Fish eye vs. Wide angle lens - when do you use which?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Andreni

Contributor
Messages
116
Reaction score
48
Location
Switzerland
# of dives
500 - 999
Dear all

I need your help. For which situation do you use a fish eye and for which a wide angle lens? Sometimes due to baggage allowance I only want to take one lens with me but I never know which one to take.

I have an Olympus OMD EM5 II with Panasonic 8mm or the Olympus 9-18mm both with flat ports.

Thanks for your help.

Cheers!
 
I have the same two lenses. If I were to bring only one WA lens/port combo, it'd be the 9-18.

For me, while the 8mm excels on CFWA compared to the 9-18, it's more difficult to shoot with - especially with strobes - and I lose the opportunity to zoom in if I want to get a little closer to a critter. That makes for easier shooting and maximum flexibility. If I knew I was only going to shoot CFWA or if I were diving only wrecks, I'd choose the 8mm.

IMO, YMMV etc.
 
That sounds reasonable, thank you. I tried to do some CFWA with the fisheye but somehow the picture didn't turn out the way I wished..

I've been in PNG with the fisheye only (to practise) and now I'm quite disappointed with the pictures. It worked quite well in Triton Bay that's why I risked to take only the fisheye.. But next holiday I will take both and train with both.. Wide angle is still sooo difficult..
 
You use a fisheye behind a flat port? can only assume the edges must be horrible. The 9-18 would give better results out of the two. I would think you would get much better results with one of the after market mini domes for I assume the Olympus housing. you may well be able to use the same dome for both lenses and get much better results as well, particularly the fish eye.
 
I have an Olympus OMD EM5 II with Panasonic 8mm or the Olympus 9-18mm both with flat ports.
I didn't notice this yesterday and agree totally with @Chris Ross. I'd never use a flat port with a fisheye, so if that's the only port you have, I'd totally recommend using the 9-18. I use Nauticam's 4" semidome (#36137) with the 9-18 and the 4.33" dome (#36132) with the 8mm.
 
Both have their uses. The 8mm is one of my favorite lenses, but you have to get close and position your strobes well. It also excels for wrecks and whale sharks, etc. At f1.8 it can be used in available light at deeper depths very well.

The 9-18 is ok, wide open it's f/3.5 and can shoot ok CF/WA, but at 18mm it's very slow. It'a also not nearly as good of glass, or build quality, as the PRO lenses.

With reasonably-priced AOI ports there's no reason not to use the proper port for the lens at hand. Why would you spend $900 on an 8mm lens and not buy a dome port for it?

Shooting a 9-18 through a flat port is ok if you need to reach out to a shark or something, but optically the edges are going to be horrible at closer distances.

8mm:
20510567112_2c22759fed_c.jpg
EM1-8mmFE-2 by Jack Connick, on Flickr

9-18 with semi dome
4625421603_2740492069_z.jpg
Aquarium shots w-9-18mm-12
by Jack Connick, on Flickr
 
Shooting a 9-18 through a flat port is ok if you need to reach out to a shark or something, but optically the edges are going to be horrible at closer distances.
The edge fuzz can be alleviated rather noticeably with a dry +2 diopter, at least behind the 4" semidome. Preferably an aspheric diopter. Canon delivers a pretty decent aspheric diopter in 52mm diameter, which fits the 9-18.
 
The edge fuzz can be alleviated rather noticeably with a dry +2 diopter, at least behind the 4" semidome. Preferably an aspheric diopter. Canon delivers a pretty decent aspheric diopter in 52mm diameter, which fits the 9-18.

And that affects the distance shooting. Using diopters is an optical kludge for the most part and for the cost to buy a decent diopter you're money ahead buying the proper port.
 
Ok, sorry, my photo assistant aka dive buddy just told me that i don't use a flat port for the fisheye but a dome port. Sorry for the misinformation... But the aperture is only 3.5 not 1.8... True, it is very difficult to position the strobe. And yes, the The blurring at the edges is ok.. Just the pictures are not very nice..
 
the pictures are not very nice..
I had been shooting - rather seriously - topside for several decades when I finally started shooting uw. I have all the tech stuff internalized. Aperture, shutter speed, perspective vs FL, DOF vs aperture and FL, basic composition rules, you name it. I still had a pretty steep learning curve when I started shooting uw, and it got a lot steeper when I bought the 8/3.5 fisheye.

Practice, practice, practice.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom