Meike 6.5 mm f/2 circular fisheye - any comments?

[lchien]

Has anyone used the Meike 6.5 mm f/2.0 circular fisheye lens?
Its designed for APS-C and MFT lenses, available in M43 mount as well as some other crop sensor mounts. $149 at Amazon.
It has a 190 degree diagonal coverage and casts a circular fisheye image, not rectangular as the Samyang/Rokinon 7.5 mm. And its faster and cheaper as well as wider.
A couple of on-line reviews have held it favorably.
On the MFT version, the top and bottom will be squared off, I suspect on APS-C the full round image is captured.
Sample image from the web:

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

 

[tkbslc]

I had not heard of this yet. Looks very interesting!

 

[lchien]

Experienced Fisheye users: is there any compositional disadvantage of the circular fisheye (Meike 6.5) vs. the rectangular fisheye that covers the full sensor (Samyang/Rokinon 7.5) vs. the Superwide rectilinears like the m.Zuiko 7-14mm f/2.8 or the Laowa 7.5 mm f/2.

 

[MarylandUSA]

For about $140 shipped, the Michael Lens 8/2.8 fisheye would probably give you more-satisfying results. Like the pricier Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5/3.5, it was designed for Micro Four Thirds, not for the larger APS-C or the smaller C-mount. You can find my review under Native Lenses.

 

[lchien]

Took this with the Meike Fisheye this afternoon. Gives a nice starburst effect to the sun. 1/250th f/8 ISO 1250 E-M10 Zone focused.

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

 

[wjiang]

Experienced Fisheye users: is there any compositional disadvantage of the circular fisheye (Meike 6.5) vs. the rectangular fisheye that covers the full sensor (Samyang/Rokinon 7.5) vs. the Superwide rectilinears like the m.Zuiko 7-14mm f/2.8 or the Laowa 7.5 mm f/2.

Yes and yes. There's not much to compose with a circular fisheye, the FoV is simply too wide.

A rectilinear fisheye by definition has quite a bit narrower FoV, it makes it more meaningful to pick your framing and exclude elements from the scene.

A rectilinear UWA is narrower FoV again. The biggest difference though is that it trades off edge stretching distortion versus curved straight lines.

 

[exakta]

With fisheyes that cover the entire frame, careful composition can disguise that a fisheye was used. For example, straight lines remain straight when on a radius of the image circle. Objects farther from the camera are less distorted and if the viewer does not know the actual shape of them, the distortion is only detectable by careful viewing.

 

[MillsArt]

I've owned a full circular fisheye for other systems in the past, and 1) found it was very difficult to compose with. With a 180 degree diagonal fisheye, you can minimize the "fishiness" pretty easily, and treat it almost like an ultra wide angle by just keeping the horizon level. With the 180 degree is was always very pronounced no matter what and I found after 2 days of playing with it I got bored 2) if I'm getting a circular fisheye, I for one would want a full circular effect, having the top and bottom cut off would really annoy me. What do you do with it ? Crop it to a tighter circle ?

Its essentially a niche lens, of a niche lens. The 7.5mm 180 degree diagonal fisheye is the way I'd go, its still ultra wide, unique, and yet not so crazy looking to be impractical. It can also be picked up used for under $200 easily. Take a look at the image thread for the lens so get some ideas of its applications, as well as 'de-fishing' potential

 

[MillsArt]

With fisheyes that cover the entire frame, careful composition can disguise that a fisheye was used. For example, straight lines remain straight when on a radius of the image circle. Objects farther from the camera are less distorted and if the viewer does not know the actual shape of them, the distortion is only detectable by careful viewing.

You mean to say 180 degree diagonal fisheyes, not circular fisheyes I believe

 

[exakta]

You mean to say 180 degree diagonal fisheyes, not circular fisheyes I believe

Not sure what you mean.

You can always crop shots from circular fisheyes to make them rectangular, just as you can crop rectangular images to be circular. The compositional rules apply to all fisheyes...put straight lines on a radius, take advantage of objects of indeterminate shape (clouds, boulders, etc.) so the barrel distortion is less obvious.

Here's a crop from one of the images posted above. Notice that it's much less obvious a fisheye was used. In the original shot, the bench, walkway and hedges are on radial lines and appear straight. The door and windows are only slightly distorted because of the distance from the camera.

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

 

[wjiang]

Not sure what you mean.

You can always crop shots from circular fisheyes to make them rectangular, just as you can crop rectangular images to be circular. The compositional rules apply to all fisheyes...put straight lines on a radius, take advantage of objects of indeterminate shape (clouds, boulders, etc.) so the barrel distortion is less obvious.

Here's a crop from one of the images posted above. Notice that it's much less obvious a fisheye was used. In the original shot, the bench, walkway and hedges are on radial lines and appear straight. The door and windows are only slightly distorted because of the distance from the camera.

View attachment 570579

Technically true but you lose a huge amount of the image by cropping a circular fisheye to rectilinear. I also don't see how you can 'uncrop' a rectangular fisheye back out to circular again...

 

[Mountain]

I personally prefer the look of the rectangular crop, and love my Rokinon fisheye. The circular fisheye could be fun, but the cropped top and bottom is a weird compromise, IMHO. I also don't understand the appeal in de-fishing a fisheye image, or cropping to make it look it was taking with a rectilinear lens. I think the distortion is what makes it fun, and why I generally prefer it to rectilinear UWAs. I do tend to put the horizon on center for landscapes, though, so maybe it's that a prefer "some" distortion, but not lots. Choose the right tool for the job, and if you don't want distortion, then a fisheye is probably the wrong tool.

 

[exakta]

Technically true but you lose a huge amount of the image by cropping a circular fisheye to rectilinear. I also don't see how you can 'uncrop' a rectangular fisheye back out to circular again...

Getting way OT here! A "full frame" fisheye is already cropped, just as non-fisheyes are. Otherwise, all images would be circular rather than rectangular, right? Cropping any image to circular was easy when printing film...you just used a circular mask. The same could be done in digital PP if your software allows it. Yes, doing a circular crop of a rectangular image greatly reduces the angle of view.

The original question was about composition. A reply to my initial post suggested there might be some difference between a circular fisheye and a "full frame" fisheye. I was replying that as far as composition goes, there is none...unless your goal is to have a circular image! You either showcase the barrel distortion or you minimize it, then you try to keep your feet, your shadow and your tripod out of the shot

Anyone care to talk about the Meike lens some more?