Peter, you look to be enjoying yourself again in your videos. Good to have the fun Peter back, it's been a tough time what wit Covid and the OMDS uncertainty I'm sure.
I have the Rokinon fisheye. It's all manual so that makes focus a bit difficult for extreme close-up but is otherwise not a problem. The low cost and light weight is a good tradeoff. My preferred fisheye subject is a big, dramatic sky. If you keep the horizon in the middle and crop the foreground it is often not obvious that a fisheye lens was used.
The reason I went with the Olympus system. Wanted to use it for scuba diving. Still waiting to put it into action. Thanks for the review. Hope to get back to diving and test it out underwater.
I have the lens and the 100mm Zen port for a Nauticam housing. Close focus wide angle. It works well, just need interesting subject matter. The small dome travels well, but not so good for over/under shots.
Some very cool photos, especially the close ups! I got this lens for astrophotography last year but it is now one of my favourite lenses. The close up ability and the fisheye correction make it very versatile in Cityscapes/architecture too. You can get very creative with this lens as you can get crazy angles by going low etc. with it! 😀 But as you stated, if you want to have a super wide rectilinear lens, the 7-14 is the better choice. I like it for super wide landscapes too. If you use natural curves in your composition, you often don't see the picture was actually taken with the fisheye and cloud formations look awesome with this lens! 👌
Thanks for the review Peter. I started with a fully manual budget fisheye 7,5mm at f3.5. Last year I changed to the Olympus 8mm f1.8. I still find it an amazing lens for landscape, close up and cities. Feature missing on the 8mm is the manual focus clutch, especially to quickly adjust to hyperfocal distance. Interesting that you find the foreground difficult. For me it's mostly the background making the fish eye photography difficult. e.g a flower in the forground... But the houses in the background make the photo look messy afterwards... Btw - the lens is as well a good match for Astro. For landscape (if the spherical perspective is not desired) it's important to level it - so horizon stays flat, then it's even a good replacement for the 7-14mm.
What I really like about using the Oly 8mm/f1.8 is using it in conjunction with HighRes mode. Due to the extra resolution defishing will work with good sharpness in the corners after downsampling to standard 20MP resolution. Alternatively one can crop the inner area of the corrected HighRes image, which will suffer way less softness due to defishing. That way the Oly 8mm FE turns into a post-zoom lens. At this point f1.8 really kicks in... Great review, thanks for sharing!
I use the 8mm fisheye for underwater photography and I am very happy with it. Very luminous and sharp images (only some problems at the edges of the images). I use also it for landscape photography. I never used the tools you suggested to rectify the images! Thanks for this suggestion. Thanks for all suggestions you provide
I own the 8mm for years now and it‘s my no.1 lens for wide landscspes. If you take care of the composition you won‘t need any corrections and the image won‘t look like having been taken with a fisheye 👍
I found a rare used copy of this, which is on its way! I've always been fascinated with fisheyes, and have owned over a half-dozen, including Laowa, Sigma, Meike, and Olympus. I find them really inspiring for changing the way I think about photography, especially when I'm in a "rut."
Just watching various reviews of Olympus' 8mm PRO fisheye reminded me of one of its exceptional features over other fisheye and super-wideangle lenses, that's it's handling of Flare! If you get to own this lens you'll find that Flare is something that won't worry you. But step back to using the 7-14 PRO or other manufacturer's fisheye lenses and light Flare will become a serious problem. If you're wondering whether it's worth paying the extra for Olympus' PRO fisheye, then this is what will make the Olympus lens 80% more usable than its cheaper competitors. You get what you pay for is absolutely true, and in the case of super wide-angle photography, it's that lack of Flare problems that makes this lens usable where others aren't. It's a HUGE difference in usability that I'd forgotten because Flare so seldom affects me. Rick
Front element size is one of the major reasons I started to use my Laowa 7.5 mm f2 lens instead of my Olympus 7-14. It really catches much less moisture in those conditions. (Smaller size was the other major reason. Much easier to take as on-board luggage or on-camera in a side pouch.)
Since commenting about my fisheye converter for TG-5, I have acquired the Olympus 8mm f1.8 Pro fisheye lens. It has a wider field of view than the converter, which is fun. But the biggest surprise is how well the fisheye correction works in the OM-1, making legitimate super-wide rectilinear photos that are sharp enough in the corners. I was going to buy a super wide zoom as well as the fish-eye, but for now, the fisheye, with three different rectilinear corrections, is more than adequate. I think this computational feature of the OM-1 would make an interesting video.
I love this lens for all sort of photography, either corrected or not. What this really needs is a mark 2 version with a dedicated defish button on the lens barrel. A switch to choose among the 3 defish settings would be even better. And a ring that controls defishing progressively would be unreally good.
I've rented the lens 3 years ago, and loved it so much, that I bought one couple of months later. Brilliant lens, love the fish-eye look und portraits.
I use mine for creative walkarounds and night sky. It came in handy during the Comet NEOWISE event last year. It's a lens that forces one to rethink image creation, and that's a fun and good thing.
I tried the lens in a shopping mal for the elevators but was not so happy for the outcome (not a fault of the lens but the person behind it). Your video and the comments inspired me to give it another try. Thank you, Peter!
The fisheye 8mm lens is used for underwater photography to do CFWA and to photograph scenes that are very wide for a normal lens such as big wrecks underwater. Its use above water is much more limited than underwater.
Peter, as usual, thank you so much for your videos. I decided to pull the trigger on a barely used copy of this lens (only 380 euros!) after experimenting with the 8mm fisheye lens cap from Olympus. The latter was an excellent way to understand if I liked the fisheye effect and to test my ability to compose acceptable photos. I learned a lot with the fisheye cap, and now with my PRO, I want to step up a bit my game. I will also use it for astrophotography, one of my favourite subjects
@@ForsgardPeter yes I do! Although I was using it more on my Pen-F that I sold few months ago. For the price (I paid it around 80 eur) it is a bargain , fun little lens, perfect to introduce newbies like me to fisheyes.
Peter, as someone who fell in love with fisheye lenses back in the 1980s, I strongly advise that you will find it much easier to find appropriate fisheye images within a city-scape environment rather than a land-scape environment. Signage and things like a car wing mirror in the foreground, with the fabulous city panorama as your backdrop. Ferry boats and public transport (e.g. trains or trams) also provide great opportunities, where features of the boat provide foreground interest, with the river or harbour as your panoramic backdrop. Fisheye lenses can produce fabulous images but, as they capture an extreme view, it does take practice. And, don't forget, cropping the raw images will add further possibilities. (You don't always need the full 360° fisheye backdrop to nicely offset the fisheye's almost magnified subject close-up.) This is where the superb optical quality of the Olympus 8mm fisheye will reveal itself, as cropping requires superb optics where you really will see the difference between a cheaper fisheye and the superb PRO series Olympus lens. You'll also find more shelter and places to sit for a coffee or a beer in a cityscape. Rick
I got a 15mm fisheye when I was shooting APS-C, and the crop factor yielded wide images that had significantly reduced distortion, although definitely not rectilinear. Made it a decent ultra wide, so your point is a good one. Eventually got a FF to get the full effect. Been mulling this one for a while.
@@mikejankowski6321 the 8mm is a superb lens. Ideally, you'd want both the 8mm PRO and the 7-14mm PRO, as they both have their advantages. One thing I can promise is that the 8mm won't disappoint; it's a fabulous lens. If I had to choose between the 8mm fisheye or the 7-14mm rectangular zoom, I'd be hard pressed. They're each so useful in different ways, but I'd probably choose the 8mm fisheye because (once you get to know how and where to use it) it produces such eye-catching results. Rick
@@rickbear7249 Have to say I like that ideal scenario! Of course, I am also considering the Pana-Leica 8-18 for its non-protruding front element with minor FoV loss. Choices, choices.
Thanks Rick for your thoughts. I totally agree that I would have been easier to go to the city. That is why I tried something different. I like challenges.
I just bought one. It is a fun lens I have only had it for a week. So only been out with it once. Everytime I get a new lens, I have to learn to “see” with it.
I am using Body Cap Lens 9mm f8 fisheye. I love it to take buildings and city landscape. Never done any fish eye correction because the fish eye look make it unique photos. The color is a little bit pale and Purple Fringing is quiet dramatic. But it is still a very good body cap.
Thanks for making the video, Peter. I suspect that many people may be nervous of buying this lens but they shouldn't be; it is very versatile. I mostly use mine for 360° panoramas and interior shots. For interiors, I use the adaptive wide angle tool in Photoshop to remove distortion and get an effectively rectilinear image with excellent sharpness.
After watching this video I just ordered the 8mm f/1.8 Pro. With paying no sales taxes in Guernsey and the £125 money back I was able to get this delivered for under £500 so I've fallen to temptation and will have it by Friday. I was dithering between this and the 7-14mm f/2.8 but there were 2 clinching reasons for the 8mm prime. 1) It's a faster lens f/1.8 v f/2.8 and 2) when the image is defished, the 8mm is quite a bit wider than the 7mm - go figure but it is. Looking forward to having a play with my new lens at the weekend.
I have previously used Nikon 10,5mm for cropped sensor and Nikon 16mm fisheyes - the 10,5 was more fun. I sold all that gear and went to M4/3. I was happy to discover that the Olympus 8mm is very much fun to use. I use it for interior shots and landscape. Very sharp and punchy. I own the 8mm body cap - well I don't know about that. At least it's small! And the weather looks a lot like Denmark :-)
Hi Peter: I received the Zuiko F1.8 8mm fish eye Pro today and have captured a few dozen jpeg and raw landscape images over the last couple of hours. I purchased this lens partially on your recomendation and also purchased the DxO PureRaw2 software, again partially on your recommendation. My brief analysis follows. Your analyses and recommendations were correct and accurate. The images taken with this lens both uncorrected and lens distortion corrected are very sharp, in both cases with automatic or manual focusing, I look forward to many creative photos in the future. I made a few observations based on limited testing that you many find interesting or probably already know. I found that the DxO PureRaw2 lens distortion correction results in a wider field of view and a better photograph that the OM-1 in camera distortion correction and the distortion correction performed by the OM Workspace software. This ability alone makes the DxO software worth purchasing if one owns the F1.8 mm fish eye lens but of course, the primary benefit is that I no longer worry about the iso used to capture a photo. I have taken a few photos in near darkness with the OM-1 at an iso setting of 102,400 (the maximum) and the DxO PureRaw2 processed photos were clean and usable.They were also much better than my eyesight could see. Thank you for providing your information to the photography community. I enjoy your channel and have learned much from your presentations and analyses.
I have this 8mm fisheye for my Olympus cameras, and I also have a Sigma 15mm fisheye with adapter for my Sony full frame cameras. Bought for astrophotography. Despite the smaller pixel number and size, the Olympus wins for resolution. Okay, not a fair fight as the sigma is adapted and not made for mirrorless. Still, I believe it shows that the Olympus 8mm is an excellent lens. In addition, I have a housing and port to take the Olympus fisheye (and other lenses...each has a special port) underwater...and not my Sony gear. Close focus wide angle is a standard technique underwater. And smaller cameras and lenses means smaller (easier for travel and cheaper to buy also) underwater housings and ports. So, Olympus wins again!
I too have the Samyamg (same as Rokinon) lens. Fun when I use it, and I often guess the focus from the scale and move the camera. It is MUCH easier to visualise a wide shot with live conversion. I don't need wide angle perfection, and that unique OMD feature is making me consider this lens. Thanks for getting snowed on, so we don't have to, haha 😝
I have been using the FCON-T01 fisheye converter on my Olympus TG-5. I thought this would be a one-trick lens, but have found it to be more versatile than that. I have used it effectively for landscapes; it's even better for seascapes where there are no trees to reveal the lack of rectilinear correction. As long as the horizon is exactly centered on the vertical edge of the photo, the fisheye effect is not visible. Then again, I've made some landscapes where the curvature adds a hyper-real effect that I like. Also, the lens doesn't have the effect of stretching round objects near the corners of the image, which is so conspicuous with ultra wide rectilinear lenses. Again, if you keep trees and buildings out of the picture, the lack of elongation in the corners makes a convincing wide angel image which is perhaps more like human perception than with a rectilinear ultra wide lens. The fisheye lens is also great for closeups, as seen in your excellent video, Peter. Peter, I would love to see commentators having the ability to attach sample photos. Perhaps this would be unmanageable, but what if there was a limit of one photo per comment? Anyway, thanks for all the good work you are doing as a photography educator.
Thanks. I am not sure if UA-cam is planning on having images on comments. It might be good for photography channels, but not so sure for other channels.
I just borrowed a 3.5 mm fish eye and an 8 mm wide angle lens. Having fun experimenting with them. Perfect timing to watch your video. BTW, that was the narrowest bridge I have ever seen. You did well crossing it. LOL
This lens is so specialized, I have hesitated to pull the trigger on it yet. If I had more opportunities to do astro-photography, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
That's a very enjoyable, informative video. I have the 9mm bodycap lens which I find a bit limited, but fun. One day I might venture into the 8mm fisheye. Thanks. PS. I think the trees you are unsure about are silver birches.
It's a fun lens but expensive with limited value for many unless a fisheye look, the 180-degree perspective, or the non-macro close focus of 12 cm is a high priority. I did like your overhead tree shots and the shots of the car parts in the woods. I would see this as more useful for the interior of churches, for astrophotography, or as you suggested, for real estate marketing, where the f/1.8 and super-wide angle would be most helpful, than for landscape. I did not realize fisheye compensation/correction in camera on some Oly bodies or with Olympus Workspace was possible with this lens, so thanks for that. Nice overview.
I think this lens is very interesting. I was thinking about the 8-25 f4, but was expecting it to be more compact and a bit lighter. With the fisheye compensation I think this lens pairs well with a 12-40 2.8 or fast primes at least for stills. I guess it is only about 100 g lighter than the 8-25 however the form factor is a lot smaller it has f1.8 and I own it already.
Thanks for an informative video; made under difficult conditions. Extreme wide angles and fisheye lenses do not interest me much since cameras not have a panorama mode. But thanks any way.. I got some exposure to information I would not otherwise have encountered..
Great photos, at least the ones in the sunshine 😉 You are unlucky with the weather. With that wide angle and wide aperture, the lens would've been good in doors. You could've stayed dry while making the video too 😉 I previously had the Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 fisheye, the quality was excellent. But I sold it because I hardly ever used it. It is a very particular type of lens. I now have the Oly 9mm lens cap fisheye. This suits me better because I take it everywhere with me (it is tiny), useful for the odd fisheye picture.
I like the trees with the sky in the back ground I have the laowa 7.5mm Only thing I miss is focus stacking But is it really need on a wide angle lenses Cold there i live in eastern Oregon desert very windy here and cold in the winter
"Finding subjects is hard!" at 12:05, you said there wasn't anything interesting to shoot, but I would have crawled right inside that kids fort to get a "kid's eye" view of the world!
@@ForsgardPeter Yes, I'm not into muddy knees! One thing I do a lot with fisheyes are what I call "grab shots." I just stick the camera somewhere and trip the shutter - I don't look in the viewfinder; I don't even look at the rear screen. I've become rather good at estimating what I will get!
I actually love the crazy fisheye-video idea with the trees curving as you walk. Thank you Peter for the idea. I will try that. I hope to be able to share the finished filmidea to you too. What kind of Gimbal are you using when filming? What distans from you are the camera when walking under the trees?
Really wet and cold weather you have. No wonder Matti decided to take months off out if Finland that year. I have the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye. It has a downloadable Adobe Lens Profile for rectilinear correction. But I don't correct often, my fish is for creative images.
I’ve used a lot 7.5mm Samyang f/3.5 fisheye. We also shot some artistic portraits with it even tho the lens is definitely not for portraits at it is ultrawide lens. 😂
Thank you Peter for this video. You have given myself something to think about, rectilinear and soft captures, this is the first time I have come across this and with only 4 days to go before Olympus stop the cash back, what do I do? 12mm is my smallest lens and 8mm does appeal to myself plus the use of the fisheye inside Churches, cathedrals and other places of worship. I will see if you reply otherwise do I spend the money? Not sure at the moment.
It is hard to say for sure. If you feel like you need it and it will give you something that you have not been able to do before then yes get the lens. If you can manage to do everything you want whit what you have them do not get it.
Hi Peter Watching your video, i think the oly 9-18mm(although i only have the four third version) suites me better. But just for some fun, i do think i am going to get the oly 9mm f8 body cap lens as its not very expensive and will suite my needs
Åhhh, so sad. I forgot about the electrical contacts. Luckily I use the Olympus Workspace. Funny thing, I actually was going to take a hopefully corrected fish-eye photo tomorrow of a ceiling with famous pilot foot-prints. It's for a magazine. And I so far only have the bodycap 8mm. I hope it will allow me to take that environmentally difficult photo with High Resolution and and also remote control through the phone-app. I hope it'll work out.
Thanks for the review. You used the same lens in the recording? I wanted to get your perspective on the 8mm for use in talking head videos. I need a lens that is good for low light recording where I am unable to bring an artificial light source. Do you think this 8mm lens is good for talking head videos? Thank you.
The outdoor shots were shot with Insta360 Action cam. I think this lens is too wide for talking head videos. It is so wide that it suits more for a overall shot of the situation and an a B or C-cam.
I am using Insta 360 One X2. It sometimes has some problems with stitching. I used the GoPro Reframe for Premiere. Insta360 software seems to work a bit better. It is also possibile that a i had some boxes unchecked.
Hello Peter, great video. Thank you. I really like this lens, it is super sharp and so much fun to work with. However, just recently I have encountered issues when using Starry Sky AF. Pictures turn super soft and blurry. Tried everything settings-wise without any success. Are there any known incompatibilities when using this lens and Starry Sky AF?
I bought this after watching your last video. I like it. Still have not been able to take a lot of advantage of it...and I have the M5 mark ii so no in camera correction for me yet...
I love my 8mm f1.8, however it is not a lens I would recommend for anything other than professional use because it is so limited in usefulness that it is not good bang for the buck. Fisheyes tend to be novelty lenses for most people - they go out and shoot a half dozen images, go "oh wow" then never use the lens again. The 7-14mm f4 zoom from Panasonic is a far more useful lens. I assume the Olympus 7-14 f2.8 wouyld be just5 as useful, but bsuffers from being a bit too large. For me I justify owning the 8mm f1.8 Oly because it gets the extreme wide angles in interiors and the f1.8 gets shots in very dark interiors. It can also be good for cropping to panorama in post, and for vertical shots, but mostly it is rare to need it over the 7-14. 7-14 or Laowa 7.5 or 6mm lenses are all highly recommended, the 8mm 1.8, not so much.
The image quality of the video was very good, but that of the fisheye was very ambivalent: the "traditional" fisheye images of tree-domes were fine but those with a very near object focused on the backgroud was in a disturbingly nervous blurr and the colors of muddy brown. By the way you did not mention whether those corrected raw images in olympus workspace can be exported as raw files (which I honestly doubt).
@@mikejankowski6321 Tiff is as other formats at least practically an irreversible transformation of the raw image that is de-mosaicing, gamma correction, white point determination that is the very large space of different interpretations of a raw file are dramatically reduced forever! But further on tiffs can be losslessly operated upon contrary to jpegs. So besides the bit depth the color information for raw formats are directly encoded outside (Bayer XTrans filter) and are interpreted in a raw editor that is transformed into a jpeg (or 8-bit tiff) Thus not only dynamic range but also the color space is dramatically reduced. And even 16-bit Tiff files do not contain as much information as a raw file due to some decisions made as the setting of the black and white point, color temperature etc and due to such decisions are in the same way as the 8 bit files limited in the workability. Thus for a raw file there is an enormous amount of different interpretations (into jpegs or tiffs) to be done by a raw editor whereas encoded files only have a very limited range of such possibilities. And this it is the advantage of the raw format to exploit the contained information even though for any phase of elaboration only a subset can be depicted. And the information is not lost so you may decide to let another part of the information be visible. And because of the directly encoded colors the size of that 8-bit tiff files are up to 3 times larger than the raw files which fairly doubled for the 16 bit format.
To me, the market for a dedicated fisheye lens is too small to justify the price. I'd rather have a fisheye lens cap for a low price. I think there are other gaps in the MFT lens lineup that need more attention from the manufacturing companies than a fisheye.
@Rural Squirrel, I totally agree with you. Like car manufacturers, companies always seem to be chasing the 'high end' market, rather than satisfying the majority of their customers. As I'm a so-called "PRO", I'm pleased Olympus produced such fabulous PRO series lenses. But, the company and its customers would be better off with more affordable lenses that were weather-sealed. There's a famous saying, "the best is the enemy of the good". Olympus needs more "good" lenses rather than more of the "best" PRO series lenses. While the lenscap fisheye is a good introduction to fisheye photography, where's the affordable weather-sealed Olympus fisheye? Rick
@@rickbear7249 The key question is what they could omit to reduce the price without sacrificing the weather sealing or significant image quality. I read somewhere that the body cap fisheye is more a novelty than satisfying optic. So they would have to produce something in the middle and strike the right balance for the market.
![Olympus 17mm, 25mm and 45mm F1.8 - [Which One?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DfwnhP0szOo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Olympus 17mm, 25mm and 45mm F1.8 - [Which One?]](/img/tr.png)
Peter, you look to be enjoying yourself again in your videos. Good to have the fun Peter back, it's been a tough time what wit Covid and the OMDS uncertainty I'm sure.
Thanks! Spring is around the corner!
I own this lens and it's superb!!. Ultra sharp, light and small. I love it!
I have the Rokinon fisheye. It's all manual so that makes focus a bit difficult for extreme close-up but is otherwise not a problem. The low cost and light weight is a good tradeoff. My preferred fisheye subject is a big, dramatic sky. If you keep the horizon in the middle and crop the foreground it is often not obvious that a fisheye lens was used.
I have the 8mm and the 7-14mm. I love the 8mm for astrophotography. Its also fantastic for insects. Its also a great lens for real estate work.
The reason I went with the Olympus system. Wanted to use it for scuba diving. Still waiting to put it into action. Thanks for the review. Hope to get back to diving and test it out underwater.
I have the lens and the 100mm Zen port for a Nauticam housing. Close focus wide angle. It works well, just need interesting subject matter. The small dome travels well, but not so good for over/under shots.
Some very cool photos, especially the close ups! I got this lens for astrophotography last year but it is now one of my favourite lenses. The close up ability and the fisheye correction make it very versatile in Cityscapes/architecture too. You can get very creative with this lens as you can get crazy angles by going low etc. with it! 😀 But as you stated, if you want to have a super wide rectilinear lens, the 7-14 is the better choice. I like it for super wide landscapes too. If you use natural curves in your composition, you often don't see the picture was actually taken with the fisheye and cloud formations look awesome with this lens! 👌
Thanks for the review Peter.
I started with a fully manual budget fisheye 7,5mm at f3.5.
Last year I changed to the Olympus 8mm f1.8.
I still find it an amazing lens for landscape, close up and cities.
Feature missing on the 8mm is the manual focus clutch, especially to quickly adjust to hyperfocal distance.
Interesting that you find the foreground difficult. For me it's mostly the background making the fish eye photography difficult.
e.g a flower in the forground... But the houses in the background make the photo look messy afterwards...
Btw - the lens is as well a good match for Astro.
For landscape (if the spherical perspective is not desired) it's important to level it - so horizon stays flat, then it's even a good replacement for the 7-14mm.
I now own the 8mm fisheye and 7-14mm pro lenses; both have their uses and the fisheye is small enough to always have in my bag.
What I really like about using the Oly 8mm/f1.8 is using it in conjunction with HighRes mode. Due to the extra resolution defishing will work with good sharpness in the corners after downsampling to standard 20MP resolution. Alternatively one can crop the inner area of the corrected HighRes image, which will suffer way less softness due to defishing. That way the Oly 8mm FE turns into a post-zoom lens. At this point f1.8 really kicks in...
Great review, thanks for sharing!
Good points about the highres-mode.
Whenever I read F1.8 I retrieve my favorite experience with the legendary Olympus C5050 camera.
I use the 8mm fisheye for underwater photography and I am very happy with it. Very luminous and sharp images (only some problems at the edges of the images). I use also it for landscape photography. I never used the tools you suggested to rectify the images! Thanks for this suggestion. Thanks for all suggestions you provide
Peter, you got some great images again! I particularly liked the shot upwards surrounded by the trees and the closeup of the rusting truck remnants.
Thank you.
I own the 8mm for years now and it‘s my no.1 lens for wide landscspes. If you take care of the composition you won‘t need any corrections and the image won‘t look like having been taken with a fisheye 👍
I found a rare used copy of this, which is on its way! I've always been fascinated with fisheyes, and have owned over a half-dozen, including Laowa, Sigma, Meike, and Olympus. I find them really inspiring for changing the way I think about photography, especially when I'm in a "rut."
Just watching various reviews of Olympus' 8mm PRO fisheye reminded me of one of its exceptional features over other fisheye and super-wideangle lenses, that's it's handling of Flare!
If you get to own this lens you'll find that Flare is something that won't worry you. But step back to using the 7-14 PRO or other manufacturer's fisheye lenses and light Flare will become a serious problem.
If you're wondering whether it's worth paying the extra for Olympus' PRO fisheye, then this is what will make the Olympus lens 80% more usable than its cheaper competitors. You get what you pay for is absolutely true, and in the case of super wide-angle photography, it's that lack of Flare problems that makes this lens usable where others aren't. It's a HUGE difference in usability that I'd forgotten because Flare so seldom affects me.
Rick
I wish fisheye correction can be done for video too. That would make this len perfect
That is true. That would be a greta feature. It just might take too much processing power and it is not possible.
I think we would end up with canon r5/6 fireworks 😬
Front element size is one of the major reasons I started to use my Laowa 7.5 mm f2 lens instead of my Olympus 7-14.
It really catches much less moisture in those conditions.
(Smaller size was the other major reason. Much easier to take as on-board luggage or on-camera in a side pouch.)
Perfect lens for nightclub/disco photography and videography.
I agree.
Since commenting about my fisheye converter for TG-5, I have acquired the Olympus 8mm f1.8 Pro fisheye lens. It has a wider field of view than the converter, which is fun. But the biggest surprise is how well the fisheye correction works in the OM-1, making legitimate super-wide rectilinear photos that are sharp enough in the corners. I was going to buy a super wide zoom as well as the fish-eye, but for now, the fisheye, with three different rectilinear corrections, is more than adequate. I think this computational feature of the OM-1 would make an interesting video.
I love this lens for all sort of photography, either corrected or not. What this really needs is a mark 2 version with a dedicated defish button on the lens barrel. A switch to choose among the 3 defish settings would be even better. And a ring that controls defishing progressively would be unreally good.
Good idea.
I've rented the lens 3 years ago, and loved it so much, that I bought one couple of months later. Brilliant lens, love the fish-eye look und portraits.
Couldn't agree more!
I use mine for creative walkarounds and night sky. It came in handy during the Comet NEOWISE event last year. It's a lens that forces one to rethink image creation, and that's a fun and good thing.
I have both 8 mm and the 7-14mm wide
I tried the lens in a shopping mal for the elevators but was not so happy for the outcome (not a fault of the lens but the person behind it). Your video and the comments inspired me to give it another try. Thank you, Peter!
Go for it.
Finally ordered and I'll be able to play in the weekend 💪 can't wait for the aurora season to start 😍
Enjoy, hope you have some Auroras to photograph.
The fisheye 8mm lens is used for underwater photography to do CFWA and to photograph scenes that are very wide for a normal lens such as big wrecks underwater. Its use above water is much more limited than underwater.
Peter, as usual, thank you so much for your videos. I decided to pull the trigger on a barely used copy of this lens (only 380 euros!) after experimenting with the 8mm fisheye lens cap from Olympus. The latter was an excellent way to understand if I liked the fisheye effect and to test my ability to compose acceptable photos. I learned a lot with the fisheye cap, and now with my PRO, I want to step up a bit my game. I will also use it for astrophotography, one of my favourite subjects
You got a good deal. You have the 9mm Lens cap? It is quite fun lens.
@@ForsgardPeter yes I do! Although I was using it more on my Pen-F that I sold few months ago. For the price (I paid it around 80 eur) it is a bargain
, fun little lens, perfect to introduce newbies like me to fisheyes.
Peter, as someone who fell in love with fisheye lenses back in the 1980s, I strongly advise that you will find it much easier to find appropriate fisheye images within a city-scape environment rather than a land-scape environment. Signage and things like a car wing mirror in the foreground, with the fabulous city panorama as your backdrop. Ferry boats and public transport (e.g. trains or trams) also provide great opportunities, where features of the boat provide foreground interest, with the river or harbour as your panoramic backdrop.
Fisheye lenses can produce fabulous images but, as they capture an extreme view, it does take practice. And, don't forget, cropping the raw images will add further possibilities. (You don't always need the full 360° fisheye backdrop to nicely offset the fisheye's almost magnified subject close-up.) This is where the superb optical quality of the Olympus 8mm fisheye will reveal itself, as cropping requires superb optics where you really will see the difference between a cheaper fisheye and the superb PRO series Olympus lens.
You'll also find more shelter and places to sit for a coffee or a beer in a cityscape.
Rick
I got a 15mm fisheye when I was shooting APS-C, and the crop factor yielded wide images that had significantly reduced distortion, although definitely not rectilinear. Made it a decent ultra wide, so your point is a good one. Eventually got a FF to get the full effect. Been mulling this one for a while.
@@mikejankowski6321 the 8mm is a superb lens. Ideally, you'd want both the 8mm PRO and the 7-14mm PRO, as they both have their advantages. One thing I can promise is that the 8mm won't disappoint; it's a fabulous lens.
If I had to choose between the 8mm fisheye or the 7-14mm rectangular zoom, I'd be hard pressed. They're each so useful in different ways, but I'd probably choose the 8mm fisheye because (once you get to know how and where to use it) it produces such eye-catching results.
Rick
@@rickbear7249 Have to say I like that ideal scenario! Of course, I am also considering the Pana-Leica 8-18 for its non-protruding front element with minor FoV loss. Choices, choices.
Thanks Rick for your thoughts. I totally agree that I would have been easier to go to the city. That is why I tried something different. I like challenges.
I just bought one. It is a fun lens I have only had it for a week. So only been out with it once. Everytime I get a new lens, I have to learn to “see” with it.
That is an important thing. You need to learn to see with a lens. That is why sometimes to use only one focal length for a while.
I am using Body Cap Lens 9mm f8 fisheye. I love it to take buildings and city landscape. Never done any fish eye correction because the fish eye look make it unique photos. The color is a little bit pale and Purple Fringing is quiet dramatic. But it is still a very good body cap.
Thanks for making the video, Peter.
I suspect that many people may be nervous of buying this lens but they shouldn't be; it is very versatile.
I mostly use mine for 360° panoramas and interior shots. For interiors, I use the adaptive wide angle tool in Photoshop to remove distortion and get an effectively rectilinear image with excellent sharpness.
After watching this video I just ordered the 8mm f/1.8 Pro. With paying no sales taxes in Guernsey and the £125 money back I was able to get this delivered for under £500 so I've fallen to temptation and will have it by Friday.
I was dithering between this and the 7-14mm f/2.8 but there were 2 clinching reasons for the 8mm prime. 1) It's a faster lens f/1.8 v f/2.8 and 2) when the image is defished, the 8mm is quite a bit wider than the 7mm - go figure but it is. Looking forward to having a play with my new lens at the weekend.
Great! Have fun!
I have previously used Nikon 10,5mm for cropped sensor and Nikon 16mm fisheyes - the 10,5 was more fun. I sold all that gear and went to M4/3. I was happy to discover that the Olympus 8mm is very much fun to use. I use it for interior shots and landscape. Very sharp and punchy. I own the 8mm body cap - well I don't know about that. At least it's small! And the weather looks a lot like Denmark :-)
Hi Peter: I received the Zuiko F1.8 8mm fish eye Pro today and have captured a few dozen jpeg and raw landscape images over the last couple of hours. I purchased this lens partially on your recomendation and also purchased the DxO PureRaw2 software, again partially on your recommendation. My brief analysis follows.
Your analyses and recommendations were correct and accurate. The images taken with this lens both uncorrected and lens distortion corrected are very sharp, in both cases with automatic or manual focusing, I look forward to many creative photos in the future.
I made a few observations based on limited testing that you many find interesting or probably already know. I found that the DxO PureRaw2 lens distortion correction results in a wider field of view and a better photograph that the OM-1 in camera distortion correction and the distortion correction performed by the OM Workspace software. This ability alone makes the DxO software worth purchasing if one owns the F1.8 mm fish eye lens but of course, the primary benefit is that I no longer worry about the iso used to capture a photo. I have taken a few photos in near darkness with the OM-1 at an iso setting of 102,400 (the maximum) and the DxO PureRaw2 processed photos were clean and usable.They were also much better than my eyesight could see.
Thank you for providing your information to the photography community. I enjoy your channel and have learned much from your presentations and analyses.
Thank you very much. Congrats, you got yourself a very nice lens. Hope you have a lot of fun with it > great photographs will follow.
I have the old 8mm f 3.5 that works well on OMD. I use it for its surreal dream-like quality I can bring to urban images.
I have this 8mm fisheye for my Olympus cameras, and I also have a Sigma 15mm fisheye with adapter for my Sony full frame cameras. Bought for astrophotography. Despite the smaller pixel number and size, the Olympus wins for resolution. Okay, not a fair fight as the sigma is adapted and not made for mirrorless. Still, I believe it shows that the Olympus 8mm is an excellent lens. In addition, I have a housing and port to take the Olympus fisheye (and other lenses...each has a special port) underwater...and not my Sony gear. Close focus wide angle is a standard technique underwater. And smaller cameras and lenses means smaller (easier for travel and cheaper to buy also) underwater housings and ports. So, Olympus wins again!
I enjoyed the video and images, very nice. The fisheye I use is colossal, and for 6x6 medium format. They can be very interesting lenses.
I too have the Samyamg (same as Rokinon) lens.
Fun when I use it, and I often guess the focus from the scale and move the camera.
It is MUCH easier to visualise a wide shot with live conversion.
I don't need wide angle perfection, and that unique OMD feature is making me consider this lens.
Thanks for getting snowed on, so we don't have to, haha 😝
😂👍
I have been using the FCON-T01 fisheye converter on my Olympus TG-5. I thought this would be a one-trick lens, but have found it to be more versatile than that. I have used it effectively for landscapes; it's even better for seascapes where there are no trees to reveal the lack of rectilinear correction. As long as the horizon is exactly centered on the vertical edge of the photo, the fisheye effect is not visible. Then again, I've made some landscapes where the curvature adds a hyper-real effect that I like. Also, the lens doesn't have the effect of stretching round objects near the corners of the image, which is so conspicuous with ultra wide rectilinear lenses. Again, if you keep trees and buildings out of the picture, the lack of elongation in the corners makes a convincing wide angel image which is perhaps more like human perception than with a rectilinear ultra wide lens. The fisheye lens is also great for closeups, as seen in your excellent video, Peter.
Peter, I would love to see commentators having the ability to attach sample photos. Perhaps this would be unmanageable, but what if there was a limit of one photo per comment?
Anyway, thanks for all the good work you are doing as a photography educator.
Thanks. I am not sure if UA-cam is planning on having images on comments. It might be good for photography channels, but not so sure for other channels.
I just borrowed a 3.5 mm fish eye and an 8 mm wide angle lens. Having fun experimenting with them. Perfect timing to watch your video. BTW, that was the narrowest bridge I have ever seen. You did well crossing it. LOL
Thanks. Yes it was a bit narrow. It went ok.
This lens is so specialized, I have hesitated to pull the trigger on it yet. If I had more opportunities to do astro-photography, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
It is very good for astro photography too.
That's a very enjoyable, informative video. I have the 9mm bodycap lens which I find a bit limited, but fun. One day I might venture into the 8mm fisheye. Thanks.
PS. I think the trees you are unsure about are silver birches.
Thanks.
It's a fun lens but expensive with limited value for many unless a fisheye look, the 180-degree perspective, or the non-macro close focus of 12 cm is a high priority. I did like your overhead tree shots and the shots of the car parts in the woods. I would see this as more useful for the interior of churches, for astrophotography, or as you suggested, for real estate marketing, where the f/1.8 and super-wide angle would be most helpful, than for landscape. I did not realize fisheye compensation/correction in camera on some Oly bodies or with Olympus Workspace was possible with this lens, so thanks for that. Nice overview.
Thank you.
I think this lens is very interesting. I was thinking about the 8-25 f4, but was expecting it to be more compact and a bit lighter. With the fisheye compensation I think this lens pairs well with a 12-40 2.8 or fast primes at least for stills. I guess it is only about 100 g lighter than the 8-25 however the form factor is a lot smaller it has f1.8 and I own it already.
Thanks for an informative video; made under difficult conditions. Extreme wide angles and fisheye lenses do not interest me much since cameras not have a panorama mode. But thanks any way.. I got some exposure to information I would not otherwise have encountered..
Thanks!
Great photos, at least the ones in the sunshine 😉 You are unlucky with the weather. With that wide angle and wide aperture, the lens would've been good in doors. You could've stayed dry while making the video too 😉
I previously had the Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 fisheye, the quality was excellent. But I sold it because I hardly ever used it. It is a very particular type of lens. I now have the Oly 9mm lens cap fisheye. This suits me better because I take it everywhere with me (it is tiny), useful for the odd fisheye picture.
I like the trees with the sky in the back ground
I have the laowa 7.5mm
Only thing I miss is focus stacking
But is it really need on a wide angle lenses
Cold there i live in eastern Oregon desert very windy here and cold in the winter
It depends if you do a lot of close-up, it might. If not then most likely not.
Interesting images Peter !!
Thanks.
"Finding subjects is hard!" at 12:05, you said there wasn't anything interesting to shoot, but I would have crawled right inside that kids fort to get a "kid's eye" view of the world!
I thought of that. The reason I did not was that it was very low and the ground was all wet. Like always I did not have proper clothes...
@@ForsgardPeter Yes, I'm not into muddy knees!
One thing I do a lot with fisheyes are what I call "grab shots." I just stick the camera somewhere and trip the shutter - I don't look in the viewfinder; I don't even look at the rear screen. I've become rather good at estimating what I will get!
I love mine 8mm :) Great review Peter :)
Thanks 👍
Fisheyes are really difficult from a creative point of view. It was nice to see those close-ups. But I agree, wheater and subject were not ideal.
Thank you very much... 👍👍👍🙏 "Saludos... 👋👋😃 "
I actually love the crazy fisheye-video idea with the trees curving as you walk. Thank you Peter for the idea.
I will try that. I hope to be able to share the finished filmidea to you too. What kind of Gimbal are you using when filming? What distans from you are the camera when walking under the trees?
I used Insta 360 One X2 for the filming outside.
I have the 9mm body cap lens, I like it but I haven't used it as much as I thought I would
Really wet and cold weather you have. No wonder Matti decided to take months off out if Finland that year. I have the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye. It has a downloadable Adobe Lens Profile for rectilinear correction. But I don't correct often, my fish is for creative images.
Yes, there weather is quite horrifying. It can be rain or snow or sun in the same hour.
I’ve used a lot 7.5mm Samyang f/3.5 fisheye. We also shot some artistic portraits with it even tho the lens is definitely not for portraits at it is ultrawide lens. 😂
Thank you Peter for this video. You have given myself something to think about, rectilinear and soft captures, this is the first time I have come across this and with only 4 days to go before Olympus stop the cash back, what do I do? 12mm is my smallest lens and 8mm does appeal to myself plus the use of the fisheye inside Churches, cathedrals and other places of worship. I will see if you reply otherwise do I spend the money? Not sure at the moment.
It is hard to say for sure. If you feel like you need it and it will give you something that you have not been able to do before then yes get the lens. If you can manage to do everything you want whit what you have them do not get it.
Hi Peter Watching your video, i think the oly 9-18mm(although i only have the four third version) suites me better. But just for some fun, i do think i am going to get the oly 9mm f8 body cap lens as its not very expensive and will suite my needs
This 8mm 1.8 looks almost like a fisheye 😎 (and I mean that as a compliment)
Great len ps.I use most of the time I am in door (bulding)
Hi Peter, cannot find a review of the 17.5 to 45mm len,s, realise it,s a vintage len,s, but really handy focal lenth,s, have you any experience?
Unfortunately, I do not have any experience with that lens.
That in camera fisheye correction is pretty neat. Does it work for the 9mm Oly bodycap lens too?
Most likely not. The 9mm Fish-Eye does not have any electricity going to camera.
Åhhh, so sad. I forgot about the electrical contacts. Luckily I use the Olympus Workspace.
Funny thing, I actually was going to take a hopefully corrected fish-eye photo tomorrow of a ceiling with famous pilot foot-prints. It's for a magazine. And I so far only have the bodycap 8mm. I hope it will allow me to take that environmentally difficult photo with High Resolution and and also remote control through the phone-app.
I hope it'll work out.
Hello 👋 I have a question for you about Fisheye Compensation can use to video mode? I need to buy this one for vlogging.
I believe it is only when photographing. Compensation can be done in editing.
Hi. How does the 8mm compare to the 7-14mm F2.8 in star, landscape and architecture/real estate photography?
I have not tested them side by side. I do have a few videos of both of them. The best way to watch them is to make a search in my channel.
Thanks for the review. You used the same lens in the recording? I wanted to get your perspective on the 8mm for use in talking head videos. I need a lens that is good for low light recording where I am unable to bring an artificial light source.
Do you think this 8mm lens is good for talking head videos?
Thank you.
The outdoor shots were shot with Insta360 Action cam. I think this lens is too wide for talking head videos. It is so wide that it suits more for a overall shot of the situation and an a B or C-cam.
Thank you.
Thanks Peter. BTW, what’s the 360 camera you’ re using to film yourself ? Stitching issue it seems..
I am using Insta 360 One X2. It sometimes has some problems with stitching. I used the GoPro Reframe for Premiere. Insta360 software seems to work a bit better. It is also possibile that a i had some boxes unchecked.
@@ForsgardPeter ok thanks !
@@ForsgardPeter OK thanks
Hello Peter, great video. Thank you. I really like this lens, it is super sharp and so much fun to work with. However, just recently I have encountered issues when using Starry Sky AF. Pictures turn super soft and blurry. Tried everything settings-wise without any success. Are there any known incompatibilities when using this lens and Starry Sky AF?
I have not tested it with Starry AF. I do not own the fish-eye. Have you tested Starry-AF with other lenses?
@@ForsgardPeter Thanks for your kind reply. Starry Sky AF works with other lenses on my E-M1 III just fine. So I presume it is an issue with the lens?
@@andreask.3752 did you fix your problem? :( do you have Samyang 7.5mm f3.5 ?
I bought this after watching your last video. I like it. Still have not been able to take a lot of advantage of it...and I have the M5 mark ii so no in camera correction for me yet...
I am waiting to travel...still on lockdown here in Panama.
I hope things get better soon.
how about the lens correction in Lightroom?
You could use that too. I have not tried it to defish images from 8mm.
Weather looks like a lot like Alberta, Canada.
Most likely we quite similar weather. It gives some variety, but to be honest not a big fan of winter.
I love my 8mm f1.8, however it is not a lens I would recommend for anything other than professional use because it is so limited in usefulness that it is not good bang for the buck. Fisheyes tend to be novelty lenses for most people - they go out and shoot a half dozen images, go "oh wow" then never use the lens again. The 7-14mm f4 zoom from Panasonic is a far more useful lens. I assume the Olympus 7-14 f2.8 wouyld be just5 as useful, but bsuffers from being a bit too large. For me I justify owning the 8mm f1.8 Oly because it gets the extreme wide angles in interiors and the f1.8 gets shots in very dark interiors. It can also be good for cropping to panorama in post, and for vertical shots, but mostly it is rare to need it over the 7-14.
7-14 or Laowa 7.5 or 6mm lenses are all highly recommended, the 8mm 1.8, not so much.
Ok, I'll not use it for video 😳 getting seasick 😂🤣 it's also great for diving, I've heard 😊
Hopefully I'll get it at Xmas 😅
Fisheye lenses are my favourite. Sadly the use cases for the lens are to far in between.
And the question is; Cavani will get a winner to MU Victory? :) Good video greetings
I am not sure if you wrote this before it actually happened. 😀
@@ForsgardPeterYes! Just before! Jaja, he is from here, Uruguay, I new it! 😁
The image quality of the video was very good, but that of the fisheye was very ambivalent: the "traditional" fisheye images of tree-domes were fine but those with a very near object focused on the backgroud was in a disturbingly nervous blurr and the colors of muddy brown.
By the way you did not mention whether those corrected raw images in olympus workspace can be exported as raw files (which I honestly doubt).
Thanks. The image can only be exported as jpg or tiff.
@@ForsgardPeter How disagreeable is a TIFF compared to a Raw?
@@mikejankowski6321 Tiff is as other formats at least practically an irreversible transformation of the raw image that is de-mosaicing, gamma correction, white point determination that is the very large space of different interpretations of a raw file are dramatically reduced forever! But further on tiffs can be losslessly operated upon contrary to jpegs. So besides the bit depth the color information for raw formats are directly encoded outside (Bayer XTrans filter) and are interpreted in a raw editor that is transformed into a jpeg (or 8-bit tiff) Thus not only dynamic range but also the color space is dramatically reduced. And even 16-bit Tiff files do not contain as much information as a raw file due to some decisions made as the setting of the black and white point, color temperature etc and due to such decisions are in the same way as the 8 bit files limited in the workability.
Thus for a raw file there is an enormous amount of different interpretations (into jpegs or tiffs) to be done by a raw editor whereas encoded files only have a very limited range of such possibilities.
And this it is the advantage of the raw format to exploit the contained information even though for any phase of elaboration only a subset can be depicted. And the information is not lost so you may decide to let another part of the information be visible.
And because of the directly encoded colors the size of that 8-bit tiff files are up to 3 times larger than the raw files which fairly doubled for the 16 bit format.
@11:40 those are birch trees
Thanks. I was pretty sure that I got the english word for "koivu" wrong.
wide lens = wild lens
at least for me
from point of view: that is not so easy to do "domestic" photo with that lens
suffering for your art
To me, the market for a dedicated fisheye lens is too small to justify the price. I'd rather have a fisheye lens cap for a low price. I think there are other gaps in the MFT lens lineup that need more attention from the manufacturing companies than a fisheye.
@Rural Squirrel, I totally agree with you. Like car manufacturers, companies always seem to be chasing the 'high end' market, rather than satisfying the majority of their customers. As I'm a so-called "PRO", I'm pleased Olympus produced such fabulous PRO series lenses. But, the company and its customers would be better off with more affordable lenses that were weather-sealed. There's a famous saying, "the best is the enemy of the good". Olympus needs more "good" lenses rather than more of the "best" PRO series lenses. While the lenscap fisheye is a good introduction to fisheye photography, where's the affordable weather-sealed Olympus fisheye?
Rick
@@rickbear7249 The key question is what they could omit to reduce the price without sacrificing the weather sealing or significant image quality. I read somewhere that the body cap fisheye is more a novelty than satisfying optic. So they would have to produce something in the middle and strike the right balance for the market.
Uch
Silver Birch
Thank you.