens below):
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1789262883
You could get a small I-beam and epoxy it with JB-weld.
Virtually all super-wide rangefinder lenses are fully corrected (even the Zeiss
Hologon, as much as it looks like a fisheye lens), but I think Leica and
Voitlander each made one (probably listed in those Japanese Leica books).
--- In russiancamera@y..., "Kelvin" kelvinlee@p... wrote:
> Use an M42 fisheye e.g. Zenitar 16/2.7, with adaptor on your FED.
> With such deep DOF, you don't really need to focus anyway.
> But there is the issue of how to view the photo framing.
>
> That said... does anyone know of any fisheyes for rangefinder
> cameras? I've never heard of any.
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003
From: ADavidhazy [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 220vr + fisheye = results?
Interesting you should mention this as Panoscan apparently is aware of someone
who claims to own a patent (or more) related to the use of such a lens on a
panning scanning panoramic camera. Supposedly if you do this you are infringing
on that patent. I was asked to provide images made with a film camera under
such conditions to prove prior art. (previous to 1992). In the mid 70's or so I
did just that. You essentially reproduce the north and south poles (points
directly above and below the camera) as lines and thus cause infinite amounts
of dimensional distortion at those points.
In an article mentioned here some time ago I mentioned what would be happening
beyond those points as well ... essentially seeing "beyond infinity" (in a
strange and stilted way of saying things!!!) as an an interesting thing to
think about.
adios,
andy davidhazy
www.rit.edu/~andpph
> we wonder if there is somebody on the list, using the
> 220vr with a (full-circle-)fisheye. are there any re-
> sults on the web to look at?
> greetings.
> michael.
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003
From: Willem-Jan Markerink [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 220vr + fisheye = results?
ADavidhazy wrote:
> Interesting you should mention this as Panoscan apparently is aware of
> someone who claims to own a patent (or more) related to the use of
> such a lens on a panning scanning panoramic camera. Supposedly if you
> do this you are infringing on that patent. I was asked to provide
> images made with a film camera under such conditions to prove prior
> art. (previous to 1992). In the mid 70's or so I did just that. You
> essentially reproduce the north and south poles (points directly above
> and below the camera) as lines and thus cause infinite amounts of
> dimensional distortion at those points.
>
> In an article mentioned here some time ago I mentioned what would be
> happening beyond those points as well ... essentially seeing "beyond
> infinity" (in a strange and stilted way of saying things!!!) as an an
> interesting thing to think about.
There is even a famous sample of using the 6mm Nikon with 220 degree
view, by Dan Slater:
http://www.nearfield.com/~dan/Photo/wide/sphere/index.htm
(this one is neat too, for the digi-crowd (6mm mounted on Nikon D1
with full image circle(!):
http://www.nearfield.com/~dan/Photo/wide/sphere/index.htm
Btw, I *assume* Panoscan has a patent on the reconstruction of a non-
stretched polar point....which only works in digital....using any
fisheye in any other (analog) way can't be new/original by any
stretch of the definition.... (nor could you reconstruct the poles)
Btw2, I guess Andy was too modest for mentioning it, but his beyond-
infinity-theory can be found here....;))
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-infinity-pan.html
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
[email protected]
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Arsat 30mm Fisheye modified for Hassy 2000
David S. Argabright wrote:
> That was the 1000F?
Yes.
> Will *NONE* of the 30mm Arsats fit that body, or was it an older zodiak
> lens?
I don't know, really. What's the difference between an Arsat and a Zodiak,
if they both have K-88 mount?
According to Hans Roskam, the mount on the lens i got from him should (!) be
the same as the Hasselblad 1000 mount. It looked a lot like it too. I think
the problem with mounting this lens on the fake-Kiev was that the thread on
the lens was rather coarse. Could well be something else though, it was
difficult to tell.
I don't quite know "what's up" with this mount: i have a couple of ancient
extension tubes that need quite a bit of force to mount properly on the
camera (if at all) and/or to take a lens. Another couple fit perfect, and
mount and dismount very smoothly. But that could be due to age, of course;
maybe the ill-fitting ones just have taken to much abuse and aren't
perfectly round anymore.
But maybe someone here has managed to mount a 30 mm Arsat or Zodiak on a
1000-series Hasselblad?
From kiev 88 mailing list:
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003
From: Svensson Robert [email protected]
Subject: Re: wide-angles
The Arsat (Zodiak) 30mm fisheye is superb! It is very sharp and it can be used
in far more situations than most people imagine! If you are interested, goto
my website
www.chl.chalmers.se/~term
and click on "Photo Galleries". A lot of Arsat/Zodiak 30mm pics are to be found.
/Robert
[Ed. note: think you are hooked on fisheyes? ;-0) ]
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: [Nikon] nikkon 8 mm
To: [email protected]
[email protected] writes:
> I was wondering the same thing...
Well... it all starts with ONE!!! My name is Don... and Im a FISH- AHOLIC!
LOL...
My initial purchase was in Oct 98. An AI 8mm in EXC condition. I then went on
a search for one NEW IN BOX. I found one and then sold the first one. After
that... I realized I could not bring myself to use the NEW one and bought
another AIS... to use. Since that time I found a several others... 11 in
total. Currently I have a new in box AIS, MINT MINUS AIS, 2 MINT NAI's and my
latest aquisition... a MINT MINUS NAI. This insanity is driven by GREED for
sure. I dont need 5 (or really even one).... LOL. I have made a bundle buying
and selling these though. They are gerat lenses and alot of fun to use.
My other fish in the school are....
