1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

fisheye lens - need advice

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by ytreephotography, Jun 6, 2012.

  1. ytreephotography

    ytreephotography Mu-43 Rookie

    Jun 2, 2012
    So, I really love the look of the fisheye and would love to add one to my system. As of right now, there are only two options that will work with autofocus (I think). Panny has an 8mm/F3.5 lens that costs $629... or Oly has the fisheye converter for $120, but I would have to also get the 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II lens (which I could buy used for a little over $100).

    Does anyone know about picture quality with these two options? And about the fisheye affect? I'm actually not even sure if the autofocus with work with the Oly fisheye converter.

    Thanks in advance for any feedback you could provide.
  2. Adubo

    Adubo SithLord Subscribing Member

    Nov 4, 2010
    i think with a fisheye, you wouldn't need to Auto Focus... the angle of view is so big, set the lens to somewhere over a meter, at f5.6 (please correct me if i'm wrong to those who have it), everything is sharp.

    i'll recommend a samyang 7.5mm fisheye. small, light, cheaper than the panasonic 8mm, A LOT better than the fisheye converter from Olympus, and it's so fun to have, i'm getting one myself this month :biggrin:
  3. chasm

    chasm Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 2, 2010
    Seconded, autofocus completely irrelevant with this type of lens, the Samsung has really wonderful optics and fine build quality.
  4. ytreephotography

    ytreephotography Mu-43 Rookie

    Jun 2, 2012
    Thanks! Good to know. Fisheye is so much fun and would love to own one.
  5. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    Yeah get the samyang/rokinon for ~300 instead.
  6. dre_tech

    dre_tech Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 31, 2012
    There is also a Panasonic Fisheye conversion lens. This would only really be interesting if you had the Panasonic 14mm pancake ($160 from eBay), or the 14-42 PZ.

    I see you have some good lenses already. I'd definitely go for the Samyang/Rokinon 7.5mm instead of getting another kit lens + a conversion lens.
  7. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Yep, MF with a fisheye is almost completely irrelevant. As you said, setting to f5.6 and even half a meter focus will be in focus through infinity.

    If you don't mind silver, overstock.com has the rokinon version of the 7.5mm fisheye (just a re-brand of the samyang, they are the same lens) for about $270, or at least it did when I bought mine!

    Edit, looks to be $280 now, still probably the best deal.
  8. bongestrella

    bongestrella Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 2, 2011
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Yep, samyang/rokinon 7.5 is the way to go for fisheyes. I had a Rokinon canon-mount and when I (recently) moved to m43, I bought the m43 version. It so small and yet so good. Be careful about your composition though. My fingers and sometimes elbow get in the way! haha
  9. sam_m

    sam_m Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2010
    Another vouch for samyang here, fantastic optics and iq.
  10. ytreephotography

    ytreephotography Mu-43 Rookie

    Jun 2, 2012
    Is there a difference between the samyang and rokinon versions:confused:  From what I can see on line, everything is the same but the name.

  11. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    You nailed it. They're just rebranded versions of the same lens. I don't know of any reason to prefer one over the other.
  12. troll

    troll Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 25, 2012
    No, all the lenses are made by Samyang and then sold under different brand names like Rokinon, Bower, Pro-Optic, Bell and Howell and maybe some others.
  13. garfield_cz

    garfield_cz Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 9, 2011
    Czech Republic
    Unless you start shooting on fish-eye macro distances ;)  You have to be pretty careful with focusing because depth of field is narrowing rapidly under 0.5m!
  14. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I will throw in that the Panny fisheye is a fantastic lens, I would easily pay the price to buy another one.
  15. inkista

    inkista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 13, 2012
    San Diego, CA
    If you're interested in the Samyang/Rokinon 7.5, there's a sample images thread for it in the Native Lens section. I have the silver Rokinon version to go with my white G3, and I love it to bits.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Laurentiu Cristofor

    Laurentiu Cristofor Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 9, 2012
    +1 for the Samyang. It's an excellent fisheye lens for the MFT.

    I collected most of what I know about Samyang here and I reviewed the DSLR version of their fisheye here - the MFT version seems to be even sharper from what I gathered.
  17. ytreephotography

    ytreephotography Mu-43 Rookie

    Jun 2, 2012
    Thanks for sharing that link. Those photos are great! :smile: I could have a lot of fun with that lens. mmmm I'm starting to get quite the collection; soon my prime lenses will out number my zoom.

  18. inkista

    inkista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 13, 2012
    San Diego, CA
    They're two different lenses, though. The 8mm SLR Samyang (aka the 7mm Vivitar, and the 6.5mm Opteka) is an odd duck in the fisheye world--it does stereographic mapping, not the more normal equisolid.

    The µ4/3 version is an equisolid lens, so it has a completely different optical design than the SLR 8mm Samyang (10 elements, 7 groups, 1ASPH vs. mft 9 elements, 7 groups).

    From lenstip:

    SLR version:
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    mft version:
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    You also can't mistake them for each other, size wise. The SLR one is about the same size as my Sigma 8mm f/3.5 fisheye. The mft one is roughly the same size as the Panny 20mm f/1.7.

    My guess is the (upcoming?) NEX 8mm f/2.8 (why didn't WE get f/2.8?!) version is based on the µ4/3 design. So many of the NEX pano shooters were shaving (cutting off the hood petals to reduce the vignetting on the larger APS-C sensor) & adapting the µ4/3 version that Sony probably took notice.

    One more note. A very nice person on dpreview, kenw, posted Lightroom lens profiles for the Samyang 7.5. With one of the profiles, you can defish images taken with the 7.5. As long as you don't mind cropping, you can (kinda) use the 7.5 fish as an ultrawide, too. It's obviously not as nice as a dedicated rectilinear ultrawide, but it's a nice option to have. In my contributions to the sample image thread, I used those profiles on the first and third images. The first one was remapped to stereographic for a slight but not complete defish, the third one was defished to rectilinear and cropped. You can see the smeary edges that the defishing process leaves along the right side, and that's still cropped.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Laurentiu Cristofor

    Laurentiu Cristofor Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 9, 2012
    I missed the fact that the MFT version does not produce a stereographic projection. Interesting - I was thinking of selling the SLR lens to replace it with this one, thinking it's equivalent, but now you gave me a reason to keep it and maybe get both :) 
  20. inkista

    inkista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 13, 2012
    San Diego, CA
    Yup. The mft version is waaay fishier. :) 

    One more silly fact about the mft Samyang 7.5: the FoV coverage across the frame on the long side is about 130º. If you shoot spherical panos handheld, that means you probably want to angle down about 15-30º; for four shots rotated in yaw, and then do a zenith to cover the sphere. It's a lot tighter than using my Sigma 8mm f/3.5 circular fisheye on the 5DMkII, though. I still haven't managed to successfully shoot an equirectangular that way.

    The NEX pano shooters love shaving the mft Samyang 7.5, because they can get 180º; coverage. and just do the four-around thing. Three if they're really really careful.

    I haven't tried the pitch-up/down/up/down "baseball" type coverage thing with it, though. Anybody know if that works?
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.