Date sent:        Mon, 7 Apr 1997 22:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
To:               w.j.markerink@a1.nl
From:             henningw@portal.ca (Henning J. Wulff)
Subject:          Re: Fishy lenses

Willem-Jan,

>First: I just finished two new chapters on my homepage; a list of all
>fisheyes and a list of all tilt/shift lenses.
>As I am pretty sure both lists are not complete, I would like
>you to take a stab at it, and see if you can find any errors,
>omissions, additions etc.

Looks very interesting. I just finished my web site which the service
provider promised would have my new domain name installed by Wednesday at
the latest, and you will be interested that on my photo links page I
mentioned your site. My site is at http://www.archiphoto.com. My new
mailing address will be henningw@archiphoto.com, but my old address should
work for a little while longer. Regarding my photos; there are some IR
images on there - some 4x5 stuff with Kodak HIE, and there will be some 120
stuff shot with my Noblex on Konica 750. The panoramic stuff is all shot
either on the Noblex 150s or the Widelux F7, mostly the former. I also put
up the fisheye stuff I posted earlier, and I am working on my own
experiences with shift and tilt lenses; not in the comprehensive manner you
are, but rather based on my own use of the lenses.

Re: the fisheye stuff. The Minolta circular lens was f/4, 23mm image circle
and focussed at 1.6'. It had 12 elements, 8 groups, 68mm in diameter and
63mm long and weighed  about 340gm. I've only seen one.
The 16mm/2.8 Minolta has/had 11 elements in 8 groups, focussed to 1', also
had filters built in, was 70.5mm in diameter and 63.5mm long, and weighed
435gm in the MD mount. Optically, this is the Leica lens as well.

You forgot to mention the Pentax Takumar 18mm/11, the first full frame
fisheye lens for a mainstream 35mm camera, as far as I am aware. It was
really tiny. I don't have the data on it, but it was no more than 12mm
thick. It had Waterhouse stops.

The Canon 7.5/5.6 is 62mm in length, and weighs 375 gm. It does not focus,
and it has built in filters, and 11 elements in 8 groups. It is still being
made, I believe.

Sigma had a 16mm/2.8 fisheye, with 9 elements in 8 groups, focussing to
6in., using 22.5mm filters, and was 66mm in diameter and 50mm in length. It
weighed 305gm.

The Olympus 8mm/2.8 was 102mm in diameter, 82mm long, weight 640gm, 11
elements in 7 groups, built in filters, .2m min. focus, and covered 180
degrees, as all the other lenses above did, except for the 18mm Takumar,
which I believe only covered 160 degrees.

The 6mm/5.6 Nikkor had a 21.6mm image circle, and all the others except the
10mm a 23mm image circle. I don't know about the 6mm/2.8.

The 16mm/3.5 Olympus was 59mm in diameter, 31m long, .2m min focus, built
in filters, 11 elements in 8 groups.

The Pentax 17mm/4 came in both screw and bayonet mounts, with 11 elements
in 7 groups, focusses to .2m, is 64mm in diameter and 34mm long in bayonet,
32mm in screw, has a filter turret and, at least in the screw thread
version, a gel filter holder in back. It weighs 234gm in bayonet, and 228gm
in my screw thread version.

Konica also had a 15mm/2.8; see my Konica page. It was a full frame 180
degree lens of 395gm, 10 element in 7 group, min. focus of 15cm, built in
filter turret, length 60mm and 70mm diameter. Optical performance was a lot
better than all full frames I have used, with the possible exception of the
16/3.5 Nikkor.

The Hasselblad Distagon is optically identical to the Rollei 66 version. It
focusses to 12in. on the Hasselblad, weighs 1365gm and is 117.5mm long

The Pentax 67 lens will cover 6x7 fully, so the image circle will probably
be at least 90mm.

Regarding shift and tilt lenses:

Nikon made a 35mm/3.5 first. It had 6 groups with 6 elements. It focussed
to 1ft., was 52mm long and 70mm in diameter, weighed 290gm, and shifted
11mm off axis, and used 52mm filters. It had a preset diaphragm, like all
Nikkor PC lenses. About 1968 the first version of the 35/2.8 arrived. In
1973 the 28mm/4 Nikkor was introduced; this lens like the present 28/3.5
used 72mm filters, had 10 elements in 8 groups, focussed to 1ft, and
weighed 410gm. It was 78mm in diameter, and 63mm long.

Pentax had a 28mm/3.5 lens for the bayonet K-mount. It had 12 elements in
11 groups, a manual diaphragm, focussed to 1ft, was 80mm in diameter and
92.5mm long and weighed 611gm. Filters were built in. A real monster!
Unfortunately, it had a bad flare problem, and worse yet, bad distortion
(for a shift lens). Not a good lens. The 75/4.5 for the Pentax 67 is a lot
better.

Schneider made the 35mm/4 PA-Curtagon for various cameras, and they were
sold by Leica for their SLR's. Decent performance, but only 7mm shift. Took
series 8 filters. It focussed to .3m, had 7 elements in 6 groups, was 51mm
long for Leica, 70mm in diameter and weighed 290gm. Now they make the
28/2.8 Super Angulon for Leica R and other cameras, which shifts to 11mm
off axis, and is useable in any direction, which takes 67mm filters, but
most vignette. It is the highest performance shift lens I know of that's
wider than 35. A great lens.

Minolta also made a 35/2.8 shift lens for the MD mount, which had an auto
diaphragm (but no meter coupling) and variable field curvature. It weighed
560gm, was 83.5mm in diameter and 71.5mm long, and had 9 elements in 7
groups and used 55mm filters.

The Olympus 35/2.8 had 8 elements in 7 groups, weighed 310 gm, was 58mm
long and 68mm in diameter, and took 49mm filters. I can't seem to locate
data on the 24/3.5 Olympus right now, but I took some pictures with one
once and was not impressed.

I believe the 55/4.5 offered for the 6xxx series Rollei is the Schneider
Super Angulon PCS which was also offered for the 6x6 Bronica. It is a tilt
and shift lens of rather clumsy design, optical excellence and a price that
you can buy 3 LF view camera systems for. I have only seen one. For the
Bronica it was also 1650gm, 104mm in diameter, and 157mm long. Minimum
focus was .5m. Rise was 12mm, shift 12mm, fall 10mm and 10 degrees of tilt,
up and down. They apparently tried to market it to Hasselblad, but were
turned down.

Canon's old 35mm TS is the highest performance shift lens I know of, being
far better than Nikon's, Minolta's, Olympus' or any others of any focal
length. It had 9 elements in 8 groups, focussed to .3m, used 58mm filters,
was 74.5mm long and weighed 550gm. It had 11mm shifts, and 8 degree tilts,
but if you did not tilt it the 1mm shifts were useable in all directions,
as opposed to limits of 8mm hoizontal which all other shift lenses had, and
7mm on some of the diagonals.


>Any knowledge of an US military 180 degree panorama camera, with a
>75mm Zeiss Planar, using 70mm film? I am currently chasing one, seems
>like a dinosaur in weight and dimensions (you probably spotted that
>story some time ago on the Panorama list as well).

I'v heard of one before, but that was about 15 years ago. I've never seen one.

BTW, I read your little story about the Mamiya and the TV towers. I once
had a bad experience with a Mamiya, although the answer was quite obvious.
I do a lot of aerial shooting, and the Mamiya 645 series is ideal, with the
quick, cheap film inserts, decent lenses, prism finder and motor grip. At
that time I used the 645 1000s, with the AE prism finder. When I shot on
automatic the first time, the exposure needle was all over the place. Sure
enough, the on-film exposures varied by 5 or more stops as well. The wind
from the open window blasted into the metering prism, causing the needle to
fly around. Exposure was apparently determined purely by the position of
the needle, and so I got variable exposure. The new AE prism on the Super
and Pro doesn't work this way, fortunately. On Saturday I was up, and shot
20 rolls of GPX, as well as 8 rolls of Elite II in my Nikons, and
everything was great. Clear weather, not too much air traffic, and I found
all the sites I had to photograph easily enough :-).


   *           Henning J. Wulff
  /|\     Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\      henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com

Date sent:        Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:54:30 +0900 (JST)
From:             Mico Loretan 
Subject:          info on fisheye and shift lenses
To:               Willem-Jan Markerink 
Copies to:        mico@imes.boj.go.jp

Hi Willem,

Thanks so much for replying to my posting to the Nikon Digest about the
Fisheye Nikkors. So far, you're the only one who"s replied to me. Have
you received any direct replies to the queries and comments you set out
in your follow-up message? Good tactics, by the way, to throw out the
little compliment about many people in the Digest being fisheye experts:
this trick just might help to coax some out of their lethargy and
provide a comment or two!

Anyway, I took a look at your web pages -- nice shots with your Sigma
8mm f/4! -- and your listing of fisheye and shift(/tilt) lenses. You
asked that if anyone had more info on the technical specs of these
lenses, that they please come forward. Well, I just happen to have the
lens brochures of Nikon (surprise!), Sigma and Olympus with me.
Unfortunately, they're all in Japanese (surprise!). My knowledge of this
language is still rather limited, so I couldn't understand much of them.
Fortunately, the specs pages are mostly in arabic numerals and roman
characters, so I can send you the following info. 

Compared to what you have in your web pages, there are several
discrepancies. I suppose some of these might be due to typos on your
part, or they could be errors in the Japanese catalogues. Who knows? For
the Nikkors, I've added production dates per Walter Pietsch's info. For
discontinued models, I have no specs available.


(a) shift lenses
================

          prod. dates         Close  Filter  Elem./   Weight  Diam.x
                              Focus  Size    Groups   (gr)    Length

Nikon
-----
28/4       6/75 -  9/83   
28/3.5    10/80 -  present    0.3    72mm    9/8      380     78x64.5

35/3.5    11/65 -  4/68
35/2.8     1/68 - 12/75
35/2.8    10/75 -  5/80
35/2.8     6/80 -  present    0.3    52mm    7/7      320     62x61.5

Note: the lengths given are to the flange.  
Lengths overall are 69 and 66mm, resp.


Olympus
-------

24/3.5        ? -  present    0.35   rev.    12/10    520     84x75
35/2.8        ? -  present    0.3    49mm    8/7      310     68x59

Note: I haven't actually held either lens
in my own hands.  From the photos in the 
lens brochure, it appears that their max 
shift is 10 mm, not 11mm.



Others
------

Leica-R 35/4 "PA-Curtagon". No longer in production, I believe. I once
saw one of these lenses (used) for sale at US$ 495. The only reference
to its specs I can think of is Dennis Laney's book "Leica Lens
Practice," 2nd ed. ca. 1993. (I own this book, but it's in Washington,
while I'm currently in Tokyo. I won't get a chance to look it up for you
until June...)

Schneider 28mm f/2.8. Available in various lens mounts, incl. Leica-R.
The Leica-R version is described in Laney's book (2nd ed. only, since
the lens wasn't introduced until ca. 1990). I have a brochure by
Schneider on this lens -- in Washington! I believe that Henning Wulff
may have some practical experience with this lens; I vaguely recall that
he once wrote something very positive about this lens in a Nikon Digest,
a year or more ago. BTW, I've never heard of a Schneider 35mm f/? shift
lens (which does not mean it doesn't exist, of course!).  Maybe the
Leica-R 35/4 "PA-Curtagon" was designed by Schneider?

Kiev 35mm f/2.8. Was given a head-to-head review against the Nikkor
35/2.8 in an issue of "Popular Photography" some two or three years ago;
the Kiev didn't "look good" at all in this comparison! The Pop Photo
piece also gave detailed technical specs on this lens, I believe.
(Sorry, but I don't keep back issues of Pop Photo...)

[Note WJ: both the Dutch CameraMagazine and the German FotoMagazin were 
pretty enthousiast about it, almost at the same level as the Nikon 35mm 
shift. Wonder whether PP was put off by the rough finish, instead of 
testing the actual optics performance.]



(b) Fisheye Lenses
==================

          prod. dates         Close  Filter  Elem./   Weight  Diam.x
                              Focus  Size    Groups   (gr)    Length

Nikon MF
--------

 16/3.5    2/73 -  5/79              (1)
 16/2.8    7/79 -  present    0.25   rev.    8/5      335     63x55.5

 10/5.6OP  7/68 -  8/76

  8/8.0    7/62 -  4/65   
7.5/5.6   10/65 -  2/70       (2)
  8/2.8    2/70 -  present    0.3    rev.    10/8     1100    123x128

  6/5.6    1/69 -  3/78
  6/2.8    3/72 -  present    0.25   rev.    12/9     5200    236x160

Nikon AF
--------

 16/2.8   11/93 -  present    0.25   rev.    8/5      285     63x57(3)

Notes: (1) I saw one of these the other day
at a camera store on the Ginza.  It definitely
does NOT have revolving-turret internal filters.
Instead, its filters can be stuck on to the
rear element, and are thus minuscule in diameter
(15 to 20mm at most, I would guess).
(2) This is the lens I saw at a camera store
in Yokohama last weekend.  I wish the store
owner had let me photograph it.  I can tell you,
though, that it's a fixed-focus design.
(3) The overall lengths of the four lenses in current
production are 66, 139, 171, and 68 mm, resp.


