Opticallimits

That is steep. Out of curiosity, how much do the old fashioned fisheye lenses have? 10 or 15%?

Nah, a typical fisheye has around 50%.


At the end of the day, it's the output quality that counts. You can still have good corners at 10% (corrected). You just won't have great ones.

Also the 10-20mm shows a similar figure for distortion...

https://www.lenstip.com/632.6-Lens_revie..._view.html

Just short of 10%. But not reaching that figure.
I guess Klaus will have a lot of fun with these lenses when they inevitably end up in da lab.

(06-03-2022, 12:17 PM)Klaus Wrote: [ -> ]Nah, a typical fisheye has around 50%.


At the end of the day, it's the output quality that counts. You can still have good corners at 10% (corrected). You just won't have great ones.

<ROFL>

IMO, it is debatable whether that is really distortion, considering the different projection method used. To me, if a straight line through the optical centre, i.e., perpendicular to the optical axis of a fisheye, through that axis, is straight, it is fine, no distortion if you ask me. In that case it does what it is supposed to do .

Kind regards, Wim

Well, it is distortion, because the image is not rendered in a rectilinear projection as we see it (more or less...) That a small part of the image is not affected by it doesn't change the overall phenomenon, does it?

(06-10-2022, 12:25 PM)Rover Wrote: [ -> ]Well, it is distortion, because the image is not rendered in a rectilinear projection as we see it (more or less...) That a small part of the image is not affected by it doesn't change the overall phenomenon, does it?

I would only consider it distortion if it is not intended that way. If it was a rectilinear lens, yes, it would be distortion. Some fisheyes actually do show some distortion, although that tends to be hard to see. In that case it generally is pincushion distortion.

That lines through the optical center are straight is part of the way a fisheye renders, by design .

I'm slightly wondering why the blogosphere is more excited about the 15mm f/1.4 G. That's a FF 23mm f/2.1. Normally nothing to get overly excited about.
However, the 11mm f/1.8 (aka 17mm f/2.7) for relatively little money seems to be an awesome offering in my book.
And with these specs, it'll even kill the Laowa 9mm f/2.8 in terms of value - easily.

So 8% distortion for the 11mm in my book.

It's not our fault, it's the times we're livin' in.