6mm 5.6, 7.5mm 5.6, 8mm 8, 2 10mm OP's and a 16mm 2.8 AFD. Im looking for a
6mm 2.8.
If anyone is interested in buying either an 8mm 2.8 or a 10mm OP please dont
hesitate to contact me off list.
Don Krieff
From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003
From: "Olaf Ulrich" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fisheye (8 mm) lens compatible with Minolta X-700?
Tai "$" wrote:
> I am under the understanding that
> there are many 8 mm lenses available
> for the AF Maxxum, but does anyone
> know of a lens that would fit my
> X-700?
I am aware of only one current-production circular
fish-eye lens to fit the Minolta SR mount: the
Peleng Fish-eye 8 mm 1:3.5. However, this lens
is not very recommendable. The field of image is
a 26 mm circle that does not fit the 35-mm frame;
instead, it's a circle that has the upper and the
lower millimeter cut away. Looks awful. Besides,
the optical quality is, umm, questionable.
Then there are several lenses that have been dis-
continued long ago so today they are available in
the used market only. Those include the Minolta
MC Fish-eye Rokkor 7.5 mm 1:4, the MD Fish-eye
Rokkor 7.5 mm 1:4 (same lens as before but with
MD diaphragm mechanism), the Sigma Fisheye 8 mm
1:4, and the successor model to the latter which
also is an 8 mm lens.
All current circular fish-eye lenses (with the
exception of the before-metioned Peleng 8 mm) are
available for several AF mounts only, among them
the Minolta A mount, but not for the manual-focus
Minolta SR mount. This includes the current model
of the Sigma EX Fish-eye 8 mm 1:4.
So for an X-700, the most recommendable circular
fish-eye lens sure is the Rokkor 7.5 mm (no matter
whether MC or MD), and the second-best would be an
older Sigma 8 mm lens. Unfortunately, these lenses
are rare and sought-after---and thus, expensive.
If you are not interested in high optical quality
but in a cheap effect only then you might purchase
a fish-eye converter which is an attachment lens
that screws into the filter thread of a standard
50 mm lens or a regular 28 mm wide-angle lens. It
turns the 50 mm into a super-wide-angle, and the
28 mm into a circular fish-eye. However, sharpness
will be rather poor.
Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Erlangen (Germany)
[email protected]
[Ed. note: long sold by the time you read this, here for price info only...]
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 6/2/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: [HUG]
I have a brand new Russian 30mm in a Hasselblad mount. Only 4-rolls used
with this lens. $550.00 and I'll ship.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Turning fisheye pictures into normal ones
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998
> It seems to me that knowing the focal length of a fisheye lens,
> a little bit of image mapping should be able to straighten a
> region of a fisheye picture so that the lines and angles are
> normal again. Of course the resolution would be worse around
> the edges, since the pixels would have to be stretched there.
> The fisheye attachment for the Coolpix 900 then becomes a cheap
> way to get a rectilinear ultrawide, instead of a very specialized
> or novelty gadget. The same could be done with scanned negatives
> from film cameras with fisheye lenses, of course.
>
> Does anyone know if there are already Photoshop or GIMP macros
> that do this?
Helmut Dersch
Spherical Panoramas, Macro Panoramas,
http://www.fh-furtwangen.de/~dersch
From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
[1] Re: Need a Fish EYE front lens athachment. Ayone Know of one?
Date: Tue Oct 06 1998
>Does anyone know of a .3x to .4x fish eye front lens adapter with a rear thread
>size 50mm or larger. Thanks!
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
[1] Re: Fish eye lens wanted
Date: Thu Dec 03 1998
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Fish eye lens wanted must be full 180 degree circular image on the neg any
>> brand will do, i will get a 2nd hand body to suit the lens mount
>
> There is a great Zodiak fisheye lens for Kiev cameras, costs around
>$300 (very cheap compared to Hassy's for $3000). Sorry, can't recommend
>any reliable source.
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
From: [email protected] (Gary Helfrich)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: LF fisheye?
Date: 13 Dec 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fisheyes: Which is sharpest?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998
> I'm building an adaptor to allow me to use a medium format fisheye on my
> large format camera. I would prefer one designed for 6x7 due to the larger
> image circle. This pretty much limits me to either the Mamiya 37mm or the
> Pentax 35mm lenses. In an earlier post to the large format group about this
> project, both lenses were criticized as being poor performers. Before I go
> and buy one or the other, I am interested in any real world feedback on
> these lenses from people who have actually used them to shoot images, not
> test targets. I am leaning towards the Mamiya lens as I already own lots of
> Mamiya gear and can use it on existing equipment. The Pentax, on the other
> hand is so inexpensive that it might be worth getting just for a dedicated
> setup.
>
> The main things that I am concerned with are contrast and flare. High
> resolution is nice, but I doubt that I will enlarge anything past 4:1.
>
> Gary Helfrich
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF fisheye?
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998
>The two choices seem to be the RB67 37mm, and the Pentax 67 35mm.
>I am under the impression that they are both full frame 180 degree fisheyes,
>so the image circle of the Mamiya lens is a bit bigger than the Pentax, and
>in fact will almost cover a 100mm circle, which would give a nice round
>image on a 4x5 sheet.
>
>The Mamiya lens has a built in shutter, which is nice, but it is almost
>twice the price of the Pentax lens. My idea with the Pentax would be to
>mount a #3 Copal behind the lens.
>
>Has anyone had any experience with creating fisheye images with a large
>format camera? Is there an easier or less expensive way to do this? Is
>there an optical advantage that one of these two lenses might have?
Helge Nareid - Nordmann i utlendighet
University of Aberdeen, Department of Engineering
Laser and Optical Engineering Group
http://wwwcad.eng.abdn.ac.uk/~eng529/
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF fisheye?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 98
I am planning a similar contraption, and completed a Mamiya RB set
already....but I am not overly impressed with image quality on the RB
sofar....definately not tack sharp. My Kowa 19mm is much sharper, even
though it looks as a hellish more complicated design.
>From a friend, who is very anal in lens testing, I also heard that the
Pentax fisheye is not as good as the Kiev/Mir/Arsat/Zodial 30mm....given
the price difference, it isn't hard to know where to start hacking....
Bye,
From: rolland elliott [email protected]
Subject: 180 degree fisheyes for medium format
Date: 1999-01-19
From: kenny chiu [email protected]
Subject: Response to 180 degree fisheyes for medium format
Date: 1999-01-19
From: Alan
From: Jason Downes [email protected]
Subject: Response to 180 degree fisheyes for medium format
Date: 1999-01-20
From: Tsun Tam [email protected]
Subject: Response to 180 degree fisheyes for medium format
Date: 1999-01-20
From: [email protected] (Sormes)
[1] Re: Fisheye filter: Spiratone Curvatar
Date: Sat Feb 13 1999
>>Has anyone out there had experience with this filter/attatchment?
>>Comments on quality? Does it cover 180 degrees?
From: Willem-Jan Markerink [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Simonturnpike ford
> dear gene-since you already have screw mount pentax 17mm lens, or did
> they later make it k-mount?, look around for the screw mount 15 well
> corrected, straight lines
> 15mm. it came two ways. first version has aspheric construction. then
> then cheapened it without lowering the price. look at 35mm fish eye for
> pentax 6x7 as a lens you can take a slice from the middle. years ago an
> independent japanese lens mfg made drawings for fisheye to cover full
> panel 4x5 but felt there was little market.
Bye,
From: Glenn Barry [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Simonturnpike ford
From: Steve Morton [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 4x5 Fisheye - was Simonturnpike ford
> I have modified an Arsat 30mm fisheye to shoot full frame on 5x4, it
> works wonderfully, I had steve grimes fabricate an adaptor that replaces
> the real lens coupling so that it screws straight into a Copal #3
> shutter. Once I verified everything I cut off the built in lens hood
> and placed the bits in the lens cap so that I could still use it.
> BTW if you can get a hold of a poor condition RB body you can remove the
> front panel and adapt it so that you can use RB lenses on 5x4, with or
> without a 120 back.
Steve
From: Willem-Jan Markerink [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 4x5 Fisheye - was Simonturnpike ford
> I may look around for a Mamiya RB 37mm to try next as Willem has
> done.
> > BTW if you can get a hold of a poor condition RB body you can remove the
> > front panel and adapt it so that you can use RB lenses on 5x4, with or
> > without a 120 back.
>
> You can buy the RB/RZ mounting ring from an extension tube as a spare
> part. As I recall it is hard to get the mount from the front of an
> old body and effectively use that.
Bye,
From: "bbb" [email protected]
[1] Re: Newbie fisheye question.
Date: Mon Mar 15 1999
>Can I get a fisheye lens/adapter/whatever for my Yashica FX-3? Do they
>mount on the end of my lens like a filter? I've got a 5omm lens and a
>35-70mm zoom, if that helps any.
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: FishEye adapters
Goodwin Photo
Goodwin Photo
New web page! http://members.aol.com/gdwnphoto
3304 Hancock St.
San Diego, CA 92110
(619) 291-5190/FAX (619) 291-6052
10 day return policy on mail order.
Unless marked as is, 30-90 day warranty.
Mon-Sat. 10:30 am - 4:30 pm
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: FishEye adapters
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Adapting Kiev Fisheye to a Pentax 645
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999
124 West 30 Street
New York, N.Y.
212-563-1651
Sometimes has Kiev 88 lens in stock.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: fish eye filter lens?
Date: 24 May 1999
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: fisheye adapter page Re: Looking for 180 degree fisheye lens
adaptor.
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999
From: Leonard Paris [email protected]
To: "Hasselblad@Kelvin. Net" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Fish eye lens
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fish eye lens
From: Glenn Barry [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fisheye Lenses & Panorama Tools
...
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999
From: Helmut Dersch [email protected]
Subject: Coolpix with Fisheye Adapter
From: "David Brown" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: 8 mm peleng
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Digest Number 226
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: Kiev Arsat 30mm Fisheye MC/SC?
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999
> Hi Chung,
> According to what information I've been able to find the 30mms are not
> multi coated. Kalimex offers, at a considerable extra cost, Multicoated
> lenses, done apparently by Kiev.
> I have one of the first 30mm Arsats produced, and it has no MC on it
> either, but it performs well, and the 30mms are generally well regarded
> by their owners.
> So what if the lens isn't MCed- take it out and shoot it- I think you'll
> be in for a pleasant suprise!
> Regards,
> Kevin
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Mathematics behind Wide Angle/ Fish Eye lens Construction
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999
>I am trying to understand how wide angle lenses, especially
>Fish-eye lenses work, and am having a tough time finding
>resources on the net. Some of the questions I am trying to find
>answers for are:
>
>1) What gives a lens a wide angle of view? Is it just the small focal
> length? I guess when the focal length decreases, the cone of light that
> converges at the focal point is wider? But then, a 14mm lens is not
> 14mm long, or is it?
