In this last photo and the third and fourth photos, you can see that these fisheye adapters have a tendency to flare in strong direct sunlight. Light falloff (as in the car photo and first photo rim) is also larger at the edges than for a prime fisheye. Color saturation and contrast is a lot better in the original slides, but a prime fisheye would probably beat the fisheye adapter here again. On the other hand, where else can you get a fisheye effect on medium format (outside rare Kowa true fisheye?). And the price is right (at $50US to $100US used), especially since this fisheye lens is readily shared between different 6x6 and 35mm cameras. The 180 degree coverage of this fisheye makes a circular image on film, with the greatest apparent fisheye effect (circular distortion) visible near the edges of the image. The images are much better than I expected from a used $50US adapter. Naturally, you will get sharper and more uniformly lighted images from a thousand dollar original manufacturer's fisheye lens - if one is available. But for most of us, these fisheye adapters offer a way to inject an occassional fisheye photograph into our presentations without breaking the bank. Enjoy!
SuperWide.42x Mutar.42x Mutar Mounted
Sakar.42x Mutar Converts Normal Lens to 30mm Equivalent Semi-Fisheye See Bronica Wide and Tele Adapters Page for related information, from which this section was abstracted: The Sakar Super-wide.42x Mutar shown here provides a very low cost superwide semifisheye effect on both 6x6 and 35mm cameras. A closeup view of the.42x mutar shows its distinctive round inner lens element shape. The surface of the lens is actually relatively flat. For 35mm camera use, a built-in very short lens hood pops up to reveal some filter ring grooves. But this short 3/16ths inch high lens hood only protects about a sixty degree swath of the top and bottom of the lens when put into position. A filter would likely vignette the image severely, let alone a projecting lens hood extending into the long axis of a 35mm camera photo. So about a 120 degree segment is removed from each side of the pop-up lens hood ring to prevent vignetting the long axis of a 35mm camera image. On square 6x6 formats, you would leave the lens hood in the down position to prevent vignetting. In theory, your 75mm normal lens on 6x6 becomes the equivalent of a 32mm super-wide angle lens on 6x6 format (or 21mm equivalent on 50mm normal lens of 35mm camera).
The mutar mounts in a series VII filter. You will need a series VII to VIII ring to match the Bronica normal lens 67mm (or series VIII) filter mount. This is not a rectilinear wide angle lens, so expect to see considerable fisheye distortion effects. The edges of the 6x6 format are cut off in the corners, but only slightly (circa 3/8ths of an inch). The fisheye barrel-distortion effect is very pronounced at the center. The horizon curves easily if you move out of level alignment either up or down. On the other hand, this is a pretty wide angle lens on the 6x6 format, well beyond the 50mm wide angle usually found. The fisheye distortion effect is less than when using a Kenko Fisheye Adapter on your Bronica. The math suggests this adapter should produce wider coverage than a 40mm lens. You should expect less sharpness and contrast and greater tendency towards flare from any adapter. But for circa $50US for a used.42x Mutar adapter, you can't go too badly wrong. Ability to use the same adapter on many medium format and 35mm cameras, simply by getting series VII to lens filter thread size adapter rings, is an attractive feature.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm From: "bbb" bbb@bbb.ca [1] Re: Newbie fisheye question. Date: Mon Mar To answer your questions: yes, yes, and use the 50. I have a cheap fisheye adapter that I mount on a Yashica 50 (filter ring size 52mm). There is no name on it, just "Made in Japan," I guess that this is what they referred to as a "cheap Jap adapter" in the movie Mean Streets. The results are fine when you stop down to f:11 or so. I can't help but think that the $2000 Zeiss fisheye might give me better sharpness in the corners though. Bernard B Whillans wrote
>Can I get a fisheye lens/adapter/whatever for my Yashica FX-3? Do they >mount on the end of my lens like a filter? I've got a 5omm lens and a >35-70mm zoom, if that helps any.
[Ed. Note: source for fisheye adapters (under $50!)] Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 From: Gdwnphoto@aol.com To: rmonagha@hermes.seas.smu.edu Subject: FishEye adapters Bob, FYI, We have the adapters new for $42.50 + step ring. Amy Goodwin Photo
Goodwin Photo New web page! http://members.aol.com/gdwnphoto 3304 Hancock St. San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 291-5190/FAX (619) 291-day return policy on mail order. Unless marked as is, 30-90 day warranty. Mon-Sat. 10:30 am - 4:30 pm gdwnphoto@aol.com
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 From: Gdwnphoto@aol.com To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu Subject: Re: FishEye adapters rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu writes: Hi Bob
We're big fans of them as well. Although our medium format customers are a bit pickier about it. A couple of other things about medium format and adapters, FYI, I had a customer who couldn't afford a 150mm for his 645, so he bought a Canon TV lens teleconverter and put it on his standard lens with step rings. It's not the same quality as a 150mm but pretty darn good he said. We have those as well. The other thing is we both know that the tele/wide converters for TLR are hard to find and expensive. We put on some autofocus and rangefinder aux lenses on a 124G with some step rings and they worked! A little vignetting on the wide angle, but not a lot to where it's really noticeable. We're very creative out here in San Diego :) Take care. Amy incidentally, they are even more useful with medium format cameras where there is no equivalent fisheye optic ;-) From: ELAU632855@AOL.COM Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Adapting Kiev Fisheye to a Pentax 645 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 The place below sells retro-fited Kiev 30mm full frame fish eye lens to fix many Japanese and European 120 cameras. Panorama Camera Center 124 West 30 Street New York, N.Y. 212-563-1651 Kiev 88 and German cameras repaired Sometimes has Kiev 88 lens in stock. From: bandhphoto@aol.com (BandHPhoto) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: fish eye filter lens? Date: 24 May 1999 i think it's kind of expensive to actually buy a fish eye lens so i was thinking is there a fish eye filter. Is there is any, pls kindly state the particulars. A couple of places sell a fish-eye adapter you can screw onto the front of your 50mm lens to get a fish-eye effect and they're considerably cheaper than a fisheye lens. Try Porter's at http://www.porters.com/ ===============================

From Nikon MF Mailing List: Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 From: WdshpBiz@aol.com Subject: Re: Digest Number 226 Duri, A friend once gave me a very inexpensive Star D brand fisheye auxiliary lens. It was the kind of lens that would thread onto the 52mm filter thread of my standard or wide-angle Nikkors to convert them into fisheye lenses. I'm sure it was nowhere up to Nikkor optical standards, but it was a great way to play with the fisheye effect, and I took a number of published photos with it. I'd still probably use it off and on today if it hadn't been stolen along with my Photomic FTN and a bag full of other gear. If you just want to experiment with the fisheye distortion look, you might consider such a lens. William Sampson From: Alexander skorokha@mail.uni-mainz.de Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Q: Kiev Arsat 30mm Fisheye MC/SC? Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 Hi Kevin, You are right. It is not coated. I would also suspect that it is single coated. Kalimex&Wiese Fototechnik have multicoated lenses which are coated (at high temperatures in vacuum) by Hartblei company in Kiev (Not Arsenal). The 80mm Arsat, 120mm Vega and 250mm Telear are coated by manufacturer. There is MC Tair 300mm/4 for Kiev88 too and it was produced in Russia. This summer I prefered to buy used 4 lenses which were coated and reassembled by Hartblei. It was even cheaper for my if I would buy non-coated in Kiev. Regards, Alexander. ruscam645@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi Chung, > According to what information I've been able to find the 30mms are not > multi coated. Kalimex offers, at a considerable extra cost, Multicoated > lenses, done apparently by Kiev. > I have one of the first 30mm Arsats produced, and it has no MC on it > either, but it performs well, and the 30mms are generally well regarded > by their owners. > So what if the lens isn't MCed- take it out and shoot it- I think you'll > be in for a pleasant suprise! > Regards,

> Kevin

From: spam-abuse@worldnet.att.net (Tom) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Mathematics behind Wide Angle/ Fish Eye lens Construction Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999

