30mm Fisheye , coverage?

[christian_r]

Hi

I'm really in a need to get a fisheye to my Hassy. The CFV back is beautiful
in many ways, but there's "no go" on the fisheye front.

So, I'm just wondering if anybody has seen the frame you get with a p45 or p25 phase back with a 30mm fisheye?

How much does the crop take ? What degree of angle will you get?

Or simply, what MFDB will have the widest coverage?, and what will the angle degree (coverage) be?

Image samples would be gold as well

 

[blowupster]

Noone tried this lens with the CFV ?
As interesting as the 40mm no ?

 

[polypal]

The angle of view is still quite large for a 30 mm lens even used with a smaller sensor.
The problem is the distortion that is also quite strong in the part of the image circle used with a digital back.

 

[CarstenW]

The angle of view is still quite large for a 30 mm lens even used with a smaller sensor.
The problem is the distortion that is also quite strong in the part of the image circle used with a digital back.

If shooting digital, there are programs which will undo the fisheye effect, and apparently some of the corrections are really good, so that you may expect results similar to (but presumably not quite reaching...) rectilinear wide angle lenses. I have an Arsat 30mm for my Contax 645 which I plan to use this way, but I have no DB yet, so cannot report personal results. On LL some people have discussed this.

 

[blowupster]

Amasing to see the excelent MTF diagram for this lens.

It's a fisheye, but the 40mm is not a "biogon" either. With digital back (crop factor and computer processing), distortion may not be so problematical.
This heavy lens seams to be dangerous to use as his front lens is very exposed and no possibilitie to use a UV filter for protection

 

[dh7lk]

Noone tried this lens with the CFV ?
As interesting as the 40mm no ?

See

http://hasselbladinfo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2975

Regards
Lutz

 

[polypal]

Fishing

If shooting digital, there are programs which will undo the fisheye effect, and apparently some of the corrections are really good, so that you may expect results similar to (but presumably not quite reaching...) rectilinear wide angle lenses. I have an Arsat 30mm for my Contax 645 which I plan to use this way, but I have no DB yet, so cannot report personal results. On LL some people have discussed this.

Ever tried to do some fishing with a broken fishing rod that was fixed with gaffer tape?
I will not say computer corrected images are about as bad but nothing beats a design that can do without this kind of correction.

Paul

 

[CarstenW]

Ever tried to do some fishing with a broken fishing rod that was fixed with gaffer tape?
I will not say computer corrected images are about as bad but nothing beats a design that can do without this kind of correction.

Paul

It is of course true that a good lens will beat a less suited lens plus software corrections, and this will always be this way.

However, the interesting part to a practicing photographer is how big the difference is. Given that in some situations there are only two ways to reach such wide coverage, namely stitching and fisheye correction, one naturally looks for the better option. For scenes with motion (or water!) stitching is not a nice choice, and so correcting a fisheye exposure becomes the remaining option. I have been led to believe that the quality is very good, more than acceptable, if done well.