Ultra Wide or Fisheye? — The Photo Video Guy

Hey readers, I hope that this post finds you all well. I received a question about a week ago from a photographer looking to expand her visioneering options and she asked my opinion about whether to add a fisheye lens or an ultra wide angle. The answer is not so cut and dried as you may think.

Fisheyes

A fisheye lens is a rather particular tool and in the past produced a round image on the film or the sensor. Some highly expensive units such as the Nikon 6mm fisheye, could actually see behind themselves as they had a field of view of 220 degrees, greater than the common 180 degrees found in a fisheye. Now is a good time to specify that these are circular fisheyes. They are called this because the image produced is circular. Depending on the maker, there may be an option for drop in filters, but typically not, because the massive angle of view creates more challenges than benefits with useful filters such as polarizers.

The other, newer, type of fisheye is called a rectilinear fisheye and many come as zoom lenses. They produce a rectangular image on the sensor or film. I know of rectilinear fisheyes from Nikon and Canon and own Canon’s EF 8-15 fisheye myself.

Image depiction

While it is common to presume that with such a design all lines are curved, this is not so. The horizontal centre line is straight as is the vertical centre line. By previsualizing and planning for this opportunity, you can create some very special images based on where you place subjects on these lines in your compostions. Lines increase curvature as you look towards the edges and as such you can create a sense of backgrounds “bending in” to bring attention to your subject. The fisheye is one scenario where the rule of thirds typically does not create an advantage or benefit.

This bending, used creatively allows the photographer to create emphasis points not found by any other means, done directly in camera. It does require more planning and visioneering than perhaps another lens type, but delivers something that is unique among other lens options.

Ultra Wides

Image from an Ultra Wide cropped vertically to enhance the sense of space

The definition of an ultra wide has changed over the years. I can remember when a 20mm full frame equivalent was considered ultra-wide. As lens technology has improved, so has the ability to go to shorter focal lengths in these lenses. My most commonly used wide angle is a 16mm - 35mm zoom and many consider 16mm the beginning of ultra wide. I like it because modern designs bring minimal distortion if any.

In the article when I talk about focal length numbers I am referring to full frame equivalence because that is what sensors my cameras have. If you shoot a crop sensor or micro 4/3s sensor, you already know the math to do the conversion to your sensor’s focal length equivalent.

I sold my 14mm ultra wide to help fund the 12mm to 24mm zoom lens. The 11mm - 24mm is a lovely lens, but over time I find that I would have been better served by the smaller, lighter fixed focal length 14mm. At 11mm there is some vignetting and curvature that I have to correct for, usually by cropping and I end up with less than the 14mm delivered straight out of camera. Thus my opinion on ultra wides is that you should make a bunch of test images and ensure that they do not create situations that you do not like before you pay your money. Canon did not conceal these effects, I thought that I could deal with them and I was mistaken. The zoom is also considerably more expensive than the fixed lens, another consideration when looking to add glass to your kit

Filters on Ultra Wides

Like fisheyes, ultra wide angle lenses have bulbous front ends, so there is no option to attach a filter directly to the lens. Thus if you favour filters like a polarizer or neutral density, you are going to be looking at some kind of mounting frame that will attach to the lens and hold a large flat filter. This is often a larger filter than you might typically find in order to prevent vignetting. The mounting system that I own and use is from Lee Filters. There are others but I can only speak to this mounting system. It adds some bulk and a bit of weight but works great, once you have spent the money on the mount and the enormous filters needed. Fortunately all makers of this type of mount and the filters that go in them provide charts telling you which set to order for your lens.

Distortions

We expect bending in fisheyes, but don’t expect distortions in ultra-wides. This is erroneous because as we get to the edges of the frame of an ultra wide created image, there is distortion. Sometimes this is corrected in your editor either by the maker embedding a correction prescription or where the editor comes with a correction prescription for that lens. I recall a scenario where a limited space necessitated the use of Nikon’s well respected 14-24 Nikkor lens. Unfortunately the photographer had his subjects in a line and did not see the distortion in the viewfinder, which can be readily understood. When the image came into the editor, the photographer could see right away that the people near the edges were wider than in reality and were a bit bent. The moral here is don’t put anything important right at the edges of an ultra wide image. If you are using a fisheye, the distortions and bending is expected, so you are more likely to get a pass, although humans imaged with a fisheye rarely result in a flattering image.

In Summary

Both fisheyes and ultra-wides can bring new opportunities to your photographic endeavours. Before you spend, think about the kinds of images that you tend to make, or wish to make and guide yourself accordingly. As photography is generally art, there is no right or wrong answer, the only person whose opinion matters is your own. Please subscribe to be notified of new articles and until next time, peace.

Articles