I have done something similar. I have mounted a 24mm Mamiya 645 fisheye with a Copal #3 on a 4x5 camera. After cutting off "lens hood" I get an image over 70mm in diameter with an angle of view of 190. I tried an Multicoated 30mm Kiev but it did suffer from flare a bit when a bright light source was in thefield of view Cya Steve Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 From: John Papandreou Johnkpap@cobweb.com.au To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu Subject: 12mm Sigma Fisheye as a 18mm !!!! Hi Robert, I like strange lenses and enjoyed your page, I made a srange discovery to day I put a TMount x2 converter on my 12mm sigma and it turned into a full frame ~16mm fisheye !! the x2 converter in question is a ELCAR 2X Converter T-mount Japan For 300mm 500mm I paid $5.00 Aust for it in a junk box at a photo shop, I am now looking for a 1.4X converter to see what that will do. Regards John Papandreou South Australia rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: "David Foy" nomail@thisaddress.please [1] Re: Yaschia Mat lenses? Date: Sat Feb To expand a little on this answer, the Yashica-brand auxilliary lenses are generally thought to be better than aftermarket lenses, but this has not been proven to my knowledge. With the aux. wide-angle lens you can get softness at the edge of the frame unless you shoot at about f8 or smaller. The aux telephoto is sharp at all apertures, however you must understand that both of them reduce sharpness somewhat, but not to any degree I find objectionable. Don't use them for images that you're going to enlarge to the size of a barn door. At up to 11x14 I've never seen any problems when shooting at modest apertures. The close-up attachments have the same characteristics -- use them at modest apertures and don't try to make extremely big enlargements, and you'll probably find they are useful and the images are acceptable.
From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: 15mm super-wide There are two new fisheye lenses coming onto the market from the former USSR. One is made in Russia and one comes from the Arsenal factory in Kiev. One is a circular fisheye with an 8mm focal length, the other a full frame fisheye with a 16mm focal length. Both are supplied in M-42 screw mount and Nikon AI mount. I don't recall which is which at the moment, but have samples of both on the way for evaluation. Price will be under $ 600 new. The 8mm is probably a copy of the old Nikkor. The 16 looks like a pretty good copy of the F-Distagon 16. Bob From Hasselblad User Group List: Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 From: Alastair Firkin firkin@netconnect.com.au To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: 30 Distagon There have been a few negative comments about the use of the 30 distagon, and its being a rather "cheap-shot" lens. Well the 30 is the reason I cannot part with my blad system. True, it does not get too much use, but I've taken some images with it that cannot be taken with any other lens ie "unique" images. Like any lens, using it all the time would "spoil" the shock effect of its character, but no more than someone using a 50 to shoot every thing or a single technique. The opposite is also true; using it all the time allows one to learn more about it and produce more "mature" work. The 30 is a great lens. It is a "full-frame" fisheye and does not produce those circular images ( which do become somewhat obvious) and used sparingly and subtlely, it can work wonders. I was "sucked" in by the works I kept seeing in Forum magazine, and I've not regretted it at all. It has special qualities as a portrait lens, for land/cityscapes and for interiors. I have a few images made with this lens at http://www.clubhasselblad.ballarat.net.au/ in the gallery section, and I'm working on a full essay and series on the lens in the near future. Don't knock it till you try it ;-) Alastair Firkin http://users.netconnect.com.au/~firkin/AGFhmpg.html

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 From: "IZUMI Kachie" wmahito@pop16.odn.ne.jp Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Zenitar fisheye Hi Trond! Russian fisheye lens, ZENITAR 2.8/16mm This lens has two mount choices: for M42 (Pentax - Praktica) mount, and, for Nikon Ai mount. I am not sure whether there is one for Pentax-K bayonet mount. I have used one for M42 mount with Old Pentax, Praktica and Russian (Zenit) bodies. The lens gave me satisfactory image result. It has compact size and reasonable price. So, I think it is good candidate for your first fisheye lens. This lens has only auto-aperture system. There is no manual - auto aperture switch on this lens. If you have body with Yashica/Contax mount such as Yashica FX series, Contax RTS, etc., you can use the M42 mount ZENITAR through Yashica/Contax - M42 mount dapter. The adapter push the aperture pin and the camera can use its exposure meter function as step-down metering. Hoping this info help you, I. K. Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 From: ruscam645@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Zenitar fisheye Hi Trond, The Zenitars are made by KMZ in Krasnogorsk near Moscow, not by Kiev. I currently have on order both the 16mm Zenitar, and the 20mm Mir. These lenses are available in Praktika/Pentax screw mount and Pentax K mount. For double the money, you can get them in Nikon mount. All are Multi Coated- the older lenses may or may not be - I am speaking of brand new lenses here. Based on considerable experience with other "Russian" lenses, you can expect to get very excellent optics which would rival the major manufacturers. I am looking forward to receiving mine to test. Best wishes, Kevin
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 From: doswald@xmission.com (Dave Oswald) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Help, Fisheye on a Budget "Wayne Daigle" waynedaigle@mindspring.com wrote:
>I have been noodling around with photography in an amature way for some >time and recently bought a new Nikon N 70 set-up after years using Minolta. > I have a 50mm lens and a 28mm lens. I really enjoy taking street shots >and want to get a fisheye effect -- distorted and bent -- without sinking >$1500 in a fisheye lens. I was in Time Square and many of the dealers >tried to sell me these no name "macro" attachements that screwed onto the >end of the lens. They seemed to get some of the effect I wanted, but the >quality of the lens itself was piss poor. It seemed like it would be a >shame to put it on my nice Nikkor lenses > >Does anyone have any ideas? Do the major lens vendors make a product that >will get me the effect that I want without breaking the bank? > >Wayne Daigle >waynedaigle@mindspring.com

Results are not

> bad - considering it's a Holga. > > There is some vignetting at 6x4.5 - I haven't > might match the already present vignetting at > > True, this is not an extreme fisheye - but it of > curvy distortion. > > But hey - that PRICE!! > > Perhaps I can scan some of the contact prints if > I get a chance. > Bill
tried it at 6x6 but it that size. does give a fair amount

and post on my web page

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 99 From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: 24mm lenses for MF (was: Fisheye at weddings (was Re: Newbie finally has time for a trip, need advice. John Coz johncoz@erols.com wrote:
>zeitgeist wrote: >>> (I pack a 24mm fisheye to >> > > weddings so I might be weird.) >> > >> > You pack a WHAT? On medium format? Strange. I'd love to see what kind of pictures you use it for. > >Good Gracious - Can this be? I have a Japanese 24mm lens in some kind >of huge screw mount. I have never been able to find a matching camera. >Could this be some kind of MF superwide? Was there ever a screw mount >MF system? Any input is much appreciated.
Unless it says 'fisheye' on the barrel, you can exclude it from being a MF lens.there are no 24mm rectalinear lenses for MF, only fisheyes (yes, that's plural, I doubt many folks will know what the second one is.:-)). An overview of fisheye lenses, both 35mm and MF, both circular and full-frame, can be found on my homepage: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm (that second 24mm fisheye isn't listed on my homepage btw.too rare, too little known about it) (posted & mailed) [Btw, one COULD have a rectalinear 24mm lens for medium-format.the only thing needed is a Canon EOS panorama body, allowing 24x58mm frames when a TS-E
tilt/shift lens is mounted (24, 45 or 90mm).it's all within the coverage of these lenses (11mm shift to either side means 36+11+11=58mm).I am currently poking my Canon contacts to see if Canon Japan has ever thought about this at all.considering the success of the Hassy X-pan and the upcoming Voigtlaender Bessa L/15mm, it would be a blast for Canon to launch a cheap panorama body (non-AF (TS-E is manual focus), perhaps not even SLR but viewfinder (although an SLR construction would make it different than all other pan cameras). If anyone is as lyric about such a solution as I am, please send me a confirmative mail! (just to illustrate the fun: the horizontal view of a 24mm lens with a 24x58mm frame (101 degree) means a similar horizontal view as a 14mm lens, or the diagonal view of a 17mm lens) -Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink [Ed. note: not an endorsement, just for your info.] Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 From: "George S. Pearl" alps007@mindspring.com To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: fisheye on roundshot? Hey Allan, The Nikon Mounted 16mm fisheye lens made in Russia can be bought at: http://www.russia2all.com/cameras.htm web site. They have some other Russian made equipment there for sale, but this fisheye lens drew my attention since it could be mounted to a Nikon camera. The 220VR RoundShot has a Nikon mount so I wonder what that lens would do on it?!! George Pearl From Pentax Mailing List: From: "Timothy J. Robson" tjrobson@telusplanet.net Subject: RE: fisheye? Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 Brent was confronted with the prohibitive cost of fisheye lenses. If expense is a concern, you might consider trying a fisheye adapter. It's a supplementary lens that screws on to the front of a rectilinear lens (presumably a standard lens or conventional wide angle) like a filter and provides the fisheye "effect" at much lower cost ($30-$50). Although this sort of rig will not offer the same performance as a true purpose built fisheye, I've seen results from them which were seemed quite serviceable. It would,

at the very least, allow you to experiment with the fisheye perspective and decide whether a true fisheye lens would be a worthwhile investment for your photography. Regards, TJR tjrobson@telusplanet.net From Pentax Mailing List:
> From: MIME :jtainter@mindspring.com[SMTP:MIME :jtainter@mindspring.com] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 1:03 AM > To: pentax-discuss@discuss.pentax.com > Subject: Zenitar 16mm./f2.8 Fisheye (long) > > Here's a copy of a review I just posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm. I > don't want to try Pentax's forebearance by reviewing other lenses here, > but several people have been asking about this lens. > > "There's been interest in this inexpensive lens in various places. Mine > arrived Monday and I went right out to shoot the last ten shots or so of > a roll of Agfa RSX 200. Given the interest I thought I'd post my > impressions. > > "The lens is heavy and solid, and appears to be all metal (except, of > course, for the focusing ring). I have the Pentax k-mount version. (It > also comes in Pentax screw-mount and Nikon.) The rear end is not > finished to the cosmetic niceness of Japanese lenses, but appears sturdy > and quite serviceable. It slips on and off my PZ-1p nicely. > > "The focusing ring is smooth and a little stiff. That's probably heavy > grease. The aperture ring (f2.8 - 22) could be improved. It is rougher > than Japanese lenses, and goes slightly beyond f22. There's no click > beyond f22 and the aperture doesn't close further. The aperture > diaphragm (six blades) closes smoothly, but the blades seem rather > short. Between f3.5 and 5.6 the aperture is not a smooth hexagon, but > rather is jagged. The points of the blades stick out a bit. This does > not appear to affect image quality or exposure (at least on my slides). > I've never had a fisheye before, so perhaps the short aperture blades > are normal. > > "I tested all full stops from 2.8 to 22. Viewing the projected slides, > the images appeared sharp, with accurate colors and good contrast, at > all aperture settings. If I were to shuffle the slides, I would not be > able to tell which f-stop each was taken at. > > > "There's a Russian-language manual, complete with a signed page that I
> assume is an inspection certificate. It comes with four rear filters: > clear, red, yellow, and green. I'm told that these filters are needed to > focus at infinity, so they are integral to the lens. There's a clip-on > lens cap, fitted just to this lens, of course. I'm not sure what to do > when mine eventually breaks or gets lost. > > "Verdict: this lens seems very serviceable at a very nice price ($80 in > Moscow, $109 in the mail from Moscow, $139 - $219 from dealers here). If > I needed a fisheye for serious work I would spend the extra money for a > Japanese lens. But I wanted this for inexpensive fun. So far I can > recommend it for that. I'm impressed enough to write this review." > > Joe Tainter > > P.S. Relax, Pentax. In the past two years I've bought two Pentax cameras > and five Pentax lenses.

From Hasselblad Mailing List: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 From: "Martin H. Krieger" krieger@usc.edu Subject: 30mm Distagon-Fisheye--How Does It Represent Space? The 30mm Distagon Fisheye has a 112 degree horizontal and vertical angle, and 180 degrees diagonally. If you look at the Zeiss page, they give you the distortion, which is about 10% at 10mm from the center, 20% at 20mm, maybe 35 % at 30mm, and 100% as expected at 39mm (the corner). In other words, the expected height of an image at 10mm is about 90% of what would be the case if there were no fisheye effect. And so forth. (It has to be almost 0% (100%-100%) at 39mm, since the no fisheye height is infinite (ninety degrees, tangent is infinite.) So you can use the distortion plot to get an idea of how the Distagon 30 maps the world onto the film. I would appreciate a formula. (I can always just fit a curve to the plot they give, but I would prefer a derivation etc.) What inspired this was seeing what people are doing with fisheyes and computer reconstruction of the full circle of image around a point (and so you can look in any direction). This is not unlike a map projection I guess. Thanks for a lead or for the information. Martin (krieger@usc.edu) PS I know there are other fisheye like lenses (I think Nikon made one) that are "ortho" something, more for the scientists. So I assume that "fisheye" is a particular lens's version of half a sphere.
[Ed. note: experiencing cutoff with fisheye on 50mm lens?.] Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 From: Edwin Hurwitz edwin@indra.com To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu Subject: Re: Fisheye help I thought I would let you know that the 50mm 1.8 has worked perfectly. My theory (which is mine, which is to say that it belongs to me..oooops, I am not Anne Elk, but I digress) is that it is important for some reason that the end of the adapter be not too far from the film plane. I can set the focal length to the minimum now with the 50mm and still get a perfect circle. My 50mm 1.4 is a much longer lens, and so cuts off the the circle. The 1.8 seems to be a particularly short lens, as I remember the 50mm that I used with the Minolta was. I hope that this information can help someone else if they run into similar difficulty. I thank you for your time and help! Edwin From Pentax Mailing List: From: Roman Bazalevsky rvb@online.ru Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 Subject: RE: "super"-wide lens for Pentax-K* mount ? you wrote:

>A wide-angle lens is geometrically correct, a fisheye is not.
That statement is actually mistaken, even though I do understand what you are saying. Consider a spherical object towards the edge of the image. A normal wide-angle lens will image that object as an ellipse, which is _not_ geometrically correct. In some ways, a fish-eye lens is actually more correct in its imaging than a rectilinear lens (i.e. a "normal" wide-angle lens).
>If you >photograph a square with a wide-angle, it will be square.
That is only correct if the square is normal to the optical axis of the lens, if not you are more likely to get a parallellogram.
>With a >fisheye, the sides of the square will bend towards the edges of the >frame.
The problem for _any_ wide-angle lens is that it is mapping a 3-dimensional space ("reality") into a 2-dimensional image. That is less of a problem with longer focal lengths. For short focal lengths, the human visual system is less able to cope with the perspective distortion caused by the wide field of view. A conventional wide-angle lens (also called a rectilinear lens) will map the 3-dimensional cartesian coordinates in the object space to a 2- dimensional cartesian space in the image space (i.e. the film). Once you get off-axis, you have a problem in that the line connecting the object to the lens is no longer parallell to the optical axis of the lens. For the mathematically minded, this starts to happen when the paraxial condition "x = sin(x) = tan(x)" (with x in radians) breaks down (which is about 5 degrees from the optical axis). The further you get from the optical axis, the worse things get, and when you go outside approximately 30 degrees, things get really noticable. A 3-dimensional object at the edge of an extreme wide-angle (rectilinear) lens will certainly be distorted. A rectilinear wideangle lens will only provide perfect geometrical reproduction for flat objects on a surface normal to the optical axis. A fish-eye lens, on the other hand, maps from spherical coordinates in the object space to polar coordinates in the object space. Unlike a rectilinear lens, this mapping does _not_ break down with objects at different object distances far from the optical axis. That does not mean that it _looks_ natural, but no image covering 180 degrees of field can possibly look natural, since the viewing angle is way beyond what the human visual system can deal with as a single image. Mathematically, however, the fisheye image is _not_ distorted. Unfortunately, I know of no good treatment of this subject in any optics or photography textbooks. There is a reasonably good explanation of wide-angle distortion in Ansel Adam's "The Camera", which should be fairly widely available in libraries or bookshops (it is a book which I would strongly recommend for any serious photographer anyway).

