Samyang 8mm Fisheye

Amp34

Amp34

Messages
2,859
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone have one? How good is it for... landscapes?:lol:

The reason I ask is folloing on from my other thread about swapping from what I have now to a GF1, however my other thought was swapping the lenses I have now for smaller ones, namely the Tamron 17-50 instead of the Sigma 24-70. The 17-50 also takes most of the range of the Tokina 12-24 so I was thinking of replacing the wide end (and I always want wider anyway) with a Samyang 8mm...

The reviews I've read seem very positive, both for IQ and build quality so I was wondering if the fisheyeness and 180 degree view could be useful to me.

The main use of this over the 17-50 would be skycapes/starscapes, so a little bit of ground and lots of sky, specifically things like this...

IMG_1306.jpg

done2+copy.jpg

Campfire-rotatedandlenscorrect.jpg


(focal lengths may vary with the, just examples)

I'm wondering how pronounced the fisheye would actually be in photos like that, and how easy it would be to correct in PS if needed?
 
Fantastic pictures.

You can correct the distortion that a fisheye creates and essentially turn it back into a rectilinear image, although you may lose quality on the corners.

My mate has the samyang 8, and reckons the IQ isn't anything special, but it's a cheap lens so he's fine with it. The fact that it's fully manual shouldn't matter, at these focal lengths anything more than a few feet in front of you is near enough at infinity focus anyway, so just slap the dial to infinity, choose a sensible F stop and snap away.
 
Thanks. :)

They are pretty much my thoughts exactly, manual focus in a lens like that doesn't bother me one bit, same with a manual aperture (or possibly exposure, although exposure should work on the 400D anyway) as it will most likely be left wide open the entire time.

The thing with the fisheye if I remember correctly is that for things like landscapes, with most/all things quite a distance away the distortion shouldn't be as apparent?
 
Correct, but you will still see some distortion.

The metering should be okay, I use two old fully manual lenses and the camera seems to meter with them quite well. You will have no focus confirmation, though, but as we've said it really doesn't matter. Don't use it wide open unless you have to. Perhaps compose wide open (else the viewfinder will darken) and stop down when you're ready to shoot. Evaluate exposure, click.
 
With starscapes wide open is best unfortunately, although you lose some quality you gain extra stars and light (aperture and exposure length are essentially not linked). From the example photos i've seen wide open it still doesn't seem that bad anyway. :)

(For example all three of the photos above were wide open. :))
 
Lack of knowledge in this area shows... thanks for that, I will bear it in mind when I head up north later in the year. Honestly the aperture should be open wide even when using exposures of 1 hour and more?
 
Check out the hemi fisheye plugin for photoshop - I prefer a fisheye image with corrected verticals to a rectilinear image, and you'll lose less image and far less resolution than if you were to convert fisheye to rectilinear.
 
I apologise, I thought rectilinear was corrected verticals...
 
trencheel303 said:
Lack of knowledge in this area shows... thanks for that, I will bear it in mind when I head up north later in the year. Honestly the aperture should be open wide even when using exposures of 1 hour and more?
Click to expand...

Well with digital there isn't much need to do hour long exposures, the longest I do is around 5-10 minutes, normally around 2, then use a program to stack them together. With a 1 hour exposure you will need to work out if you need to up the aperture slightly (probably, even in the darkest nights), same with reasonable length exposures near towns or with bright moonlight however generally it's not that important. That's partly why I use shorter shutter speeds, because you can then stick the aperture to it's widest and up the ISO to around 200 (more sensitive than 100 but no extra noise) so you get as many and as bright a stars as possible without having to worry about too much light pollution.

I've been meaning to write a guide about this but got about 3/4 of the ay through and it got put aside, I really need to finish it and start writing them again....:lol:

Mud said:
Check out the hemi fisheye plugin for photoshop - I prefer a fisheye image with corrected verticals to a rectilinear image, and you'll lose less image and far less resolution than if you were to convert fisheye to rectilinear.
Click to expand...

hemi...rectilinear...:gag::lol:

Need to look those up I think... But essentially it should be fine without too much quality and resolution loss? :)
 
Well, I'm lucky in that where I'm going, light pollution doesn't exist...

I didn't think about using a program to stack the exposures, I'd still rather do it the old fashioned way though, but that's just me...
 
In which case, make sure you get the exposure right, and have a full battery that will last that length (and a probable long exposure noise compensation run*)! :p

(Best way to do that and check composition is to whack the ISO up as high as possible and aperture wide open then expose for 30s-1min, then work out exposure length from there).

*Although don't use that option if doing multiple exposures or your stack will look like morse code, take a few dark exposures at the end.
 
I've got a grip with two fresh batteries so it should be alright. Thanks for the tips. Don't suppose you can guarantee me some clear skies as well?!?!
 
Amp34 said:
Need to look those up I think... But essentially it should be fine without too much quality and resolution loss? :)
Click to expand...

Very minimal loss of frame - hemi is definitely worth checking out if you want to use the distortion of the fisheye without going totally bug-eyed, but it isn't free. Perhaps I'm weak with wideangle, but I have trouble using the distortion in the corners of a rectilinear lens effectively...I find the vertically-corrected fisheye distorts in a way that doesn't draw much attention from the centre of the frame.

edit: hadn't realised the Samyang was a circular fisheye - hmm, hemi might not be applicable then... :(
 
There seems to be some confusion here and I'm not sure the Samyang will do what you want. It's a fisheye, which means 180 degrees but only across the full image circle. You won't get the full image on the GF1's smaller format.

It is also non-rectilinear - straight lines are strongly curved towards the edges of the frame and subject distance doesn't change that. You will get less distortion on 4/3rds format because it will crop the sides off the image and only use the centre, but there will still be plenty left and pulling that straight in post processing will lose even more coverage.

Basically, I'm not sure this lens will do what you're expecting (assuming I've understood things correctly) and if you want w-i-d-e, then the GF1 is probably not the best place to start either.
 
This lens would be bought if I stayed with Canon, so not used on the GF1. :)

I do have some reservations about using this lens, however I don't know of any other wide angle lenses that would be cheap enough for my needs if I swapped around (the 11-16 would be logical but too expensive). However if I could use it as a fisheye and corrected landscapes (when I needed really wide) it may be a very useful lens when 17mm isn't wide enough. :)
 
Joe T said:
Sigma 10-20 too pricey?
Click to expand...

Essentially yeah, and a slight downgrade from the 12-24 IMO. I'd only really consider the Tokina 11-16 out of any of the well known zooms, however that is around a couple of hundred more. Also we're looking at size again and I think the Samyang is a bit smaller.
 
Amp34 said:
Essentially yeah, and a slight downgrade from the 12-24 IMO.
Click to expand...

Why? Have you actually tried it or have you just heard people going 'oh its crap' (probably the same people who insist you have to use $$$ L glass to get a decent photo). There probably are a few bad copies floating around but I know for one mine is brilliant, except for the light falloff at 10mm which is bad, it's really sharp, great colours. What you have to remember as well is on a 4/3rds sensor the difference between 10 and 12mm will be a big one. It's big enough on crop bodies.

It is indeed bigger than the Samyang and heavier...

This was taken with my Sigma 10-20 at 10mm:

IMG_8497_sb.jpg
 
It's not that the Sigma is bad, just that the 12-24 is better. I tried both (and the canon) quite a lot before getting it. :)

Also I think we're getting confused again, it won't be on a 4/3s system, but an APS-c Canon system. Or were you suggesting get the GF1 and getting a 10-20 to go with it?
 
I think the Sigma is probably the best/cheapest/widest option. Trying to pull a rectinlinear image out of a fisheye will cause more problems than it solves and you might not gain much coverage at the end of the day.

If you want wide, and can live with the distortion, it's the way to go but you'll lose a heck of a lot of coverage trying to get it straight, plus the side effects of very big enlargement on the edges which is what the staightening does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top