>
>2) What is really happening when you have a view angle of 180 degrees,
> as in the case for a fish-eye lens? It would seem like the focal point
> is now inside the lens, since the cone is now a half-plane but then
> how is the image formed? What type of projection gives you the circular,
> distorted image formed by fish-eye lenses? It looks similar to the image
> formed
> by the surrounding environment on a reflective sphere.
Washington, DC
From: "Boris" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: Affordable fish-eye lens camera
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999
Bronica 645 fish-eye lens 3,5/30 - $2900
Bronica 6x6 fish-eye lens 3.5/35 - $3100
Hasselblad fish-eye lens 3.5/30 - $5800
Mamiya 645 fish-eye lens 4/24 - $2100
Mamiya 6x7 fish-eye lens 4.5/37 - $2700
Pentax 6x7 fish eye lens 4,5/35 -$1200
Rollei fish-eye lenses 3,5/30 - $4000-$4500
*Kiev 60 body with p-six mount and mirror lock up option +$200
*TTL metered prism finder 45deg + $300( also fit all Hasselblad
cameras)
*MC Arsat/Volna-3 2.8/80mm lens +$100
*Telear 5.6/250mm lens +$360
*Jupiter 3.5/250mm lens +$480
*PCS Arsat 2.5/55 Shift lens +$900
*extension tubes 19-48mm +$90
*MC Arsat 1,4X teleconverter +$140
Starter medium format kit:
*Kiev 60, 2.8/80 lens , waist level finder,
2 filters, lens hood, strap, flash shoe -$400
*same , but with p-six mount and mirror
lock up option -$500
More expensive options includes another Kiev made camera - Kiev 88 with
interchangeable backs...(Hasselblad 1000F clone), speeds B,1-1/1000 *Kiev
More expensive options includes another Kiev made camera - Kiev 88 with
interchangeable backs...(Hasselblad 1000F clone), speeds B,1-1/1000
*Kiev 88 body - $350(Kiev 88 mount)
*Kiev 88 body- $700(p-six mount, mirror lock option)
*6x6 back - $150 each
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: focal length for fisheye lenses
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999
> I want to know what difference the focal length makes on a fisheye lens.
>
> What makes a 8mm 180-degree fisheye different from a 30mm 180-degree
> fisheye?
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian fish eye lenses
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian fish eye lenses
[email protected]
From: Steven Morton [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: you want coverage? ;-) Re: Nikkor coverage
> I should alert you to the existence of several medium format
> shift lenses at modest cost, such as the 55mm f/4.5 Arsat shift lens with
> 12 mm of shift (on top of being a 6x6cm design lens). Similarly, you can
> remount the 30mm fisheye to give a circular (180 deg diag) view; in fact,
> Roger Hicks created a 4x5 compact body and standard film holder back
> custom camera (in a Brit Jrnl Photogr. article) to fit the 30mm Kiev lens.
> A similar roll film holder back with shutter and $180 30mm 6x6 fisheye is
> an interesting approach to ultrawide panoramics at $1 per degree ;-)
Steve
From: John Papandreou [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: 12mm Sigma Fisheye as a 18mm !!!!
South Australia
From: "David Foy" [email protected]
[1] Re: Yaschia Mat lenses?
Date: Sat Feb 05 2000
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: 15mm super-wide
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000
From: Alastair Firkin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: 30 Distagon
From: "IZUMI Kachie" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Zenitar fisheye
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Zenitar fisheye
From: [email protected] (Dave Oswald)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Help, Fisheye on a Budget
>I have been noodling around with photography in an amature way for some
>time and recently bought a new Nikon N 70 set-up after years using Minolta.
> I have a 50mm lens and a 28mm lens. I really enjoy taking street shots
>and want to get a fisheye effect -- distorted and bent -- without sinking
>$1500 in a fisheye lens. I was in Time Square and many of the dealers
>tried to sell me these no name "macro" attachements that screwed onto the
>end of the lens. They seemed to get some of the effect I wanted, but the
>quality of the lens itself was piss poor. It seemed like it would be a
>shame to put it on my nice Nikkor lenses
>
>Does anyone have any ideas? Do the major lens vendors make a product that
>will get me the effect that I want without breaking the bank?
>
>Wayne Daigle
>[email protected]
From: "Chris Eve" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Help, Fisheye on a Budget
From: "Ed" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Help, Fisheye on a Budget
From: [email protected] (Steve Schlesinger)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Kiev lenses for Mamiya 645 (and Nikon)
From: "S. Gareth Ingram" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: REALLY cheap MF (semi) fisheye
> Camera - Holga 120
> Lens - built-in Holga PLUS Porter's fisheye adapter
>
> The fisheye adapter fits perfectly onto Holga lens. Results are not too
> bad - considering it's a Holga.
>
> There is some vignetting at 6x4.5 - I haven't tried it at 6x6 but it
> might match the already present vignetting at that size.
>
> True, this is not an extreme fisheye - but it does give a fair amount of
> curvy distortion.
>
> But hey - that PRICE!!
>
> Perhaps I can scan some of the contact prints and post on my web page if
> I get a chance.
> Bill
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: 24mm lenses for MF (was: Fisheye at weddings (was Re: Newbie
finally has time for a trip, need advice.
>zeitgeist wrote:
>>> (I pack a 24mm fisheye to
>> > > weddings so I might be weird.)
>> >
>> > You pack a WHAT? On medium format? Strange ... I'd love to see what kind of pictures you use it for.
>
>Good Gracious - Can this be? I have a Japanese 24mm lens in some kind
>of huge screw mount. I have never been able to find a matching camera.
>Could this be some kind of MF superwide? Was there ever a screw mount
>MF system? Any input is much appreciated.
Bye,
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
From: "George S. Pearl" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: fisheye on roundshot?
From: "Timothy J. Robson" [email protected]
Subject: RE: fisheye?
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000
> From: MIME :[email protected][SMTP:MIME :[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 1:03 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Zenitar 16mm./f2.8 Fisheye (long)
>
> Here's a copy of a review I just posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm. I
> don't want to try Pentax's forebearance by reviewing other lenses here,
> but several people have been asking about this lens.
>
> "There's been interest in this inexpensive lens in various places. Mine
> arrived Monday and I went right out to shoot the last ten shots or so of
> a roll of Agfa RSX 200. Given the interest I thought I'd post my
> impressions.
>
> "The lens is heavy and solid, and appears to be all metal (except, of
> course, for the focusing ring). I have the Pentax k-mount version. (It
> also comes in Pentax screw-mount and Nikon.) The rear end is not
> finished to the cosmetic niceness of Japanese lenses, but appears sturdy
> and quite serviceable. It slips on and off my PZ-1p nicely.
>
> "The focusing ring is smooth and a little stiff. That's probably heavy
> grease. The aperture ring (f2.8 - 22) could be improved. It is rougher
> than Japanese lenses, and goes slightly beyond f22. There's no click
> beyond f22 and the aperture doesn't close further. The aperture
> diaphragm (six blades) closes smoothly, but the blades seem rather
> short. Between f3.5 and 5.6 the aperture is not a smooth hexagon, but
> rather is jagged. The points of the blades stick out a bit. This does
> not appear to affect image quality or exposure (at least on my slides).
> I've never had a fisheye before, so perhaps the short aperture blades
> are normal.
>
> "I tested all full stops from 2.8 to 22. Viewing the projected slides,
> the images appeared sharp, with accurate colors and good contrast, at
> all aperture settings. If I were to shuffle the slides, I would not be
> able to tell which f-stop each was taken at.
>
>
> "There's a Russian-language manual, complete with a signed page that I
> assume is an inspection certificate. It comes with four rear filters:
> clear, red, yellow, and green. I'm told that these filters are needed to
> focus at infinity, so they are integral to the lens. There's a clip-on
> lens cap, fitted just to this lens, of course. I'm not sure what to do
> when mine eventually breaks or gets lost.
>
> "Verdict: this lens seems very serviceable at a very nice price ($80 in
> Moscow, $109 in the mail from Moscow, $139 - $219 from dealers here). If
> I needed a fisheye for serious work I would spend the extra money for a
> Japanese lens. But I wanted this for inexpensive fun. So far I can
> recommend it for that. I'm impressed enough to write this review."
>
> Joe Tainter
>
> P.S. Relax, Pentax. In the past two years I've bought two Pentax cameras
> and five Pentax lenses.
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000
From: "Martin H. Krieger" [email protected]
Subject: 30mm Distagon-Fisheye--How Does It Represent Space?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000
From: Edwin Hurwitz [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fisheye help
From: Roman Bazalevsky [email protected]
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000
Subject: RE: "super"-wide lens for Pentax-K* mount ?
>The Russian made Zenitar is available in Pentax K mount. It's a 16mm f/2.8
>ultra-wide.
>The results are very pleasing to me and they are about
>$170(USD)brand new.
Foreign Trade Firm "Zenit"
Manchuk Yury
tel/fax: +7 (095) 562-23-27
E-mail: [email protected]
>Strictly manual focus but you don't need to focus a lot
>with a lens that wide, anyway. :-)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]
Subject: Re: 180 Fisheye lenses for 4x5
> From: Steven Morton [email protected]
> Organization: Monash University
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:16:32 +1100
> To: [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: 180 Fisheye lenses for 4x5
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am selling a couple of medium format 180 fisheye lenses which are
> possibly suitable for use on 4x5. One is a 37mm
> Mamiya fisheye.
>
> See:
> http://www.physics.monash.edu.au/~smort/Bigfish.html
>
> All the best
> Steve
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000
From: Glenn Barry [email protected]
Subject: Re: 180 Fisheye lenses for 4x5
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: fisheye lens for medium format
> From: Steven Morton [email protected]
> Organization: Monash University
> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: fisheye lens for medium format
>
> Michael wrote:
>
>> As for the 30mm Zeiss (Hasselblad); I compared it to
>> all the other lenses you people have been talking about, and if you are
>> serious be aware the 30mm is a vastly better lens.
>
> Really? Have you made a side by side comparison with the Mamiya 24mm
> fisheye?
>
> Cya
> Steve
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
From: Steven Morton [email protected]
Subject: Re: fisheye lens for medium format
> steve trumpets the 24 mamiya and michael the 30mm hasselblad lens, claiming
> respective superiority from comparisons
Steve
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000
From: Ivo Vleugels [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: fisheye lens for medium format camera
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000
From: "Mitchell P. Warner" [email protected]
Subject: Re: fisheye lens for medium format camera
From: Steven Morton [email protected]
Subject: 180 Fisheye lenses for 4x5
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000
From: Steven Morton [email protected]
Subject: Re: fisheye lens for medium format camera
Steve
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: fisheye lens for medium format camera
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: fisheye lens for medium format camera / answer to questions
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000
From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
Subject: Re: re: fisheye peepholes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
From: Willem-Jan Markerink [email protected]
Subject: Re: fisheye lens for medium format camera
> Hi,
>
> We are looking for a fisheye lens for a mediumformat camera (6x6 / 6x7) or
> a camera wich uses 4'x5' sheet film with an angle of view MORE then 180�.
