10-06-2021, 11:54 AM
https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/rf-5-2mm-f2-8l-dual-fisheye-lens/
Wondering how would Klaus review this lens...
Wondering how would Klaus review this lens...
|
|
10-06-2021, 01:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-06-2021, 02:40 PM by Brightcolours.)
It is not a stills photography lens. Pretty cool piece of specialised kit, though.
10-06-2021, 05:46 PM
It would be a nice lens if it wasn't for the fish eye part.
Personally, I've never understood people's interest in fish eye lenses... As gold fishes maybe, but as humans? ;-)
10-06-2021, 06:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-06-2021, 06:04 PM by Brightcolours.)
(10-06-2021, 05:46 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: It would be a nice lens if it wasn't for the fish eye part. Hmmm? The fish eye part is needed for its purpose. Without the "fish eye part" the lens has no reason to be? The resulting output gets processed, you don't have fisheye video as end result. You have VR content as output.
Hey - I love(d) to use a fisheye, my (now ex) wife has one that I got for her. It'd be a little awkward to just call her and ask to borrow the lens now, of course, even though we did part on decently good terms (anyone selling a decent copy of the 10-17 in Canon EF mount?) Fisheyes work for some subjects, not so much for the others, and of course it's not something you'd be using every day. I know I would not go to photograph the Three Gorges dams in China, or the Eiffel Tower, without a fisheye in the bag.
 This new Canon lens, of course, is a lot, a lot more specialized still. I admit I have not the slightest clue what I would have done with it in my line of work. I'd joke that Canon would seem to release just about anything before updating the Canon EF 50/1.4, but I guess it's now completely out of question because, duh, it's EF. Now I guess a faster-than-1.8 35mm for RF is the new unicorn, and I guess they'll take their sweet time getting there, releasing RF updates to the 8-15 fisheye, the MP-E, the TS lenses and whatnot before finally releasing it.
10-07-2021, 10:20 PM
(10-06-2021, 06:03 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:(10-06-2021, 05:46 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: It would be a nice lens if it wasn't for the fish eye part. VR has nothing to do with being fisheye or not. If you look at the video excerpts from the link you posted, you'll see they are fisheyed. The same lens but corrected for distortion would have been a much more interesting offering. (10-07-2021, 10:20 PM)toni-a Wrote:(10-06-2021, 05:46 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: It would be a nice lens if it wasn't for the fish eye part. Perhaps your goldfish would appreciate this lens a birthday present? ![[Image: biggrin.png]](https://forum.opticallimits.com/images/icons/biggrin.png){kind=icon}
10-08-2021, 06:18 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2021, 05:02 PM by Brightcolours.)
(10-07-2021, 10:30 PM)thxbb12 Wrote:(10-06-2021, 06:03 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:(10-06-2021, 05:46 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: It would be a nice lens if it wasn't for the fish eye part. You do not appear to get the concept. The lens captures a wide view. This is for VR content. Not for web videos. 360 degree cameras also are not for fisheye photos or video, but to process for VR content, so you have a wide view. Then you put a VR headset on, and can look around the wide view, which is remapped. The video of course does not show VR, now does it. It can only show the quality of the lens. THAT is the concept, and it makes no sense at all to use "corrected lenses". |
Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)