Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by nstelemark, May 22, 2015.
There are lots of threads on the 7-14 but I'm much more interested in the 8mm fisheye.
Nice review here:
I think there are two or three others besides us that have chimed in on the 7-14 thread already. The problem I have with most of these reviews is that very rarely do the reviewers excel at using fisheyes, so the results tend to be very underwhelming, and only really good for looking at technical performance.
I agree with you on the reviewers being slightly weaker on Fisheye composition. The only exception to the reviews I have seen was this one:
Some reviewers weren't even taking the fisheye seriously as a good wide angle option. A lot of reviewers note that fisheye lenses are fun but aren't taken seriously due to the distortion.
I'm one of the people really psyched to get my hands on the 8mm PRO lens. I plan on using the lens with both fisheye distortion and also defished to almost rectilinear. The 8mm is also the first time a fisheye lens has low light performance so we can do spectacular astrophotography and low light shooting. The diagonal field of view is also 180 degrees which means that defished images are going to be a lot wider than even the 7-14mm at 7mm. The image quality from the samples I've seen are also extremely sharp. I've shot 360 photos before so the lens will be useful for that but seriously, I'm more interested in just super wide shots so I can see more of the background and place rather than just the people I photograph.
I love my Rokfish 7.5 for topside use, so I'm curious to see how the 8mm will do underwater. Since Olympus is releasing it in conjunction with a dedicated port for their housings, I'm guessing they know it will be a winner. Awfully spendy, though.
I just spotted the local pre-order price in NZ... 1698 NZD. That's 4x that of my Samyang *gulp*
I have both the Samyang 7.5 fisheye and the Panasonic 7-14 f4. I will only swap out to the Olympus when I know I need a fisheye with f1.8 and a wide with f2.8 ... otherwise I'm happy at the moment.
I just think it's a very specialized lens with limited market. Folks with specific needs will line up to buy it. But it's pretty big and at the price probably won't have much appeal to folks who think they'd like to try a fisheye.
Wish somebody would make an even wider fisheye natively for the micro 4/3 mount. Something like a 6.5mm. More vertical width would be ideal for my uses. I believe that there is a Lensbaby 5.8mm but the vignetting is far too strong. f1.8 sure sounds good though.
I'll buy it however I need to sell other equipment to justify the asking price.
I'll probably also wait til theres a cash back or something like that on offer before pulling the trigger, while it's something I want (more than the 7-14 as speedboosted optics fill the ultrawide and are faster (although less optically capable)) it's also not of such common usage to matter if I wait 6 months or so.
I pre-ordered it today but I just found out that the new housing ports are not backwards compatible with the old ones. This leaves my EP-PT06 out of luck for an Oly port for the 8mm. Somehow I doubt the port for the Pany 8mm will work...
What's weird is that Oly lists the new 8mm port as being compatible with the housing for the E-Pl7, which uses the older style PEN ports like yours. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if AOI or Zen come up with a port. Don't give up yet!
I would LOVE to have it, but I doubt it will be bought before the 7-14 and 40-150 pros.
I'm excited. I haven't used a fisheye yet, but I think I'll like having it available when the inspiration hits me. I could have gone for the cheaper options, but much prefer the extra versatility and cleaner images f1.8 can provide, and I am completely sold on the quality of the pro lenses. I don't know how effective it will be as a replacement for an UWA, but I figure it's better to try it first and figure out later if I'll need an UWA, as well as which one it will be.
Hmmm I'm now confused, it looks like you are right. We'll have to see when the port comes out.
I was doing some star-trail photography with my Samyang f3.5, and was a little bit disappointed with the results. A lot of it was me learning and my own fault, so there's no way I'm going to rush out to spend $1000 on another fisheye. But for people who do that sort of thing more seriously, I could imagine how awesome it would be to have an ultrawide light-sponge like that. It would go a long, long way towards making up the system's ISO deficit performance compared to FF cameras for astro. Likewise for underwater applications - divers are going to love this one.
Well for sure any port for the Panasonic 8mm f3.5 is not going to work.
Well no. That's why Olympus released a port to accompany it.
I don't have a diving enclosure at all, just a cheap TG-850 waterproof P&S. But I can't imagine needing a new diving port would stand in a serious underwater photographer's way.
I was playing with my Rokinon today. I was outside so I had it locked at f8 to make sure everything was in focus. For low-light, sure, I shoot at f3.5 (actually f4 for improved sharpness). However, I'm curious. Since you can already handhold the $200 Rokinon with IBIS for a good 1/4 sec, and since no one's trying to blur the background with a fisheye, and since you don't really have to focus anyway, what would be the advantage of spending a lot more for an f1.8 version? Not criticizing, just curious.
Less noise, opportunity for more action, better astrophotography possibilities, blurring if you want it... Not to mention weather sealing and (presumably) better IQ.
Separate names with a comma.