>
> We heard of a camera: Fowa (japanese camera) with a circular fisheye more
> then 180�
> Does someone know where we can buy the camera or is there information about
> it somewhere on the internet.
Bye,
From: [email protected] (Helge Nareid)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Fisheye/Wideangle ?
>A wide-angle lens is geometrically correct, a fisheye is not...
>If you
>photograph a square with a wide-angle, it will be square...
>With a
>fisheye, the sides of the square will bend towards the edges of the
>frame...
>A fisheye also has a VERY wide FoV (Canons' 15mm fisheye has a 180 deg
>FoV (that's what they claim)), while a wide-angle isn't quite as wide...
[Ed. note: thanks to Jeff for this neat tip on the Kenko Fisheye and
HAL9000 connection ;-)!!]
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000
From: jsg
To: [email protected]
Subject: Kenko fisheye
http://www.underview.com/2001/how.html#lens
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001
From: "Thomas B. Kunz" [email protected]
To: Panoramalist
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
From: Jem Kime [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Canon Fish-Eye for M- Camera
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] coke classic glass
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 30 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Fisheye Nikkor 6mm - any ideas where to find?
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kingslake on filters
Spiratone Spiralite Custom Proxivar
Spiratone 12mm Fisheye (note the greek Sigma in S/N!)
Photos Courtesy of Jeff - [email protected]
From: jsg [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan
From: jsg [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: books Re: Neat! timely.. ;-) Re: Kenko fisheye
Kenko Adapter
Kenko Adapter
Photos Courtesy of Jeff - [email protected]
From: jsg [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: books Re: Neat! timely.. ;-) Re: Kenko fisheye
From Kiev 88 Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: 30MM on Kiev 88CM
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001
From: "olivier" [email protected]
Subject: use of 30mm
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Early wide angles
<< On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Lee Lockwood wrote:
> In 1955-6 (when I started photographing) a 28mm lens was extremely
> exotic. There may have been an Angenieux 28. But Leitz, I think,
> didn't go past 35mm.
>
> As to even wider -- they didn't yet have optical correction that could
> handle it, or a wide enough aperture. I'm going on memory here, but
> that's my recollection and I'm pretty sure about it.
> >>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: "Gumm, Jim" [email protected]
Subject: Being retailiatory
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: Chung Wong [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: P6 to T-Mount adapter finally!
Chung
From: Chung Wong [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: P6 to T-Mount adapter finally!
Chung
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001
From: Ulrich Olaf <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fish-eye
Robin M. asked:
> What defines a lens as a fish-eye?
It is neither the angle of view nor the focal length, but the
geometrical way of projection. Typically, fish-eyes have a
wider field of view than super-wide-angles but that's not their
characteristic difference.
A non-fish-eye's widest theoretical angle of view (due to the
cos-4 law) is about 130�. The widest real super-wide-angle lens
for 35-mm SLRs that I am aware of is the Nikon 13 mm f/5.6, with
a diagonal angle of view of 118�, if memory serves. It costs
way over $10,000 US and is made only upon special order.
Fish-eyes usually have angles of view of 180� and focal
lengths between 6 mm and 16 mm (for 35-mm film format) but there
are also those with 170� or 220�. With a super-wide-angle's way
of projection, for 180� the focal length must be zero; for more
than 180� even negative which of course is impossible.
The fish-eye type of projection creates an image where
straight lines in the subject that do not cross the image's
center get mapped to curved lines in the image.
Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Erlangen (Germany)
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
From: David Littlewood [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Focal lenght of fisheye lenses
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001
David [email protected]> writes
>Hi all,
>When we are talking about the normal (non fisheye) lenses, I know that the
>angle of the view is determined by the focal length of the lens. Everyone
>can obtain diagonal angle of view on a 24x36mm film using equation
>2*atan(21.63/f), where f is focal length in mm. However, it is obvious that
>this is different with fisheye lenses. To make things little simpler, let's
>we discuss about full frame fisheyes lenses only, with declared diagonal
>angle of view 180 degrees. If we would like to have normal (non fisheye)
>lens of this view angle, it should have 0 mm focal length, so it is obvious
>that the view angle of the fisheye lens have something to do with its
>optical distortion. My question is, what does tell you the focal length of
>these fisheye lenses, since all of them have 180 degrees view angle, however
>they have different focal lengths (Nikon 16 mm, Sigma 15mm, some others
>trademarks 12mm, etc)? With other words, can someone show me pictures of the
>same subject taken from the same place with several full frame 180 degrees
>fisheye lenses of different focal lengths? Thanks in advance.
>David G.
>
The key difference in the design of a fisheye lens is that the need for
straight lines is abandoned, and instead an equal-area drawing is used.
The result is that instead of:
angle of view = 2.arctan(21.63/f)
Where f = focal length and 21.63 is the length of the image diagonal
from the optical axis to the edge,
one has the equation:
angle of view = 2.(21.63/f),
which simplifies to
angle of view = 43.27/f
IOW, the tangent has been replaced by the angle itself (in radians, of
course).
This equation assumes that the covering power of the lens exceeds the
24x36 film format. To plug in an example, for a 15 mm lens, angle of
view would be calculated as 43.27/15 = 2.88 radians = approx 164
degrees. The manufacturers' specs for such lenses usually quote 180 deg,
but this may be a bit of licence on their part.
A 7-8 mm lens would clearly, on this formula, have an angle of view of
about 330 degrees. In practice the image circle is more limited than
this, giving a circular image fitting within the 35 mm film frame, but
the above equation should hold good if this size (24 mm) is taken into
account (i.e. replace 43.27 with 24). Thus, an 8 mm lens with image just
fitting the frame should be:
angle of view = 24/8 = 3.0 radians = approx 172 degrees,
which seems to fit the case very satisfactorily (and I *swear* I didn't
work it out until I had typed the equation!)
There is nothing magical about the 180 degrees figure; it is possible to
design non-rectilinear lenses with angles of view much less than, or
greater than, 180 degrees at the size of the 35 mm film frame. Also, be
careful to distinguish between the angle of view at the size of the film
frame and the maximum angle of view limited only by the lens covering
power (which might be much greater). By convention, the term fisheye
usually refers to a lens capable of recording at least 180 degrees
entirely within the 35 mm film frame. A lens recording 180 degrees only
in the diagonal is referred to as a full-frame fisheye or quasi-fisheye.
Note that a rectilinear lens is normally limited to about 120 degrees
angle of view.
--
David Littlewood
From: Robert Kirkpatrick [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cheap Fish-eye Lens?
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001
Over the years there have been various fish-eye adapters to mount on
the front of a 50mm lens. Kenko made a very nice one. These front
mount converters are very common for camcorders. I believe B&H
is listing some new fisheye camcorder converters but you would need
to use them stopped down. Traditional still camera converters show
up periodically in used stock or on Ebay. Adorama even had one in
their catalog a few years ago. The Russian fisheye was recently reviewed
in one of the major magazines, Shutterbug I think. It is slightly longer
than a true circular fisheye so the top and bottom of the circle are cut
off on the 35mm frame. (It was originally designed for a slightly larger
Russian film format.)
As for standard lenses I bought a used Sigma diagonal (full frame) fisheye
from Adorama that I'm very happy with and that wasn't too expensive.
Richard Cochran wrote:
> Ryan Forman wrote:
> >
> > Anyone use the zenitar russian fish-eye lens? How is it? Are there
> > anyother cheap fish-eye lenses out there? Thanks for the info. I
> > have a Nikon N70.
>
> The cheapest fisheye suggestion I've heard is to get one of those
> security peepholes designed to give you a fisheye view through your
> front door. Drill a hole in the center of a spare lenscap, and mount
> the peephole there. Obviously, optical quality may be really lacking,
> but for the price, it might make for some interesting experiments.
> I've never tried this myself.
>
> --Rich
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [HUG] 30mm Kiev lens (Arsat) conversion to Hassy
From: Evan J Dong [email protected]>
Bob,
I myself, had not done this conversion yet. However I do plan to convert
the 30mm Zodiak / Arsat and a late CZJ 180mm MC Sonnar.
The various converted lenses that I had seen and handled for the 2000 /
200 series, were all professionally converted using either a salvaged
rear Hasselblad bayonet mount OR a brand new bayonet ring purchased from
Hasselblad. You can also use the lens mount adapter part # 40037.
All the lens will be able to focus from the minimum meter / feet range to
the maximum infinity range. Full use of the aperture range is possible,
but will have to be performed manually.
In the case of the 30mm , you will not have any ability to use the
supplied rear filters. You should ask Stan or whomever you use for this
conversion if he will be able to leave enough room in the rear to allow
you use gelatin filters without it scratching your mirror.
In regards to all the conversion done, ask to see any of his previous
work. The reason I tell you this, is based on what I actually handled and
seen on these converted lenses. At the rear where the lens mount will go,
just make sure that the converted area is not an open hole with the mount
as a dust and dirt cover. If possible, this is where the lens mount
adapter # 40037 comes into play. This part has a aluminium plate in
front of the bayonet ring. Some machinist will machined this plate to fit
as a dust cover as part of the rear mount. In certain incident, you will
not have any choice. If your technician / machinist can fabricate a rear
dust cover/cap from sheet metal , then you will not have any future
problems with dirt or dust getting into the interior of your lens.
The various lenses that I had seen converted are as following:
1. CZJ lenses for the Pentacon Six System : 50mm, 65mm, 120mm, 180mm,
300mm
2. Meyer Optics : 300mm, 500mm
3. Kiev 60 and Kiev 88 lenses : 30mm, 45mm, 45mm & 55m shift, 150mm,
250mm
There are probably other adapted lens that I haven't seen yet, but these
are the majority that I had seen and handled. Let me know how this
conversion turns out for you. Try to get the latest Arsat lens that is
labeled MC. That way you will have no problems with flare.
Evan
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 Bob Keene/Karen Shehade
[email protected]> writes:
> Hi List of Huggies,
>
> Just got a 2000FCW (thanks Austin!) and am moving to expand my
> creative
> possibilities-
>
> I know that the Kiev 88 lenses can be converted for use on
> Hasselblad 200x
> bodies, and I have a name and # (Stan Nycz, Int'l Camera Repair
> Toronto,
> 800/340-5937) but I have some questions from others who may be
> already using
> these...
>
> I've acquired an Arsat 30mm lens. I have a extension tube I never
> use, which
> I gather I can send to Stan to use as the lens mount. When the
> conversion is
> done, what are you missing? I mean I assume the lens will focus and
> the
> aperture ring will work like a normal F lens... yes?
>
> I am awaiting delivery of the 30, so I don't have it in front of me
> yet.
>
> Love to hear from anyone using this kind of converted (perverted?)
> lens. :)
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Bob Keene
> Keene Vision Photography
> "Creating Visions That Last A Lifetime"
> 781/449-2536
> www.keenevision.com
>
From: Stephe Thayer [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Is a fisheye really useful?