From Panoramic Mailing List: Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 From: "Thomas B. Kunz" tbk@tbk.de To: Panoramalist <PANORAMA-L@SCI.MONASH.EDU.AU Subject: Panorama with bicycle-lamp Hello Folks, since several weeks a interested man asked me via eMail about the mirror-technilogy like "my Birdeye" or Cyclovision-Mirror. But the Cost for buying this equipment are to high for him, that he decided to build one with an old bicycle-lamp for 8 Marks. It would be pleasure for me, if you would look at his german Website, to see how he build it. Software is from Helmut Dersch, of course. See the Idea and the genius of improvisation. THE RESULT ! http://www.crosus.de/panorama/panorama.html If someone want to write to Tilo, because he isn't in this List, please: tkunze@fhlausitz.de Thank you! Thomas TBK - Digital Panorama Technologie From Leica Mailing List; Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 From: Jem Kime jem.kime@cwcom.net Subject: [Leica] Re: Canon Fish-Eye for M- Camera Roland, With Canon FD lenses you are almost 'home and dry'. There's an adapter that Canon made called the 'Lens Mount Converter B', this puts Canon (breechlock) lenses onto (Canon)/Leica screw mount bodies at the right distance for correct scale focusing. Add a screw to bayonet adapter and away you go. As for 'finders, I made one from a security door viewer. they come in dfferent angles of coverage. Check to see if you need 150 or 180 degrees, (etc.) and then mount onto an old / cheap / broken accessory finder. If it's full frame you may wish to paint a black rectangle (ratio 2:3) on the front face, if its a circular image, then just leave it alone. Ain't life fun! Jem
[Ed. note: thanks to Mr. Meyers for sharing these tips on using a 35mm T mount fisheye on a 6x9cm rig ;-)] Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 From: Edward Meyers aghalide@panix.com To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu Subject: Re: [Rollei] coke classic glass I checked out the web site and it's very good. Spiratone had a 12mm f/8 in T mount many moons ago. A few prototypes were made at f/5.6, which is the one I have. I put it in a 6x9 speed graphic and have groundglass focusing and interchangeable rollfilm backs. Removed the bellows and front of the camera, of course. Ed From: edgy01@aol.com (EDGY01) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: 30 Jan 2001 Subject: Re: Fisheye Nikkor 6mm - any ideas where to find? IPIX and a couple other specialty consumers rounded up a lot of the 8mm f/2.8 lenses, and possibly the 6mm f/2.8. One guy converts them to sell at a mark up to the motion picture industry. There was a brief time around early 1991 when you could have gotten a steal on one or two of the 6mm f/2.8s,--the UK Government (Ministry of Defense) ordered a couple of those along with several 2000mm f/11 lenses to support the Gulf War effort. Unfortunately for them, the war ended quickly and the special orders were cancelled with Nikon,--Nikon dumped them on the open market at heavily discounted prices. There was a 6mm f/5.6 listed on eBay recently but the reserve was insane,--and the guy who DID bid for it thought he was bidding on the 6mm f/2.8 (BIG difference). This lens sold in Oct 1972 for $995. The seller had a reserve north of $5000. No 6mm f/2.8 has been seen on eBay to my knowledge. (And I'm a collector of Fisheye Nikkors). Dan Lindsay From ROllei Mailing List; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kingslake on filters Remember the good ol' days when fisheye lenses and some ultra wides had built-in filters on a wheel? The lens was designed with the filter as part of the optical path so it made no difference. The current Zeiss F-Distagon for Hasselblad and Rollei comes apart in the middle so you can insert a filter. My Kiev fisheyes and my Rubinar mirror lenses take filters on the back, and supply a clear element for when you want no filter.

