Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: EF 8-15 mm f4 L:review of the new Canon Fisheye Zoom

Expand Messages
  • robert
    So, it s a great lens, not really much of a surprise since Canon seems to be finally hitting all gears on super wides. I mean what could you expect after the
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 20 11:16 PM
      So, it's a great lens, not really much of a surprise since Canon seems to be finally hitting all gears on super wides. I mean what could you expect after the 17mm TS lens?

      But is there any perfect lens for 360's?

      Peter's example is filled with errors if you look a bit too close. Are all fish-eye lens's just problematic from a NPP?

      Robert




      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Michel Thoby <thobymichel@...> wrote:
      >
      > Exactly one year after the new 8-15 mm zoom lens announcement by Canon, it landed at last on the shelf of my local store about two months ago...
      >
      > Here is a review with my point of view as a panorama photographer:
      > http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Canon_8-15mm/8-15mm_review.html
      >
      >
      > Michel Thoby
      >
    • panovrx
      ... I think a way to set the focus settings by eye more accurately with the lens is to hold the camera sideways so both eyes are in line with the focus mark.
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 30 4:51 PM
        > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Michel Thoby <thobymichel@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Exactly one year after the new 8-15 mm zoom lens announcement by Canon, it landed at last on the shelf of my local store about two months ago...
        > > >
        > > > Here is a review with my point of view as a panorama photographer:
        > > > http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Canon_8-15mm/8-15mm_review.html
        > >
        > > I have been testing the lens for a couple of days.
        > > I agree with all Michel's judgments particularly the exceptional flare resistance and good edge resolution -- and the idiotic manual focus and lens cap design.
        > > Re fov you can see through the viewfinder the fov of the image circle contracting -- through vignetting - (from about 191 degrees to about 181 degrees) as you zoom from 12mm to 8mm. It would be interesting to focus this on a ground glass to see what the circle is doing at 15mm.
        > >
        > > Here is a low light high iso test
        > > http://www.mediavr.com/qvb7/qvb7.htm
        > > (with a monopod, f4 @ 1250iso at 1/50th at 12mm -- 4 shots+nadir)
        > >
        > > Autofocus speed and accuracy is very good generally.
        > >
        > > PeterM
        > >
        >

        I think a way to set the focus settings by eye more accurately with the lens is to hold the camera sideways so both eyes are in line with the focus mark. That way there is less chance of parallax errors with the mark (because it is some distance over the focus numbers) that you can get when you look over the top of the camera. Now I am happier with building sharpness in street scenes when I set the lens to infinity. This is 5 shots (+nadir) at 12mm setting at f6.3
        http://www.mediavr.com/thjacaranda2011/thjacaranda2011.html
      • Sacha Griffin
        I think peter was pole shooting so errors can be excused. I don t think any fisheyes are problematic from an npp perspective. What do you mean? Just a matter
        Message 3 of 24 , Nov 1, 2011
          I think peter was pole shooting so errors can be excused. I don't think any fisheyes are problematic from an npp perspective. What do you mean? Just a matter of knowing how to optimize for your rotation and proper stitching.
          From all reports the 8-15 is the perfect vt lens beating even the prime 15.

          Sacha Griffin
          Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia
          Office: 404-551-4275
          GV: 404-665-9990


          On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:20 PM, robert <image360@...> wrote:

           

          So, it's a great lens, not really much of a surprise since Canon seems to be finally hitting all gears on super wides. I mean what could you expect after the 17mm TS lens?

          But is there any perfect lens for 360's?

          Peter's example is filled with errors if you look a bit too close. Are all fish-eye lens's just problematic from a NPP?

          Robert

          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Michel Thoby <thobymichel@...> wrote:
          >
          > Exactly one year after the new 8-15 mm zoom lens announcement by Canon, it landed at last on the shelf of my local store about two months ago...
          >
          > Here is a review with my point of view as a panorama photographer:
          > http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Canon_8-15mm/8-15mm_review.html
          >
          >
          > Michel Thoby
          >

        • robert
          There are errors, insignificant, for all but the purest in just about every 360 shot with a fisheye since any fisheye lens does not have a single NPP point.
          Message 4 of 24 , Nov 1, 2011
            There are errors, insignificant, for all but the purest in just about every 360 shot with a fisheye since any fisheye lens does not have a single NPP point. You can optimize or minimize the issue, but it still exists simply because a fisheye has no single NPP. Post is almost always required if you care about absolute image fidelity.

            I'm not trying to knock the new Canon 8-15, on the contrary it seems like a great lens and I plan to get one or two next year. It does seem to be better than the Canon 15 at the edges and perhaps in contrast, color through out the FOV.

            But the Canon 15 at 2.8, verses the 8-15 at 4.0 seems like the 15 still has a place at the table. If I was Canon I would not discontinue the 15.

            And believe me, I'm not in anyway trying to knock Peter. I know how challenging a non-stable platform can be to work with, I've been stitching aerial 360's for a few years now. Talk about a drunken sailor. It can make handheld seem easy. :)

            cheers,

            Robert

            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Sacha Griffin <sachagriffin@...> wrote:
            >
            > I think peter was pole shooting so errors can be excused. I don't think any
            > fisheyes are problematic from an npp perspective. What do you mean? Just a
            > matter of knowing how to optimize for your rotation and proper stitching.
            > From all reports the 8-15 is the perfect vt lens beating even the prime 15.
            >
            > Sacha Griffin
          • Sacha Griffin
            I haven t done any post due to seams in about a year or more. 10.5 It s just a matter of placing your seam where it really overlaps. No single npp refers to
            Message 5 of 24 , Nov 1, 2011
              I haven't done any post due to seams in about a year or more. "10.5"

              It's just a matter of placing your seam where it really overlaps.
              No single npp refers to your rotation. Like I said if you optimize for it as well and stitch accordingly youre good to go. If I need pixel accuracy "high detail" I can always take extra time on the stitch or pass it off to a content aware blender, which usually is faster.

              The 15 is still a really good lens and 2.8 may fit some circumstances.

              Sacha Griffin
              Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia
              Office: 404-551-4275
              GV: 404-665-9990


              On Nov 1, 2011, at 7:40 PM, robert <image360@...> wrote:

               

              There are errors, insignificant, for all but the purest in just about every 360 shot with a fisheye since any fisheye lens does not have a single NPP point. You can optimize or minimize the issue, but it still exists simply because a fisheye has no single NPP. Post is almost always required if you care about absolute image fidelity.

              I'm not trying to knock the new Canon 8-15, on the contrary it seems like a great lens and I plan to get one or two next year. It does seem to be better than the Canon 15 at the edges and perhaps in contrast, color through out the FOV.

              But the Canon 15 at 2.8, verses the 8-15 at 4.0 seems like the 15 still has a place at the table. If I was Canon I would not discontinue the 15.

              And believe me, I'm not in anyway trying to knock Peter. I know how challenging a non-stable platform can be to work with, I've been stitching aerial 360's for a few years now. Talk about a drunken sailor. It can make handheld seem easy. :)

              cheers,

              Robert

              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Sacha Griffin <sachagriffin@...> wrote:
              >
              > I think peter was pole shooting so errors can be excused. I don't think any
              > fisheyes are problematic from an npp perspective. What do you mean? Just a
              > matter of knowing how to optimize for your rotation and proper stitching.
              > From all reports the 8-15 is the perfect vt lens beating even the prime 15.
              >
              > Sacha Griffin

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.