Fish eye or rectilinear for filming?

Hey Crew

I recently upgraded to a Canon 5D M II. I'm looking at lens selections. I'm tossing up between the Sigma 15mm and a Canon 17-40mm.

I'm new to video but enjoying the learning process.

What are your thoughts on filming with a fisheye vs rectilinear lens?

Cheers!

Cal

It is rather difficult to find the right dome port/extension/diopter combination for 17-40. I use a 17-40 and a tokina 10-17 with my 5D3. 10-17 has much better corner sharpness but sometimes I find it too wide for objects like sharks and rays.

I read in this forum that the new 16-35 F4 is better.

At the risk of stating the obvious, rectilinear is better for subjects like wrecks and piers, where you want straight lines.

I think rectilinear looks better for panning shots as you don't have the visible "bending" of the image that you get with a fish-eye.

However, a fish-eye is great for close-up wide-angle shots.

If there's a crop factor with the sensor, then there's not much difference between the two.

As always, it's a matter of personal preference.

regards

Peter

Cal, the 16-35 f4 is definitely the lens to get if you can afford it. It also has IS which works with video. 17-40 is problematic with corners. especially on the wide end.

As mentioned by others, rectilinear has always been the classic preference for most underwater shooters because of the lack of distortion, especially on moving shots with a busy background. But even rectilinear wide angle will have some distortion if you pan. 20-24mm is about my favorite focal lengths for underwater use.

I will echo what others are saying....the 17-40mm in my opinion is horrible behind a dome. I have one, and only used it a few times, as I would get angry at how bad the image looked after I was done filming. So that lead me to use the 15mm fisheye. This lens on the other hand is very sharp, and focuses close. Really the only negative is warped look, which in most cases I don't mind. If you are doing reefs, mantas, sharks open water etc...I think it works fine and the warping isn't a big deal. Again, this is personal preference.

Here is an example of the same camara (canon 5dII) you are using and what the 15mm fisheye looks like.

Now for the Rectilinear, seriously, don't buy the 17-40mm. It is an old lens, and for on a couple hundred more you can have, as Drew pointed out the new 16-35mm with IS. I recently purchased it because I was going to Truk for wreck diving, and knew the fisheye wouldn't look good there. And boy am I glad I got it! It looks really good imo. The corners aren't perfect but 1000% better than the 17-40mm. And just the color you get out of it seems to be better.

Here is an example of the 16-35mm f4L with the Canon 5dII..

I also found the IS to be helpful with the lens...

Hope that helps.

Dustin

Thanks for the brilliant replies!

I'll buy the sigma 15mm and rent the 16-35 f4 when required!

Thanks again!

Fish eye on video can look great on big subjects if you let the subject move through frame, if you pan / tilt it will all go horribly wrong. I prefer rectilinear by far but obvioulsy you have to deal with softer corners, I would save a few extra bucks and get the 16-35 f4 as it will give you more options than the Sigma, it will also help with making a sequence by using the various focal lengths. Just my 2c

My main lens choices are

Canon 8-15 FE (haven't used it in over two years)

15mm Zeiss (hardly ever comes off)

16-35 Canon f4

Sigma 17-70 macro

60mm

100mm

Hi Jon

I would agree the 15mm Zeiss is a fantastic wide angle lens.

I recently just came back from a dive trip using the RS 13mm with an adapter for the Dragon housing. Full mechanical control for focus and aperture. The 13 mm RS is now my new favorite lens. Surprisingly it is not as "fisheye" as one would expect. I think on the S35 sensor (approx. 1.6 crop) its like a 20mm.

Some pictures soon when I could grab a hour or two....

cheers

David

Just a quick note that Jon is talking about using a Red with the 15mm Zeiss. At 6k, the Epic is 1.25x crop so it's essentially 18mm. But yes it's a fantastic lens at $2.6k.

Hi Drew

Yes correction needed. Epic Dragon is 1.17x relative to full frame 35mm sensor. So for 15mm Zeiss it is almost 18mm (17.55mm)

And the RS 13mm will be @ 15.21mm sorry gone off topic again.

cheers

David, the funny thing about Phil's 1.17x crop factor post (which Red even posted as true) from 2013 is different from the actual Red cinematography tool's 1.25x, which many use to get EFL.
I've yet to get a reply from their webmaster about that. It doesn't really matter for topside shooters but for underwater peeps with domes to worry about. It's kind of important.
I've verified it to be 1.25x from using the sensor size diagonal based measurements.

Yeah I am keen to try out the Nikonos adapter but it all comes down to $$$$

I have also been shooting with the new 16-35 f4... it has replaced my sigma 17-70 as that doesn't cover dragon well at all. I am reasonably happy with it... but it still isn't as good as the Zeiss