Olympus
-------

 16/3.5         -  present    0.2    rev.    11/8     185     59x31
  8/2.8    not in catalogue!


Sigma
-----

 15/2.8         - present     0.2    rev.    7/6      328     72.5x63.5
  8/2.8         - present     0.2    22.5    11/7     375     73.5x59



Well, that's all I have to say for now -- except give the following,
utterly gratuitous piece of advice: Your two web pages would look much
better (and would be easier to read) if you used web-style "tables" to
format the data. [Of course, this piece of advice goes under the
"nothing is impossible if you don't have to do it yourself" category, so
don't take this suggestion too seriously.]


Sincerely,

Mico Loretan 
Tokyo, Japan

From:             "Jacques Bilinski" 
To:               
Subject:          Re: lens adapter
Date sent:        Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:22:50 -0700


> As you might have seen on the Leica list, I constructed an overview 
> of fisheye lenses (and tilt/shift lenses), so for this Pentax 18mm/f11 
> I'd like to know: 
>
> - diameter

56mm

> - total length

21mm

> - length outside camera

12mm !!!

> - weight

95gm

> - diagonal angle of view (I have been told 160 degrees, is that 
> correct?)

??

> - minimum focusing distance (is it fix-focus btw? some older 6-8mm's 
> are)

It is fixed focus. 

> According to the guy who mentioned this lens to me (Henning Wulff), 
> this was worlds first fisheye lens for 35mm cameras.
> Have you ever seen others? (ie how scarce is it in your opinion)

I'm not a collector, and have little knowledge about these. I saw it used
in a camera store and only became interested when I discovered I could
mount it on my M6.

> What did you pay for it? (if you don't mind....;-))
$149.99 Canadian - about $107 US

I actually have never used it yet, as I've misplaced the Cannon adaptor to
which I refered in a previous note. So I can't comment on the angle of
view, resolution, presence or absence of 'Pentax glow', etc. 

An interesting feature of this lens is that it does not have a conventional
diaphagm. It has discrete F stops of 11,16,22,32 which are moved into place
when the aperature ring is turned. A result is that the aperature is always
perfectly round.  

FYI the engraving on the front of the lens state: Fish-eye-Takumar 1:11/18
Asahi Opt. CO., Lens made in Japan 1240890

> Thanks for answering all these questions, I really appreciate this!

Glad to help .

Date sent:        Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:59:45 -0800
To:               eos@avocado.pc.Helsinki.fi
From:             "Henning J. Wulff" 
Subject:          EOS: Re: How good is the TS-E 24L?
Send reply to:    eos@avocado.pc.Helsinki.fi

Jonathan Kwok wrote:

>What really interested me were your comments on the 24 TS-E lens and I was
>hoping you could elaborate on it. You see, I'm toying with the idea of
>getting this lens to compliment my EF17-35L for critical applications like
>architectural and landscape photography...those times when I need max DOF or
>perspective correction and that extra "bite" and critical sharpness that my
>L zoom lens just cannot deliver.
----
>I do quite a fair bit of blowups, and was hoping the 24-TS-E would fill this
>need. I don't mind the manual focusing cos if I need speed and convenience,
>the 17-35L would do the job. But what I really want is optical quality.
>Period.
>
>For the amount of moolah I'm gonna blow on this lens, I sure hope it
>delivers, cos none of the shops here carry it, so I can't do a test before
>hand.


As I mentioned, besides the 24TS-E I have the old 35TS for the FD mount,
and also the 28 and 35 Nikon PC lenses. I also have all fixed focal lengths
from 15 to 400 in Nikon lenses, but for wideangle 35mm lenses, my optical
benchmark are the Leica M lenses, where I have focal lengths of 15, 3
different 21's, 2 different 35's, etc. The best are the 21/2.8 ASPH and the
35/1.4 ASPH.

These two lenses along with a couple of other Leica lenses set the standard
for their focal lengths, and no SLR lenses are in the same class. This
applies to resolution, contrast, flare control, and distortion. Only
eveness of illumination is not as good as with various SLR lenses. The fact
that the SLR mirror has to side between the lens and the film is the
problem for the designers, and the eveness of illumination also results
from that. The Leica lenses are designed as classic wideangle lenses, while
the SLR lenses are retrofocus lenses; the latter are a lot harder to get
right. If Canon (or Nikon) had to produce standard wideangle lenses, and
had a similar price point as Leica, they could produce lenses just as good.

Of the four perspective correction lenses for 35mm that I own, the best is
the Canon 35TS. It was a later design than the 35 Nikkor, and cost more,
and in the end is better in every way (except handling and size). The
Nikkor 28 is just slightly worse than the 35 Nikkor, and the Canon 24 is
just slightly worse than the 28 N. I believe this has to do with the fact
that since the image circle of the shift lenses is so much larger than that
of regular 35 lenses, correcting the lens was just made that much harder.
The 24 has to have the same angle of view as a regular 17 or 18mm lens, but
the design parameters dictate that this lens have _very_ little distortion,
as that is of utmost importance in this lens. That means that other
parameter probably suffer somewhat. Further examples of this sort of
argument can be seen in the very wide medium format SLR lenses, which have
an even larger image circle, and often perform quite poorly. The very
expensive 40/4 Hasselblad lens is not good, and is a lot worse than the
standard construction 38/4.5 in the SWC (non SLR) which is a design from
the fifties. The 35/3.5 Mamiya for the 645 is also poor. I use the
Hasselblad SWC whenever I can.

The result is that the 24TS-E, while excellent for the intended purpose, is
just not as crisp as a number of fixed focal length lenses. I haven't used
the 24/2.8 EF lens, but the Nikkor 24/2.8 is definitely better than the
TS-E, and even the 24/2 Nikkor is better when stopped down.

The 24/1.4 Canon (which I haven't used) just like the other 'L' lenses is
designated as such because of the elaborate construction, necessary in this
case to make it at all useable, not because of intrinsically better
performance. Many non-'L' lenses are great performers, such as the 85/1.8.
No exotic elements are needed to reach a high level of performance for a
lens of this focal length and speed.

I would not really expect the 24/1.4 to do better at middle apertures than
the 2.8. At 1.4 it is, of course, a lot better :-). Similarly, my tiny
50/2.8 Leica Elmar lens is a lot better at f/4 than my rather large, heavy,
exotic and very much more expensive 50/1 Noctilux. At f/1, no contest.

So, if you want very sharp, large, high quality prints, get a large format
camera, or if you want something about the size of the EOS system, get a
medium format camera like the Mamiya 6 or 7. With the latter you won't have
very close focussing, and lenses over the equivalent of 85mm in 35 aren't
available, but you will have superb wideangle and standard lenses that are
better than any equivalent SLR lenses.

As with everything, it's a matter of 'horses for courses'. For ultimate
quality and control, use large format 4x5 or 8x10. For added convenience
and a compromise in quality, use medium format rangefinder cameras. For
greater convenience, versatility (and weight) but lower quality in the
wideangle range, use medium format SLR's. For the greatest versatility and
ease of use, but lower optical quality in the wideangles especially, use
35mm SLR's. For greater quality in 35mm wideangles and standard lenses,
fantastic low light performance but a limited choice in lenses and a very
high price, use Leica M.

Don't expect too much of SLR wideangles.

As far as handling goes, the Nikon PC's because they only shift, and in one
direction, are easier to use in the field because you can meter, then shift
without fumbling, and do it all handheld with priactice. The Canons really
need a tripod. At least the 24 has a detent at the 0 shift position (the
35TS did not). Because of their tilt, the lenses are also very bulky.

   *            Henning J. Wulff
  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com

------------------------------------------------------
Eos maillist  -  Eos@psych.helsinki.fi
http://www.psych.helsinki.fi/mailman/listinfo/eos

If you have any question, remark, comment, want to share some philosophy or just want to express your opinion about these pages, feel free to send email to: w.j.markerink @ a1.nl