Brief note-gallery with examples of photos on a manual lens MC ZENITAR-N 2,8 / 16 FISH-EYE и Nikon D600, photographer Alexander Plekhanov.
Works on MC ZENITAR-N 2,8 / 16 FISH-EYE
Lens MC ZENITAR-N 2,8 / 16 FISH-EYE liked, but was sold. With its help, interesting shots were obtained in a foggy forest. In these conditions it was possible take off on the open diaphragm. Refused him because of his distortions in the corners of the frame during night shooting.
Gallery on the MC ZENITAR-N 2,8 / 16 FISH-EYE and Nikon D600
You can find more photos from Alexander on https://35photo.pro/plexanov
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Great shots, thanks!
That's why I love fish. If necessary, the distortion is corrected and it turns into an oversized angle with not the worst angles. And on a whole series of subjects the barrel even looks organically and does not bulge.
Lovers of raw photos - there are many treatments here. Without color correction, at least half of the parameters corrected by Camera Raw have been corrected - distortion (perhaps even by a third-party application, there are better methods than in ACR), chromatics - fishies are very chromatic. Well, the colors. Well, one more little nuance ... In order to get such pictures, you need to raise the fifth point and just stick out in these places. The lens will not do this for you - neither Soviet, nor German, nor Japanese.
Damn, such galleries are a great incentive to run to buy a fish, take two shots from the kitchen window, remove them and then sit on a cozy Radozhiv, comforting myself with the fact - well, I have children, I have a job, if I wow!
Fischie found, put his favorites xDD
I'm sitting on.
P, S, - pictures agon, respect to the author !!!
To the author, the question is, is the angle greatly reduced when correcting distortion? In this case, does the fish become closer to 18 or even 20 mm?
That's right, it is. But the fish for this was developed, in these distortions
has its own artistic effect. Thanks everyone for the comments !
Great pictures, thanks to the author for the work! After the waxed flat faces from past reviews, these works are like perfection.
I bought one for spherical panoramas. And it turned out that 1 row of photos for assembly is missing.
It's a pity(
Photo fire, well done master.
Thanks for the great photos! I myself have never used such a lens, but as we see it, you can get just great pictures with it. By the way, Nikon has a wonderful Fish-eye for crop - 10,5mm, and it will certainly give even more dramatic effects of distortion and perspective, since 10mm is 10mm in terms of stretching perspective. After these photos, we can say with confidence that one should have one, sometimes it will be very useful, and not only for landscapes ...
16mm in full frame, the same 10.5mm in crop
Prospective distortions will still be different. I understand koba meant it
Yes, just like that, here's an example - I very often use a focal length of 24mm on a full frame. Recently, one day I shot with my cropped camera at 16mm, like this is the equivalent of 24mm in a full frame, and I erased all the frames, since the perspective distortions of the faces were just awful. Any talk about equivalents of focal lengths is a simple speculation for selling technology, since they are not interchangeable, focal lengths do not change, just the central part of the frame is cut out, as it were, a full frame, that's all, and 16mm on the crop is the same 16mm on a full-frame camera, only with strongly darkened corners, but in fact, simply cut off by these very corners, while maintaining the perspective distortion of the 16mm lens. So 10,5mm on the crop, yes, will give an angle of view equivalent to 16mm on a full frame, but perspective distortion will remain from the 10,5mm lens, that is, very strong, which will probably be better for “fish-eyed” shots. In a word, somewhere a crop can replace a full frame, and it will be even better, but somewhere it is simply impossible. If you have high resolution telephoto lenses, crop is also a great option to get the extra 50% zoom, but these lenses are very expensive (for example, the Fujifilm 100-400 and Leica 100-400) and weigh a lot.
Not certainly in that way. In the case of an “ideal” lens at equivalent focal lengths for crop and full frame, the transfer of perspective will be the same. That is, 12mm at a 1.5x crop will be identical not only in terms of the viewing angle, but also in terms of perspective transmission, to 18mm at a full frame in the case of an “ideal” lens. But the intrinsic distortions of each individual lens are different, so some lenses may “not like”.
As for the examples from this note, here the author corrected the distortion and Zenitar became + - the usual width.
I remember reading on the blog of one experimental photographer that if you take pictures of a portrait from a normal (or long-focus) lens and wide at one distance, and then crop the second picture to the first frame, you will get the same pictures, not counting the resolution and bokeh. Is it so?
Yes, they will be the same when transmitting perspectives, plus or minus the distortion features of each of the lenses.
Quite right. Perspective distortion depends on the shooting distance - from the camera to the subject and to the background - and not on the focal point and / or size of the sensor. Everything is shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTXY1Se0eg
If we observe the equivalent diaphragms in the understanding of the depth of field, then it will be the same in perspective and in general
As for me, if the lens is not ideal, then barrel distortion is preferable - it is easily corrected, while at the same time, sharpness in the center is improved due to the “compaction” of pixels. The pillow-like distortion, inherent, for example, to many superzoom at a wide angle - this is something wry-eyed!
theoretically yes, but with ordinary lenses and even super-expensive Zeiss lenses, as well as with the so-called. For rectilinear Laowa, a specific distortion appears on ultra-wide shots just closer to the edges, and faces there are distorted so that it is essentially impossible or possible to correct them using special profiles for a given lens, which is almost non-existent in nature. Therefore, in real life with a 16mm crop, you will never get more or less normal shots with people in them, as you would with a 24mm lens on a full frame. I myself tried to do this many times and then finally switched to a full frame, which I just didn’t try, even super-expensive Zeiss, etc. And if it comes to ultra-wide zoom at the short end, then the situation is generally difficult, the distortion is simply off scale, besides, it is usually not linear, but different lenses have different ones. That is why there are fixes for the full frame, that is why Zeiss produces the best 24 (more precisely 25mm) lens in the world, and now it has started to produce the Milvus 24 / 1.4, which, when compared with the same expensive Canon 24 / 1.4ii, turned the latter into a toy for children. , in terms of image quality, of course ... And along with the resolution and micro-contrast, they have corners corrected in a special way, for which people pay a lot of money, by the way, I'm also going to do this as soon as I accumulate them, there is simply no other option.
There is no "special distortion", especially the distortion of the crop and full frame. Rectylinear widths pull corners in the same way and are therefore not suitable for group portraits in confined spaces. This is geometry. Distortion is a distortion of a different order, it is of three types - barrel, pillow or "mustache". Good lenses correct. If you want a normal group portrait - step away and take a lens with a larger focal length. If you want to shoot a model at a wide angle - place it in the center, at least the face, so that it does not pull and distort the perspective. Crop, full frame - the rules are the same.
You can pull architecture and landscape in the corners, we are already used to such pictures, they do not scare us. People are still not desirable.
“And also at the so-called. rectilinear Laowa ”- all wide-angle or rectilinear, or fish-eye. The distortion of the fish is not fixed at all. In the rectilinear, it is corrected to a certain extent, the complex turns into a simple one. Laowa produces the so-called. Zero-D lenses with zero distortion. But they are just as rectilinear (they also say orthoscopic), like everyone else. It makes sense exclusively in architecture. Landscapes, starry skies, advertisements usually don't care. A simple small barrel or pillow can be fine-tuned in the editor. They show you how you can work with a fish, in which a crazy barrel is straightened, and you habitually swear at the technique.
Great pics. Thanks to the author.
Nice pictures and places are gorgeous.
I propose to make a similar selection shot with whale lenses)
So to speak, to show that the main skill)
Somehow cold !?
Very chic!
I also like it, the perspective is well conveyed, the colors are not vague. I don't know how to whom, but I like landscapes with slight distortions more. When the latter are well applied on site, it turns out to be interesting. I have not used my width for a long time, apparently, the time has come to use it again.
Zenitar 16mm / 2,8 is a very common and inexpensive fish with us. Used copies in good condition can be borrowed for 5000 rubles.
It is quite interesting on the crop as a pronounced wide-angle with noticeable distortion in the corners, but there are quite a few stories where this distortion is disguised and does not strike the eye.
If you do not have at least 10000 rubles for a real crop for crop (used or China), then this is a very good option for landscape photography.
ABOUT! Familiar places in the fifth photo - Krasnodar, Solnechny Ostrov park, you can take pictures of beautiful views there! My version is from almost the same angle, only there is no tree in the water this year.
Sumptuously. Master Respect!