8-15mm vs xtreme

[allenalexander]

Has anyone compared the 8-15 to xtreme side by side, curious which one is wider showing the same amount of vig.

[curb_cut]

commenting to bump this.

I feel they are pretty close but would be dope to see a side by side comparison

[allenalexander]

I ended up buying an xtreme and did some comparisons. It is a quite different lens but I have found a way to match pretty damn close. By filming wider and distorting it in post you can match the distortion as well as keep the vertical height. Without this, the 8-15 has quite less room up and down. This test includes the AF100 with 8-15 and I think it is a good alternative to the xtreme with its ergonomics and colors.

Here are 2 unlisted links for the test.

[35mm]

Thanks for the comparison!

Would you say that they have the same diagonal field of view?

I can see that the canon 8-15 gives more image area to whatever is directly or almost directly in front of it while the things that are to the sides get more compressed in a smaller area. This is why the chair and the window look smaller than in the xtreme image while the railing looks bigger. A consequence of this is that the vertical angle is smaller.

A big offender of doing this, even more exaggerated, is the opteka fisheye. A lot of the angle captured is very compressed in the outer region of the image. This is why the opteka doesn't look good imo. See example.



On the other side the xtreme gives more area to the things that are to the sides while the center gets a little bit smaller consequently. The vertical angle is bigger as you have stated. The overall distortion of the image is a little bit less though.

[allenalexander]

Thanks for the comparison!

Would you say that they have the same diagonal field of view?

I can see that the canon 8-15 gives more image area to whatever is directly or almost directly in front of it while the things that are to the sides get more compressed in a smaller area. This is why the chair and the window look smaller than in the xtreme image while the railing looks bigger. A consequence of this is that the vertical angle is smaller.

A big offender of doing this, even more exaggerated, is the opteka fisheye. A lot of the angle captured is very compressed in the outer region of the image. This is why the opteka doesn't look good imo. See example.



On the other side the xtreme gives more area to the things that are to the sides while the center gets a little bit smaller consequently. The vertical angle is bigger as you have stated. The overall distortion of the image is a little bit less though.

Yeah they are both 180 from corners. The only difference is that when you are wide open with the 8-15 the vig becomes softer and bleeds in. So if you are using a fake vig wide open you sometimes lose some wideness to cover it up. Yes, the 8-15 has more bubble effect, that is why this method works so good though because when you stretch it out in post it gets that vertical height and loses some of that distortion to match the xtreme.

The way I found matched it the most is just be using lens distortion in Premiere and setting curvature to -14. The after effects optics compensation works as well too and you do not have to shoot it as wide but it just adds an extra step.

In theory you can actually gain more vertical height with this method by changing the distortion even more, but I just think it is the perfect amount of the bubble effect.

Wish I had an opteka to do side by sides to see how close I could get it to match.