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001
I asked myself this question many times over the years. While the images
I've seen looked interesting (most were close up's making full use of the
fisheye effect), I figured it would get old pretty quick and wouldn't be
that useful a lens. Given that the most reasonable way to even try a "GOOD"
fisheye (as in a really sharp one) was with my OM 35mm stuff (which I hate
using 35mm after shooting with med and lrg format) which was over $600 for
the cheapest "bargain" rated zuiko lens I have seen. It wasn't hard to talk
myself out of needing this type of lens. given that most MF fisheyes are
5-10 times that much, using a medformat one was out of the question. Well
once I got a kiev, a 30mm fisheye was within reason. At $230 new with
filters,caps,case it would be hard not to get one just to have one!
So now that I've had one for a while and played with it, I've found it to
be a VERY useful tool for doing landscapes. While it does have the classic
fisheye distortion, if used with some thought, being very careful composing
and leveling the camera, it makes a great SUPER wide angle lens for all
sorts of subjects. Also because of it's optical design, it doesn't have the
severe light fall off issues a rectiliniar lens does. Given most landscapes
don't have straight lines anyway, you can REALLY get some neat shots with
one. I would have never guessed that this kind of lens would be good for
"normal" looking landscape photography until I experimented with one. Below
is an example of a shot I took last weekend at a local park. I've been
shooting there for years trying to get a good shot of the lake front. This
lens got the "look" I've been trying to capture for years but never could.
This lens is going to be a take everywhere one!
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/30mm.jpg
--
Stephe
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 24 Dec 2001
Subject: Re: Any good fisheye pictures?
>>Does anyone have any fisheye photos they've taken that they're especially
proud of? I'd be really interested to see them. I'm thinking about getting
one, and am curious to see what some of you guys have done with them. >>
Been shooting with fisheyes for sometime. A few of them are here:
http://members.aol.com/zemba/DAL.htm
and here:
http://members.aol.com/Edgy01/Stonehenge.jpg
Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara
From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001
From: Nikon Cameras [email protected]
Subject: Spriatone auxilary Fish-Eye
This lens is not just for a 50mm lens. It can be used on "all types of
cameras including 8mm Super 8mm and 16mm, as well as 35mm movie cameras,
T.V. cameras, subminature cameras, half size and regular size 35mm
rangefinder and single lens reflex cameras, 2 1/4 X 2 1/4", 4X5", 5X7" and
8X10" view and press cameras", to quote the instruction sheet that came
with the lens. It is not recommended for use on wideangle lenses becaue
the circular image is too small.
Spiratone also says that it is not recommended "for lenses longer than
200mm (resulting speed too slow), some zoom lenses (both diameter of the
circular image and image quality may be unsatisfactory), prime lenses into
which the Fish-Eye can not be screwed or bayoneted (slip on fittings are
not suitable), lenses with a greatly recessed front element (may cause
vignetting due to increased distance between prime and auxiliary lens)."
It doesn't measure up to Nikon's prime, but it is worth it for
experimenting with. The maximum aperture varies from f/3.5 (for use with
a 30mm lens) to f/22 (for use with a 200mm lens). I bought the adapter
for 52mm lenses and also for the bayonette mount for Yashica's twin lens
reflex. Also, Spiratone made a lot of interesting odd-ball lenses. I own
a 100mm Spiratone periscope lens with a Nikon T-adapter.
>BTW, Spiratone made another odd lens. It's a 8mm 180 degrees true fisheye
>attachment for 50mm lenses. Yes, 50mm lens, unlike the super wide/semifish
>eye attachments which has to be mounted on a 28mm lens. I have this lens,
>and it's an oddity indeed, as it has it's own aperture settings, even
>though it's an attachment lens.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001
From: Olaf Ulrich [email protected]
Subject: Fish-eye
A few weeks ago, somebody asked what makes a fish-eye lens a
fish-eye as opposed to a super-wide-angle. I answered that
it's the kind of projection.
And now I've found some detail information on this topic if
anyone is interested
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Generally, for a lens with a given focal length f, the
projection function P can be written as follows:
y' = P(a)
Here, a is the angular distance of an arbitrary point in the
subject from the optical axis, and y' is the linear distance of
the image of that point from the center of the image.
For any conventional lens the projection function simply is:
y' = f * tan(a) 'gnomonic projection'
The difference between wide-angle and telephoto lens is in the f
only.
The tangent quickly approaches infinity at large angles which
creates the dramatic effect of super-wide-angles. However, this
also is the reason why it is not possible to realize angles of
view of 180� this way (you'd need a focal length of zero, or an
infinite-size film format). So, other projection functions must
be used for really large angles of view which leads to fish-eye
lenses.
The Minolta 2.8/16 mm Fish-eye has the following function:
y' = 2 * f * sin(a/2) 'equisolid-angle projection'
This function basically replaces the tangent with the sine.
This projection is more or less equivalent to the gnomonic
projection near the center of the image but yields effectively
shorter focal lengths near the corners of the image.
The Minolta 4/7.5 mm Fish-eye, which creates a circular image
with a diameter of 23 mm, follows still another function:
y' = k * a 'equidistant projection'
Here, k is a value depending on f, typically like this:
k = c/f, where c is approximately equal to one, or less in some
cases (depends on the proper design of the optics).
As you can see, the 16 mm Fish-eye is not simply a longer
version of the 7.5 mm Fish-eye, with just a larger field of
image. Instead, these two are completely different kinds of
fish-eyes.
The equidistant projection function of the 7.5 mm Fish-eye is
particularly useful for scientific or surveillance applications.
A given linear distance between two points no matter where in
the image they appear always corresponds to the same angular
distance in the original subject.
Sorry for rambling,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Erlangen (Germany)
[email protected]
