Author Topic: Minolta 16mm fisheye  (Read 2923 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gordon McGeachie

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 4427
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/
Minolta 16mm fisheye
« on: March 27, 2016, 10:22:21 PM »
I have just been to an aviation museum where they have a Concorde on display, and despite my best efforts with the Sigma 10-20, I just cant get it all in because of display cabinets stopping me getting far enough back.

would getting the Minolta 16mm fisheye lens help?
A700, VG-C70AM, Sony 50mm f1.4,SAL1870, Sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G SSM, A350,A550,3600HSD, Minolta 135, 500 Reflex, Sigma 10-20,  Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF, Sigma 400, Tamron 90, ,Nissin Di866 MKII,Interfit 150w 2 head kit, Giottos MTL9351B/MH5011
My flickr site is here http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/

Offline AScot

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 6042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta 16mm fisheye
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2016, 01:20:50 AM »
How would a 16mm be any better than a 10mm given that you use the same camera? If it is a full frame then you have the best you can do. Could you take a Panorama and fit it in that way? You could probably get it all in with two shots, the 10mm and a full frame, possibly with some distortion.
Sony A7, A850, A77, A700 || Sony>> 70-300G, 28-75 f2.8 SAM, 16-80CZ, 50 f1.4, FE 28-70 OSS, FE 24-70CZ f4 OSS, LA-EA4 || Minolta>> 300 f4 G HS, 200 f2.8 G HS, 100 f2.8 (D) Macro, 50 f1.7, 28 f2.8, 28-135 f4-4.5, 70-210 f4, 500 f8 Reflex, TC x 1.4 HS, TC x 2 HS. || Sigma 21-35 f3.5-4.2. || Tamron SP 24-135.

Offline Gordon McGeachie

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 4427
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/
Re: Minolta 16mm fisheye
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2016, 11:15:46 AM »
I was under the impression that the 16mm was a fisheye, which would give me wider angle of view......

unfortunately, there are way too many objects in the way fro me to do a pano........

may look at a 8mm Sigma or something
A700, VG-C70AM, Sony 50mm f1.4,SAL1870, Sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G SSM, A350,A550,3600HSD, Minolta 135, 500 Reflex, Sigma 10-20,  Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF, Sigma 400, Tamron 90, ,Nissin Di866 MKII,Interfit 150w 2 head kit, Giottos MTL9351B/MH5011
My flickr site is here http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/

Offline AScot

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 6042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta 16mm fisheye
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2016, 08:30:33 PM »
Gordon. I think any lens at 8mm, 10mm or 16mm is either a fisheye or have similar distortion to a fisheye, which can be extreme bending of straight lines and/or enlargement of the closer elements of the subject. I imagine you would have too many objects in the way when doing a pano but surely that applies with a single shot also.

I hope you resolve your problem as I for one would love to see the Concorde.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 10:11:41 PM by AScot »
Sony A7, A850, A77, A700 || Sony>> 70-300G, 28-75 f2.8 SAM, 16-80CZ, 50 f1.4, FE 28-70 OSS, FE 24-70CZ f4 OSS, LA-EA4 || Minolta>> 300 f4 G HS, 200 f2.8 G HS, 100 f2.8 (D) Macro, 50 f1.7, 28 f2.8, 28-135 f4-4.5, 70-210 f4, 500 f8 Reflex, TC x 1.4 HS, TC x 2 HS. || Sigma 21-35 f3.5-4.2. || Tamron SP 24-135.

Offline Gordon McGeachie

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 4427
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/
Re: Minolta 16mm fisheye
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2016, 09:36:33 PM »
thanks for the reply Ascot...............the hanger itself that Concord is in, is only a few inches higher than the tail, its a truly wonderful aircraft, shame that it was grounded after 1 crash in 31 years service.

A700, VG-C70AM, Sony 50mm f1.4,SAL1870, Sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G SSM, A350,A550,3600HSD, Minolta 135, 500 Reflex, Sigma 10-20,  Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF, Sigma 400, Tamron 90, ,Nissin Di866 MKII,Interfit 150w 2 head kit, Giottos MTL9351B/MH5011
My flickr site is here http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/

Offline AScot

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 6042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta 16mm fisheye
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2016, 10:23:21 PM »
The Concord Is a wonderful aircraft. However I don't think they retired it entirely due to that one crash which was really caused by another aircraft. It was more the fear that the crash may have reduced the passengers faith to fly in it and that it was so expensive in fuel/passenger that only a small percentage of the population could afford it.
Sony A7, A850, A77, A700 || Sony>> 70-300G, 28-75 f2.8 SAM, 16-80CZ, 50 f1.4, FE 28-70 OSS, FE 24-70CZ f4 OSS, LA-EA4 || Minolta>> 300 f4 G HS, 200 f2.8 G HS, 100 f2.8 (D) Macro, 50 f1.7, 28 f2.8, 28-135 f4-4.5, 70-210 f4, 500 f8 Reflex, TC x 1.4 HS, TC x 2 HS. || Sigma 21-35 f3.5-4.2. || Tamron SP 24-135.

Offline chappo1

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 9350
  • Gender: Male
  • real name..... john
    • chappo's doodlings-australian wildlife
Re: Minolta 16mm fisheye
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2016, 10:45:24 PM »
I agree with Charles Gordon, if your 10mm end will not do it, then you need to resort to some form of trickery.
Can you get in a position where you could get it all in with a number of shots (pano in Charles language) ?
Amazing what photoshop will do these days in putting things together, even if they do not overlap...john
“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils."

Hector Berlioz

Offline Frank [aka Wires]

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirehawker/
    • uk.linkedin.com/pub/frank-etchells/53/319/784
    • Frank Etchells Falconry and More
Re: Minolta 16mm fisheye
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2016, 08:17:53 PM »
Along the lines of what John (chappo1) said... Why not take a number of individual shots say 3 of 4 rows long and for the 'height' and stitch together in PS rather than trying to do a 'pano' in one line? So it may take possibly 8 shots for the length and 3 shots (x 8 ) for the height = total 24? Just guessing on the number of shots required to put it all in. Kind of like making a collage up?
Frank (aka Wires)
:)
The Dalai Lama said; “Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively”