"gries" <gries@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
<< I have almost considered
giving up the fisheye because this lens *almost* has the same coverage
as the 16 w/o the strange wrapping on the sides of the frame. If you
got money to spend on just one, then I think it should be the 18/3.5. >>
On that subject, althought the 16mm has 180 degrees across the diagonal and
the 18mm has 100 degrees, how do the vertical and horizontal angles of view
compare?
Gries is saying that they are quite similar.
Does anyone have figures for V and H angles of view for these two?
Presumably much of the large increase in the diagonal field for the 16mm
fisheye is due to the barrel distortion and equi-solid-angle projection,
which will let a huge amount of image to be squeezed into the corners.
Also how does the 18 compare for image quality etc. with independent
ultrawides like the Tamron 17/3.5 (104 degrees)?
Any info appreciated.
Dave Bellamy.
http://members.aol.com/synthchap/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|