Wednesday, 18 September 2019

Olympus 9mm f/8.0 Fisheye Body Cap Lens


Birds do it, bees do it - even educated fleas do it. Let's do it! Let's have a look at the Olympus 9mm f/8.0 Fisheye Body Cap Lens. It's a novelty lens sold by Olympus for the Micro Four Thirds system. It doubles as a fisheye lens and as a lens cap body cap. It's not a lens cap, is it? It has a lens cap. It's a body cap. It's a lens that doubles as a body cap.

As a body cap it's so-so, but as a fisheye lens it's surprisingly good, especially given that it costs less than a hundred English pounds. It looks like this:



Now, I get no kick from champagne - mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all - but what I do enjoy is stretching out fisheye images with software. The end result is a very wide field of view albeit with blurry edges. Here are some images taken with a fisheye lens that have been stretched out with software:




Ultrawide images do something to me, something that simply mystifies me. I think it's because I grew up with 3D video games, and I'm used to vanishing point perspective and blocky shapes.

The images above were all shot with a Canon 5D, a heavy full-frame SLR using a full-frame fisheye lens, but what if there was a lighter, smaller option? Such as for example the Olympus 9mm fisheye body cap? What if it existed, which it does?


Some of the ceilings of the Doge's Palace, taken with this lens, using the E-PL1's right-angle viewfinder.

Furthermore I've long been curious about the Micro Four Thirds system, and used examples of the early twelve megapixel bodies have come down in price, so here we are. The Micro Four Thirds system has a limited number of ultrawide lenses, and so the 9mm fisheye body cap can be used as a left-field choice if you want pocket-sized ultrawide coverage in that format.

It has to be said that if you crop off off the outer 20% of the image the fisheye effect is greatly diminished. You end up with something that's still very wide and more than large enough for Instagram. If you use the camera's JPG engine to crop the images square, eliminating the left and right sides entirely, landscapes barely look fisheye at all:



The 9mm fisheye is sold as a novelty. It's not listed in the "lens" section of the company's website, instead it's buried away in the "accessories" section. The optical elements are made out of glass rather than plastic, and the image quality is legitimately, genuinely good - not fuzzy like a Holga. for example. In fact the lens is surprisingly delightful, delicious, delectable, skip a few, de-lovely.




Mechanically it's really simple. The aperture is fixed at f/8 and it only has three focusing positions, of which infinity and the middle position are essentially the same. If you push the focus lever past infinity a sliding cap covers the tiny front element. The overall arrangement reminds me a bit of the old Olympus XA, with its sliding cover and pushy-pully rangefinder lever.

EXIF? No, but given that it's always 9mm and always f/8 that's not a big loss. In-body image stabilisation? Only if you enable it manually, and I didn't bother.


The Teatro Olimpico in Vincenza, which has an early example of forced perspective.

In olden days the idea of composing at f/8 was looked on as something shocking, but with a gain-boosted electronic viewfinder it's relatively simple. With electronic viewfinders you could say that anything goes, although sadly the E-PL1 doesn't have an electronic spirit level.



Cole Porter didn't write any songs about computerised perspective correction, but if he had done so this paragraph would have some lyrics from one of those songs. The pictures below illustrate three options open to the fisheye photographer. The first image hasn't been corrected at all. As you can see it has the bulged look of fisheye images.


In the following image the distortion has been corrected, which cuts off some of the left and right sides but still leaves a very wide field of view.


The final image has been corrected for perspective as well, so that it looks a bit like Doom, but without hellslime or imps etc:


The results aren't pretty up-close, but very few things are pretty up-close.

Shot from a train coming home from Feltre, north-east Italy. The 9mm fisheye would probably be very good for action sports videos - BASE jumping, paragliding and stuff like that.

In my experience fisheye lenses tend to be extremely sharp in the middle. There's something deep in the heart of them, that's really a part of them, that goes over my head but probably has something to do with a relatively simple lens construction and a total lack of geometric correction, and also massive depth of field.

The four images below demonstrate central sharpness, which is very good. They've been stretched, but not sharpened, and there's no noise reduction. The original files are 12mp. The E-PL1 has a 12mp sensor that was ubiquitous during the early years of Micro Four Thirds.





With a bit of sharpening they would really take off. In the middle of the last picture is the MS Sirena, which first set sail in 1999 and allows 800 people to tick Dubrovnik and Venice off their bucket list. In the photograph above it's just about to sail past San Giorgio Maggiore to parts east.

On a complete tangent, if you're at the top of San Giorgio Maggiore's bell tower and a cruise liner sails by, and you're carrying a Canon 300mm f/4 IS, it looks like this:








You and I babe / we'll be riding high, babe / every care is gone / from this moment on

Isn't it great that the liner has a huge television screen? That way the passengers will always have something to look at. But I digress.





How does the Olympus 9mm compare with full-frame fisheye lenses? In terms of wideness it's on a par with a full-frame 15-16mm fisheye, such as the popular Zenitar. As with all the fisheye lenses I have used the big issue is colour fringing at the edges of the image, both purple and multi-coloured. This can be fixed with software, preferably before you stretch out the image (otherwise you stretch out the colour fringing as well and it becomes massive), although purple fringing is harder and involves fiddling with the hue and saturation controls. Beyond that, the only thing full-frame lenses really gain is speed - most of them open up to f/2.8 or so. It's easy to handhold fisheye images and if you're a perfectionist you'll be using a tripod with a spirit level, so speed isn't a huge advantage.

The other big issue with fisheye images is dynamic range. If you're outdoors the image will have a lot of sky, and you can't use graduated filters because fisheye lenses bulge out. You could in theory use filters with the Olympus 9mm, but it doesn't have a filter thread. I imagine it wouldn't be hard to Jerry-build one, although given the tiny front element I surmise that a graduated filter would need a very sharp dividing line. I could be wrong.


This raises the question of whether I could use this lens plus a Micro Four Thirds body as a dedicated fisheye camera, to which the answer is probably yes, although the E-PL1 is behind the curve. It's almost a decade old. ISO 1600 is grainy albeit that colour noise is low, and frustratingly the E-PL1 doesn't have any kind of remote shutter release and only brackets by a stop each way. I'll write more about the E-PL1 at some point.


In summary the 9mm fisheye body cap is surprisingly good. It's a lot better than the conceptually similar 3.2mm fisheye for the Pentax Q system, optically not quite as good as the Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5, but a lot cheaper. And it's a body cap as well! The mind boggles.

Sunday, 8 September 2019

Canon 300mm f/4 IS + EF 1.4x Mk II Extender


Let's have a look at the Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. It's a teleconverter that multiplies the focal length of a lens by 1.4. It turns a 300mm lens into a 420mm, a 70-200mm zoom into a 98-280mm, a 100-400mm into a 140-560mm, and if you attach it to Daniel Radcliffe he becomes Elijah Wood.

I was curious to see what it was like with my Canon 300mm f/4 IS. A 1.4x teleconverter turns the 300mm f/4 into a 420mm f/5.6, which is essentially the same as the Canon 400mm f/5.6, but with image stabilisation and a closer minimum focus distance. Are the results any good? Yes, surprisingly so, although I can't compare the image quality directly with a 400mm f/5.6 because I don't have one.

It's Brad Pitt, again, shot with a 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4x MkII at the 2019 Venice Film Festival.

These people were much closer, and didn't need teleconverters.

Teleconverters are controversial. There has always been something grubby about them. They're a lot cheaper than going up a focal length, and you can choose not to carry around the extra weight and bulk of a longer lens, but on the negative side they exaggerate a lens' optical deficiencies and add some of their own, and furthermore they take away some of the light.

A 1.4x teleconverter turns an f/4 lens into an f/5.6 lens and a 2x teleconverter turns the same lens into an f/8, which is awkward because some camera bodies have trouble focusing with dim lenses. If it's a bright sunny crisp clear beautiful lovely day and the birds are singing a pretty song and there's music in the air the loss of light isn't a huge problem, but what if you live in England?

What happens is that people buy the cheapest telephoto lens they can afford because they feel they need a telephoto lens, and then they decide to try out birdwatching or something, but the lens isn't long enough, so they buy the cheapest 2x teleconverter they can afford, and the end results look awful, so teleconverters get a bum rap.

You and I are not like them, we are better. I'm fortunate to have such good readers. For this post I used a moderately long teleconverter with a very good lens in optimal conditions, and the results were good, as I will demonstrate in just a few short paragraphs.

The MSC Musica. It has a giant video screen so that you can watch television while floating in the pool.

This is not Brad Pitt.

So far Canon has released three 1.4x extenders for the EOS range, alongside a parallel range of 2.0x models. The original came out in 1988; the Mark II version came out in 2001 and added weather sealing; the Mark III was released in 2010, and had a different optical layout and improved anti-smear coatings.

Each mark is apparently optically and electronically better than the last, although from the tests I have seen on the internet the difference is very small. The Mark II version stands out on the used market because it's not much more expensive than the Mark I, and it's the oldest model with a weather seal. The seal only makes a difference if the lens itself has rubber gaskets - the 300mm f/4 doesn't - but I have other lenses.

A 1.4x MkII attached to a 300mm f/4 IS.

Of note Canon's teleconverters only work with certain lenses. Consider the following image:


On the left is the 1.4x, on the right a Canon 100mm f/2, which would become a 140mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter. As you can see the 100mm f/2's rear element is too close for the mount for the lens to physically connect with the teleconverter, and the pin arrangement is slightly different.

In contrast the 300mm f/4 has more than enough space for the 1.4x to fit, and it has the right number of pins:


There are complexities. Third-party teleconverters from Kenko and Sigma etc have a different physical design that will attach to the 100mm f/2, although I have no idea how well the autofocus works. Canon's extenders generally work with all of the longer L-series zooms and primes, but there are a handful of exceptions, notably the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L, which has an inner lens tube that hits Canon's extenders when zoomed out wider than 50mm or so. Canon's Mark II 1.4x and 2.0x extenders can be stacked on top of each other, but I surmise that the results would not be pretty.

In theory the 1.4x reduces the camera's autofocus speed, but in practice with my 300mm f/4 the speed went from being very fast to being merely fast, so I didn't notice any difference. The image stabilisation continue to work.

What's it like? Is it sharp in the middle? Yes, or at least sharp enough. Contemplate the following images:



I have no idea who these people are. Perhaps they're famous in Italy. At the top is the whole frame at 420mm f/5.6 shot with a Canon 5D MkII, at bottom is a 100% crop, without any sharpening.

Here's St Mark's Square, also at 420mm f/5.6, ISO 100, with image stabilisation, off the top of my head 1/180th or so:


The lack of contrast probably has more to do with the dim light and distance than the teleconverter. The top-left corner has some CA, but with Photoshop it could probably be massaged into something decent, and it has to be said that unless you're doing astrophotography the corner will be out of the plane of focus most of the time:


The centre is fine, although again it might benefit from some sharpening, noise reduction, and a contrast boost:


The combination of 420mm and f/5.6 doesn't lend itself to blurring out the background, unless the subject is very close:


I mention that teleconverters exaggerate a lens' deficiencies. The 300mm f/4 IS tends to have purple-red colour fringing on high-contrast edges, and it's exaggerated with the teleconverter:



Incidentally in the background there's a car ferry. Venice's main island doesn't have cars, but the Lido that shields Venice from the sea is large enough to have roads and buses. If the residents of the Lido want to visit the rest of the Italy by car they have to take a ferry across the lagoon. Venice is massively awkward and weird and yet people go there, so it's a paradox.

Again, I have no idea who these people are.

Also incidentally telephoto and super-telephoto lenses are good for panoramas. You have to take lots of images to get any kind of coverage, but on the positive side the combination of consistent across-the-frame image quality, low vignetting when stopped down, low distortion, and flat perspective lend themselves to stitching images together. Just for the sake of heck I tried to capture an ocean liner off in the distance with three shots side-by-side:


You can see one of the joins in the left side of the main dome. I could have fixed it, but I didn't. Why? Nothing has a reason. It's all arbitrary.





Imagine being a waterbus driver in Venice. It requires a certain amount of skill, a certain amount of brute force, you can wear sunglasses, the scenery is nice, albeit that you probably aren't paid enough to live in Venice, so you have to get up at 05:00 every day and commute, and eventually all of the waterbuses will be automated, at which point you'll become an unemployed fat drunk, and then you'll die in an overcrowded slum far away from Venice.

But the same is true of everyone. We are a race of microscopic bugs that grow and thrive in a small puddle of water, but the puddle is slowly evaporating, and one day all of the puddles will be gone. The best we can hope for is to die before the end. What about f/6.3 or f/8 or the other apertures? I shot a few images stopped-down but the results were almost indistinguishable from wide open, and I couldn't be sure if the differences were because of the teleconverter or a shaky lens or slight differences in focus. Ultimately I conclude that with a 300mm f/4 IS the Canon 1.4x MkII extender is essentially transparent, e.g. it degrades the corners slightly but otherwise makes the image no worse, and you can shoot wide open without wasting your time.