Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

I’m of the camp that used in some ways the FE lens can produce awesome images or another way superior distortion therefore love my rectilinear UWA 7 on my Olympus or the 17 on Nikon

b roll wanabee

You asked some good questions. I wish I had better technical answers.
All I know is a rectilinear produces much better images.
I use a gopro for action shots on a head camera due to the affordable cost.
I also shoot video with a 12-24 rectilinear tokina on a crop.
That seems to be wide enough for almost anything. It is also very forgiving to focus for video. I would get a wider rectilinear but it is just way way out of my price range.
I cannot stand the fisheye effect for the most part. A novelty or a convienence is the only reason to use it.

The canon 11-24 full frame is the widest rectilinear I know of $2600.

15 mm is the limit for a reasonable super wide rectilinear lens.

Nice post

Bison Bud

I would like to thank everyone who contributed here, as I really learned something once again and hope others may have as well! This site can be a wealth of knowledge and experience and has once again proved to me that it's worth my time to participate frequently. Good luck and good shooting to all.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

MY 10-18 Canon gives a rectilinear image most of the time, some distortion if I tilt it, my 8mm Bower has to be held very straight and level or distortion is very evident, even straight and level you know it's a fisheye or ultra wide, Bob.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

With the Canon 8-15mm fisheye for example, you have the choice of total distortion or shoot it as a regular wide angle, then there is the 11-24, that's pretty much as wide as you can go with a wide angle zoom without a lot of distortion (on a full frame)!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I may not be apprised of all the latest advancements in wide angle optics but from a standpoint of "semantics" or the final effect of a true fisheye lens I feel that "RECTILINEAR FISHEYE" is an oxymoron. Here's my take on the subject : The raisin d'etre for the fisheye lens and is usage is to create the very different effect of its intrinsic distortion. Without this distortion, regardless of its short focal length, it ain't a real fisheye but rather a super/ultra wide angle lens, that is, in fact if a 10mm lens can be a true rectilinear formulation. In this lies my lack of knowledge of the lastest 10mm lenses. Simply stated, I think that to pull in that much field of view, the distortion comes with the territory- more or less.

As far as I know any lens in the 8mm to 10mm range is automatically stuck in the realm of significant curvature if field and barrel distortion regardless of whether or not the camera is tilted upward, downward or kept parallel to vertical elements it its field of view. Y'all lens afficanados please correct me if I am misinformed. The distortion that is apparent, such as foreshortening, the illusion of structures falling over backward or forward that occurs with the tilting the camera with a standard wide angle lens is separate from intrinsic aberrations and can be corrected by the use of the camera movements on a view camera, the use of a PC lens or certain perspective corrective actions in post processing.

Agan, this is just my theory and slant on the matter. Another thing- who really knows how a fish sees things. I'll have to ask a marine biologist. Perhaps fish do have
"wide angle eyes" in that water has a magnification factor. I think that shorter focal lengths work best in underwater photography (?).

Just more stuff to think about. I have not as yet had the opportunity to use anything below 15mm on my DSLR gear.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Any lens can be subject to distortion of course, but it is the lens design intent that matters. I'll post a couple of examples tomorrow, but essentially (for Canon APS-C) an ultrawide such as the EF-S 10-22mm is intended to render straight lines as straight lines (rectilinear), a fisheye such as the Samyang (et al) 8mm fisheye does not attempt to render straight lines as straight lines, but endorses barrel distortion thus rendering straight lines as curves by design. How it is used - composition and subject choice - increases or decreases the effect.

I agree that the phrase "RECTILINEAR FISHEYE" is an oxymoron. I'll dig out some examples tomorrow.

Orson Burleigh Loc: Annapolis, Maryland, USA

Sigma makes a 4.5mm f/2.8 fisheye with auto-focus which provides fully round / full circle images in aps-c sensor cameras.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

My 14mm on my FF does not give 180. It gives 114. A fisheye is not only according to mm but has to be made to give the extra degrees to get to 180.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I have a Sigma 10-20mm which is rectilinear when used on my K-30. It vignettes at 10-15mm on my 35mm camera, but above that it still looks somewhat fisheye; these comments are just from looking through the viewfinder .... I need to get some film and see what actual pictures look like. How much of the lens used must have an affect

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

No, that's the nature of that type of lens.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

My Nikon 8mm does. But when I was doing my research, I came across the Samyang which of course also has other names, and that one does not.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Now that is interesting. As I recall, the 8mm Sigma fisheye did the extreme close-up.