On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:30:17 -0500, "DJA" wrote:

>I thought I understood the difference between a rectilinear lens and a
>fisheye (full frame), but maybe there are degrees of fisheye curvature.
>
>I may be able to get my hands on a Yashica 15mm fisheye. After some
>research, the photos from this lens look very much like a rectilinear lens,
>i.e. no very distorted rounded lines near the corners. Here are some shots
>from this lens (not mine) and the landscapes look undistorted. The interior
>shots are curved walls so it's hard to determine the amount of distortion.
>
>http://home.attbi.com/~1dja/photos.htm
>
>Does anyone have this lens and can you comment on the amount of
>"fisheyeness"? Any other comments are welcome.

Generally, "fisheye" lenses have full spherical
perspective (as do, surprisingly, many 35mm and
50mm speed lenses for 35mm SLRs - it is easier to
make good lenses with this perspective type, and
over relatively narrow angles the "fisheye" effects
are minimal...). I looked at the photos at the URL
above (several are very nice, BTW - especially
the fisheye images), and they show the usual effects,
which can work well with landscapes. Fisheyes are
more "kind" to rounded forms (like people) than
"rectangular"-perspective super-wides are - and
fisheyes show less foreground-to-background
proportion shifts. Used with care (and remembering
that straight lines, like horizon lines, remain
straight if they pass through the center of the
image), fisheyes work well for many types of
photography (and, BTW, "spherical"-perspective is
the way we see, contrary to popular opinion...;-).
For more on spherical and rectangular perspectives,
and on seeing, see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective
(wait for the page to load enough to jump to the
proper place automatically...)
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/perspective-correction.htm