Wie verzieht ein Ultra-Weitwinkel-Objektiv das Bild?
Ich möchte mir ein Ultraweitwinkelobjektiv zulegen.
Daher möchte Ich wissen wie so ein Objektiv das Bild verzieht. (Distortion)
Ich rede über den 10mm bis 16mm Bereich btw
Ich habe nicht vor einen Fischaugen-Effekt zu erzielen. Jedoch erkennt man es zB bei der Handykamera, wenn Ich in den Weitwinkel-Modus wechsle, dass der Rand des Bildes etwas verzogen wird. Jetz möchte Ich wissen ob das bei den oben genannten Brennweiten Bereich auch so ist, oder ähnlich ist.
LG Jonas
(1 votes)
Loading...
Hello
The optics produces the image on the sensor or picture stage, there is the “plan-Linare” projection that results because Fishaugenlook. If you want a plane-field-lined “planar” projection, the picture stage would have to be calotte-shaped. So you build a field arch that compensates for this.
Then the optics must “dip” the image in this case with wave-shaped distortions and especially heavy it is SLR optics with high bearing dimensions (over focal length) thus to degenerate retrofocus construction which need a huge image circle (lens diameter) with an intermediate projection. There are then positive curved and negative curved projections. In the case of postal curvature one is “in” the sphere with negative curvature one is outside the sphere.
Zooms are usually uncurved in the middle area and become more spherical to zoom.
Typically, ultra-wide angles are exactly levelled with horizon lines through the middle of the image, distortions are “invisible”.
UWW optics always have problems with edge resolution and edge illumination. With digital sensors, you trick this through image processing, but you get other disadvantages.
That is why UWW
And the whole thing is for someone who just knows what the ISO is worth, and purely has no idea how an objective works.😅 sry but I got really ned much understood.
Yes, with very strong wide-angle lenses the world will increase “round”.
With an APSC camera, this starts at 18mm and at full format at 24 mm.
This does not mean that such images must look the same bad, but it is visible. That’s why you won’t have a portrait with a (super) wide angle.
I would actually rather use it for the night sky. I’m a big fan of star photography. Or for landscape shots, or whatever looks good😅
For astrophotography, a super wide angle is actually a must. It should be as light as possible. (But I don’t think about it now for Canon EF)
Of course, it can also be a wide-angle zoom, maybe even better. This could be a Canon EF-S 10-18 mm
Of course there are also people who use the inevitable distortions artistically – this comes with the experience and with a lot of experimentation.
Yes, you can use a suitable lens (not every!) via adapter on a Canon. Whether the advantages are to be tested in individual cases.
Hey, Is jetz a few days ago, but I still have a question. If I cannot find a suitable lens for the EF-Mount I can also use an adapter ring or? Does this affect the light intensity of the lens?
The distortions become stronger towards the edge of the picture. Especially striking with round motifs. Unfortunately also in minds.
So, for example, star images at the edge of the picture will be somewhat distorted?
Sure. The question is, however, whether this is noticeable. The points themselves are not discernible. In the case of landscape photographs, there is also a distortion that is practically not seen.
touches
Yeah, that’s similar. The distortion in a wide-angle lens does not matter whether the phone or the camera, somehow you have to squeeze the image onto the sensor.
The closer an object on the lens, the stronger it becomes distorted towards the edges. This can be used for dramatic perspectives, here with the Canon 10-18mm:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/31863520431