Tokina 11-16mm with DX camera, does anyone has a similar combination?  

In the panorama field, hardware is also part of the success. You can discuss here about it: camera, computer, pano head, anything
no avatar
alsur
New member
 
Topic author
Posts: 4
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:33 pm
Info

Tokina 11-16mm with DX camera, does anyone has a similar combination?

by alsur » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:16 am

Hi all. I am planning to buy an 11-16mm Tokina lens which has pretty good reviews towards Sigma and Nikon similar lenses.
Mi plan is to use it on my D200 (DX) as a standart lens but also to do spherical panoramics. I've worked out angles (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/angle-of-view.htm) and if I am not mistaken this lens when used verticaly would do a complete 180 degrees view, so with 6-7 shots I should be able to produce them.
Alltough I could use a proper fisheye lense, I don't see much use of that lens in standart scenarios while I do with this one.

Can anyone advice if I am correct?
Anyone using similar lense (or any 11mm) on a DX type camera that can confirm it?

Many thanks.

Jose Luis

no avatar
GURL
Member
 
Posts: 2943
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Grenoble
Info

by GURL » Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:35 pm

alsur wrote:I've worked out angles (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/angle-of-view.htm) and if I am not mistaken this lens when used verticaly would do a complete 180 degrees view

Angle = 2 * Arctan ( (Image Dimension/2) / Focal Length )
Angle = 2 * Arctan ( (23.6 /2) / 11) = 94.01 degrees

Both www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm and www.frankvanderpol.nl/fov_pan_calc.htm agree on that more narrow angle (but beware: the focal length engraved on a lens is no more than a very approximate value.)

;) Because this a normal (aka rectilinear - aka non-fisheye) lens, it would have to reach the impossible 0.00 mm focal length setting to cover 180° (or the sensor should have an infinite surface.)

The reason: the shorter the focal length of a non-fisheye lens the more this lens is wasting a large percentage of the sensor area to record a limited amount of the global field of view (this is occurring next to the image sides and especially in the four corners).

If you want a better solution for 360° x 180° panos, you could buy a Tokina 10-17 mm fisheye lens. At its 10 mm zoom setting the required images amount is 6 (though I strongly recommend using more than that.) At its 17 mm zoom setting more than 24 images are required but you record 4 times more pixels (or about) for a sharper stitched result. Using panini (the software) or even Autopano you can use a fisheye lens to make single shoot panos as wide as 120°. Here is an example of that (camera : Fuji F5, a clone of your Nikon D200 - lens: Tokina 10-17 fisheye at 10 mm) where the first image is as shoot and the second one a panini "defished" version. Note that the room is a rectangular one:




Last edited by GURL on Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Georges

no avatar
alsur
New member
 
Topic author
Posts: 4
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:33 pm
Info

by alsur » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:33 pm

Hi Gurl. Thanks for your detail reply but I am not 100% a get your point.
I understand that fisheye lens is clearly the best option but as the number of panoramics I do is limited, I would rather invest on a lens that I can use for other things without necessarily applying software corrections afterwards. If what you say is that on the max 11mm of this lens I might loose a few pixels on top or bottom if I shoot with camera on a vertical position, I can assume that by just retouching that bit of info which would normally be tripod and sky in my case.
If what you say is that "is not that little" to do, then I will have to go via your proposed root of a proper fisheye lens as till now I've been doing non 180º panoramics but now I want to start working on Gigapixels multiresolution panos and I have not managed to create them easily unless the image is truly 360x180º.

Again many thanks for your comments.

no avatar
GURL
Member
 
Posts: 2943
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Grenoble
Info

by GURL » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:49 pm

Sorry, I was not clear enough ! On APS-C sensor cameras like the D200 a 10 mm fisheye can capture an area which is about twice as large as the area a 11 mm rectilinear (= normal) lens can capture.

Here is an example where I superimposed on a 10 mm fisheye image the area a 10 mm wide-angle lens covers. The fisheye image includes the zenith and the near ground because its vertical FOV is 140° while the wide-angle lens can't do that because is vertical FOV is 95°.




Georges

no avatar
alsur
New member
 
Topic author
Posts: 4
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:33 pm
Info

by alsur » Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:18 am

Hello Gurl. Again many thanks for your clear examples. I was on the understanding (apparently wrong by your sample) that the 95º of the standart 11mm lens when shooting vertical, would be sufficient to cover top and bottom of a spherical panoramic, therefore only requiring maybe 6 to 8 horizontal shots to compose the whole 360x180 pano.
With your image I understand this is wrong and that the only way to archieve this is with a fish-eye type lens or I with some king of additional filter to the standar flat 11mm.
Shame... It looks like a fisheye is going to have to be my root for this.

Jose Luis

User avatar
Adam
Member
 
Posts: 227
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Info

by Adam » Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:18 am

Well fisheye (as said above) will also produce lower resolution pano than Tokina 116. Have to give and take.
How about Samyang 8mm fiheye for $300?
interested in panorama photography


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests