Why no FF 13mm or even 12mmm rectilinear lens exist today?

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the shot you presented could be done (with much better results) using the Canon 17mm TS-E. The image circle of that lens covers a larger angle of view than a hypothetical 12mm or 13mm lens would have, and having control over the convergence of lines in this case is vital to the success of the shot. If you want the in real world vertical lines of the buildings to stay vertical, by using the tilt shift lens you get to keep a lot more of the frame vs. a normal wide angle lens which would require you to crop a significant part of the frame; in the end you can get the result you're looking for with fewer frames using the tilt/shift lens. The 17mm TS-E should be ideal for this type of applications.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>They only made a total of 150 (I think) 6mm f/2.8 220º fisheye lenses and were by special order only. You cannot even touch one used nowadays for less than $50,000.</blockquote>

 

<p>Pedantic moment, yes you can. Gray's of Westminster have one set up on a tripod for people to look through. (The sweep shot at the top of their web page looks like it's from the right position to have been taken with it, too.) Buying one is another matter. From the shots I've seen, they're not actually all that sharp, though I wouldn't turn down one if offered. (More practically, I might go after the f/5.6 version if I ever win a lottery.)<br />

<br />

Honestly, I was under the impression that there are two versions of the Sigma 12-24, and at least one of them was actually quite good, if not up to the 14-24. Much easier and cheaper to defish if you want to get much wider than that. As far as I can tell there's no such thing as a good ultrawide anyway - I have the 14-24, which is... okay in the corners (I notice Thom Hogan has started reporting the curvy focal plane that I was worrying about with mine), and the 15mm and 21mm Zeiss aren't perfect either. Some day I may play with a super-angulon on 5x4, but the advice really seems to be to stitch instead. But I second the calls that I have a little envy for the Canon 17mm T/S.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>OK, save some more cash, make it 2 x D600's..:-)</p>

<p>If it moves much like speedy clouds, cars in the scene, people walking, water moving or trees blowing in the breeze etc you need one shot*. That's either an un-affordable lens, an optically compromised lens or twin-cam set-up.</p>

<p>The Canon TS is £1700! Oh, and you'd need a decent Canon FX body to go with it.</p>

<p>I'd guess it takes about 5 seconds to reverse shift to take advantage of the full coverage? That's not accounting for tilt.</p>

 

* or fudge the transition later in PS.

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Keith. I know this lens, and thought about it, how to mount on a 35mm camera. I going to look around if I can rent one for a day, and shoot couple of architectural subject. If not, I can still do multiple images and stitch them together for the special effect I'm doing all ready. A one shot, one frame would be, only a convenience to me. Thank you for your advise. <br /> The last image attached, was done under the edge of this crystalline styled building in Toronto, and hand held shoot several row's, and approximately 25 or 35 frames and stitched in CS-5. Corrected and cropped where ever I needed. Several of the landscape images in my folder was done in this way.<br /> Thank you for your advise and comments for all of you.<br>

<em>"The Canon TS is £1700! Oh, and you'd need a decent Canon FX body to go with it."</em> Seriously, I thought about this too.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I have a big collection of cameras and lenses, never treaded in any of them in my life, 76, and I would sell what ever is can to get the lens, even if it is 10 thousand dollar, But not 25 thousand.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>The Canon TS is £1700! Oh, and you'd need a decent Canon FX body to go with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In North America, the Canon 17mm TS lens is about $2250: http://www.adorama.com/CA174AFU.html. The 5D Mark III body is about $3100. The total is like $5350. That is certainly not cheap, but well below the stated $10K to $25K budget.</p>

<p>At least that is a tangible solution. Keep on whining on this forum that Nikon is not making the exact lens you want has never gotten anybody what they demand.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Bela, I've just dug out Nikon's patent for their 13mm f/5.6 lens. The embodiment specifications are all for a lens with a true focal length of 13.2 mm. This immediately loses you half a degree off the horizontal AOV compared to a true 13mm lens.</p>

<p>I have to agree that your stitched 'simulation' of a 13mm AOV is wildly inaccurate. To put some real figures on the area covered: A (true) 14mm lens at 3 metres focus takes in an area of 7.6 x 5.1 metres; whereas a 13.2mm lens would cover an area of 8.1 x 5.4 metres. That's about 12% more area, but only just over 6% in linear distance. Your stitched example shows what appears to be around twice the subject width compared to the genuine 14mm shot, which is <em>absolutely not going to happen</em> with a lens that only shows ~3.5 degrees more coverage.</p>

<p>WRT perspective. I suggest you look at this page: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/08/15/debunking-the-myth-that-focal-length-affects-perspective/<br>

which explains exactly why the lens used plays no part in the perspective shown. Apart from the obvious one of taking in more of the subject.</p>

<p>Actually Bela, you've kind of defeated your own argument by producing that stitched view, since you've shown that you can achieve the effect you want without any exotic lens purchase. Plus, IMHO, the 14mm shot has more impact than the stitched pano with its obvious sky burning. And you've thrown away part of the view by cropping to a square format.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Hmm. if this wide view is needed for single projects , and not to own, you could als consider renting a Seitz 6x17 digital i guess...</p>

<p>Here is Seitz's website : <br>

http://www.roundshot.com/xml_1/internet/en/application/d77/d122/f123.cfm</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>I would just use a 16/3.5 AI fisheye on a high MP body (like a D800 or so) and de-fish it. It covers 170 deg. so you can afford to lose some of that during the de-fishing process to the equivalent FOV of a 13mm rectilinear.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Bela, have you seen the Vivitar 13mm f/2.8?

 

I have no experience with it but they say it does cover full dimensions of an FX format D-SLR(24x36mm).

 

http://www.vivitar.com/products/105/lenses-and-accessories/856/13mm-n

 

And pure to your desires both it's focus and aperture settings are totally manual.

[BelaMolnar]

<p>C.P.M. van her Kaar; Thank you for the information, it is a very good idea.<br>

John Hinkey; I haw never tried the fish-eye. I have the 16mm fish-eye, has to have the software and try it.<br>

Ellis Verne; I thought about the Vivitar 13mm but, it is only 115.7 diagonal and the nikon 13mm is 118 degree. The AF-S 14mm f/2.8 ED is 114 degree. So I'm short of 4 degree. Ok. What a heck, I go back to stitching, and saving, a minimum of 25,000 dollar.<br>

<em>" The 14mm f/2.8 is the next closest thing. The 14-24mm zoom at its 14mm setting doesn't really get as wide as the 14mm prime"</em>. KR. That is the reason I sold my 14-24 zoom.<br>

Thanks all the good advise and comments to all of you.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I think I'd buy a Fuji 6 x 17 with 90mm. You can get one of those for the same as a 3 day rent! ~£1700<br>

<br>

Obviously still uses roll film, but drum scanners will do it justice.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>A 6x17cm camera with 90mm lens still gets nowhere near to the equivalent of a 13mm lens on a full-frame DSLR. The horizontal AOV of the Fuji is roughly the same as a 19mm lens on FF, and with its pano height-to-width ratio it covers only a fraction of the subject area. And you're stuck with using sucky film.</p>

<p>Edit: That Vivitar "13mm" appears to be the Samyang 14mm sold under a lie. The physical size and spec are identical, and Vivitar's advertised diagonal AOV (115 degrees) doesn't match that of a true 13mm lens. Being just one degree more than that of a 14mm lens.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>(Long-time) Rumor has it that Canon is working on a 12-24 FF zoom...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Appears to be an 11-24/4L that was accidentally "leaked" by Canon Germany a few weeks ago. Alleged price of $2900 - plus a Canon FF camera. With 11mm, the OP gets even more coverage than he bargained for - assuming the lens will become reality at some point.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=831118">Bela Laszlo Molnar</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 30, 2014; 07:43 p.m.<br />........<br /> Anthony; The Sigma is a very nice lens, but at around 12-13mm it is not as good or not even close to the Nikon 13mm. I have seen it.....</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>So do you have comparison shots of the same subject showing the differences between the Nikkor & the Sigma? I wouldn't mind seeing them. The Sigma is a zoom and the Nikkor is a prime so it ought to be a bit better but how much better is it really?</p>

<p> </p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>" The Sigma is a zoom and the Nikkor is a prime so it ought to be a bit better but how much better is it really?" - Maybe we'll never know.</p>

<p>Most 13mm Nikkors are going to be locked in a display case or bank vault by some over-privileged collector, and not in the hands of someone capable of doing a scientific test and objectively analysing the results. The 13mm shots on KR's site do look pretty good, but it's KR, and he thinks everything he touches is brilliant - so who knows really?</p>