<<< o >>>bent out of shape 44 comments + add yours
chromasia.com

I mentioned yesterday that I didn't think that I had any more decent shots to put up from last weekend, but I had another look through them last night and think there are two that I'll probably put up this weekend.

In the meanwhile though, here's something that's a bit different.

I haven't put up the EXIF data as I thought you might like to speculate as to how this was done. I will tell you that it was taken with my 20D, and I'll put up the rest of the data later this evening.

OK, I guess it's fairly obvious that it's a fisheye ;-)

I've wanted one since Bob started posting images taken with his Canon 15mm fisheye, but I couldn't afford one. Nor could I afford the 8mm Sigma. And then I came across the Peleng 8mm f/3.5 fisheye, which is considerably cheaper. On a 35mm camera, or a full-frame DSLR it would produce a circular image, On my 20D (with the 1.6 crop) the corners are cut off. I've used LensFix to straighten the image up enough to fill the corners but it's still a pretty dramatic effect. I would guess (with the 1.6 crop and correction) that it's probably the equivalent of a 14mm lens on a 35mm camera. It isn't a stunningly sharp lens, the colours are a bit off, it's horribly prone to flare and the images are quite flat, but it's cheap and it's fun :-)

One interesting point, and well worth considering if you ever get a chance to use a fisheye: don't walk while looking through the viewfinder as objects that look to be several feet away are probably only a few inches in front of you. I nearly fell over a fence this afternoon on the assumption that it was a good yard or two away – which would have been a little embarrassing. Also, if you suffer from vertigo, looking through the viewfinder while pointing the camera downwards over a drop is quite disconcerting ;-)

capture date
camera
lens
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
2.12pm on 17/2/05
Canon 20D
Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye
f/3.5
1/1600
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
C1 Pro
LensFix conversion
 
3x2 + fylde coast + people
comment by Allan at 07:06 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Nice.

Hmmm....

comment by Adriana at 07:08 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Wow. I really like the perspective. I've seen pictures like this and wonder if it is taken with an especial lens like the fish eye for example, so its clear that I have no idea of how yo do this, but I am interested in knowing.

comment by VPra at 07:11 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

The perspective is what makes this picture unique. However, i think from looking at your past photographs you might've used the same lens but on a different setting and it would've made the actual subjects a lot more interesting. Overall nice picture What lens did you use to take this?

comment by Jorge Lesmes at 07:21 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Thats a fish eye lens isnt it?

comment by JOH at 07:23 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Ooh, somebody's having fun!

comment by zimny at 07:41 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

It's another reflection i guess :)

comment by ervin at 07:53 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Or maybe it's actually a panorama shot, stitched together from several takes, with the camera held intentionally low? :)

comment by zimny at 08:07 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

i expected something more dramatic :)
i wish i had a very wide angle like this, too - it's one of those things that i just have to buy sooner or later :)

anyway, it's a very nice image. it'ld be better with darker sky i guess (a polarizer i guess would do the thing).

comment by djn1 at 08:11 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

zimmny: I agree that a polarizer would be useful but I don't think I could use one with this lens. The front element is convex, there's no filter thread, and with an almost 180 degree view there's no way to hold one in front of the lens without it getting in the shot.

comment by Jerome at 08:27 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

I love the weight of this.

comment by buggy at 08:53 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

The distortion on this image is very interesting. I also like the symmetry.

comment by bob at 09:21 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

David! This is fantastic! And -- what's this about you WALKING while looking through the viewfinder! ha! Be careful!

This is an outstanding image -- the colors are sensational -- well done! Congrats on the new lens! Now -- get out there and use it at night!

comment by Jasper at 09:23 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Now that is wide!
A lot wider than my sigma 15mm on the 300D (1.6x also).

Nice :)

comment by Thinh at 09:30 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

This photo is quite refreshing from your usual "chromasia" style photos. Love the green, even though it's not vibrant, the color is really nice. Reminds me of the alpine forests we have over here during the summer.

Has anyone tried the new 10-22mm IS USM from Canon? Looks like a pretty good lens for extreme wide angle shots. But who has that kind of money right? Cheers.

comment by peter cohen at 09:32 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005


You have the magical SEEing of a true artist.

Thank you for going to the trouble of sharing your gift with us!

comment by jim at 09:43 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Looks good - I like those vivid greens to the right

It's nice seeing Blackpool tower to the right as well, looming over the scene.

Do you know the people on the steps? I always feel shy about taking photos with strangers on, unless they're very far away or not watching.

comment by m at 09:51 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Reptilian!

comment by djn1 at 09:54 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Thinh: Bob at notraces uses the 10-22mm lens, and it does look good.

jim: no, I didn't know them, but the field of view is so wide on this lens that they wouldn't have realised that they were in the shot.

comment by Alan at 09:56 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Ooooh, I really love this shot. I would also like to see a "straight" shot of this to see how much distortion the fish eye lens has provided.

comment by djn1 at 10:22 PM (GMT) on 17 February, 2005

Alan: it's a shot of the first set of stairs in this photograph so the distortion is quite pronounced (i.e. this is a flat wall).

comment by miles at 12:25 AM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

what a great toy Dave! Sweet shot.

comment by lee at 06:15 AM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

I wonder what a good night shot at a corner street with this lense would produce?

comment by richy at 07:17 AM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

Interesting picture. I had lot of fund with my Fisheye in the past, but barely use it now, except for urban phtography in places such as Chicago ot Tokyo. I prefere a 20mm now rather than the 8mm, 12 or 14.

I would love to see the same picture with a 22mm. Th effect is nice, colors are great and a lovely contrast.

comment by tobias at 08:27 AM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

as soon as I saw it I just thought "look at the fish eye on that!"Really cool fun image.

The upgrade to the canon 300D has been unveiled. Lighter body and faster boot up time (just two points I recall). It's called the 350D.

comment by helgi at 11:42 AM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

1/1600, f/8 at iso 100? In February?

Anyway, very nice. First thing that came to my mind was that you'd gotten a 10-22mm -- I was thinking of getting it, but might have a look at this Peleng thing before emptying my wallet

comment by suzysue at 12:28 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

hiya David,
I love the effect of the fisheye; the distortion brings a whole new life to this image. The green moss in particular on the wall looks almost creature like.
suzysue.

comment by djn1 at 12:34 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

helgi: I did wonder about the EXIF data. You set the aperture manually with the Peleng, and I'm pretty sure that I took all my shots that afternoon at f/8.0, but 1/1600 at ISO 100 does seem like there was more light about than there should have been. As for the Peleng versus the 10-22: I suspect the latter is a much better and more versatile lens, but it's also way more expensive.

comment by tark at 03:22 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

Fish eye is very good on this photo... :-)

comment by Barb at 04:46 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

David, you have covered your local beach from so many angles, now you are doing more of the same with a fish eye?

comment by Eric [OcularStasis] at 05:50 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

I LOVE ME SOME WIDE ANGLES!!!
Man this is beautifullllll.. my bigest gripe with canon is the lack of the 10mm fisheye in the lineup. That is the only thing my N**on friends can razz me about. Again, THIS LOOKS FANTASTIC!!!

comment by djn1 at 06:15 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

1/1600, f/8 at iso 100? In February?

Oops. When I put up this entry I indicated that it had been shot at f/8.0 - it hadn't. I was forgetting that this was an entirely manual lens and in addition to setting the aperture you also need to turn another ring around the lens to stop down to the aperture you've set. Which, all things considered, is good news as it means that this lens is probably a bit sharper than I initially thought.

comment by miklos at 06:27 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

How could you forget that it was a manual lens?

This post made me laugh :)

Thanks for livening up my day Dave.

comment by Robert at 06:36 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

I don't comment often, even though I check in daily, but this one really struck me as spectacular. Thanks.

comment by djn1 at 07:00 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

miklos: mostly because I've not used an entirely manual lens before :P ;-)

comment by miklos at 07:05 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

Then it should especially stick out in your mind.

comment by twb at 07:43 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

love the symmetry and colors

comment by Peter Stewart at 08:10 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

Now, this is w i d e and W a R p E d. Great!

comment by djn1 at 08:39 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

Thanks everyone.

miklos: it does now ;-)

Barb: only insofar as I think it's worth doing.

comment by george at 09:15 PM (GMT) on 18 February, 2005

djn1: could you post a picture produced by the Peleng 8mm which hasn't been stretched/altered? i want this lens to complement my Zenitar 16mm FE but i'm slightly concerned about the vignetting, if any, on my 10D.

comment by james m at 01:32 PM (GMT) on 19 February, 2005

now look whay you have done dave by posting this, I want a 8mm fisheye lens and great photo :)

comment by Deb at 08:43 AM (GMT) on 25 February, 2005

I agree with the comments. The textures and tones are pretty spectacular. VERY reptilian. Godzilla's final resting place?

comment by Shabnam/Kaveh at 10:17 AM (GMT) on 1 March, 2005

you have really very nice photos :)

comment by marie at 04:12 AM (GMT) on 1 April, 2005

Someone mentioned "reptilian", I agree, amazing. Looks like a great big face and the stairs is the tongue sticking out (!?!) Is that the Eiffel tower's head on the right?

comment by Eric at 03:39 AM (GMT) on 4 May, 2005

I saw a bunch of $50 fish eye's on ebay that attach to the end of your lens. I was thinking about getting one of those. Any reason why I shouldn't? Anyone?

Thanks,
Eric