Fisheye Lenses

A

Ant

Messages
957
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondering what everyone thought about fishies, whether you guys like, or loath them.

I'm thinking myself of getting one, but as i don;'t know whether i'd use it a lot, i'm looking at getting something like this one

Zenitar 16mm f2.8.

Anyone used this brand before? And is it worth getting something else like a siggy 10-20 instead of the fish?
 
What camera you got 1st, that could help us out.

Fisheye depends on what sort of work your thinking of taking with them to be fair. People would say get the 10-20 as it's more of a wide angle, than a fisheye

Also -------STAY AWAY FROM THE ZENITAR AT ALL COSTS!!!
 
Fisheyes are a bit of a one-trick-pony, once you've seen a few they get very boring

Many togs include them for Wedding usage, but would only include 1 or 2 such shots within an album as they can be 'funny' but never flattering

Many years ago I tested the water with a Fisheye-adaptor that simply stuck on the front of a lens - but once you've shot all your mates up close and a few dogs it soon gets boring

HTH

DD
 
Yeah, i'm a canon guy, only a measly 400d atm though.

I wasn't too sure how much i'd end up using it, that's why i don't really want to spend too much on one.

Probably just a plain ol' wide angle will be best then.
 
They are good fun, and I was lucky enough to borrow one for a while.

I enjoyed it, but they are a lot of work, and for many subjects they just flat out don't work.

Here are two fisheye shots I took that I liked:


397577470_2e23339fac_o.jpg


395341447_6094515b31_o.jpg

​

I used the Nikkor 10.5mm which is a lovely little lens :)
 
Hmm...

What i may do, is buy a wide angle, and hire a fishy from somewhere, and see which i like. i know that i need a wide angle, as i've encountered many situations where i wanted a shot, but teh 24-70 doesn't go wide enough.

I could then hire the fish to see whether it's a potential purchase in the future.
 
Ant said:
Hmm...

What i may do, is buy a wide angle, and hire a fishy from somewhere, and see which i like. i know that i need a wide angle, as i've encountered many situations where i wanted a shot, but teh 24-70 doesn't go wide enough.

I could then hire the fish to see whether it's a potential purchase in the future.
Click to expand...

That's what I'd do. As it could end up being an expensive paper weight! (y)
 
The pix from the lens in the link look more like badly distorted wide angle shots than "proper" fisheye ones - and 16mm sounds a bit long for a fisheye too.

If you're after a super-wide purely for APS-C digital, the Sigma 10-20 seems to be the one to go for but if you want to upgrade to FF in the future, the 12-24 (also Sigma) is a better bet. If you're after a real fisheye, the Sigma 8mm f/4 works well, giving the full circulr image on full frame/35mm and losing a little off the top and bottom of the circle on APS-C.

The image below was shot looking straight up - the cliffs are obvious at the bottom but the sliver of blue at the top is the sea on the other horizon.

2765328195_daa3473eb5_o.jpg
 
Don't forget that if you shoot RAW, your fisheye becomes a rectilinear wide angle.........so a very wide, wide angle lens with only staright convergence rather than the curvature of a fisheye. You cannot do the reverse.

Why not hunt around for a used fisheye?
 
Why not gor for a russian Zenit model they do an 8mm (crop) and I have just got (turned up at lunchtime) a 16mm (full frame) model.

do a quick search on fleabay and you will find a few.

Am looking forward to the weekend so I can have a play with it :)
 
If you don't get a good fisheye the colour vignetting is very noticable. The reason the makers own are so expensive is because they give very even illumination right across the frame. - look at those above and you will see there is little light fall off towards the edges. A cheap one will produce a brighter centre area than the edges.
 
diddy dave is spot on.
very limited useage.
my mrs has considered one for wedding work, but cant justify the cost for the amount of use its likely to get.
but if you realy do neeeeed one:D, go for a good quality one.
if you dont fancy it after a while, you'll get most of your cash back if ya sell.
they do make for some interesting pics though.(y)
 
I use a fisheye on jobs from time to time, they have their uses but can be overdone. They work better in good light too. Try lighting that kind of coverage! You can, but it requires several remote lights to do it well. It depends what you want to shoot with it - might be worth hiring one (a good one) and getting the bug out of your system, or confirming you could actually use one.

I bet I don't use mine more than a couple of dozen shots a year, even professionally. The question is, are you prepared to have the money standing out for that kind of limited amount of use? Economically speaking, I would be better off hiring one for th etimes I need/could use it. The trouble is, I don't know before hand but every now and then a situation presents itself that is suitable to the fisheye treatment. Mine was written down against tax several years ago, so it owes me nothing now.

If you have never used one, hire one for a week when you are going away, use it and then see if it is something you could justify spending out on getting for keeps.
 
If anyone is contemplating a fisheye then buy a decent brand, either Canon, Nikon, Tokina or Sigma not one of the "bargain" ones, it's better to spend a bit more on something that will give decent images and be resellable should you decide it's not your cup o tea.


And anyway on an APS-C sensor 16mm won't really give much of a fisheye effect, more just a slightly distorted wide angle...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top