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 From: ralph fuerbringer rof@mac.com To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu Subject: Re: 6x12 on Brooks Robert: in the post below early i am fuerbringer@mindspring.com. would i
appreciate it if that was changed to rof@mac.com. putting the 30 russian fisheye on 45 will be cost effective but lacks the impact of the 4" circle of the pentax 67's 35 fisheye puts on 45. either lens can be put into a #5 ilex shutter. i've done this a number of times, going back ten years. the spacing of course is the same as the parent camera, and the focusing mt works perfectlly. ground glass focusing and viewing is a waste of photographic time. possible the 30 mm russian could be used on the 34 polaroid with xl fittings. will report after trial if the circle fits. regards, ralph > From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 > To: Bert MC-CLURE Bert.Mc-Clure@edf.fr > Cc: rof rof@mac.com > Subject: Re: 6x12 on Brooks > > thanks very much, Bert, for your interesting note; I have added it to the > veriwide related postings at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/veriwide.html > > Sounds like you are exploring a number of the permutations; I have been a > bit shocked by the realization that many of the big 6x12cm and bigger 6x17cm > cameras take in less subject matter than the 47mm SA; and that's before > modifications such as you have made ;-) > > I am gradually accumulating tips and ideas on various cameras including > the veriwides at my medium format site; it hasn't been around for more > than 3+ years so far, but over 1 2/3rds million visitors, so worth the effort > > Roger Hicks in Brit Jrnl of Photogr. described adapting the unique Kiev > 30mm fisheye to a 4x5" back holder, with a spacer body and shutter combo; > provided a fisheye effect; and there are some various odd-ball ultrawide > lens (35-47mm) 4x5cm cameras out there see homebrew camera links at > http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/homebrew.html > > I think the interest in ultrawide and panoramic camera options is > growing, and lots of us are caught up in the wider is better - as the > 14mm and now 12mm lenses on 35mm format cameras are showing - ;-) > > regards bobm
From Nikon mailing list: Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 From: "Kelvin" kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg Subject: Fisheye comparison hi all Interesting document, which compares some commercially available fisheye lenses by nikkor, peleng and asahi pentax etc. It takes a lab-based approach to the comparison , and the methodology is purely scientific. Only have had a browse so far. http://www.coastalopt.com/fisheyep.pdf
From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Fishy business Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
dave-farmer@bigfoot.com (Dave Farmer) wrote: >onepercentf@aol.com (Onepercentf) wrote: >>Do you really want a fisheye or would a very wide angle rectiliniar lens do? I >>would recommend the Tamron 17mm, because being an Adaptall lens it will fit >>many cameras. When you no longer need it, there will be more people to sell it >>to (apart from just Minolta users). >I have Sigma's 18-35, so I think an extra mm or two (whilst nice to >have) would be very expensive for the extra range I would get. That's >why I'm interested in a full-frame fisheye - dramatic (if a little >corny, but what the hell!?) and different to anything I can do right >now. The 16mm fisheye is considerably wider than an 18mm non-fisheye due to the spherical-perspective characteristics, though the central magnification is not much different. It is also easier to hand-hold successfully at a given slow shutter speed, and it is often optically better than a similar-FL non-fisheye. I like fisheyes for landscapes (the forground-tobackground size differences are minimized, and are minimal for a super-wide) and for people-shooting (the spherical perspective type is FAR kinder to rounded objects near the image edges than the rectangular perspective type super-wides are). BTW, the one 16mm Minolta fisheye I tried (same as Leitz, as I recall), required considerable stopping down to get the "corners"

1000-series Hasselblad?

From kiev 88 mailing list: Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 From: Svensson Robert term@chl.chalmers.se Subject: Re: wide-angles The Arsat (Zodiak) 30mm fisheye is superb! It is very sharp and it can be used in far more situations than most people imagine! If you are interested, goto my website www.chl.chalmers.se/~term and click on "Photo Galleries". A lot of Arsat/Zodiak 30mm pics are to be found. /Robert

End of Page